Dan Wilson on tue 24 jun 97
The painted pot from a theoretical standpoint, is a non issue.
From a potters standpoint, painted pottery subjugates usefullness and
utility to decoration wich makes it less than the "minor arts" and places
it in the realm of the true craft item. From the painters standpoint, the
issue of configuration was pretty well worked through during the 50's and
60's. Soooo... there's nothing like being caught between a rock and a hard
spot is there? Historically, the painted pot will be a footnote. But its
still ok to do it if you want to.
Hluch - Kevin A. on thu 26 jun 97
The painted canvass from a theoretical standpoint, is a non-issue.
From any standpoint, the painted canvass abrogates usefulness and
utility to become mere decoration which makes those expressions even less
than the minor arts and places it in the realm of the irrelevant. From the
painters standpoint the issue of configuration was pretty well worked through
during the 50s and 60s. Soooo....Theres nothing like finding no light at the
end of the tunnel. Historically, the painted canvass may wind up as a
footnote in the grand cavalcade of art. But it's ok if you want to try
it.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Dan Wilson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
r>
>
> The painted pot from a theoretical standpoint, is a non issue.
>
> >From a potters standpoint, painted pottery subjugates usefullness and
> utility to decoration wich makes it less than the "minor arts" and places
> it in the realm of the true craft item. From the painters standpoint, the
> issue of configuration was pretty well worked through during the 50's and
> 60's. Soooo... there's nothing like being caught between a rock and a hard
> spot is there? Historically, the painted pot will be a footnote. But its
> still ok to do it if you want to.
>
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on fri 27 jun 97
Jeez Kevin,
You're not suggesting that painting is, like, dead, are you?
Patrick
At 4:44 -0400 6/26/97, Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>The painted canvass from a theoretical standpoint, is a non-issue.
>>From any standpoint, the painted canvass abrogates usefulness and
>utility to become mere decoration which makes those expressions even less
>than the minor arts and places it in the realm of the irrelevant. From the
>painters standpoint the issue of configuration was pretty well worked through
>during the 50s and 60s. Soooo....Theres nothing like finding no light at the
>end of the tunnel. Historically, the painted canvass may wind up as a
>footnote in the grand cavalcade of art. But it's ok if you want to try
>it.
>
>Kevin A. Hluch
>102 E. 8th St.
>Frederick, MD 21701
>USA
>
>e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
******************************************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail:
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
*****************************************************************************
Dan Wilson on sat 28 jun 97
The painting is not dead. Is just that post modernist painters in denying
spatial illusionism have found that paint can work just as well on things
other than canvass. Like the sides of pots for example. So when Kevin says
the painted canvass is irrelevant...Who can argue? On the other hand,
Kevin, you've cleverly left the door open for painters who might want to
add a little Aquamarine or maybe High Yellow to the belly of a copy of a
Grecian Urn. My position is that if the painted canvass is irrelevant then
the painted pot is irrelevant too. By accepting this view painting will
breath its last, long sigh of relief and the artificial heirarchy of the
arts which created the crown jewel of painting and the subsequent schism
between art and craft and art and culture will close with a thump. Course I
could be wrong here. I've been away for awhile. Never really thought about
it till just now.
Dan Wilson Sometimes I wonder...
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Jeez Kevin,
>
>You're not suggesting that painting is, like, dead, are you?
>
>Patrick
>
>At 4:44 -0400 6/26/97, Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>The painted canvass from a theoretical standpoint, is a non-issue.
>>>From any standpoint, the painted canvass abrogates usefulness and
>>utility to become mere decoration which makes those expressions even less
>>than the minor arts and places it in the realm of the irrelevant.
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on sun 29 jun 97
I suspect that when we succeed in getting the painted canvass and the
painted pot to cancel each other out we will have made the world safe for
photography. Good thing I do mixed media...;-)
Patrick
At 9:51 -0400 6/28/97, Dan Wilson wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> My position is that if the painted canvass is irrelevant then
>the painted pot is irrelevant too. By accepting this view painting will
>breath its last, long sigh of relief and the artificial heirarchy of the
>arts which created the crown jewel of painting and the subsequent schism
>between art and craft and art and culture will close with a thump. Course I
>could be wrong here.
******************************************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail:
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
*****************************************************************************
Nikom Chimnok on mon 30 jun 97
I know more about painted pots than I ever wanted to. I live in a
pottery village in Thailand--the one often referred to by Louis
Katz--where they paint pots, not with acrylics, but with ordinary
housepaint. The quality is about as low as you can go. You can't leave
them in the sun, you can't leave them in the rain, you can't put water
in them, you can't even wash them if they get dirty. During the last
month 18-40' containerloads were sent to a large American retailer, so
you will be able to buy one soon.
Personally, I'm totally disgusted with painted pots, and ashamed to be
associated with them. Not only do they have an impermanent finish, but
the pots themselves are junk. Half of them are broken, stuck back
together with Superglue and cement. They don't ring when you rap them
with your knuckles; in fact, pot rapping is discouraged around here, for
fear the pots will break. Painting has lead to a whole generation of
firemen who can't be bothered to wait till the pots are dry before
firing them; local wisdom is that if they don't explode, the firing was
a success. I keep asking, Why not make them out of cardboard? It would
save a lot of trees, and they'd be easier to ship.
The blame for this degenerate state of affairs, however, does not lie
with the local potters. I blame Western fools with money. People want
these broken pots. They are cheap and pretty, and they sell good.
Recently an industrial spy from Viet Nam came here and learned all the
techniques, so soon we won't be the only source in the world of broken
pots with housepaint.
Interestingly, the locals used to make world-class pots. They were fired
up around ^7-11 in woodburning kilns, were hard and functional, and
sometimes quite beautiful. Unfortunately they were not very
colorful--mostly black and brown with some melted ash effect. They were
also hard to produce. Lots of pots broke in the kiln, and the most
beautiful were beginning to slump, and they tended to get stuck
together. Western buyers were unhappy when their orders didn't get
shipped on time, and the pots didn't sell very well anyway, so the
export market was mostly a dream.
Then somebody got the idea of bisque-firing this red stoneware clay, and
slapping on some housepaint after patching the cracks. The fools with
money went mad, and the locals started buying motorcycles and whiskey,
which had the effect of reducing their numbers so that the survivors
were richer still. And though the locals are still poor by Western
standards, they are a lot richer than they used to be, and they like it.
And watching the tourists walk right by the traditional world-class pots
to ooh and ah at the painted broken bisqueware, I draw one conclusion:
the challenge of the next century is to make glaze that looks like
paint, not paint that looks like glaze. Only potters can protect the
consumers from their love of the tawdry. There is nothing wrong with the
way painted pots look! They look classy, antiquish, understated. If I
knew how to make high quality glazed pots that look like the painted
garbage stacked to the ceilings all over this village, I'd get rich!
A graduate ceramics student from the USA came here recently and was just
amazed. She wanted recipes! She wanted to know how come she'd been
studying ceramics for 6 years and nobody ever taught her how to make
classy matt glazes like we do here. When I told her the truth, she was
as disappointed as I am.
So I repeat here my conclusion: given contemporary market conditions,
the challenge is not to make paint that looks like glaze, but to make
glaze that looks like paint. The market does not care about copper red;
it prefers Barn Red, straight from the can with an antiquing treatment
on top. Learn to make a glaze like that and everyone will be happy.
Nikom
Hluch - Kevin A. on thu 3 jul 97
Since the breakdown of the west's domineering media taxonomy in regard to
fine art expressions, it is no wonder that painting per se has lost its luster.
It appears to me that no form of expression is irrelevant except when it
becomes hackneyed and loses vibrancy. Succinctly, humans are creatures easily
seduced by novel elements in the world. It is not surprising, therefore, that
since many craft materials were not traditionally utilized for non-craft
purposes, (fine art expressions) that these materials would be exploited.
The Voracious Eye of Art Has Turned It's Gaze to Craft.
Much like a black hole, it appears that everything in its path will be
devoured and transmuted to the characteristics that others have defined as
"artistic" expression. So while painting on canvass appears to have run its
course, painting on ceramic material, particularly if it is sculptural, appears
novel to the fine art culture (Lucero, Voulkos, Weiser, Woodman). This,
of course, reflects the wholesale de facto amnesia of art historians
concerning the vast history of painted sculptural ceramics. Not
surprising considering their educations. Or might I say lack of education?
I have always been amazed that so many people have swallowed the myth of
the "invention" of ceramic sculpture by the so-called "wunderkind" -
Peter Voulkos. The fine art culture was simply mining another mother
lode.
( My web page is coming, watch for the address. )
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Dan Wilson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> The painting is not dead. Is just that post modernist painters in denying
> spatial illusionism have found that paint can work just as well on things
> other than canvass. Like the sides of pots for example. So when Kevin says
> the painted canvass is irrelevant...Who can argue? On the other hand,
> Kevin, you've cleverly left the door open for painters who might want to
> add a little Aquamarine or maybe High Yellow to the belly of a copy of a
> Grecian Urn. My position is that if the painted canvass is irrelevant then
> the painted pot is irrelevant too. By accepting this view painting will
> breath its last, long sigh of relief and the artificial heirarchy of the
> arts which created the crown jewel of painting and the subsequent schism
> between art and craft and art and culture will close with a thump. Course I
> could be wrong here. I've been away for awhile. Never really thought about
> it till just now.
>
> Dan Wilson Sometimes I wonder...
>
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >Jeez Kevin,
> >
> >You're not suggesting that painting is, like, dead, are you?
> >
> >Patrick
> >
> >At 4:44 -0400 6/26/97, Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
> >>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >>
> >>The painted canvass from a theoretical standpoint, is a non-issue.
> >>>From any standpoint, the painted canvass abrogates usefulness and
> >>utility to become mere decoration which makes those expressions even less
> >>than the minor arts and places it in the realm of the irrelevant.
>
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on sat 5 jul 97
I think the novelty of ceramic sculpture wore out about ten years ago or
more. Some ceramic sculpture was subsumed into the mainstream art game.
Some ceramic sculpters bailed out of the clay game and started using other
materials because they felt trapped in a hierarchy they couldn't compete
with. Something went fallow. This is based on my exalted vantage point as
an undergrad living in San Francisco during the 80's. I don't think,
though, that getting the story straight about clay sculpture (Voulkos or
not) will fill in enough holes in the picture (god, what a mixed metaphor).
Kevin, your opinion (and anybody elses): What is ceramic sculpture today?
Who's doing it? Where can one see it? Which periodicals are publishing the
work? How's it being received (good or bad)?
Patrick
At 9:16 -0400 7/3/97, Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>.............................. So while painting on canvass appears to
>have run its
>course, painting on ceramic material, particularly if it is sculptural,
>appears
>novel to the fine art culture (Lucero, Voulkos, Weiser, Woodman). This,
>of course, reflects the wholesale de facto amnesia of art historians
>concerning the vast history of painted sculptural ceramics. Not
>surprising considering their educations. Or might I say lack of education?
>
>I have always been amazed that so many people have swallowed the myth of
>the "invention" of ceramic sculpture by the so-called "wunderkind" -
>Peter Voulkos. The fine art culture was simply mining another mother
>lode.
>
>
>( My web page is coming, watch for the address. )
>
>Kevin A. Hluch
******************************************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail:
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
*****************************************************************************
RDpotz on sun 6 jul 97
Try Ceramic Review which often contains articles and images of ceramic
sculpture. It's very good!
You may also find plenty of ceramic sculptors online, but I apologise for
not offering some up to date info on sites.
Dawn
Janet Kaiser on tue 19 oct 99
------------------
It is not considered de rigour to paint pots, because general ware and tear =
has
scratched, worn or washed the painting off the pots in the past. For =
example, I
have some Greek terracotta which only has residual pattern after 20 to 30 =
years
and it was already scratched when I bought it as an enthusiastic tourist.
However, there has been a revolution in painting materials since then. If =
you
can guarantee that the paint is permanent and will not fade, wear, scratch =
or
wash off, it may be an option. The only problem will be convincing your =
public.
Painting on ceramic is associated mainly with the cheaper end of the tourist
market in many economies. The jaunty little mould-made momentos in bright
primary colours are well-known all around the world. They are =22cheap and
cheerful=22 but it will be this bias that you will also have to overcome. =
Painted
equals cheap in most people's minds.
Speaking as a gallery, the only =22painted=22 ceramics we have accepted to =
date,
were sculptures which had been biscuit fired, then given a bronze and =
verdigris
finish using the =22paint=22 often used by blacksmiths. Although a cold =
application,
it was sufficiently fixed and permanent to be acceptable for an indoor
sculpture. The artist also made several plaster sculptures using the same
finish. As she said herself, it was producing a =22poor man's bronze=22. A =
one off
piece costing in hundreds what a bronze would cost in thousands. She was =
only
using this method because she did not have the know-how to produce same =
effect
using glaze nor her own kiln.
This was naturally not using colours and patterns. That is very much still =
the
province of those artisan clay workers around the world who churn out huge
quantities and make a penny or two on each piece sold. So until you have =
found a
niche market or a specialist area for your work, I would not recommend =
turning
your whole production over to painted pottery.
If you are really enamoured of the painting on a 3D object process, why not =
try
papier mache instead? Now THAT is currently all the rage in Europe and =
perfectly
acceptable. Nothing to feel guilty about=21
Just my opinion.
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox=40the-coa.org.uk
Nikom Chimnok on wed 20 oct 99
Hiya,
I live in one of those 3rd world villages where dirt-poor workers
produce I would say thousands of tons a year of painted pots. Big customers
include Pier I (forty 40-foot containers a year) and Ikea; I've gotten
inquiring faxes from both Wallmart and Disney, but just threw them away
because I knew they want them so cheap there's no money to be made.
The message below is wrong--the problem is not in convincing the
customers. Customers love painted pots; most don't know the difference and
don't care. The whole sales chain of buyer, wholesaler, retailer does know
the difference, and opts for the painted pots, because they need to be
replaced every couple-3 years, which is a lot better than selling a pot
every 3 generations. Hotels and movie makers don't care--they don't want to
use the pots for very long, so better to buy cheap ones.
Painted pots are prettier than glazed pots, in the eyes of the
uneducated consumer. The pallette is wider, and more effects (paint on 4
layers, then sand through them to reveal a random polychrome) are possible.
For a long time in this village they tried to make paint that looked like
glaze; now we are trying to make glaze that looks like paint.
From the perspective of the poor potter, painted pots are a godsend.
You can sell broken pots. Cracks are no problem at all; handles that fall
off while drying can be placed inside the pot while firing and attached with
superglue or cement after they're cooked. You can underfire them by 400
degrees C and no one will ever know. There is no waste, unless in case of
outright explosion.
The message below is correct: instead of making crap pottery, which
wastes a lot of heat and requires a lot of skill nonetheless, why not just
make them out of papier mache? If you can't put water in them, and can't
leave them outdoors, and can't grow plants in them. why should they be made
of clay? Paper saves energy and can be recycled.
The state of the art on paints I have looked into. You get into
acrylics and marine enamels, the paint job will last for years--but it's
more expensive than glaze. I am now able to sell once-fired glazed pots
cheaper than my friend and competitor up the road can sell her painted pots.
Hers are prettier. I do wish I could make glaze as pretty as her paint jobs.
However, my pots will last for a hundred years, while hers are shot in two.
I just have to find the market that knows the difference.
I hate paint. Just my opinion.
Regards,
Nikom
******************************************************************************
At 17:00 19/10/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>It is not considered de rigour to paint pots, because general ware and tear has
>scratched, worn or washed the painting off the pots in the past. For example, I
>have some Greek terracotta which only has residual pattern after 20 to 30 years
>and it was already scratched when I bought it as an enthusiastic tourist.
>
>However, there has been a revolution in painting materials since then. If you
>can guarantee that the paint is permanent and will not fade, wear, scratch or
>wash off, it may be an option. The only problem will be convincing your public.
>Painting on ceramic is associated mainly with the cheaper end of the tourist
>market in many economies. The jaunty little mould-made momentos in bright
>primary colours are well-known all around the world. They are "cheap and
>cheerful" but it will be this bias that you will also have to overcome. Painted
>equals cheap in most people's minds.
>
>Speaking as a gallery, the only "painted" ceramics we have accepted to date,
>were sculptures which had been biscuit fired, then given a bronze and verdigris
>finish using the "paint" often used by blacksmiths. Although a cold
application,
>it was sufficiently fixed and permanent to be acceptable for an indoor
>sculpture. The artist also made several plaster sculptures using the same
>finish. As she said herself, it was producing a "poor man's bronze". A one off
>piece costing in hundreds what a bronze would cost in thousands. She was only
>using this method because she did not have the know-how to produce same effect
>using glaze nor her own kiln.
>
>This was naturally not using colours and patterns. That is very much still the
>province of those artisan clay workers around the world who churn out huge
>quantities and make a penny or two on each piece sold. So until you have
found a
>niche market or a specialist area for your work, I would not recommend turning
>your whole production over to painted pottery.
>
>If you are really enamoured of the painting on a 3D object process, why not try
>papier mache instead? Now THAT is currently all the rage in Europe and
perfectly
>acceptable. Nothing to feel guilty about!
>
>Just my opinion.
>
>Janet Kaiser
>The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
>Home of The International Potters Path
>WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
>EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
>
>
Janet Kaiser on fri 22 oct 99
Nikom,
I am sorry, but I think you missed the point of my message. I was answering
the "I am feeling guilty" posting of a single maker, painting ceramic
sculptures in the USA.
It was my intention to point out the drawbacks of paint to a quite different
user and market, whilst offering an alternative. I was not advising someone
who wanted to mass-produce painted pots either in the West or a so-called
third world country.
>From the original posting it would not appear that "colourful, cheerful and
cute" was under discussion. That was me pointing out what people around the
world associate with *painted pots*. I think you will agree that there is a
vast difference between the two?
When someone talks of ceramic sculptures, "people" in this context will
naturally equate "sophisticated ceramic buyers", those who are buying for
three generations and certainly not three years. The tourist industry is and
was not the target market.
The very reason you stated of middlemen being the winners on the sort of
painted ware we both speak about, is a social ill which I for one find
distressing. It is on a par with Nike, Adidas and other well-known companies
using "slave labour" in poor countries to produce sportswear, which sells
for mega bucks and vast profits in the West. It is unfair and unethical and
was the reason I pointed out they worked for pence.
Painted pots for the tourist and other trades is also quite a different
market to the one originally under discussion and which I addressed. I am
sorry if I offended you, but if you read between the lines you will see that
far from being disparaging about the painted pot industry, I was pointing
out the inequalities. Love or hate painted pots, they remain the staple
source of income for thousands around the world.
But it is never-the-less the reason why painted remains "naff" and is
considered unacceptable in the educated ceramic world. This is not the case
in the "art" world where the effect is all that counts and it does not
matter how that is achieved nor the longevity of the work.
If bio-degradable elephant dung can be used for art, why not paint? Ooohps!
How could I be so reactionary? And so the circles closes...
Regards
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
postbox@the-coa.org.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikom Chimnok
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: 20 October 1999 19:00
Subject: Re: Painted pots
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hiya,
I live in one of those 3rd world villages where dirt-poor workers
produce I would say thousands of tons a year of painted pots. Big customers
include Pier I (forty 40-foot containers a year) and Ikea; I've gotten
inquiring faxes from both Wallmart and Disney, but just threw them away
because I knew they want them so cheap there's no money to be made.
The message below is wrong--the problem is not in convincing the
customers. Customers love painted pots; most don't know the difference and
don't care. The whole sales chain of buyer, wholesaler, retailer does know
the difference, and opts for the painted pots, because they need to be
replaced every couple-3 years, which is a lot better than selling a pot
every 3 generations. Hotels and movie makers don't care--they don't want to
use the pots for very long, so better to buy cheap ones.
Painted pots are prettier than glazed pots, in the eyes of the
uneducated consumer. The pallette is wider, and more effects (paint on 4
layers, then sand through them to reveal a random polychrome) are possible.
For a long time in this village they tried to make paint that looked like
glaze; now we are trying to make glaze that looks like paint.
From the perspective of the poor potter, painted pots are a godsend.
You can sell broken pots. Cracks are no problem at all; handles that fall
off while drying can be placed inside the pot while firing and attached with
superglue or cement after they're cooked. You can underfire them by 400
degrees C and no one will ever know. There is no waste, unless in case of
outright explosion.
The message below is correct: instead of making crap pottery, which
wastes a lot of heat and requires a lot of skill nonetheless, why not just
make them out of papier mache? If you can't put water in them, and can't
leave them outdoors, and can't grow plants in them. why should they be made
of clay? Paper saves energy and can be recycled.
The state of the art on paints I have looked into. You get into
acrylics and marine enamels, the paint job will last for years--but it's
more expensive than glaze. I am now able to sell once-fired glazed pots
cheaper than my friend and competitor up the road can sell her painted pots.
Hers are prettier. I do wish I could make glaze as pretty as her paint jobs.
However, my pots will last for a hundred years, while hers are shot in two.
I just have to find the market that knows the difference.
I hate paint. Just my opinion.
Regards,
Nikom
****************************************************************************
**
At 17:00 19/10/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>It is not considered de rigour to paint pots, because general ware and tear
has
>scratched, worn or washed the painting off the pots in the past. For
example, I
>have some Greek terracotta which only has residual pattern after 20 to 30
years
>and it was already scratched when I bought it as an enthusiastic tourist.
>
>However, there has been a revolution in painting materials since then. If
you
>can guarantee that the paint is permanent and will not fade, wear, scratch
or
>wash off, it may be an option. The only problem will be convincing your
public.
>Painting on ceramic is associated mainly with the cheaper end of the
tourist
>market in many economies. The jaunty little mould-made momentos in bright
>primary colours are well-known all around the world. They are "cheap and
>cheerful" but it will be this bias that you will also have to overcome.
Painted
>equals cheap in most people's minds.
>
>Speaking as a gallery, the only "painted" ceramics we have accepted to
date,
>were sculptures which had been biscuit fired, then given a bronze and
verdigris
>finish using the "paint" often used by blacksmiths. Although a cold
application,
>it was sufficiently fixed and permanent to be acceptable for an indoor
>sculpture. The artist also made several plaster sculptures using the same
>finish. As she said herself, it was producing a "poor man's bronze". A one
off
>piece costing in hundreds what a bronze would cost in thousands. She was
only
>using this method because she did not have the know-how to produce same
effect
>using glaze nor her own kiln.
>
>This was naturally not using colours and patterns. That is very much still
the
>province of those artisan clay workers around the world who churn out huge
>quantities and make a penny or two on each piece sold. So until you have
found a
>niche market or a specialist area for your work, I would not recommend
turning
>your whole production over to painted pottery.
>
>If you are really enamoured of the painting on a 3D object process, why not
try
>papier mache instead? Now THAT is currently all the rage in Europe and
perfectly
>acceptable. Nothing to feel guilty about!
>
>Just my opinion.
>
>Janet Kaiser
>The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
>Home of The International Potters Path
>WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
>EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
>
>
| |
|
