Re: Judges Comments

> You are assuming that the one off pieces are not pieces that require
skill.
> 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

> >
> You are assuming that the one off pieces are not pieces that require
skill.
> 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
>
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