Andrew Coates

An artist/aculptor based in the Midlands. Is it pottery? Assemblage? Sculpture?  We live in age of very fluid Art. I must admit to not being able to get my mind around NFT's and digital 'Art'. At least this is solid!

Personally, I am delighted that you are loading images of this kind of thing, especially as you seem to be doing it to start a discussion.

However, in answer to your question......................... is it pottery?

If it's made of a ceramic medium then it is but, as you have posted it under studio pottery, I would say that there is nothing about the description to suggest that it is.

Therefore, as I have the "powers" I will send it over to Sculpture, unless someone beats me to it, as that is where I think it deserves to be.

I hadn't heard of this Andrew Coates until this post, it would appear he makes assemblages of found objects of all sorts including wood and metal(not only ceramics) to illustrate current stories etc.

It looks like mixed media. There may be ceramic parts to it but I agree with Studio Pots that it’s sculpture rather than studio pottery

But is it all nomenclature? Lets face it, 'Sculpture' has a much higher selling point than 'Studio Potter'. Despite all the years of trying to change it, Pottery still has a lesser value than sculpture. If Hans Coper was a sculptor then you could probably add a couple of 00's to his auction selling totals.
In the digital age when 'Art' in all its forms is becoming increasingly fluid, (let alone 'ownership and NFT's!) are we somewhat old fashioned in our rigid compartmentalisation? A la the comments on here!

Equally what about hand builders? John Ward for instance, who builds his forms in separate parts? Is that assemblage?

Not for me, I like a pot where the kiln has had a hand in the piece. It's more like science when the pot comes out exactly as it was supposed to. Where's the fun in that, might as well have cold painted it.

Firstly i don't think that you can class hand building by John Ward or many others as assemblage as the final result in all cases is a ceramic object, the Coates objects have very little in common with ceramics as the diorama's are made with found objects of all types and so cannot be classed as studio pottery or even sculpture. Hans coper in his humble way said that he was just a potter but it is obvious that he was much more than that, he sculpted a number of heads including Lucie Rie's and other abstract forms ,his later Cycladic pieces are pure sculpture.

But we still refer to Hans Coper as a Potter!
It just seem that Studio Pottery has spent the last 60 years trying to escape from its historical strait Jacket and broaden its aesthetic and customer horizons. Yet it is still stuck in that vague 'Craft' rut that deters a substantial number of buyers.

I agree the term 'craft' does deter a lot of serious buyers but many potters are only to happy to sell at crafts fairs and craft shops, but lets face it that is where a great proportion of their pots belong, among the painted stones and needlework's etc. The problem is that the production of 'studio pottery' is so vast , it is quite easy to get good enough to throw a fairly decent pot in a short time and consequently the market gets flooded with mediocre pots, tea bowls etc. The art establishment has found a number of potters/ artists acceptable namely Ruth Duckworth ,Odundo, Voulcos Coper , De Waal etc, but i think it will be many years before before the 'strait jacket' is removed.