mel jacobson on tue 8 nov 11
when i critique anything, it is the `work`.
i have seen pots/and so called art lately that i do not like.
cm does not make the work.
sherman does not make the work.
the magazines publish what they get.
bill jones publishes what authors send
to him. much is rejected.
tech articles are good for everyone.
the people at the magazines are friends
of mine. i respect them a great deal.
and, they will remain great friends.
i have worked for them for years...dozens
my negative view is the work, not the
and, i do believe i have a right to
my opinion without being called names
and being mocked as being old and out
from: minnetonka, mn
clayart link: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
John Britt on tue 8 nov 11
What if someone said- "I hate his work". Then later said- "Oh, I like him=
design and throwing skills and all his aesthetic decisions are what I hat=
would be insulting wouldn't it?
Well that is the same thing you are saying about CM. You hate the stuff i=
there but you like them. Well, as you know, they make the decisions about=
what is in there. They are trying to be relevant, provide current interes=
material to a wide audience and if you are constantly beating the same ol=
drum beat about how bad the stuff in there is, it isn't helping.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. And if you keep harp=
the old out of date assertion that either Ceramics Monthly sucks or the w=
sucks or modern art sucks then being accused of being an Andy Rooney is=3D2=
appropro. Harping the same old mantra in spite of obvious changes is wha=
You spend your time saying what you do is great and all your friends are =
but that stuff sucks. When things get reversed you don't like it.