In the Style of pots

I noticed on facebook & other places ,pots that are made in medieval style ,IE Harvest pots /jugs, I do think they are very good and Harry Juniper seems to be gaining in popularity as well , he even has a piece in Paisley museum , which I think is a bit so so as the original harvest type ware is what I want to see in museums not copies no matter how well made they are , the appeal to me about the original wares apart from the fact they are the history of the period , is the way they were made so naively & with a story to tell , the modern copies leave me cold .

A significant part of John Hudson's pottery business is supply copies of country pottery to the National Trust etc., who may have the originals but these are far too valuable to have on open display. He does a nice Thomas Toft.

http://www.hudsonclaypotter.co.uk/

I have to say that having seen some of his work "in the flesh" it has more vitality than any other current maker's work in this style that I have come across.

At the bottom of this page from his website you can see where some of his pots are: -


http://www.hudsonclaypotter.co.uk/events/4583570287

Even at Tretower Court, Ed.

I can appreciate that originals have to be protected but they should still be displayed under protection as in the burrell collection , I do admire the skill of the potter on these links John , but for me it's a poor comparison to original work , the appeal in the originals is the more care free approach to potting , the copies or imitations should not be finding there way into museums , galleries perhaps not museums , lots of potters do a nice thomas toft , but when you see a real one you realize they are nowhere near .

As with everything, it depends.

There are the straight copyists, making pieces for museum shops, museum displays and reenactment societies, etc, some of which are great, others are flat and boring. The 'flat and boring' may simply be because without the patena of age and burial those pots were flat and boring. Or it may be because the potter is avoiding the toxic lead-based glazes, with their richer tones, and is using electric kilns rather than wood firing. Or it may be that they want to avoid making their pots too much like the original article and risk being accused of faking them. (I've come across one potter who doesn't finish off the bottom half of his pots for this very reason).

Then you have slipware potters like Ken Luckworth and Harry Juniper, who are using traditional methods but the decoration is unmistakenly 20th Century.

Then you have slipware potters like John Pollex and Richard Godfrey, who started off in traditional style and have brought it into the 21st Century.

I think it's just horses for courses.

I would never describe a copy as" great "as the idea of the original piece is what matters ,anybody can copy ,it's the easiest thing in the art world , getting the idea or subject is the real skill , yes of course age related etc is what appeals about the original old pots ..what else would it be ? but for copyists to be lauded and even put into museums is quite frankly laughable , if they produced original ideas yes , fine no problem , they need to get real ( no pun ), maybe in time we will have a scenario where museums are full of copies of paintings pots glass etc I hope not , copyists are not artists imo . they can be influenced I think but they must move on to be regarded as anything other than worth a second glance .

It's still a skill that needs a lot of practice to make a great looking piece, whether it's a copy or not. Especially if you're wood firing.

I'm not doubting the skill Naomi , people can be skillful in all sorts of ways , potting painting , playing an instrument etc , but more than skill is needed to be great imo , riding a unicycle while juggling and singing at the same time is quite skilfull but blimmin boring at the same time ......and no I can't

There are a fair number of Bernard Leach copyists.

NaomiM wrote:There are a fair number of Bernard Leach copyists.

Yup, sure are and a fair number he copied from too

I'm with Ed on this one looking at copies in a museum is like going to a concert where its all 'playback' just buy the record(oops showing my age) / book

Lots of skill involved and can see why people would want to own a well made copy, but also agree I'd not want to see them in museums in place of the real thing.

Bill Crumbleholme produces beaker style pots in Dorset which are good facsimiles

big ed wrote:I noticed on facebook & other places ,pots that are made in medieval style ,IE Harvest pots /jugs, I do think they are very good and Harry Juniper seems to be gaining in popularity as well , he even has a piece in Paisley museum , which I think is a bit so so as the original harvest type ware is what I want to see in museums not copies no matter how well made they are , the appeal to me about the original wares apart from the fact they are the history of the period , is the way they were made so naively & with a story to tell , the modern copies leave me cold .

Denby and Langley potteries produced various "harvest jugs" in the 19thC but later, reproduced them in the 20thC.
Denby did salt-glazed Pre 1900, but did them again in "Denby coulours" (which was the 2-tone brown), at various times
up until the 70s. The "reform flasks" are the favourites, but most that turn up are the reproductions.