Talk:Studio pottery

Bernard Leach

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)

Hi, Thanks for the agreement. I've started a little but of course it's far from complete, and the format needs polishing. I've removed some detail on Leach as the entry is on Studio Pottery rather than him though of course the link remains

Any contributions yourself? Regards, Andy

Re-write

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)

Reference your recent dramatic changes to the Studio Pottery page..I think they are an improvement but question whether Grayson Perry's work is the ideal example of a "distinct trend away from functional pottery" since on the whole is work consists of eminently functional vases? Perhaps better examples would be someone like John Maltby or Betty Woodman? Teapotgeorge 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Named potters

Hello from South Africa We're wondering if our Website would qualify for a listing/link on Wikipedia? Our site: www.pottery.co.za Look forward to some feedback. With best wishes, David and Felicity

Hello David and Felicity, Whilst it is not for me to decide I wonder if such inclusion would contravene wikipedia's policy on links to commercial sites Regards, Andy

The list of studio potters is problematic. How does one select? There are thousands. I think the principle should be: potters who are agreed to be historically important, influential or widely respected by ceramic artists and/or critics. I have added several that meet those criteria and I think there are others on the list that don't, but I haven't deleted any yet.

The list and the article as a whole are Anglocentric and ignore studio pottery in the USA, which is very important. It also focuses on the early 20th century and virtually ignores post-Leach artists (e.g. there is no mention of Turner Prize winner Grayson Perry!) Marshall46 15:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cliff Lee appears in the list of studio potters but the link takes you to a basketball player?? Teapotgeorge 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference should be to "Cliff Lee (potter)." Klmarcus 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some rather basic details about Colin Pearson (potter) and Katherine Pleydell-Bouverie as there was nothing...Hope that's OK with everyone? Teapotgeorge 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some very basic details of William Staite Murray needs expanding. Teapotgeorge 13:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just deleted two names. These had no internal links and no citation. I was a little bold in doing so but they could be anyone. Can we start a debate about who to include? At the momement the list is longer then the article, I suggest cutting it down. ThanxTheriac

I have just had a look at the current list. There a some with internal links and some without. I have listed those which need either citaion to support their inclusion or they should be deleted

Can links be made, or citations be given for these (I know some are well known but for Wikipedia they must be supported) - Margaret Hine, Nicholas Vergette, Gordon Baldwin, Svend Bayer, Alison Briton, Michael Casson, Joanna Contantinidis, Seth Cardew, Emmanuel Cooper, Elizabeth Fritsch, Gwyn Hanssen-Pigott, Chris Keenan, Gabrielle Koch, Richard Slee, Julian Stair, Edmund De Waal, Takeshi Yashuda, Jacqui Poncelet, Carol McNicoll, Geoffrey Swindell, Jill Crowley, Glenys Barton

These have internal links, but of unsupported value. Can their inclusion be supported?

• Yoshiaki Fujiwara – a wrestler! A single line in the article mentions being a potter
• Bob Kingsmill – no books or publications listed in the article (self promotion?)
• Colin Pearson (potter) – no books or publications listed in the article (self promotion?)
• Katherine Pleydell-Bouverie – no books or publications listed in the article
• Paul Soldner – no books or publications listed in the article

ThanxTheriac 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the Katherine Pleydell-Bouverie article... [I just added some references as well] she is mentioned in many books I will find some more references for her. I wrote the Colin Pearson article also but don't know how one decides who is worthy of inclusion and who is not? Teapotgeorge 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgeorge. "don't know how one decides who is worthy of inclusion and who is not?" Neither do I but I guess there most be something like any other entry. It must be supported by citations (published in books, magazines) Otherwise anyone could list themselves. ThanxTheriac 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In which case the Bernard Leach article (arguably the most famous studio potter) also needs some work on it...there are no citations from books? :) Teapotgeorge 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgeorge. True. But all inclusions must be supported by citations (personally I would happily leave him off. But that is opinion!)ThanxTheriac 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee :¬) now that WOULD be controversial!!Teapotgeorge 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know :-) But to me ->

• Muddy brown glazes
• Ugly, mishapen pots
• Dictatorial (My way or the wrong way)
• Promoted only a very limited number of traditions (And concentrated on just one Japanese style)
• Ignored many other traditions

I am not alone. But I know it would not be popular (especailly in the US where the Leach-style hangs on stronger than in Europe)Theriac 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A good basis is Gowing, Christopher, and Rice, Paul, British Studio Ceramics in the 20th Century, Barrie and Jenkins, 1989, p.125. ISBN 0-7126-2042-7, though a lot has happened since they wrote the book and they are impossibly prejudiced against tin-glaze. Membership of the CPA is also a good basis, though there are a few eminent ceramists who choose not to be associated with it.

Marshall46 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added very basic details of Seth Cardew I trust this is ok? Teapotgeorge 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teapotgeorge, Hi Marshall46 (I was hoping you would come over for soft-paste as I thought you could help)

I can see that full membership of the CPA would carry some weight but according to the help pages "Verifiability, by providing readers with the sources of the facts contained in the article." An article's content must must be able to be confirmed. Can membership? My suggestion is to get rid of all those without supporting citations (books, magazines), or add some where known. This must include even those "we" know to be worthy of listing (I read some where that Wikipedia is not lookng for the "truth", just what can be verified) Listing potters without support, including famous ones, would set a precedent. How could it then be possible to argue against anyone being listed? Thanx--Theriac 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added very basic details of potters Takeshi Yasuda and Julian Stair whose names were in red on the list of Studio Potters. [I included references too!]

I will take a look at some of the others and add references where needed Teapotgeorge 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good on you Teapotgeorge! ThanxTheriac

I have removed the reference to Bernard Palissy as associated with the Arts and Crafts Movement as he pre-dated it by several hundred years! Marshall46 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the references to Lucca della Robbia and Francesco Xanto Avelli as they are not studio potters. Marshall46 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the self-promotion link to David Dotter Ceramics. Marshall46 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1900-1990

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)

Don't understand why my pictures of Stair and Spira have been removed? The top image by Pearson is not mentioned any more than Julian or Rupert is so why is that ok and mine aren't? Surely any images as good examples of studio pottery should be considered valid? Thanks Ewan.

I have changed the subheading from "Birth" to "Development".

I have added a couple of paragraphs on post-WWII. They read as POV, but are derived from the Tanya Harrod essay cited. Marshall46 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1990 - Current: Modern British potters

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)

I have been involved in contemporary ceramics for 30 years and I too have not encountered any "debate" This section is rather clumsily written and POV. Grayson Perry's pots are decorated and elaborate but certainly NOT abstract forms? Teapotgeorge 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I've tightened up the prose in this section, but I have serious doubts about it.

Some of the artists used to illustrate the expansion of studio pottery in the 1980s had been practicing since the 1950s. (I have removed "Smith" because it is not clear who was being referred to.) The experimentation with form and surface long pre-dates the 1980s. Anyway, it does not explain the growth in either the number of practitioners or the size of the market.

Is there any evidence (i.e. verification) for the statement that the number of galleries increased in the 1980s?

I've left in "The late 1990's saw a trend towards more minimalistic styles of pottery, with black and white dominating," even though it is very doubtful indeed. If it is not borne out by the sources, I'll delete it.

I understand that Edmund de Waal sold one piece at Kettle's Yard last year for £35,000, but I have no source.

Once again, a plea for someone to add something about studio pottery outside the UK, especially in the USA. Marshall46 (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Collections

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)

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)

I have amended the paragraph about the increasing regard for studio pottery in the late C20th. It was not the case that studio pottery outside Japan then came to be regarded as art for the first time: William Staite Murray had exhibited pots with titles in art galleries in the 1920s and Leach, despite his ideology of the unknown potter, also exhibited single works in galleries. It is partly that the reputation of some potters has increased, making it possible for them to charge several thousand pounds for a piece, and partly that more studio potters make and exhibit as artists (see, e.g., the recent shows of ceramic installations by Edmund de Waal in Cambridge and Middlesbrough and Gwen Hanssen-Piggot's recent work). - Marshall46 11:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope

This article is very limited in its scope. The removal of some potters looks to be prejudice - I hope I am mistaken in this but that is the impression given by a review of what has been removed, examples are Bernard Palissy, Lucca della Robbia and Francesco Xanto Avelli. They fit the description of given at the start "Studio pottery is made by artists working alone or in small groups, producing unique items or pottery in small quantities." Also the sentence of "It is generally considered that studio" is weasil worded and wrong.

I have amended the definition to read " ... made by modern artists ... ". It is a post-industrial movement. Pre-industrial potters are not studio potters. Good point about "generally considered" - I will amend in due course. Please sign your contributions. - Marshall46

I have added the control of the whole process by a single artist, as mentioned by Emmanuel Cooper. - Marshall46

Lisa Hammond

Her name was removed from the list of potters on the grounds that she is "not notable". She has been making pottery for 30 years, is a fellow of the Craft Potters Association and a member of its council. I have therefore restored her name. Marshall46 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

then please give a citation. There are a signifgicant number of potters listed that neither have their own Wikipedia entry nor external citations. Without the latter inclusion can not be justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In your enthusiasm to delete content that is not to your taste, you have omitted to read the Wikipedia notability guidelines, which refers to criteria for the creation of articles, not to the mention of a single name. If you have something to contribute, please do so. If you know nothing about the subject, please leave it to editors who do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Marshall46 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr/Mrs.Marshall. I am sure you do not wish to appear as as aggressive as your message reads, although certainly accusing me of "delete[ing] content that is not to your taste" and warning me "If you know nothing about the subject, please leave it to editors who do" is far from polite or helpful. I do not presume knowledge of what you do or do not know, and I ask that you do the same. As you have raised http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability perhaps you should refer to the section 'Notability requires objective evidence' as the current list of Studio Potters has a number, including Lisa Hammond, with no supporting evidence. Another useful reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Just as noted earlier please give citations for the inclusion of potters, otherwise they can not be justified: that is my intention and is not related to what may or may not be to my personal aesthetic taste.

"Lisa Hammond" + potter produces 900 hits on Google. You could easily have found that out if you were interested. Marshall46 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr/Mrs.Marshall. It is not whether I can or can not be interested to conduct a Google search (the number of resultant hits is a rather meaningless statistic) rather the requirement on Wikipedia for verifiability that is described in the earlier links. And, as you yourself commented on this page "If it can’t be sourced, it should be removed." which was followed a week later by your deletion of material and the comment "As it hasn't been sourced I've removed it."

Replaced with source. This important British potter needs her own entry. Marshall46 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Started. rm source to make consistent with other entries in list.Marshall46 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by some officious ignoramus as "not notable". If anyone has the time to reinstate, I would appreciate it. Marshall46 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Slee

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)

Started. Marshall46 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edith Heath

Edith Heath was a US studio potter - WP:NPOV based on good research WP:RELIABLE and is notable WP:BASIC, and should be included under Studio potters. There are at least two independent reliable sources stating she was a studio potter - see Edith Heath References. The argument she was an industrial designer rather than ever being a studio potter is based entirely on an art vs design opinion and should be left to the critics, not an encyclopedic article. For further reading on the historical art vs design argument regarding Edith, see Bill Stern's essay on page 108 in Heath Ceramics by Amos Klausner ISBN 0811855600.Gmcbjames (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think she is a borderline case, judging by the article in Wikipedia. She seems to have started as a studio potter and ended as a pottery manufacturer. But is she notable as a studio potter in the United States? If you can footnote the sources saying she is, then she can go in. I know that Wikipedia defines "notable" in the broadest possible sense, i.e., "has been referred to in a reliable publication", but I wonder if Edith Heath really is notable among the community of United States studio potters?

On the more general point, "The argument she was an industrial designer rather than ever being a studio potter is based entirely on an art vs design opinion and should be left to the critics, not an encyclopedic article," I disagree. If there is no limit to the definition of "studio pottery", then anyone can be included and the term becomes meaningless. What I said was that Edith Heath was a "factory producer", not that she was an "industrial designer". It is not a matter of art vs. design but scale of manufacture. There is a definition at the beginning of the article, arrived at by consensus and agreed for some time: "made by modern artists working alone or in small groups, producing unique items of pottery in small quantities, typically with all stages of manufacture carried out by one individual." If a person meets none of these conditions - is not a modern artist, does not work alone or in a small group, does not make in small quantities and employs staff among whom there is a division of labour - then surely they are not a studio potter.

By the way, thanks for adding material about the USA, which has been lacking for a long time. Please add more. Marshall46 (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper place for disagreements as to whether someone is a notable studio potter is on the talk page for the article, so I thank you for your comments. Edith Heath is considered a notable United States studio potter. "Edith Kiertzner Heath began her career as a studio potter" (Bray, Hazel V. (1980). The Potter's Art in California 1885-1955. Oakland, CA: The Oakland Museum Art Department. pp. 62. ISBN 0295962003 and see "Edith Heath began as a studio potter in San Francisco." (http://www.pmcaonline.org/exhibits/40/index.html). Gmcbjames (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if she is notable or not but your references only confirm that she was initially a studio potter NOT that she was notable surely?Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer on the notability requirement for a studio potter to be included in this article, the Bray referrence cited is used as one of the benchmarks as to whether a studio potter is notable here in the US. Bray's book was for the "The Potter's Art in California 1885-1955" 1978 exhibit in the Oakland Museum of Art, Oakland, California and the Lang Gallery at Scripps College, Claremont, California. The other referrence above is for the Pasadena Museum of Art's solo exhibit on Edith Heath. Please note, the Edith Heath article on Wikipedia is only an encylopedic entry and cannot possibly include all of Edith's contributions to the studio pottery movement here in the US, nor do I wish to spend more time making the case for notability, this is what the book by Amos Klausner, Heath Ceramics, The Complexity of Simplicity, which includes critical essays by notable ceramic historians including Garth Clark, clearly covers.Gmcbjames (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From your citations, then, she was a notable potter, but not a notable studio potter. I would place her in the same category as David Douglas. I have therefore removed her name from the list. Marshall46 (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If David Douglas threw pots on a wheel, taught students to throw pots on a wheel - some of whom became famous themselves as a studio potter, entered his pots in national ceramic competitions, and was considered to be a notable potter among his peers, then he should be included.

Edith Heath, did throw pots on a wheel - a tredle sewing machine she adapted into a wheel, entered her work into the Syracuse National ceramics exhibitions in the 1950s (a major test of being a studio potter in the US), and also was a ceramic teacher - Frances Senska took ceramic classes with Heath. Senska brought the Natzlers, Heath and members of the Association of San Francisco Potters to the Montana State University for exhibits and workshops. Two students of Senska's first classes at Montana were Peter Voulkos and Rudy Autio. Just because information isn't on Wikipedia today does not mean there isn't a larger story.

More than two independant verifiable sources have been cited that Edith Heath was a studio potter. As far as to whether she was a notable studio potter, there is no doubt her contributions to the studio pottery movement in the United States was significant - read the sources cited.

Time now to move on, and maybe just agree we just disagree, I am therefore reinstating her name based on "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" Gmcbjames (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

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 ISBN 0-7141-2701-9

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)

Notable studio potters

You removed Gordon Baldwin as being not notable. The search term "gordon baldwin studio potter" returns 2 million hits which is rather more than Edith Heath returns. You appear to be taking ownership of the article and not editing with consensus.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Teapotgeorge, hits does not establish notablility. That is original research. Gmcbjames (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we are cleaning up the Notable studio potter section, I have begun to delete non-notable potters based on no citations either in the article or on the talk page as to their being a notable studio potter. For those who have a wiki article, the article does not support whether they are a notable studio potter as the article itself has been marked for notability. Troika was deleted as they had a labor force of eight people who decorated molded (moulded) pottery. Further analysis according to Marshall46 should also be looked into whether they were just a potter or a studio potter - two terms which mean to me the same. Don't take the removal of someone personally, however if the notable studio potter section is going to have some means test, it must apply to all.Gmcbjames (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

a potter or a studio potter - two terms which mean to me the same. Not all potters are studio potters. This confusion seems to be at the bottom of your disagreements. See the definition at the head of the article. If the two terms mean the same, then Josiah Wedgwood would be a studio potter - which he was not. Studio pottery is an artistic movement influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement and reproducing the methods of pre-industrial pottery. Marshall46 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Baldwin was awarded an OBE in 1992 for his services to UK studio pottery and an honorary doctorate from the Royal College of Art, London in 2000. He is featured in the seminal Studio Pottery book by Oliver Watson which features the leading studio potters of twentieth century ceramics from the Victoria and Albert Museum Collection.

The Gordon Baldwin article had been vandalised by User:Sculptor Dame who was erroneously tagging all the articles I had created for which she was warned and threatened with being blocked.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of the vandalism on Gordon's article. I do not know about Gordon at all, and maybe this is why either a notable studio potter in the list should be referrenced on the talk page or by a citation. As far as from what you have said above, he seems to be notable and should be included. Maybe citations in the article is the way to go, as a reader might like to know more about Gordon - especially if they are from another country. Or else maybe we should do away with the Notable studio potter list and if the person is notable enough they should be included in the text within a sentence under their appropriate country i.e. Britian which would really be more helpful to a reader rather than a bare name list. Just an idea.Gmcbjames (talk)

Yes I think including them in the article body is a preferable "eventual aim" because any list is always going to be contentious as you have discovered! Better and more citations are always the way forward. Just tread carefully, some of us have been editing and creating these articles for many many years. Kind regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Creating a better article

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)

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)

Split Notable studio potters

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)

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)

I agree. Marshall46 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Notable British and American studio potters sections moved to Studio potter per consensus. Do make any additions or corrections to the Studio potter page. Also redirected Studio potters to Studio potter.Gmcbjames (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Danish studio pottery (incomprehensible version)

Side by side with the art of ceramics development and in line with the growing awareness of art as a special field of study arose from approx. 1920 a series of workshops where the ceramics are focused heavily on the work based on the solid Scandinavian crafts traditions - in contrast to the artists. The name Saxbo, stoneware company, started in 1929 by Nathalie Krebs and Gunnar Nylund, accounts for some of the craftsmanship and aesthetic terms finest products that are created in the 1900-t. Centre form and glaze technical achievements have influenced the trained practitioners ever since. In the 1930s, as use ceramics generally moving in the functionalist orientation, were names such as Lisbeth Munch-Petersen, Christine Swane, Gertrud Vasegaard and Eva Staehr-Nielsen almost synonymous with precision, strict and classical sense of form. Saxbo and the simultaneous use oriented ceramics workshop from 1930 to 1960 consolidated Danish crafts internationally. The best quality work has since been designated studio ceramics (of the American studio ceramics). The leading contemporary studiokeramikere can generally be divided into two groups: those who weighs a more classical idiom, such as Malene Müllertz, Bente Hansen, Beate Andersen (b. 1942), Richard Manz, Bodil Manz, Gunhild Aaberg (born 1939), Jane Reumert (b. 1942) and Alev Siesbye and expressive, such as stone Lykke Madsen and the internationally oriented studio ceramics group Clay Today. Studio Ceramics has in the 1900's evolved into a discipline that moves between artist ceramics and crafts based pottery. Conceptualisation of the relationship between art and ceramics has in the late 1990s started developing rapidly, and the Danish groups are influenced increasingly by international contacts.

References

Image removed

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)

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)

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)

Studio Pottery Images

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)

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)

I have created the William Alfred Ismay article. Theroadislong (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)