Karen Sullivan on wed 8 nov 00
I am willing to consider a significant difference in work that is meant to
be functional versus that which is sculptural.
If I have a cup I want it to function as a cup and I consider a range of
issues of what would make it a second. The form follows function discussion.
I once made a cup I was quite please with, tried it out and noticed it would
dribble coffee down the front of my shirt. I couldn't see what was wrong.
With closer investigation noticed a small hole, so with every tilt of the
cup liquid would pour out. The hole was just below the range of where ones'
mouth would be. I did consider making more that would dribble intentionally
but that is another story.
So issues of function are valid.
With that in mind consider the following story....
Soldner told a story of a collector visiting his house wanting to buy one of
his pieces, the collector looked for some time and finally pointed to a
piece and said that was the one he wanted. We all know the variations
possible with glaze and the relationship the piece has had with the fire
that are not always repeatable.
So Paul said, well, that piece is not for sale, because it is a second.
The collector said, fine, so make me a first, but I want it to look just
like the piece I have selected.
So the discussion continued, with how we view firsts/seconds and give value.
When we find an ancient Greek vase from the ocean, do we care whether it is
a first or a second?
I would wonder when it would be appropriate to use conservation techniques
to repair a piece. Is there an acceptable time frame?
100 year old pots?
100 minute old pots?
How do we ascribe value?