Judges Comments
Uncle John
judge and guest exhibitor was John Parker (www.johnparker.co.nz).
The ASP October newsletter has just been published and there was a page
written by John Parker headed 'Thoughts on Selection"
I have picked some relevent points out as they may be of interest to all
potters and in particular to those who exhibit or judge
I quote in part
"I consider the selection process the same as an audition or job
interview. It should be about personal best. I am primarily interested in
ideas, of defining and following them through in a consistent body of
work. I am concerned with skills and technical choices being appropriate
to the idea. Personal preferences of taste, style, medium and methods are
non issues"
I offer the following advice to consider for the next selection:
1. Unless you intimately know the selector and they intimately know your
work, putting in one of everything you do only shows you are tentative
and unsure, and don't really know what you are doing, and hedging your
bet, multiplied by the number of pieces you submitted. Whoknows if the
individual pieces are all flukes? All it told me was that you had no
definite direction and/or you have no commitment to an idea or to working
through a process. This is what seperates the hobbyist and the dabblers
from those who are serious. This has nothing to do with how long you have
been making the work. It is an attitude and a way of thinking and
approaching your work.
2. The thing that p......d me off the most, as a total waste of my time,
was the people who just didn't care about their work. We had stuff
submitted submitted that still had razor sharp glass on the base that had
probably come from some one elses glaze on the shelf. Wall stuff that
wouldn't support the weight of the hangers provided. Technical faults are
technical faults
Snip snip
It is REALLY very easy to be a potter. There is no mystique
All you need is
1 To be able to think an idea through
2 Lots of time
2 A sense of humour
4 A hammer and a rubbish tin
End of quotes
Any discussion on this would be appreciated
Regards to all
John Webb
The pots on the wheel go round round round
annemarie
"Uncle John" <spamp...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Xns940F7014F...@203.109.252.31...
Interesting, while I agree to some extent about a body of work I also think
that there can be many "one off's" that are art or good potter. You do not
necessarily expect a painter to produce work of the same style everytime,
why should you expect a potter/sculptor/ceramic artist to create work that
is of the same style. Some pieces are just that one off pieces, it does not
mean that the person is not a committed artist/potter.
I quite like John Parkers work but after seeing lots of almost the same
thing find it a bit boring. I think a real artist needs to always be
exploring, challenging and trying new things. Innovation and exploration
IMO are the most important things.
wayneinkeywest
think
> that there can be many "one off's" that are art or good potter. You do
not
> necessarily expect a painter to produce work of the same style everytime,
> why should you expect a potter/sculptor/ceramic artist to create work that
> is of the same style. Some pieces are just that one off pieces, it does
not
> mean that the person is not a committed artist/potter.
> I quite like John Parkers work but after seeing lots of almost the same
> thing find it a bit boring. I think a real artist needs to always be
> exploring, challenging and trying new things. Innovation and exploration
> IMO are the most important things.
>
>
I also agree with John. If the skill is NOT there, it will show in the
work.
One-offs are fine for established artists, and welcomed; but new artists
must find and be judged somewhat on a "style" first, so the judges
have a basis for comparison, don't you think?
Someone once wrote:" You can bulls**t the fans, but you can't bulls**t
the players". There's truth in that. People can go on and on ad nauseum
about how "new" and "different" something is, and it may well be. But
another artist or judge can look at the same thing and think
"Just whom do they think they're fooling?"...and be right. Crap is crap,
and that has little to do with "style", and much more to do with
"substance".
Wayne in Key West
Bob Masta
<annemari...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>Interesting, while I agree to some extent about a body of work I also think
>that there can be many "one off's" that are art or good potter. You do not
>necessarily expect a painter to produce work of the same style everytime,
>why should you expect a potter/sculptor/ceramic artist to create work that
>is of the same style. Some pieces are just that one off pieces, it does not
>mean that the person is not a committed artist/potter.
>I quite like John Parkers work but after seeing lots of almost the same
>thing find it a bit boring. I think a real artist needs to always be
>exploring, challenging and trying new things. Innovation and exploration
>IMO are the most important things.
>
As a complete novice (who will probably never get to the point of
being judged at my present rate <g>), I am rather taken aback by
Parker's apparent philosophy of judging the artist instead of the art.
Is that the real point of judging shows, conferring some sort of
imprimatur that you have been tested and met some standard for being
a _real_ potter? In my naievete I just assumed that the judging
was simply to insure an appropriate level of show quality, or
consistency with a show theme, etc.
And if you are supposed to have a "style" that is reflected
in all your work, what if that style just happens to be one that
the judge doesn't particularly care for?
I agree with annemarie: innovation and exploration are
the lifeblood of art. People who want everything the same style
should stay home and admire their Corelle.
Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom
D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
annemarie
"wayneinkeywest" <waynein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:lBKhb.146$JE4...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Developing a theme is a good, and many wonderful things can happen from and
through that, but it is not the only way.
I personally do not like odd organic looking things, or bits of stuff that
look like volcanic rock. This is I guess a personal taste thing. I in fact
much prefer the precision of John Parkers bottles that are so amazingly
turned, but honestly after going to an exhibition and seeing probably about
100 of them, you sort of think - why? Do something different!!!
Annemarie
wayneinkeywest
No, Annemarie. I did not assume that one-offs do not require skill. I know
they do.
What I said I still stand by, that if a judge has no frame of reference for
a new artist,
it would be easier to dismiss any talent shown by that artist as a "fluke"
if there
is no body of work to compare with. In other words, if all an artist does
is one-offs,
how is one to judge that artist's skill level?
Look at Peter Voulkos' work at the end of his career.
It looked simply awful, (at least to me) easy for me to dismiss as "
that guy slapped crap together, didn't know
what he was doing or couldn't make up his mind what he wanted." I saw him
build a plate at a workshop in '98. Throw a beautiful 24 inch diameter
plate. Look at it
a bit then rip a chunk off of one side, slap it back on a different side,
cut a hole somewhere else
throw a gob of clay at the center, smear it around, rip off another
chunk....
All the while I'm thinking to myself "That's
just plain AWFUL! It's RUINED!" It wasn't until later, when speaking to
him that I realized the
influence behind the idea for that piece. That same plate sold to a private
collection for
over $100K. It was one of a series he had been doing for years.
It sold not only because of his name, or the function of the piece but
because of his skill
and the fact that he had paid his dues years ago, making things judges
"understood".
Obviously, there had to be a body of work for him to have become so
recognized and admired.
Yes, ten, one hundred, one thousand of the same type of thing is boring,
seen all together.
Now disperse those pieces around the world into the hands of different
people. They
aren't so boring any more. And if an artist has been judged before and is
known for that
work, has a "name", it also aquires a value. I do agree that it is not all
they should do (one type of thing,)
but if it sells, and if it is what keeps you in clay and glaze, then churn
them out!
Personally, I strive for sharp, machine-like edges and corners in my work
(such as it is.)
I had an instructor tell me, in viewing a piece that I had worked several
weeks on "It looks
like it came from a factory in Taiwan". What HE was saying was not meant as
a
compliment. What he was saying was "you can go to KMart and buy crap like
that."
To me, his comment was high praise indeed. HE wanted us to express
ourselves
personally in the clay, to make more "organic" work. My form of expression
is as close to
machine perfection as I can get _by hand_. Different styles, both take
skill. He saw the skill
but what he didn't like was the style.
Don't dismiss series of works. It's the bread and butter for a lot of
potters, because
there are so many of us that want a piece by an artist.
Best Regards,
Wayne
annemarie
Sniped for brevity
>
> Don't dismiss series of works. It's the bread and butter for a lot of
> potters, because
> there are so many of us that want a piece by an artist.
>
> Best Regards,
> Wayne
>
>
I don't dismiss a series of work, in fact I am working on a couple of series
of works of similar style myself at the moment.
I do however dissagree with some views, for instance that a piece can not be
judged on its merits alone, no matter who has made it, and no matter if it
is part of a series or made by a potter with a name.
I think it is sad when a potter/artist has gained a name then makes "crap"
and it is still accepted as "art" This IMO discredits art altogether and
gives rise to the contempt that some people hold the art world in. (and
perhaps justifiably)
So IMO a body of work is useful only in that it is learning growing
experience for the potter/artist and can help their work evolve. It is also
often aesthetically pleasant to see a grouping of work. This however should
not diminish one off pieces. To suggest that it is good, but one off, or
not a "name" and therefore of no merit is just snobbery and contemptable.
Not wishing to offend here, just expressing an opinion :o)
Annemarie
potty
slightly different angle. Take recent Turner prize winners Tracy Emin
and Damien Hirst, both of whom, having a distinguished academic record
and having proved themselves to be skilled draughtsmen - I'm sure many
will agree (and, probably, just as many disagree) that the work that won
them such acclaim was pure crap and of no value except to encourage
discussion. Discussion's often better than silence, but an empty bucket
is still better than a bucket full of crap.
Two buckets, hmmm . . . now, that would be a good entry for the Turner
Prize, don't you think?!
On the other hand,if I produce just one fantastic piece in my life then,
personally, I don't give a slip whether anybody thinks I'm skilled or
not, with or without a track record. I would hope, however, that I never
get to the stage where I'm so self-indulged, that I can smash things up
and stick them together again and call it art - art is for everybody not
just for the cognicenti and the very rich.
:)
pete
Morgan Larch
This is curious to/for me (and may well be an aside, please forgive me if it is).
I've thought a pot being about the pot, not about the
potter. The pot has resonance with it's audience or not. To me the potter
is quite apart from the pot. The pot is a living being on it's own (success) or it
isn't (failure).
Best,
m
annemarie
"Morgan Larch" <mla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:2yvjb.58486$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
forms for the Norsewear Art awards (well known in NZ) each entry must be
accompanied by an artists profile and artists statement describing the
concept of each piece of work entered.
There a two categories
Fine Arts (painting)
Applied Arts (ceramics, glass, textile)
I hate it that painting is thought so much superior (just an aside :o)
If the work was going to be judged on the work alone you would assume that
was all that was necessary, the piece of art.
All sorts of things can happen, I remember a friend telling me that she
submitted work to an exhibition one time. It was rejected and she was a
little dissapointed because she thought that she had done well, but
philosophical assuming that the judge just didn't like her work. The next
time there was an exhibition though the judge had copied her idea!
Stories abound. If only the work was judged on its merits alone.
Morgan Larch
Thank you Ann.
I guess of necessity judges are obliged to "thin" the applications pile so
they come up with gate-keeper criteria (certainly they should not be
culling applicant's work for ideas to steal). It is sad though for surely
there are many many really nice pots out there made by "unqualified" hands
which could find warm and welcoming homes were they just allowed to.
Best of regards,
m
annemarie
> annemarie <annemari...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Ann.
>
> I guess of necessity judges are obliged to "thin" the applications pile so
> they come up with gate-keeper criteria (certainly they should not be
> culling applicant's work for ideas to steal). It is sad though for surely
> there are many many really nice pots out there made by "unqualified" hands
> which could find warm and welcoming homes were they just allowed to.
>
> Best of regards,
> m
>
>
Yes of course judges do have to thin it down. For instance in the Norsewear
awards there are a huge number of entries. People do also get accepted
without having an art degree the rumour is though that they do not get
accepted until they have submitted three years running though. I think this
is probably a myth. It costs $50 per entry though.
TwoKats
creator of the piece, and that the merit of the work rests in the hands of
its maker. if a pot had a life of its own, as you say, and should stand on
its own merit, then any old manufactured piece would do. when i make a
piece, i converse with it. sometimes i find myself planning one kind of
glaze for it, and it will "ask" for something completely different. my
ability to shape the pot, then listen to what it says as a piece of artwork
is all based in the artist's skill.
i love knowing what is behind a piece of work, whether it is a painting, a
novel, a sculpture. sometimes knowing the artist's story makes the
difference in whether or not i like it. the same thing could be true of
judges and shows.
"annemarie" <annemari...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:GtLjb.1418$ws.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
annemarie
"TwoKats" <team...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_Czrb.2748$ts2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> i think the exact opposite. i think that work is completely tied to the
> creator of the piece, and that the merit of the work rests in the hands of
> its maker. if a pot had a life of its own, as you say, and should stand
on
> its own merit, then any old manufactured piece would do. when i make a
> piece, i converse with it. sometimes i find myself planning one kind of
> glaze for it, and it will "ask" for something completely different. my
> ability to shape the pot, then listen to what it says as a piece of
artwork
> is all based in the artist's skill.
>
> i love knowing what is behind a piece of work, whether it is a painting, a
> novel, a sculpture. sometimes knowing the artist's story makes the
> difference in whether or not i like it. the same thing could be true of
> judges and shows.
>
I think perhaps you missunderstood me to a degree. I agree that work is
tied to the creator of the piece. That is essential for it to be good, to
feel the hand of the potter/sculptor, to maybe understand where they were
coming from, for it to evoke a response, of awe, of wonder, of pleasure or
even sometimes pain or disgust. That is what art is IMO it needs to evoke a
response.
However that should show in the piece, not in the paper accompanying it. If
the person has a degree, or not, whether they are already established
artistis or not, should not be the what is taken into account when judging a
piece. It is whether the piece itself conveys the artist. Understanding
the artist can sometimes be of help especially if the piece is depicting
pain, or just the life of the creator. Umm such a big and complicated
topic.
There is also always going to personal choice and what appeals to one judge
is not going to appeal to another, that is life and we all have to live with
it.
Uncle John
news:_Czrb.2748$ts2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> i think the exact opposite. i think that work is completely tied to
> the creator of the piece, and that the merit of the work rests in the
> hands of its maker. if a pot had a life of its own, as you say, and
You've been working by yourself for far too long.
Cheers
JW
Uncle John
news:YwArb.5959$ws.5...@news02.tsnz.net:
Hello discussionists
The long and the short of this discussion is that you don't have to
exhibit or show if you don't want to.
Maybe the best critics of your work are the ones who put their hand in
their pocket and pay for it, be it a mug or an art piece. If you can't
get your work into the hands of the public you might as well become a
recluse and live in a cave surrounded by what ever you've made and hold
long conversations with them. I really can't figure out where this semi
religious and reverent atmosphere has come from
We have a situation here now that one yearly exhibition that has always
been a competition is now making a fundamental change. The organisers
have taken the prize money away to take away the competative component
and hope to draw on a wider range of entrants who refuse to exhibit.
I would say that the majority of potters do not exhibit from one year to
the next. This includes established and named potters
However if you do exhibit you need know and to play by the rules, that is
if you want to make some sort of impression or to get anywhere.
Imbuing a piece of fired clay with some sort of personality or life force
and possibly giving it a name is a croc, and is not going to do it.
All for now.
New subject coming up
John W
annemarie
Well if you want to be a potter/artist you do, can't make it unless you sell
it. Well most of us couldn't afford to do that.
>
> Maybe the best critics of your work are the ones who put their hand in
> their pocket and pay for it, be it a mug or an art piece. If you can't
> get your work into the hands of the public you might as well become a
> recluse and live in a cave surrounded by what ever you've made and hold
> long conversations with them. I really can't figure out where this semi
> religious and reverent atmosphere has come from
The public parting with their money is the absolute best compliment you can
get.
Where did this semi religious and reverent thing come in? Or are you
refering to TwoKats comments about talking to his/her work. I have to admit
that I don't do that unless it is to curse it when it goes wrong. However I
do have strong feelings sometimes for the work, you have to like what you
make. Or are you talking about how I said being moved by the work, whether
it is just awe, admiration, or whatever. If we did not do that to the
public our work would never ever sell. It has to do something more that
what can be obtained from the Warehouse. If not we might as well all give
up. Very few of us are ever going to get rich working with clay that is for
sure, but we must feel something for it or it is a waste of time.
>
> We have a situation here now that one yearly exhibition that has always
> been a competition is now making a fundamental change. The organisers
> have taken the prize money away to take away the competative component
> and hope to draw on a wider range of entrants who refuse to exhibit.
Which exhibition are you talking about?? Did I miss something in this
discussion? In NZ there are lots of different exhibitions, Portage, Molly
Morpeth, Norsewear, not to mention more local ones. What are you talking
about in particular.
>
> I would say that the majority of potters do not exhibit from one year to
> the next. This includes established and named potters
Huh? what ones are those, or do you just mean people that sell in stalls at
craft markets and the like. That is one option I guess, but a pretty hard
one to take. You must make in bulk, cannot sell for much more than mass
produced stuff and so work your guts out for not much return. There are
others like Royce McGlashen who mass produces, has the clay company as well
as making his own "art" pieces. Possibly one of the most financially
successful potters around NZ I suspect and still able to make his own work.
>
> However if you do exhibit you need know and to play by the rules, that is
> if you want to make some sort of impression or to get anywhere.
Well yes, sort of, though the rules are different all the time and every
judge has his/her own set of criteria.
>
> Imbuing a piece of fired clay with some sort of personality or life force
> and possibly giving it a name is a croc, and is not going to do it.
Well I agree the life force thing is croc. But personality? Wrong word.
It is the difference between art and just mass production I guess. If you
have no love for pottery, no feelings of wonder or joy or anything from
either your work or others why do you do it? Surely it is much too
difficult a road and not profitable enough to be doing just to make an
income?
The feelings when you open a kiln and things have worked the way you wanted,
or are even better. So cool.
Looking forward to a new topic though :o) I think it is interesting having
discussions about more than just a few technical things.
Oh went and had a look at a small John Parker exhibition in Avid in
Wellington last week. Took some friends who were actually interested in
buying some of his work but it was sold out! Now wouldn't that be nice. :o)
A
Morgan Larch
This is all sooo curious to me! The analagy of sitting in a cave
and making stuff is just that, sitting in a closet and talking
to one's self. That is to say, if one's work does not talk
to an audience, it does just that, it speaks to no one and wont
ever pass for art, by definition.
As for a piece having a life of it's own, well, that is to me
what makes it art. 100, 200, 500 years from now someone will still
want to stop and look, touch, hold. If that attraction does not
survive that long it was not art and the maker was not an artist.
A blurt the piece is maybe, with some perhaps momentary resonance
like a, ehm, a political poster perhaps. An illustration, maybe
fantastically well done, but not art.
As for the Artist's "Papers", what, for example, do most of us
now know about Caravaggio? Yet his works still "draw" people to
them to the point that the paintings are priceless. Any one
painting stands alone. And strong. All these years on.
Altogether apart from the artist. To me that is how you know it
*is* art and it *was* made by an Artist. 'cause *it is still here*
and still speaks to an audience all on it's own.
If a piece has a surviving resonance, years and years on, then
it's fair to call it art, and in turn, it's maker, long forgotten,
an artist.
How does that come about? By *not* being an Artist I think. By
not claiming responsibility. Rather, by giving away the
responsibility. I did not *make* this pot. It happened on it's
own, I was just lucky enough to be here to help 'a bit.
Unfortunately I've not been 'round to help many Happen ;-)
Spunky the Tuna
>
> This is all sooo curious to me! The analagy of sitting in a cave
> and making stuff is just that, sitting in a closet and talking
> to one's self. That is to say, if one's work does not talk
> to an audience, it does just that, it speaks to no one and wont
> ever pass for art, by definition.
Well, I don't know that I can completely agree with that. It's something
that I've been giving a lot of recent thought to, as it happens. I was a
poet for a long time and came to the realization that, for me, the
perfect poem was spoken once and once only into exactly the right ear and
never repeated. The very ephemeral nature of it was part of the art,
part of the longing to reach out and touch that drive all communications.
IMHO.
Now I'm embarking on a different kind of art. There's something that
Peter Voulkos said one time that stuck in my brain like a lance. He made
reference to his later works being increasingly gestural. That notion of
a pot being a gesture frozen in time has become a very powerful image for
me. As I'm learning what interaction with clay is most satisfying, I'm
realizing the very simple and obvious truth that graceful gestures create
graceful pots. Duh! That realization shouldn't have taken more than
about a nanosecond's thought, but it came as kind of an embarrassing
shock to realize it.
The moving from an evanescent art form to a tangible art form is an
interesting transition. Or maybe it's not. It is, at least, to me.
And one of the notions that I find most interesting is the notion of how
people's pedigrees are important to their work. Frankly, it seems like
utter bullshit to me. A graceful gesture, a vivacious pot is what it is
regardless of whether is a complete dumb accident or the result of being
institutionalized in a land-grant university or life in a garret around
the corner from the Sorbonne. Why should that matter? Beauty is. It
shouldn't need to know it's name. It's existence, it seems to me, is
enough.
Whether something is regarded by the ages as sacred or profane is quite
possibly as much a function of fashion and trend as it is anything else.
--
Spunky the Tuna
Morgan Larch
art is grace fulfilled. And frankly, in that respect,
it wouldn't matter if anyone ever saw it, it'd just BE.
So I agree with you there.
But I kind'a want to tack onto that that art is about
communication. And onto that, to be more picky, it is
sub-verbal communication. If it transcends, in the dark or
no, then it is art, for it has survived trend and
culture and language and time, to be exactly what it is,
wonder-full.
annemarie
> I think somewhere there is a saying that, to paraphrase,
> art is grace fulfilled. And frankly, in that respect,
> it wouldn't matter if anyone ever saw it, it'd just BE.
> So I agree with you there.
>
> But I kind'a want to tack onto that that art is about
> communication. And onto that, to be more picky, it is
> sub-verbal communication. If it transcends, in the dark or
> no, then it is art, for it has survived trend and
> culture and language and time, to be exactly what it is,
> wonder-full.
>
feel. This conversation was begun by comments by John Parker,
potter/artist/judge (great artist/potter too) see
http://www.johnparker.co.nz/ceramics/publications/100_artists.htm
He talked about an artist needing to do a body of work, and the artist being
judged on that body of art, and a one off could just be a fluke.
That of course is a very brief summary of what he said and does not include
all of what he said.
I agreed that a potter/artist often make a body of work and growing
developing vision but felt that it should not necessarily be required.
I liked how Morgan Larch and Spunky the Tuna :o) talked about pottery. You
are so right you can look at an ancient piece of pottery, see its grace, its
skill, its wonder, feel the hand of the potter. You do not need to know who
the potter was (though that may be interesting). Today you should not need
to know the potter either (though it might be interesting.
Thanks for the interesting posts.
Annemarie
Slgraber
which some judges aparently would consider "blah" because i had no resume to
provide with the piece or a wordy story behind it.
one day i was trying to copy the vase in my workshop - and broke it. to this
day i have not achieved another piece with the feel, color, shape, lightness,
sound as that one piece i made as a beginer.
steve
>Subject: Re: Judges Comments
>From: "annemarie" annemari...@paradise.net.nz
>Date: 11/9/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <YwArb.5959$ws.5...@news02.tsnz.net>
steve graber
Slgraber
"pays" a certain amount of money just to see if someone will pick the pice to
put the exhibit. if you present several pieces this gets pricey. several
shows even pricier. i believe somewhere in the background someone is getting A
LOT of money from exhibiters that are quickly turned down only to present work
from maybe 15 artists. if they attrack 500 pieces of work at even $30 per
offering that's $15,000! certainly more then the jurour gets at his college to
teach for a month. sounds more like a fund raiser hidden as an "art show".
i don't know why work can't be dropped off and the juror can see the original
piece instead of slides. and why only ORIGINAL slides? copies ARE fine!
and i'm only talking about local shows - not ones across country where shipping
& packing are problems.
steve
>Subject: Re: Judges Comments
>From: Spunky the Tuna spunky...@bellsouf.net
>Date: 11/11/2003 12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns94309E3D038CAsp...@216.77.188.16>
steve graber
Slgraber
techniques. the craftsman exploits these new found techniques in his work.
a PIECE of art is something that records or conveys several senses - touch,
sight, sound, experiences, invokes an old or new thought, etc. and they can be
accidents by a beginer...
suits me just fine to be a craftsman with random accidents!
steve
>Subject: Re: Judges Comments
>From: "annemarie" annemari...@paradise.net.nz
>Date: 11/11/2003 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Fkesb.6446$ws.6...@news02.tsnz.net>
steve graber
annemarie
"Slgraber" <slgr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031115094903...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> i agree annemarie. 14 years ago i made a particular vase "in my early
days"
> which some judges aparently would consider "blah" because i had no resume
to
> provide with the piece or a wordy story behind it.
>
> one day i was trying to copy the vase in my workshop - and broke it. to
this
> day i have not achieved another piece with the feel, color, shape,
lightness,
> sound as that one piece i made as a beginer.
>
> steve
>
>
>
see it. The piece itself IMO should always stand on its own.
Like ancient pottery, we don't worry who made it do we, we appreciate it for
itself.