Edmund De Waal

From the Sainsburys Visual Arts Centre Norwich. Entitled  'A Gentleman's Cabinet of Curiousities'.

yawn

dantheman wrote:yawn

He’s a marmite potter. I like him, and he was a considered an excellent thrower in his apprentice years, just as Picasso was an excellent classical painter in his early years. Both have taken the art/craft to new forms.

I like the shelves

If you have a closer look at those pieces. They are very well made. His apprenticeship of course was to Geoffrey Whiting. One of the very best of the old school. You cannot say that he did not have the right roots!

I agree that the potting is neat but it lacks soul

Soul?
Could you expand on that Dan? Perhaps a few potters you think have 'Soul'?

Perhaps I used the wrong word...
Pottery comes from the earth so for me De wall's pottery is sterile and disconnected from nature.
I prefer potters who keep a strong connection by producing organic forms and colours, potters like Wallwork and Swindell.
De wall's forms leave me cold!

Certainly De Waal is one of the most intellectual of our potters. A fine writer-The Hare With The Amber Eyes is just brilliant- a stringent critic, a leading light in the more modernist aspects of modern pottery. Yet at the same time his works harks back to pure forms of Chinese pottery.
I must admit I can't really get my head around head around the 'groupage' or 'assemblist' styles in modern studio pottery. Edmund De Waal, Gwyn Hannsen Piggott, Claire Cuneen….

Things of Beauty Growing' the prestigious Yale/Fitzwilliam exhibition felt it had to do the same with a whole load of Pots by Halima Casell. Which just really looked like a whole row of nice pots, and not much else.....

As far as I am concerned he is a sixth rate potter at best and has never had an original idea in his life. A scum bag too.

That's me ………………. always sitting on the fence.


Of course I would never saying anything like this about any other potter, even if I thought it, but for Eddie I will make an exception.

Nice to see you pulling your punches, SP

studio-pots wrote:As far as I am concerned he is a sixth rate potter at best and has never had an original idea in his life. A scum bag too.

That's me ………………. always sitting on the fence.


Of course I would never saying anything like this about any other potter, even if I thought it, but for Eddie I will make an exception.

But...

That is where the market is at now. Its modernist potters of the Rie/ Coper school, or the Fancy Pants potters that have an intellectual or 'celebrity' primatur. Grayson/De Wall/ et al.

Fashion is the way of the world. You may not particularly like it, but it is the reality of the market.
One's own personal tastes are irrelevant to the market.

So aren't you perhaps biting nose to spite face?

fashion is fickle so if you collect pottery because it's fashionable you may get stuck with it

mmmmm…
But of course, as an entrepreneur in Studio pottery one should be riding the crest of the wave of 'fashion'. It is where the money is.
2nd or 3rd generation Leach School?

the fashion for De Waal pottery reminds me of that wonderful bedtime story of The Emperors New Clothes

And I bet someone made a fortune from selling those clothes to the idiot Emperor!

philpot wrote:

studio-pots wrote:As far as I am concerned he is a sixth rate potter at best and has never had an original idea in his life. A scum bag too.

That's me ………………. always sitting on the fence.


Of course I would never saying anything like this about any other potter, even if I thought it, but for Eddie I will make an exception.

But...

That is where the market is at now. Its modernist potters of the Rie/ Coper school, or the Fancy Pants potters that have an intellectual  or 'celebrity' primatur. Grayson/De Wall/ et al.

Fashion is the way of the world. You may not particularly like it, but it is the reality of the market.
One's own personal tastes are irrelevant to the market.

So aren't you perhaps biting nose to spite face?  

I don't give a shit about biting my nose to spite my face. My biggest regret is that when I bought a small Edmund de Waal for £1 that I didn't smash it. I knew that I did not want to sell it in my gallery and so I put in on eBay and got £200. It was some years ago but I still regard that as "dirty money". If it happened again I would smash it. Before selling it by eBay name on there was "nowaalsorstairs" and I had to change that too.

These days I wouldn't sell anything that I wouldn't be happy to own myself even if it was in my mind a poor piece by a potter that I liked.


Selling shit to your customers and especially at a ridiculous price isn't what any self respecting dealer should be doing.

Those are very npble sentiments Studio. Much to be admired.
But

'Selling shit to your customers and especially at a ridiculous price''

Is almost exactly what every dealer I have ever come across has always been doing.!

I know that some dealers do that but I don't think I am alone. Also I don't have a problem with modernist potters or Grayson Perry and the only reason that I won't sell the last Lucie Rie that I have is because I want to keep it.

What makes it worse with Mr. de Waal is that he is one of the most obnoxious characters I have every come across and is despised by many in the ceramics world. Many a potter has their own personal tales of their dealings with him.

Tell you what SP. Anytime you find a De Waal for £1 and are tempted to smash it, send it to me and I’ll do it for you ;) Honest Guvnor, I will.

OMG so beautiful!

Best set of shelves I've seen in years....

Such detailing ..... such woodwork

and if you put some decent pottery on them it would look terrific

You lot!
Does an artist have to be a 'nice' person for one to like his work? Many amongst the great artists of history have been fairly unpleasant characters.
While the general feeling on here seems to rather against De Waal, there are obviously many who find his work attractive. Who are also prepared to back that liking with Lots of Lucre.
Who is right?