Pancioli on fri 31 mar 00
Teapots that don't work are "sculpture". As sculpture they then must compete i
I come away feeling that the potter couldn't discipline the idea enough to mak
In addition, many non utilitarian teapots are deceptive. Teapots that don't wo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I agree with your take on non-utilitarian teapots. I think potters are
dead wrong in believing that this whole 10-20 year trend in teapots that
don't work is a good direction for potters, artists, art, or craft.
Teapots that don't work are "sculpture". As sculpture they then must
compete in that realm. Most of them don't stack up to a Brancusi, for
example. Occasionally, someone pulls it off--maybe Notkin--and makes a
piece strong enough. It can be done but most often isn't. The majority
of non useful teapots seem to me a bit cute, often relying on nothing
more profound than an exaggerated gesture or stance.
I come away feeling that the potter couldn't discipline the idea enough
to make a working teapot and gave in to whimsy. Its called "facile".
Often the idea--the "reference" just doesn't have enough depth to
sustain a long look. If they are sculpture, they are trivial sculpture.
In addition, many non utilitarian teapots are deceptive. Teapots that
don't work often look like they should work. If they aren't intended to
work, they should exhibit some obvious quality which helps avoid
deception--they might be too large, too flat, too spouted, too
something. But when they are the same size as a teapot, have the same
parts, and appear in every way like a teapot and then don't work--I cry