Matt MacIntire on thu 28 jun 01
Hamada immediately comes to mind, as an example of someone who did not sign
his pots. Yet he managed to command high prices anyway. I recall reading
that Hamada felt that signing his pots was unnecessary, since anyone who
knew his work well enough could recognize his hand. I think I also read
that Hamada's motivation was partly the "unknown craftsman" ethic of the
Mingei-kai.
I note that Michelangelo signed few of his masterpieces. One notable
exception is his first Pieta, which he signed boldly when people did not
believe it could be the work of someone so young.
To sign or not to sign...
I pondered this issue long and hard for myself. I decided to take the
middle ground by marking my pots, but not signing my name on them. I guess
this could be construed as avoiding the issue. I put a mark on the base of
my pots that is an abstraction of my initials. Anyone who doesn't know me
sees the mark but wouldn't understand quite who made it.
I never felt comfortable signing my NAME on the pots as if my NAME conveyed
some extra value. Much of the best historical work is unsigned. Ultimately
art should stand on its own. Although the historical context of an artwork
is extremely important, the actual identity of the artist would seem (to me)
less important. I admire Hamada and others for having the guts to have
allowed their work to stand on its own.
Yet when I tried this myself, I wasn't comfortable not signing my work in
any way. Signing a work of art can be construed as a way for me to show the
world that, for better of worse, this thing is MY work. A signature (or
mark) is an affirmation that shows the maker values his work. If I am proud
of my work, I'd want to have an audience. It seems logical to want to
validate the work of my hand with a mark that shows I thought it was true to
my goals. So I can easily understand the value of signing anything that is
lovingly hand made.
Eventually I decided that a mark, rather than a hand signature, was a
reasonable compromise. A potters mark retains some of the anonymity of an
unsigned pot, but also distinguishes the pot from mere industry. A mark is
a clear statement that the maker is proud of the work and values it.
Some might argue that there is little difference between a potters mark and
his signature. I feel differently. To me, a signature implies that such a
mark conveys the status of the maker. A potters mark merely identifies the
maker and demonstrates his affirmation of the work. The world still may
attach the status of the maker to an unsigned work, but this is a reaction,
rather than the implicit intention of the maker.
Like Julie, I will be curious to see how others feel about this issue.
Matt
Snail Scott on thu 28 jun 01
At 04:22 PM 6/28/01 +0000, you wrote:
...I've always wanted people who liked my
>work to...be able to read [my signature]
>well enough to be able to look it up in the phone book.
>Paul Lewing
Vivat, Paul!
When I am filthy rich and famous, I will worry
about posterity; right now I worry about the rent.
Every piece of work I make is an advertisement
for the next one: "Snail made me; you too could
own a fabulous Snail Scott original sculpture;
remember that name!"
In fact, memorability is probably not the least
important reason I've kept this silly name all
these years.
-Snail
Julie Ryan on thu 28 jun 01
Hello all,
I few years ago I visited the studio and showroom of Warren MacKenzie in
Minnesota. In the entrance to the showroom was a notice that he no longer
signs his pots. He wants people to buy the pot because they like it, not
because it's a Warren MacKenzie. His showroom features the work of other
artists, some of who also do not sign their work.
I was so pleased by the simplicity of this practice, and amused at the
thought of how maddening this must be to people like my mother's friend, who
has two shelves full of MacKenzie's signed pots, rarely used and gathering
dust. I am also amazed at an artist who feels so strongly about his work
that he would rather make it anonymously than to sell it those who only buy
it for his name.
I imagine that this probably has the unintended effect of making his signed
work even more valuable.
I’m interested in learning what others think about this, and whether there
are other artists who have initiated this practice and what their reasons
are.
Julie Ryan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Donn Buchfinck on thu 28 jun 01
Here I will open up the can of worms here,
I think you used the operative word artist, and I think what Warren in my
mind is trying to accomplish is the unknown craftsman lifestyle,
but you have to think about it, people still want his pots, I just bought
one at trax in berkely, I like it, but I am not going to stick it into the
bathroom and stick pushpins in it, I might put something valuable in it,
but I will be carefull.
I have a problem with the use me up and get another when that one breaks line
of reasoning, someday there will not be anymore warrens produced, I can
goto target for the use me up stuff,
I think he is part of a great tradition and he is a torch bearer like it or
not for that menge lifestyle, and his pots represent more than, I am a
simple unnamed potter just making my humble work and releasing it into the
world, the work is living history, this is kinda like saying hamadas pots
are humble,
I wish he still signed his work, it represents the man, and what he stands
for,
Donn Buchfinck
claycincal@aol.com
san francisco
r12396 on thu 28 jun 01
Julie,
I think its cool! Like to see it done more often. I have a bad habit of
forgetting names. So, pots are like faces, sometimes easier to remember.
Besides, I don't see a signature on the clay of the potter that used it
before me!...The Clay Stalker-Richard Ramirez
----- Original Message -----
From: Julie Ryan
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:58 AM
Subject: Warren MacKenzie doesn't sign his pots
> Hello all,
> I few years ago I visited the studio and showroom of Warren MacKenzie in
> Minnesota. In the entrance to the showroom was a notice that he no longer
> signs his pots. He wants people to buy the pot because they like it, not
> because it's a Warren MacKenzie. His showroom features the work of other
> artists, some of who also do not sign their work.
>
> I was so pleased by the simplicity of this practice, and amused at the
> thought of how maddening this must be to people like my mother's friend,
who
> has two shelves full of MacKenzie's signed pots, rarely used and gathering
> dust. I am also amazed at an artist who feels so strongly about his work
> that he would rather make it anonymously than to sell it those who only
buy
> it for his name.
>
> I imagine that this probably has the unintended effect of making his
signed
> work even more valuable.
>
> I'm interested in learning what others think about this, and whether there
> are other artists who have initiated this practice and what their reasons
> are.
>
> Julie Ryan
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Paul Lewing on thu 28 jun 01
on 6/28/01 4:58 PM, Julie Ryan at jrclayart@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> I=92m interested in learning what others think about this, and whether ther=
e
> are other artists who have initiated this practice and what their reasons
> are.
Julie, Shoji Hamada didn't sign his pots, either. He said he didn't
because, after he was dead, all of his worst pots would be attributed to hi=
s
imitators, and all their best pots would be attributed to him.
I've always thought the idea of the Unknown Craftsman and not signing stuff
was very quaint and charming, but I've always wanted people who liked my
work to not only be able to find my signature, but to be able to read it
well enough to be able to look it up in the phone book.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
vince pitelka on fri 29 jun 01
This is a curious subject, which has come up again and again on Clayart.
Whether or not you decided to sign your pots has absolutely nothing to do
with whether or not anyone else decides to sign his or her pots. It is your
choice, and it is a question of individual philosophy. Warren Mackenzie has
developed such a strong individual style that the signature is irrelevant.
Some of us may be so lucky in our lifetime. In the mean time, those who
like to identify their work and place it in time will continue to sign and
date it, and someone else's philosophy of whether or not this is appropriate
has nothing at all to do with you.
As I have posted before, my favorite comment on signing pots came from a
recent Clayart post, which I paraphrase. Someone bought some hand-thrown
pots at the local Goodwill. At the check-out stand the clerk rang them all
up at ten cents apiece, until she got to one that was signed. She said "Oh
wait, this one is signed, it's twenty-five cents." So, as you can clearly
see, signed work is worth more than twice as much as unsigned work.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Earl Brunner on fri 29 jun 01
I think that Matt has a good compromise.
The world places two kinds of value on "art" today. In one, the ideal
is that the piece of art stand on it's own merit, and value is
intrinsic. It is good art and stands on it's merit regardless of who
might have made it and value is based on this.
The second is more the reality, it is market driven. Would "Starry
Night" by Van Gogh command the millions of dollars that it would in the
market today if it was not a Van Gogh? Good as it is, I doubt it. The
market tends to attach less value to the unknown craftsman than the
known. Even those who "lean" towards the Mengei philosophy tend to say
that they will/can recognize a Warren MacKenzie pot on sight, signed or
not.
The question is, or should be, "Is value given based on the maker, or is
the maker elevated based on what is made?"
Matt MacIntire wrote:
> Eventually I decided that a mark, rather than a hand signature, was a
> reasonable compromise. A potters mark retains some of the anonymity of an
> unsigned pot, but also distinguishes the pot from mere industry. A mark is
> a clear statement that the maker is proud of the work and values it.
>
> Some might argue that there is little difference between a potters mark and
> his signature. I feel differently. To me, a signature implies that such a
> mark conveys the status of the maker. A potters mark merely identifies the
> maker and demonstrates his affirmation of the work. The world still may
> attach the status of the maker to an unsigned work, but this is a reaction,
> rather than the implicit intention of the maker.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec/
bruec@anv.net
Katheleen Nez on fri 29 jun 01
I kinda think it's a personal issue whether TO SIGN OR
NOT TO SIGN...I sign my pots, because my gallery owner
and my colectors would get mad if I didnt. Maybe I
should quit signing my pots. I haven't seen anyone
else do what I do -heaven help them if they did, it
takes FOREVER to paint. Maybe that would be another
cool discussion point - the things we do when driven
by the Market. Or did we already go there? Hey, I want
stories around the campfire about Archie Bray...NEZ
also missing the SF Opera gala...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Lee Love on sun 1 jul 01
----- Original Message -----
From: "vince pitelka"
>So, as you can clearly see, signed work is worth more than
> twice as much as unsigned work.
I've always thought that a potter "has arrived" when you can find his
pots at Goodwill. I've found MacKenzies, Randy Johnstons and Jeff Oestrichs
at Goodwill. The Johnston was a expensive red flashed bowl (avery slip.) Very
nice and cost 75cents.
About pricing at Good Will, it might be difficult for a craftsman to
base his practices on what they do. My wife Jean will tell you that sweaters
made of synthetic fibers cost more there than ones made of Wool, cotton or Flax.
;^)
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Interested in Folkcraft? Signup:
Subscribe: mingei-subscribe@egroups.com
Or: http://www.egroups.com/group/mingei
Help ET phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
lindac on fri 10 aug 01
Speaking of Warren Mackenzie... I"m here in Minnesota visiting the In-Laws
and would LOVE a day off to look at some studios. Does anyone have
directions to his studio in Stillwater? I had them on my old
computer...but, not on this laptop so thank you in advance.. I'd also love
to visit other Minnesota potters. We are south of the cities anyone out
there interested in having a visitor?
Linda~ trying to think of the right recipe to include and which pots to have
my hubby photo and still get them out in time for the July 25 deadline when
we aren't even home yet! and also enjoying a sunny warm Minnesota day,
wondering how my son is doing on his first full day of overnight camp and
happy that my daughter is playing cards with grandma so that I can check
email for the first time in over a week!
sign his pots
Hello all,
I few years ago I visited the studio and showroom of Warren MacKenzie in
Minnesota. In the entrance to the showroom was a notice that he no longer
signs his pots. He wants people to buy the pot because they like it, not
because it's a Warren MacKenzie. His showroom features the work of other
artists, some of who also do not sign their work.
I was so pleased by the simplicity of this practice, and amused at the
thought of how maddening this must be to people like my mother's friend, who
has two shelves full of MacKenzie's signed pots, rarely used and gathering
dust. I am also amazed at an artist who feels so strongly about his work
that he would rather make it anonymously than to sell it those who only buy
it for his name.
I imagine that this probably has the unintended effect of making his signed
work even more valuable.
I'm interested in learning what others think about this, and whether there
are other artists who have initiated this practice and what their reasons
are.
Julie Ryan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
