Interesting Pots Have Interesting Bases

I've clicked on so many 'please ID' links recently and I firmly believe that if you just go straight to the full base photo you can tell if it's going to be a 50p-er or not.

My precept is that interesting pots have interesting bases. I'm sure I'm right.

Anyone?

Not necessarily. I think Rosemary Wren disproves the premise :)

Disagree, but it's not 100% the majority

Name me an amazing potter with plain boring base.

If you didn't know who Denise Wren was then I doubt you'd pay any attention to these two pots.

Would you say Terry Davies' bottom was particularly interesting?

The point I'm making is that sometimes we get a bit sniffy about incised or written names and dates; I've been guilty too of the knee jerk reaction that it's probably Student Work, because we're so used to seeing stamped monograms. But there are a number of US, Australian, etc, etc, studio potters who, tbh, must be dyslexic considering the way they sign their work; it's little better than how a student would do it.

I cannot think of many 'collectable' modern potters who actually just use a signature. Peter Hayes, Derek Davis......?

philpot wrote:I cannot think of many 'collectable' modern potters who actually just use a signature. Peter Hayes, Derek Davis......?

....modern British potters....

Nic Collins could be added too, and the ones who don't mark their work at all.

Tbh, it's becoming more common these days as the 'Leach effect' wears off and potters fresh out of Art College are less likely to use a stamped monogram. The majority still do, but there are plenty of new faces in the Galleries signing or using a wax crayon or some other way of marking their work - Yuta Segawa for example

How do potters fresh out of college (and how many colleges are there now?) make their work identifiable then? Indeed, in the economic maelstrom that is going to follow Covid, how many independent professional potters will there be left?

Well I take your point but lets try it the other way round - A interesting base is a very good sign on a pot.

I'm not saying ALL obviously as there are always exception but it's a good starting point. If you check the base photo and it's flat and boring and just dull it's not a good sign.

22 Crawford St. wrote:Disagree, but it's not 100% the majority

Name me an amazing potter with plain boring base.

Ewen Henderson
this said I am thinking of improving the backs of my paintings (canvases) with some stamps and provenance of some sort

When I first became interested in Japanese chawan what intrigued me was that people that I believed were "in the know" always look at the foot first after picking them up.

One can see that most important of questions in the high circles of  studio pottery cognoscenti......whispered while giving  the funny handshake
'Are You a Bums or Tits sorta collector??'

Ahem.....