The reason for university study -Reply (Long)
Rafael Molina-Rodriguez (Rafael Molina-Rodriguez)
------------------
David:
Hmmm, do I detect a bit of TWU and UNT (or what longtime TWU ceramics professor
J Brough Miller referred to as brand x) rivalry here. ;-D
>A person who only wants to be a production potter would be better >served to
become an apprentice
Your suggestion to become an apprentice is idealistic when compared to the
reality of the US studio situation. IMO, there never has been a system of
apprenticeship here where a person can learn the trade. In my experience and
from my observation it ranges from people being manipulated and exploited by
doing menial jobs or making piecework for low pay (at least some people get paid
unlike Glick's cavalier attitude of not paying his helpers at all). I suppose
they learn by osmosis.
I think a better model is the apprenticeship system of the construction trades
like carpenters, electricians, etc,... When I graduated from high school I
worked for two years in commercial drywall and attended college at night. I was
a member of the Lathers and Plasterers Local Union. On the job I worked first
as a laborer, then an apprentice to a journeyman. The union offered classes in
the evening and weekends so that you could learn the trade faster, get raises
and move up the ladder from apprentice to journeyman to foreman.
Another model might be the internship or co-op system of other academic areas
like engineering, advertising design, fashion design or interior design. A
friend of mine who received an EE degree from A&M co-oped at local utility
companies for numerous semesters as a part of his degree requirements. In the
School of Art at UNT the advertising design, interior design and fashion design
majors intern with local firms. In fact, the University has an on campus
graphics studio, Fineline Graphics, where many of the advertising majors work
for experience.
>Why "waste" time on art history, drawing, or a minor area of study if
>production potter' is your only goal?
I BELIEVE a FOUNDATION of Art Appreciation, Art History Survey I, Art History
Survey II, Design I (2-D), Design II (3-D), Drawing I, Drawing II, Figure
Drawing, and Photography (Non-darkroom) is essential for any art major. These
courses provide a foundation on which to build a career as a studio artist.
>Personally, I am thankful that I was afforded the oportunity to spend 6 >years
in college; but I certianly learned more about being a potter in 6 >years of
"doing it" than 6 years at school.
Could the reason for this be that your Professor's orientation is sculpture not
the vessel oriented pottery tradition. It's well known that Miller's work is
sculpture in fact a large percentage of his work is not even clay.
>Rafael, your list of Univ. of North Texas potters is misleading: At least 3
>from your list worked as apprentices in England,
Did their opportunities to work in England magically appear or did the fact that
their Professor, Elmer Taylor, worked for two years as an apprentice for Michael
Leach and David Leach in the early 70's have something to do with it.
>which, I'm sure they would agree, prepared them to be potters more >than their
time spent at college.
IMO, you can't dismiss the time they spent under Elmer. His work and fecund
work ethic is an undeniable influence.
>At least 2 from your list are now teachers.
I concede this, but does that negate the 10, 15 or 18 years they spent making
pots for a living.
>Dee Buck studied pottery at, and has a degree from, my alma mater
>Texas Woman's University.
From what I understand he received his Master's from TWU and his Bachelor's from
UNT.
>I also remember, just last year, Rafael, that you contended here on >Clayart
that it was impossible to make a living as a studio potter. So, I >was
surprised to read: I'm really pleased to hear this, but wonder, >what changed
your mind? Was it something we potters had to say >here on Clayart?
Let me clarify. In the context of my message I said it was more "realistic" to
make a living selling pots relative to securing the full-time tenure track
position. Either tack is very difficult. And, yes, realistic is a shift away
from my prior stance. This is in large part to the recent exhibition and
lecture/demonstration I organized for our students here at the college by
Austin, Texas studio potter Lisa Orr.
Rafael
>>> David Hendley <hen...@tyler.net> 10/21/98 12:21pm >>>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
The main reason for studying at the university is to be an
educated person.
I know that this is not commonly accepted, but this is the classical
definition of a liberal arts education.
A person who only wants to be a production potter would
be better served to become an apprentice or get a job at
a ceramics shop.
Why "waste" time on art history, drawing, or a minor area of
study if 'production potter' is your only goal?
Personally, I am thankful that I was afforded the oportunity to
spend 6 years in college; but I certianly learned more about
being a potter in 6 years of "doing it" than 6 years at school.
Rafael, your list of Univ. of North Texas potters is misleading:
At least 3 from your list worked as apprentices in England, which,
I'm sure they would agree, prepared them to be potters more than
their time spent at college.
At least 2 from your list are now teachers.
Dee Buck studied pottery at, and has a degree from, my alma mater
Texas Woman's University.
I also remember, just last year, Rafael, that you contended here on
Clayart that it was impossible to make a living as a studio potter.
So, I was surprised to read:
>because upon graduation
>the opportunity to make a living selling pots is more realistic than that
>elusive full time tenure track faculty position they covet.
I'm really pleased to hear this, but wonder, what changed your mind?
Was it something we potters had to say here on Clayart?
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hen...@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com
At 01:35 PM 10/20/98 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Lee :
>
>>Isn't the main reason for studying at the university is to
>>get a university job?
>
>I don't believe you can make absolute statements as you have. There are
in fact
>some schools who have a history of graduating some very good production
potters.
>
>My alma mater The University of North Texas is a good example. Jerry
Austin and
>Elmer Taylor, a former Leach apprentice, are the two long-time faculty.
Here is
>a partial list of production potter alumni :
>
>Gary and Daphne Hatcher, Pine Mills Pottery; Frank Campbell, Dos Rios
Pottery;
>Dee Buck, Buck Pottery; Jim Dale, Salado Pottery; Don Ellis, Cloudcroft
Pottery,
>Rachel Norris, Joy Pottery; John Bailey, Jay Bucek, Max Butler, John Fulwood,
>Scott Roberts, Winston Wigand, Tony Holman, etc.,...
>
>I'm sure there are other schools who also graduate students who go on to
make a
>living as production potters. I would encourage people who are interested in
>going to graduate school to spend their two or three years refining their
work
>and learning all they can about running a small business because upon
graduation
>the opportunity to make a living selling pots is more realistic than that
>elusive full time tenure track faculty position they covet.
>
>Rafael
>
>>>> Lee Love <Akit...@millcomm.com> 10/19/98 08:10am >>>
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rafael Molina-Rodriguez
>
>>Is it possible that production potters are ignorant
>>of academic concerns such as curriculum development,
>>syllabi, assessment/grading, advising,
>>etc,...?
>
>Good point. Isn't the main reason for studying at the university is to
>get a university job? A production potter doesn't need to learn
>curriculum development, syllabi, etc.
>
>/(o\' Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA
>\o)/' mailto:Ik...@Kami.com ICQ# 20586182
>' http://www.millcomm.com/~leelove/ikiru.html