STUNNING...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (@@) + (@@)

Weeeeeelllll, Apart from it falling on your head. Is there a piece of pottery that merits the overused Ebay Cliché?
In the Ashmolean just before Xmas.
They have a STUNNING James Tower.
MORE STUNNING !!!!!!!!!!!! Items to COME!
(One hopes!)

This vase by Markus Bohm i would call stunning

Perception is personal

That is a very shrewd observation Dan
Just taking that Markus Bohm piece that Naomi has up there. That is an excellent piece. But it would not stop me dead I'm my tracks as a piece of stunning beauty.
 Is  the whole agenda of superlatives so overused on social media et al that the very words themselves become redundant? My wife was a member of one of those Studio pottery facebook groups. Every few posts on there seemed to send the members into an Ecstasy of 'likes'. And anything that in the least bit decent people seemed veritably 'stunned'.
         Does pottery and the Crafts in general lack the critical faculties to decide on what is 'stunning'?

I wouldn't draw the line there Phil.
Aesthetics do have guidelines as there are certain car shapes that stir people up and the hourglass figure that always appeals to the eye but when it comes to art there are other factors to take into account and some fall into the category of personal taste

I would say Stunning is anything I make a special effort to buy regardless of the cost. But I'm not expecting others to think the same.

oh.....If its just a personal definition of stunning as personal favourites cos they one loves them muchest, and they were difficult to get. Here are a couple of ours.
Duncan Ross. Savoured after this gorgeously subtle work for years. Then managed to but this one at a Cotswold auction 200 miles away. Every mile worth it tho!

Sheila Fournier. Have always these blue multi-layered ones that she did way back when. Have had a smallish one with a hairline in it, for many years. But the big ones rarely come to market. Missed out on the few that did, finally bought this one at an affordable price many miles away from home last year. 15 ins in diameter.

And of course. we all gotta have our own bit of bling!  And who is more blingy than Sutton Taylor? Tho of course, affordable is another matter. Got this small bowl at an auction in Nottingham a few years ago, at an affordable price.

A lot of teabowls in my collection I've made a special effort to get. The first one I spotted at Hatfield after everyone had left and involved a message sent via another potter to the potter who was on his way back to France, and had to be posted back from there. The second one from Nancy Fuller involved buying off-plan and waiting for her next firing. Worth the wait as she said it was one of her best and an unusual colour. The third one was from Elena Renker, New Zealand, who's shino teabowls are simply stunning; far surpassing similar ones by Lisa Hammond etc. Fourth one came from the US and spotted it on the potter's FB page and grabbed it within minutes of him uploading it. The fifth one is by a Japanese potter based in the US which I'd had to wait a year for because he keeps selling out. And the final one by Ken Matsuzaki which cost an arm and a leg to ship from Japan because it incurred the biggest customs duty charge I've ever paid, but was worth it.  

So its basically the story behind your obtaining your pieces that stays in your mind, and makes it 'stunning' for you? You know what it is of course. Its the thrill of the Hunt! Which is true for a lot of collectors over the years.
One actually wonders if the ease of obtaining almost anything since the rise of the internet, has actually made collecting less exciting. The corollary being, this had led to a decline in collecting.Or at least, is one of the strands in a complicated scenario.

No, I think it has to be stunning to begin with. There are plenty of nice pieces that I've found for a few quid in charity shops which I'd catagorise as buying because of the thrill of the hunt but none of them I'd bother to call stunning. All the pots I've posted here I've paid full retail price for, plus postage and customs duty on top purely because I believe them to be the potters' best works, i.e., stunning.

Three more: The first by John Jelfs - I had a couple of collectors offer me jugs by Jelfs at much cheaper prices but this was the one I wanted. And a jug by Pru Green at Wivenhoe which involved and overnight stay because of the distance I'd had to travel to get one of her pieces from her gallery/pottery. And a Jim Malone vase which I repatriated from the US simply because it came under my 'best pot' category.

Its all personal Innit?
John Jelfs is a fantastic potter, and have got one or two myself. Yet....his work is not as popular as it should be. In monetary terms at least. Which is totally inexplicable.
Same with Pru Green really. Her decorative work over the years is gorgeous. Yet she is not very much collected.
So too few people find their work stunning. You will not find their work in many Museums. Why?
Jim Malone of course is something else again. A significant proportion of his work is stunning!

It's all either personal, intended to add value (i.e. ebay) or because people think their use of words in commenting makes them look good. (i.e. the FB "It sings to me!" crew)

The comment above is just a personal opinion too, so.... :D

we all view the world very differently,a fact that seems lost on most people

I often use Stunning, Superb and Wonderful on eBay listings because I think it acts subliminally on the viewer to take a second look. But in 'the real world' I'd only use it in the context of a best or very good piece in that form - be it a tea bowl or vase or teapot - by that particular potter. Comparing potter to potter is a whole other category, and often like comparing different species of dog; some people prefer mastiffs over labradors so who's to say that one is better than another.

so 80's Naomi

There's Ebay, and then there is the more general vague question of how we all reach a consensus as to what 'Art' is stunning enough to be I'm Museums and fetch high prices in the market.
Ebay is a crowded market. But it is a mature one now. All those attention seeking words dripping in wild hyperbole have been used a billion times before. In the title they are probably fairly redundant from wild overuse. Even in the main text body are they really of any much use? There are many words in the English language that describe beauty. Personally, I just want the basic information clearly and precisely given, with excellent detailed photos. Its really quite suprising howmany people don't do this.
As to an agreed societal view of beauty. Well there is the marketplace. Of the thousands of potters and artists there have been, there are surprisingly few that reach any much value at all in the market. Even that market varies over time.
Then of course there are the Museums. Which is a discussion worth having in much greater depth. How does society as a whole decide on the 'stunning' art that is worth keeping? Moreover, who decides on the greatest 'stunning' pieces that is worth showing?

some collectors say that the best pieces are from potters/artists who made a big impact,influenced other artists etc but I prefer stuff that is pleasing to my eye

Although I don't class myself as your typical eBayer and only look occasionally these days, I tend not to look at anything with "Stunning" "Wow" etc. in the title, as it makes me believe that it is anything but.

As for using stunning to describe any of the pots that I actually like, I don't think it is a word that I would consider. Over the years I have found that many of the pots that have an initial appeal and maybe standout when first viewed almost always lose their appeal fairly quickly and it is quiet pots that reveal their "secrets" over a long period that have a lasting effect.

The favourite pots in my own collection don't change much over time but none of them could be described as stunning. Personally, that it not what is attractive about a pot.

philpot wrote:How does society as a whole decide on the 'stunning' art that is worth keeping? Moreover, who decides on the greatest 'stunning' pieces that is worth showing?

It's not an "agreed opinion", but more the opinion of those with a lot of money(or the people persuading those with money) that matters, when it comes to the "high profile" potters.

philpot wrote:Sheila Fournier. Have always these blue multi-layered ones that she did way back when. Have had a smallish one with a hairline in it, for many years. But the big ones rarely come to market. Missed out on the few that did, finally bought this one at an affordable price many miles away from home last year. 15 ins in diameter.

I've been looking for years and years for these and like you missed out on some of the ones that surfaced - well earlier last year drove all the way to an auction in Dorset from Staffordshire and managed to get 3 and no-one pushed me up on the bidding - for me i think the holy grail but incredibly difficult to photo the big one - I think i drove at 50mph all the way back... avoiding all the pot holes in the road....



Yours is an ABSOLUTE STUNNER

To pick a 'stunner' from my collection (sheila fournier aside) I would choose my fragile flower shape by Mary Stewart its wafer thin and when the natural light shines through can even see remnants of veins within the bud.... and a great survivor to be in perfect condition...







as you can probably tell i'm quite proud of this one - but often have nightmares of it getting damaged in an earthquake (not likely in Staffordshire i know) for me i'll call it stunning (photos dont quite do it its true justice)

That is gorgeous. It reminds me of the delicate frilly pots that Mary Rogers did in the 70's and 80's. Peter Simpson as well.