Potters Greatest Hits

I think at times that we tend to bracket some potters with an either Love or Hate attitude , it can be a bit unfair to the potter/artist , not all the time granted , if we say I love so & so's work does that mean we love all of it ?, I know I don't , same as disliking a potter might not mean he/she hasn't done good stuff at times , there isn't a potter or artists that hasn't done duff stuff in their time , same as in music the beatles wrote some garbage as well as classics, separating the quality works from the mediocre is down to taste I suppose , but separated it should , I knew a guy who said he hated "THE FRENCH" , but when asked ,he admited he hadn't met all of them .

I've had this discussion in writers forums where you can love a novel, but the author's second book, or subsequent books, or every other book is crap. That's not a reflection on the author themselves, just on each individual novel they create. Same with potters. Some produce the same stuff over and over again and you like one, you like them all. Some are less consistent so you like a few or most, but not all.
Often potters will produce domestic ranges which you may or may not like, and one-offs or limited editions where they explore the craft, which, again, you may or may not like. Just because you like one pot and not the other, doesn't mean you fall in and out of love with whoever created them. Most of the time the creator is irrelevant, it's the pot that counts - unless it's a big name, and collectors are collecting the name not the work.

I agree Ed, though you can overall like or dislike a potters work.

I think even if a potter makes "the same stuff" over and over, there will still be pots your not as keen on.

The majority I expect would neither be love or hate but somewhere in-between.

hate is not something I can feel for a pot,indifference is about as bad as it gets but often when I see some well made piece it's love at first sight.

I use the term love & hate in a loose way , I couldn't Really Love or Hate an inanimate object, I am kinda discarding the domestic repetitive ware as that is sort of bread & butter potery that I doubt the potters that I'm thinking of are that bothered about , I know Robin Welch for instance stated that he was glad to see the back of that stuff, what I'm aiming at are in the main studio potters in the true sense of the words , they can at times hit ona format or style that can be so so appealing and then for reasons only known to them change tact not always for the better imo , it works the other way of course , Peter Wills for example produces stuff that although brilliantly made don't have that certain something of his earlier work , he did say to me that he may return ..never say never

I much prefer to see an artist continue to stretch themselves as they mature. With potters I really like it's such a pleasure to rock up at a preview or open studio and buy an example marking this progression and being able to compare it with earlier pieces.

I'm all for people stretching and testing themselves , there are quite a few potters though who never seem to , experimenting and trialing should be part and parcel of the game , it's not always progressive though , Baldwins work imo took a few steps backwards but at least he reached out unlike a few safety first potters.

I had a bid on a quite well known potters work last week , i didn't win but was offered a second chance similar piece, I was sent 5 pics of different pieces to choose , apart from the slightest difference they were all the same , the one I failed on was a tad different but in the main it wasn't worth the bother , I declined.