Judges Comments

The Auckland Studio Potters annual exhibition winds up this weekend. The
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

"Uncle John" wrote in message
...
The Auckland Studio Potters annual exhibition winds up this weekend. The
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


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.

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.


Yes Annmarie, I must agree with you to some extent. However,
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

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:20:33 +1300, "annemarie"
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

"wayneinkeywest" wrote in message
...
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.


Yes Annmarie, I must agree with you to some extent. However,
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


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


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

"wayneinkeywest" wrote in message
...
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 )
Annemarie

Whilst agreeing with both Annemarie and Wayne, I see the topic from a
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