Don & Isao Morrill on thu 12 aug 99
At , you wrote:
>At 11:49 8/11/99 EDT, you wrote:
>>Elizabeth -- Thanks for the amplification! My arms are wrapping around a
>>bit better now...But then, I also sometimes get hung up on "understanding";
>>sometimes I forget that I don't necessarily have to.
>> I may as well put a "fluff" question to you, as I've enjoyed reading
>>your inputs for a while now...I guess it's a spin-off of "art" and
>>"originality" issues: Two tea bowls, with no signature, are sitting
>>side-by-side; one tea bowl looks as if it could've been made by a deranged
>>hod-carrier but, in fact, is made by a famous artist and commands a
>>thousand-dollar price; the other tea bowl is, in fact, made by a deranged
>>hod-carrier as his first artistic offering; they're all but identical.
>> - Is the first intrinsically more valuable than the other?
>> - fer sher, are there subtle, but definitive, signs that one, in fact
>>was produced by a "master"?
>> I'm not being snide here, elizabeth, honest!..well...
>>This has been kicking around in my cranium for a while, even accounting for
>>differences in style/taste, etc.
>> Am really curious as to what you and others have to say...Darn! Another
>>Regards and fuzzies,
>>anne & the cats in sequim
>> Anne, 30 years ago at Myoshinji, I sat with my friend Tanset-su
an itinerant monk. Saying nothing I showed my friend a bowl I had found on
the Hanazono dump and for which I had made a wooden cover.
"What do you think of this ?"
He replied, " Ah, a 10yen bowl with a 500yen cover. Two
tanset-su saw a relationship between two objects as one. In the
case of the teabowls in the event the first were broken,who xould say the
second was not the first? Ten-cents worth of clay and glaze remain
ten-cents. Don Morrill