Talk:Studio pottery

message: Hello all,
Shouldn't there be reference to Studio potters that pre-dated Leach?
Regards,
Andy
Sounds reasonable. This is a very important topic, well worth expanding in several respects:  pre-Leach studio potters, more recent potters, and studio pottery in other country, etc., etc. --Klmarcus 15:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernard Leach

message: I think more work is needed on this and I will contribute when I have more time, but here are some comments.  
“Has been described” should be sourced.  It’s a mistake to start by saying what it’s not (e.g. not started by Leach) rather than what it is.  It’s wrong to say studio pottery is not made for a purpose – much of it is.  The pre-1900 examples are usually described as “art pottery” rather than studio pottery.  Staite Murray was in the early days as important as Leach.  Leach and Rie’s relationship was more complex than you describe, and they represented opposing trends: Leach was a craft potter, Rie a modernist.  Studio pottery is not well described as “slowly becoming collectable” with such high prices at Bonhams.
I’m happy to re-write in due course.
Marshall46 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't happy myself about Grayson Perry as an example, and will consider your suggestion.  However, the fact that Perry is the only potter to win the Turner Prize makes him worth mentioning somewhere. I think the article still emphasises early studio pottery too much and doesn't say enough about the last 25 years. Having said that, it should have a few sentences about Staite Murray, who was Leach's main rival in the early C20th.  Leach's more prominent trainees ought to be mentioned.  It's still Anglocentric, but that reflects my ignorance of (especially) American studio pottery.  I would welcome any additions along these lines.  Marshall46 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: Last paragraph of Post 1900 section needs some serious editing or reverting (not encyclopaedic)  and ditto Major Studio Pottery Collections section... what does anyone else think? 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1900-1990

message: Where is the debate about whether “modern potters are moving the form forward or not”?   I am familiar with contemporary British ceramics, have never encountered such a debate and don’t understand what “moving the form forward” means.  The passage about “two trends” – “minimalistic vessels not for practical use” and “far more abstract forms” – strikes me as the editor’s opinion.  If it can’t be sourced, it should be removed.   Marshall46 17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it hasn't been sourced I've removed it.  This section needs more work to bring it up to date.. Marshall46 08:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990 - Current: Modern British potters 

message: I have added the names of a few private galleries.  I realise this is controversial as it may be regarded as advertising, but those I have listed show work of such importance that omission would be a disservice to those seeking more information. Anglocentric again, sorry, but I hope others will add more.  Marshall46 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed "studio pottery, being a relatively new art form, is shown in quantity at only a few", because it has been in existence for about a hundred years.  It is not the novelty of the art from that determines the extent of its representation in public collections but the size of the museums and their collections policy. The V&A, for example, as the main public collection of applied arts in the UK, has a representative selection of studio pottery, while smaller museums do not. - Marshall46 16:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collections 

message: The link to richard slee goes to a much older austrailian miner rather than the contemporary brittish ceramacist  Perhaps someone needs to produce an article on this fabulous artist  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.148.56 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Started.  Marshall46 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Slee 

message: Changing Studio potters to Notable studio potters was a good idea, as there are thousands of studio potters in the world.  Many of the currently listed studio potters have stub articles and notability has not been established and cited.  If they are removed, don't take it personally, rather note their notability either in their article or on this talk page and request they be added again.  Guidelines for notability see: WP:NOTE.  See also: WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR
If a studio potter is notable, however does not have an article on Wikipedia, use a verifable citation. Be careful not to link a name to an article that is not an article about that person or to an disambiguation page such as: Martin Smith, instead list as Martin Smith (potter).
 
More museums with significant or major studio pottery collections are needed.  
A section on Further reading or Books under references would be a helpful addition.  For books, I suggest they be general referrences which include studio pottery & the studio pottery movement rather than topic specific or how-to books.  A good example is Ten Thousand Years of Pottery 
Collaboration in editing & adding to US Studio pottery would be appreciated.  Sections on studio pottery in other countries should also be added.  Scandinavian studio pottery anyone? I suggest sections for countries should follow the format of British studio pottery 1.1 through 1.4. Gmcbjames (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: I see from the history of the article, the article was basically a list article including a list of studio potters. Over time, though the great work of you and Marshall46 you both were able to flesh out the British studio pottery movement.  The article has been noted as being too "Anglo-centric" earlier in the comments of this talk page by Marshall 46. 
I have been trying to make the article more global as well as adding more US studio potter information - editing where I can and calling into question such items as "Since the 1980s" in the intro, which I deleted for a citation, as this seemed to be more in common with the British studio pottery movement rather than on a global level.
Yes, I am hesitant to add information or edit this article because including one notable studio potter to a list became a major issue.  More editors are needed to include and verify information - the topic of studio pottery is too large of a subject for any one editor - or two or even three - to be expected to be completely knowledgeable about.  The only way is to allow other editors to add information, make changes, add verification, and provide citations if requested, is to those allow changes to occur.
As compromise, let's take out the Notable studio potter section, create two sections (or more) under Britain as "Notable British studio potters" and under the US as "Notable US studio potters."  The same would be for any other country added to this article - which needs to be done for Germany, Scandinavia, and Japan etc.  Eventually let's then integrate the names into the text, as a list is pretty meaningless - there is a world audience for this article which make a list of potters even more meaningless.
Then let us agree that no one edit any section in which they do not have knowledge in.  I for one have very little if any knowledge about British studio pottery, and frankly have no need to make any changes.
The intro needs to be written in a more global NPOV style, leave the definition thus far created of what studio pottery is, however remove the rest and add a brief synopsis of each countries studio pottery or if a global statement can be made, then make it here.
Also if the definition of a studio potter or studio pottery is different than the intro for any of the countries, then this should be stated under the country rather than adding to or changing the intro definition.  For example, in the US, there is no distinction between a potter or studio potter, they are one and the same.  The US may have a different standard than the UK as to what a studio potter is and what is notable - which may have been a problem in our communications.  Again rather than another rewrite to the intro definition, this can be covered under the section US studio pottery.
The British studio pottery section is laid out great, and this should be used as a standard for the layout for each country.
My only interest is to make this article better and eventually get it to the Good Article standard.  This cannot be done alone -  though it would be great to have an editor who has a complete grasp of the global studio pottery movement -  and I do hope we all enjoy a long collaboration.Gmcbjames (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move.  We have for a long time been lacking a contributor with knowledge of the USA, so welcome aboard. I know that there are vigorous studio pottery movements in Japan, France and Scandinavia, but I don't have enough knowledge to write about them.  I think there also a movement in Australasia as well. Marshall46 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a better article 

message: A bold move, I have split the Notable studio ceramics into two: British & American (USA). If any potter is misclassified, please move to the correct heading.
I have added a number of notable American studio potters and will be working them into the text. I don't think if a potter is mentioned in the text they need to be on a list at this point. Hopefully all notable sp's will be integrated into text, after all if they are notable, there must be something to be said about their contributions to studio pottery. I have only added to this list potters who will be mentioned eventually in text in the American studio pottery (US) section.
The goal will be not to have a list of potters, however I am sure this will take some time for both the American (US) and Britain sections.
Also, I have edited the intro somewhat for a more general global intro with specifics, if appropriate to country. In the US, the move from functional to non-functional pottery began in the 1960s, as this will be added to the text under the American section. Voulkos shook up the art world in the US in the mid to late 1950s using paint on pots rather than glaze, and using non-functional forms to express his "art."
More book references have been added as well as the important Marer collection of studio ceramics has been added to museum collections.
Again, if someone would like to work on the expansion of other countries studio pottery movements, go for it, as this is really needed. Emmanuel Cooper's book Ten thousand years of pottery. is a good resource and outline. The British section is fine at this point. I will put some time in on the American (US) section and welcome all collaboration.  Gmcbjames (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A suggestion for the Notable studio potters section would be not to include them on the Studio pottery page, after all the article is about studio pottery, and instead make the studio potters redirect page into an article - as a list page. Definition for the inclusion of a studio potter would follow the initial sentence defining studio pottery which has been established. Also a list page would be an appropriate venue to define the notability of a person to be included as outlined in WP:STANDALONE.  The real benefit to the Studio pottery page, of course, would be a much less cluttered page, and not having to worry about the growth of the sections of Notable studio potters overwhelming the page. Any thoughts? Gmcbjames (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Marshall46 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gmcbjames (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Notable studio potters 

message: I have removed the image of a vase said to be by Bernard Leach because I believe it to be a forgery.  On 23 June 2009 I posted this message on the user page of the person who uploaded the image: "Thanks for adding this image to the article on Bernard Leach. Are you sure it was made by Leach? There are glaze flaws and the decoration lacks Leach's usual fluency. What is its provenance?" There has been no response. I have also made enquiries off-wiki and have not found any other record of this object. The the relationship between the neck and the foot is dreadful and I don't believe Leach produced it. Pelarmian (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I visited the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford today and saw a similar shaped vase attributed to Bernard Leach, the quality was MUCH higher, the clay body colour was darker, the glaze speckled and the proportions correct. I agree that the photo of the pot that you removed looks like a fake.Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The pale coloured clay body also made me doubt it's authenticity.  Was the pictured pot (now removed) even fired in a reducing atmosphere, as a Leach pot would have been?  Pelarmian (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removed 

message: Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages). I've been uploading images of Studio pottery from the W.A. Ismay Collection. The whole set can be found here: Category:W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic Collection (11 out of 53 so far), I hope that they're useful for various articles! Unfortunately Ismay himself is lacking an article. It would be great if one could be started? You can find out something about Ismay and the collection on the Google Cultural Institute (written by YMT's curator). Also, if there are any ways in which we could help you achieve your goals for coverage of artists on Wikipedia that would be great. You can contact me with any queries. Look forward to working with you! PatHadley (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I have added some of your photos to the relevant articles, I will look into the possibility of an article on W.A. Ismay too. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created the William Alfred Ismay article. Theroadislong (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Theroadislong for all your work! I've now uploaded the rest of the images (total of 54). Including work by Bernard Leach, Hans Coper, Edmund de Waal, William Staite Murray and others (some of whom perhaps should have articles?). I hope that the images are useful. Please feel free to ask me questions or pass on requests. Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! I've added photos to the potters who have articles and will look at creating articles for the others at some point. Thank you VERY much.19:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio Pottery Images