Edmund de Waal and Julian Stair 1 2 3 4 5 - PRINTER VERSION
>> seems to be a lot of resistance among potters to the notion of articulating your ideas about what you make. I suppose they fear that if you articulate them, they might vanish or that they might lose some part of their soul or something. So why do you feel you need to or want to talk about your ideas?
EdW: I think there is a very strong, absolutely basic reason for articulating your own views about making. And that is, if you don't do it someone else will. The reality of having people from the outside, who do not understand a complex world like that of ceramics articulating ideas for makers, is that there ends up being a substantial body of second rate projection onto ceramics from different disciplines.
JS: I don't see any difference between making and writing. If pots are a physical manifestation of ideas then that idea has a kind of breadth that can exist in different formats. If pots are the literal embodiments of ideas then we should to some degree be able to some express those ideas as a concept, which is what writing is all about. I do accept the fact that some artists aren't very comfortable or find it very difficult to articulate their ideas, so I am not saying that absolutely every maker has to write about their work. I think, however, that the vast majority of significant artists throughout history have always spoken or written about their ideas. I think that in the crafts there hasn't been enough of that. There are historical precedents for it in the crafts and while one may or may not agree with those ideas, the fact is that there was this effort there to discuss and talk about the ideas that surround the crafts.
EdW: The other thing, I suppose, that is really important to say is that it is a very good moment to be a writer. There seems to be a certain pressure built up from the unsaid things and the unthought through things and now there is this release into real dialogue not only amongst people who do clay, but also other disciplines. I find that when I talk about pots and the values and ideas I have about making them with academic friends from archaeology, cultural anthropology and literature, that often there is a sense of genuine interest about what is going on inside my world. I can talk in a language that they understand and they can talk in a language I understand about the role and value of making handmade things at this point in culture. So it's quite exciting to have ceramics seen and talked about in so many different ways.
JS: I think it is a pivotal time for contemporary craft in Britain at the moment. I think we are at a time now where the concept of craft history is actually in the process of being formed. So the reason for makers to write, which comes back to Edmund's point of taking control, is that modern crafts is a relatively young discipline. It is only very recently, for example, that the major figures in British crafts—Leach, Cardew, Rie and Coper—have died. Modern crafts, for the first time, seems to be interested in going back and looking at its own history. So if makers aren't going to get involved in writing the definitive history of their own past, not only are we going to have to have inaccurate things said about our work in a contemporary sense, but also inaccurate versions of the history of our own discipline written for us. So I think it is imperative that makers are involved in writing in a contemporary vein as well as on the historical developments of our field.
RB: I agree with all the points both of you have made, but what I am really curious about, is at what
>>
© 1980 - 2025 Rob Barnard . All Rights Reserved. Site design: eismontdesign
>> seems to be a lot of resistance among potters to the notion of articulating your ideas about what you make. I suppose they fear that if you articulate them, they might vanish or that they might lose some part of their soul or something. So why do you feel you need to or want to talk about your ideas?
EdW: I think there is a very strong, absolutely basic reason for articulating your own views about making. And that is, if you don't do it someone else will. The reality of having people from the outside, who do not understand a complex world like that of ceramics articulating ideas for makers, is that there ends up being a substantial body of second rate projection onto ceramics from different disciplines.
JS: I don't see any difference between making and writing. If pots are a physical manifestation of ideas then that idea has a kind of breadth that can exist in different formats. If pots are the literal embodiments of ideas then we should to some degree be able to some express those ideas as a concept, which is what writing is all about. I do accept the fact that some artists aren't very comfortable or find it very difficult to articulate their ideas, so I am not saying that absolutely every maker has to write about their work. I think, however, that the vast majority of significant artists throughout history have always spoken or written about their ideas. I think that in the crafts there hasn't been enough of that. There are historical precedents for it in the crafts and while one may or may not agree with those ideas, the fact is that there was this effort there to discuss and talk about the ideas that surround the crafts.
EdW: The other thing, I suppose, that is really important to say is that it is a very good moment to be a writer. There seems to be a certain pressure built up from the unsaid things and the unthought through things and now there is this release into real dialogue not only amongst people who do clay, but also other disciplines. I find that when I talk about pots and the values and ideas I have about making them with academic friends from archaeology, cultural anthropology and literature, that often there is a sense of genuine interest about what is going on inside my world. I can talk in a language that they understand and they can talk in a language I understand about the role and value of making handmade things at this point in culture. So it's quite exciting to have ceramics seen and talked about in so many different ways.
JS: I think it is a pivotal time for contemporary craft in Britain at the moment. I think we are at a time now where the concept of craft history is actually in the process of being formed. So the reason for makers to write, which comes back to Edmund's point of taking control, is that modern crafts is a relatively young discipline. It is only very recently, for example, that the major figures in British crafts—Leach, Cardew, Rie and Coper—have died. Modern crafts, for the first time, seems to be interested in going back and looking at its own history. So if makers aren't going to get involved in writing the definitive history of their own past, not only are we going to have to have inaccurate things said about our work in a contemporary sense, but also inaccurate versions of the history of our own discipline written for us. So I think it is imperative that makers are involved in writing in a contemporary vein as well as on the historical developments of our field.
RB: I agree with all the points both of you have made, but what I am really curious about, is at what
>>
© 1980 - 2025 Rob Barnard . All Rights Reserved. Site design: eismontdesign