POTTERS OR POTTERY

We seem to talk mainly about who made our pots or which pottery they were made at but  we rarely talk about the pots themselves.
Does anyone else think this is odd?

No. Pots are about handling and looking at them, imo. We get to see or post photos but handling isn’t something you can describe

but we rarely even mention how they have been decorated or made

Its much the same elsewhere Dan. On Paintings and sculpture there are literallly whole libraries of criticism, history, discussion, debate all going back through the centuries.  Try looking for the same sort of critical debate about pottery and styles, and you would find it very sparse indeed.
            Personally I think its purely down to snobbery. Paintings and sculpture are considered 'Fine Art' with a whole history, and industry of special interest behind them. 'Fine Art' has always been a province of the rich and powerful, a symbol of status and power. Go right back throughout civilised history and it has always been much the same.
            Whereas Pottery has mostly been regarded as an everyday item, the province of the masses, of low status. There are exceptions to that of course, but as a generalisation it is probably correct.
           In consequence, we have no real collective idea whatsoever on how to talk about more abstract nature of pottery. Okay, you can talk about the glazes, the firing, the production... But that is just the technicalities. You don't get much discussions on the type of brush used, the type of canvas, the quality of paint when talking about Fine Art. Try having a positive critical discussion on a pottery Forum group, and you will get very short shrift indeed!

it's a shame that this happens on our forum, members show a real love for pottery so why just make it a name game?

of course, none potters don't always know which glazes have been used but it wouldn't hurt to mention how a pot feels in the hand or if a glaze colour changes in different lights, etc.

I've been thiking in the long run paintings end up in a skip where as people will keep pottery (if it dosn't break)

To echo Philpot’s piece... A lot of old paintings are full of symbolism that tells a whole story if you know how to read and decipher then - Sister Mary’s documentaries on paintings proves that. But unless you get into Oriental or Persian Pottery, for most potters and the pot’s owner’s a pot is just a pot. It’s raison d’etre is as a functional piece. Yes, there are the Ceramic artists and sculptures which are Art expressed in clay, and which can be full of symbolism like Grayson Perry or Edmund Waal’s works but most of us can’t afford those. We buy plates and jugs and mugs and vases.

Few people talk about how paintings are made? Yet there is vast discussion about the painting themselves. I think if you went to an amateur potters forum you would get the opposite, a lot of talk about glazes, firings and the science of ceramics but less chat about other people work.

NaomiM wrote:To echo Philpot’s piece... A lot of old paintings are full of symbolism that tells a whole story if you know how to read and decipher then - Sister Mary’s documentaries on paintings proves that. But unless you get into Oriental or Persian Pottery, for most potters and the pot’s owner’s a pot is just a pot. It’s raison d’etre is as a functional piece. Yes, there are the Ceramic artists and sculptures which are Art expressed in clay, and which can be full of symbolism like Grayson Perry or Edmund Waal’s works but most of us can’t afford those. We buy plates and jugs and mugs and vases.

"symbolism in Edmund de Waal's work" - you like to slip in your jokes, Naomi.

I do agree with Dan and I think I do try to put some information about the actual pots on occasions but I will try harder.

The other day I mentioned that I have seen many bowls by Clare Sutcliffe offered for sale and sold as "early Joanna Constantinidis". Describing the clay body, the type of glazes and the method of firing are what distinguish the two rather than their C seal marks, which were similar.

studio-pots wrote:

NaomiM wrote:To echo Philpot’s piece... A lot of old paintings are full of symbolism that tells a whole story if you know how to read and decipher then - Sister Mary’s documentaries on paintings proves that. But unless you get into Oriental or Persian Pottery, for most potters and the pot’s owner’s a pot is just a pot. It’s raison d’etre is as a functional piece. Yes, there are the Ceramic artists and sculptures which are Art expressed in clay, and which can be full of symbolism like Grayson Perry or Edmund Waal’s works but most of us can’t afford those. We buy plates and jugs and mugs and vases.

"symbolism in Edmund de Waal's work" - you like to slip in your jokes, Naomi.

That was just for you SP

De Waal's work symbolizes mediocrity

If any work requires a detailed explanation for those who don’t “get it” it’s de Waal’s installations.

There was one CAL where a potter was selling broken shards. It was only later that I read that these were part of her performance art. Now that was something where you really had to be at the performance to appreciate their significance, and even then it was just a table of broken pots

Paul Wearing’s pots took me a while to appreciate them, and in the end it was a series of professional photos where I finally “saw” them.

My John Clappison Angler fish hand built vase. next to the telly
as i have breakfast.

Well lets illustrate Stuidio-Pots point then. Clare Sutcliffe and Joanna Constaninidis.

Is there any real doubt which is which? The Joanna Constantinidis is probably not the best piece of her work. Reasonably early in her career, stoneware, quite heavy and large but with a touch of the glazing she was to use a lot later in her career. Clare Sutcliffe is clearly of the Cardew style, and its a nice piece. The glazes are effective, the bands lend a somewhat expressionistic style. Yet Constantinidis is collected, Clare Sutcliffe is not.