Judges Comments

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

As a complete novice (who will probably never get to the point of being judged at my present rate ), 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

exploration

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

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

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 :o) 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