NEWSLETTER - MAY/JUNE 1981
FLETCHER BROWNBUILT AWARD
New Zealand's biggest pottery award continues to grow in importance, not only for local potters, but also internationally. When entries closed on the 8th May for the 1981 Fletcher Brownbuilt Award more than 230 entries had been received - up by 50% on last year's total. Nearly 40 of these entries were from overseas; Wales, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, United States, Canada and England. (One newspaper also stated that an entry had come in from India, but it turned out to be Catherine Anselmi's from Bombay - South Auckland!) More than 190 were from New Zealand potters. The judge this year was Richard Shaw, head of ceramics at the San Francisco Art Institute, an early force in the West Coast American ceramics world. Richard is now internationally known for his "super-realist" ceramic sculptures.
The $2,000 award, and our congratulations, go to Beverley Luxton from Whitford for her entry, a small deep, narrow-footed bowl, meticulously thrown; black and gold on the outside and lustred within. A truly superb piece of porcelain well deserving of the award.
Congratulations also go to those who received the 9 merit awards, 5 of whom are New Zealanders.
Ian Fox, from Dunedin for his handbuilt stoneware sculpture "Hydra."
James Greig, from Carterton for his slab-built stoneware "Solid and Void Series."
Connie Hoedt, from Australia for 3 porcelain landscape pots called "Microcosm."
J Hubbard also from Australia for a very large decorated platter.
Yoshiro Ikeda, Kansas, U.S.A. for a wheel-thrown and handbuilt sculpture, "Black Swan.'
Walter Keeler, Monmouth, England whose entry was a saltglazed teapot.
Leo King, from Auckland for his slip-cast and assembled sculpture, "Control."
Ray Rogers, from Waimauku, who showed a large "Pit-fired Floor Pot."
Charlie Seakins, of Auckland for his blue and white lidded jar, "Datura Crock."
The selection was rigorous - only 100 pots were accepted out of the 230 plus submitted, and this made for an exhibition of the highest standard yet seen at this annual award, although, perhaps inevitably there were a half dozen or so pieces which received the eyebrow treatment from the majority of potter/viewers. If your own entry was rejected, take heart as you are in good company; many pieces from well-respected potters were not accepted. The judge was not selecting only on the expected or more usual criteria of "a good pot", he was going beyond that, and exercising his prerogative as a sole judge (whose decision is final, and no correspondence etc.) to finally select from the "good pots" those which he personally felt drawn to in some way. He is against the copying of styles from another culture or period of ceramic history, when these pots are to be shown in such an important exhibition.
In other words, excellent craftsmanship, design, throwing, glazing, firing and so on, though they combine to produce excellent pieces of pottery are not enough, unless there is also that personal artistic element which shows a creative spirit at work. To communicate something of the personality of the potter as an artist is perhaps more important than demonstrating his learned skills in handling clay according to prescribed schools of style. Thus some excellent pots were not accepted. We must also remember that Richard Shaw was judging an international pottery award, not selecting for a club show - bruised egos have no place at such a professional level of competition. Unfortunately the judge's selection has resulted in an undercurrent of post-selection bitching, even amongst some of those whose pots were accepted! This sort of petulance occurs to some extent at most of our exhibitions - it gains its perpetrators nothing and is demeaning to all. Regrettably in this case a few immature and perhaps arrogant people saw fit to button-hole the judge and give him a verbal working over. He was even handed an anonymous note.
If some of this was in jest, as in school-boy, then it was also in bad taste. If it was for real, then it was plain unforgivable. Richard Shaw, who was invited by Fletcher Brownbuilt because of his international reputation as a ceramic artist and university tutor, went home very upset by some of the treatment he received.
The committee of the Auckland Studio Potters is writing a letter of apology to him to excise some of the damage done to us all by the actions of these few. This Award exhibition is growing to be an important cultural ambassador for the potters of New Zealand. It is to be hoped that future potential top adjudicators will not be put off the idea of coming here if invited, by the adverse effects produced by the actions of a few potters who, because they have clay on their hands, think their mouths are pretty good too.
To show a little of the rationale behind Richard Shaw's selection/rejection process, I quote from him in an interview with the "Entertainment Scene" reporter from the Auckland Star.
"Giving his reasons for choosing Beverley Luxton's work, Shaw said so much time and care had been spent on the porcelain bowl that it was like a jewel. Nothing had been presumed about the form or the surface, which had a special lustre that had been worked meticulously. "It's like working on a painting, the changes make the object into something else, something more than a pot."
Shaw feels that potters need a local touch - something of their surroundings and their own personalities, instead of importing or copying styles. There was definitely an English influence in the general entry submitted, he feels. A distinctive local style should not be just a question of searching for Maori motifs to use, as one vase did, but looking at the rocks, at the life style, at personal values. When he teaches he says he is trying to spread awareness rather than provide a base for imitation.
He felt overall that the exhibition reflected a craft in a state of transition from the useful and functional kind of pots represented by coffee mugs and bowls, to the kind of ceramic sculpture he specialises in himself. It is an interesting comment on the 230 entries submitted for this contest, one of the world's richest for ceramics, that Shaw immediately eliminated most of the sculptural efforts which he himself prefers to make. He felt most of them were too cute, or just too "jokey."
He preferred what he considered to be serious, committed works - whether sculptural or not - and was equally at home enjoying large, rough pots with the kind of serious integrity that conveyed feeling to him, or more delicate works that showed an equally dedicated potter at work.
"I approached the display in an educational way too," he says of the range of styles he eventually allowed. "An audience in general does not want to see what it has seen 5,000 times before," he says, pointing out the sameness of several teapots with recognisable cane handles, however finely differentiated their forms.
He was also severely critical of what he called 'presumed form,' a conventional following of forms that have become acceptable without that spark of imagination and excellence to set them apart.
Surfaces that fascinated Shaw while he was judging the pots often had to give way to the inadequate form, and pots remarkable in only one or two respects joined the reject pile.
In the United States a battle was fought before fine arts faculties in the universities accepted ceramic teachers or 'whiteware tutors' as they were called in the 1960-70s. Now ceramic sculptors find their way into major museums, while at the same time there is a swing back to potters – “guys who can throw a pot on a wheel' - at teaching institutions which had suffered a decline in students who felt in need of ground-rule craft instruction more than artistic fantasies. But Shaw sees a danger of potters separating themselves out again into a group with their own aesthetics for useful objects like coffee mugs, but the stagnant, well-used form the five-millionth handle the same as the previous ones, are an equaI danger to Shaw, a temptation to be repetitive, a creator of homework exercises. Looking at the artistic achievements possible now in all forms of ceramics he is adamant that it is necessary to 'aim for the top'."
John Parker designed the exhibition stands with his usual dramatic flair, providing five "ziggurat staircases" each climbing up and topped with a large candle denoting the five years of the Award exhibitions. These stepped ramps were built simply of stacked wooden pallets aIternateIy supporting either a clear glass, or mirror gIass sheet. Every pot was able to be displayed at the height it required, and with plenty of space around - a very impressive display.
Fletchers are to be thanked again for supporting the pottery scene in such a magnificent manner and putting New Zealand on the international ceramics calendar. The opening night was a lavish occasion and Richard Shaw thanked the sponsors for the hospitality shown him - "I was amazed at what they have provided for me - at home I would have been handed a hot-dog and taken down to the bus."
With this Award exhibition growing in importance it is bound to attract increasingly competent entries from overseas. We will have to work seriously to keep the award going to New Zealand potters - a year is not a long time so start thinking about your 1982 entry pot now.
NEWS FLASH
World renowned potter falls on hard times
American potter Richard (Milhous) Shaw was forced to beg for his return airfare from Auckland, New Zealand to San Fransisco.
Mr Shaw found himself in this predicament after his sponsors withdrew their support following what was described
as a “miserable display' of judging at the recent 1981 Fletcher Brownbuilt Pottery Award.
The sponsors were tight-lipped about their exact reasons for withdrawing sponsorship but a 'usually reliable source' said it was something to do with Mr Shaw awarding first prize to a urinal in the men's room of the Auckland Museum. Mr Shaw had no comment (I'm not a crook) and was last seen practising his swimming strokes in the pool of the White Heron Lodge.
(This article was recently supplied by Raewyn Atkinson, and was possibly written by Dugald Page)
No comments:
Post a Comment