Modern Pottery is dull - discuss

An article today in the Guardian that doesn't mince its word: -

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/nov/05/modern-pottery-leeds-bbc-the-great-pottery-throw-down?CMP=share_btn_tw

Do we agree?

P.S. It does contain an image especially for Bistoboy.

No.

I think British studio pottery is better than ever and getting stronger with every year that passes

It's complete bollocks.

This guy never saw the collection obviously.

He only rates Picasso. Picasso ceramics are rubbish. Childish patterns in block colours on trite moulded clumsy jars. Absolutely no subtlety about them. Just awful.

Well as tenpot pointed out the throwdown binned the conceptual artist since she could not throw.

It's like saying Henry Moore is a bit boring - Yes he was working 50 years ago...

22 Crawford St. wrote:Well as tenpot pointed out the throwdown binned the conceptual artist since she could not throw.

It's like saying Henry Moore is a bit boring - Yes he was working 50 years ago...

Watched it again and I don't understand why people are calling her a conceptual artist; there was no evidence of that either in her work (which was simply poor) or in the home clip. She had to go.

Why did she have to 'go' - technically she may have been poor but is that everything?

NaomiM wrote:

22 Crawford St. wrote:Well as tenpot pointed out the throwdown binned the conceptual artist since she could not throw.

It's like saying Henry Moore is a bit boring - Yes he was working 50 years ago...

Watched it again and I don't understand why people are calling her a conceptual artist; there was no evidence of that either in her work (which was simply poor) or in the home clip. She had to go.

It appears as if that is what she calls herself as it says that she " works as a conceptual artist, curating exhibitions". Besides not having the first idea about pottery it appears as if she doesn't have any idea about art. That's unless I'm a conceptual artist, as I've curated an exhibition or two.

Curating has nothing to do with one's ability to create art or pottery or anything similar to what one is curating.

22 Crawford St. wrote:Well as tenpot pointed out the throwdown binned the conceptual artist since she could not throw.

To be fair she was a self proclaimed "conceptual artist" and even her attempt to "artsy-up" the bad throwing was executed poorly, in my opinion anyway.

She did not have a concept before starting and her pots were not a mess intentionally anyway.

dantheman wrote:I think British studio pottery is better than ever and getting stronger with every year that passes

Mostly agree with this

Current studio potters are quite adventurous, lots of sculptural stuff to be seen.

If anything studio pottery is enjoying a renaissance due to wider range of glazes and firing and other materials and techniques. It's an exciting time to be collecting.

Although Jonathan Jones clearly knows nothing about studio pottery or its history and he and the paper seem to be happy for an article that is poorly written with no research to appear, I do agree that some modern pottery is simple, clean lined and dull. Sadly, Jones has picked the wrong targets.

For example Keith with the hair on TGBTD has white tableware with a word on it made for him in China (the country) and this is sold through John Lewis and other outlets. That fits the Jones description perfectly.

i can understand where the writer is coming from, but i think he's probably got a limited experience of modern pottery.

There is much 'modern' pottery (what he's defining as modern, i'm not sure???) that is indeed: simple, puritan, form over decoration, dull even ( De Waal springs to mind). And much of the work that sprang out of the Leach tradition is even more dull IMHO. But when you see a 'plain' pot that has been crafted to perfection on the wheel and expertly glazed, much like ancient Chinese polychrome ceramics, you know you're witnessing the work of a craftsperson.

I come from the direction of loving late 19th century art pottery and then thinking things dropped off a cliff when the 1st world war started. I think that some of the items made in the last 10-20 years stand up very well against some of the best from before. It may be unpopular to say it but mass produced design no matter how good the company that made it will never be as good to me as a one off item from an artist. I think much of what we see today is work by individuals and I can understand and enjoy that.

The only drawback for modern pottery that I can see is scale. Compared to the past, potters seem to be making everything so small. May be the limits of the home kilms they have are dictating the size of what they make? Seems a shame that if you want big in most cases you have to go old.

I often see large pieces for sale at Rufford but the price tags are equally large