Sunday afternoon I was set up at an art fair in Milwaukee and talking pots with fellow potter, Brian Beam.
For a long time it has vexed me that I lacked a way of explaining what
I find so visually pleasing about Jeff Unzicker's large pieces that I
don't find similarly appealing in equally large pots.
Thinking out loud with Brian, I think I finally found a way of explaining it. It's the same thing I find so appealing about Jane Graber's work -- as ironic as that may sound if you are aware of both Jane's and Jeff's work.
See, they represent total opposite ends of the size spectrum. While Jeff's pots are monumental, Jane's are miniature.
But what I find so appealing about both of their pots is that they are proportioned so perfectly that scale is somewhat incidental to the aesthetic appeal. They'd be good pots at any size.
And neither making a piece huge nor making it tiny will magically transform a poorly considered shape into a beautiful piece of pottery.
Thinking out loud with Brian, I think I finally found a way of explaining it. It's the same thing I find so appealing about Jane Graber's work -- as ironic as that may sound if you are aware of both Jane's and Jeff's work.
See, they represent total opposite ends of the size spectrum. While Jeff's pots are monumental, Jane's are miniature.
But what I find so appealing about both of their pots is that they are proportioned so perfectly that scale is somewhat incidental to the aesthetic appeal. They'd be good pots at any size.
And neither making a piece huge nor making it tiny will magically transform a poorly considered shape into a beautiful piece of pottery.
When a piece is well made, it’s difficult to know the size when it’s photographed well.
ReplyDelete