Akiko

I have tried to like her work and years ago visited her studio on several occasions but was always disappointed, especially as it was something that I really ought and wanted to like.

For me it is just a poor pastiche of real pots and some of the things with bits on that she has done recently, and people love, have left me angry.

I feel a little uneasy writing the above, as I try not to be negative publicly about potter's work (Eddie excepted). However, she has such a reputation that a little negativity from me is of no consequence.

Is it the 'bit's that annoy you SP?

I had a look at the internet and they do look a bit like they have been left under a pigeon coop.

22 Crawford St. wrote:Is it the 'bit's that annoy you SP?

I had a look at the internet and they do look a bit like they have been left under a pigeon coop.

What makes me angry is that some collectors go wild for pots by her like that but have no idea or haven't seen the real thing to make a balanced judgement. If they had then they might agree with you.

Don't get me wrong I do like them - they are different and different is good in my book.

They seem to be a mix of sharp and soggy all at once. Like porridge mixed with glass

A potter had a complete meltdown on FB over her pots because he thought she had glued the pieces on.  

Not sure what you mean by “seen the real thing”, SP. Who’s work are you thinking of?

It seems only another extension of the whole 'surface' thing of wood firers and salt glaze that is very popular indeed with modern collectors.
The Goldmark exhibition sold out very quickly indeed.
I am intrigued by Studio's reaction though. What is a 'Real Pot' and what isn't?

NaomiM wrote:Not sure what you mean by “seen the real thing”, SP. Who’s work are you thinking of?

She has been a copyist throughout her career and most have been poor copies in my opinion. I see she is doing Seedheads a la Wallwork now.

philpot wrote:It seems only another extension of the whole 'surface' thing of wood firers and salt glaze that is very popular indeed with modern collectors.
The Goldmark exhibition sold out very quickly indeed.
             I am intrigued by Studio's reaction though. What is a 'Real Pot' and what isn't?  

It a cheap way of trying to achieve what a wood-firer does by adding porcelain lumps and glaze and distressing before firing in a gas kiln. The little guinomi that Naomi added to this thread looks OK but all of those things at Goldmark with porcelain on are the pits, as far as I am concerned. I can find no redeeming feature in any of them.

It's just my opinion but, as someone that perhaps ought to like them, I think it's worth me saying.

Lisa Hammond gas fires, as do a lot of potters who are based in towns and cities. Nick Rees has semi-retired and is now enjoying gas firing because he can use clay and glaze combinations that weren’t available when he was woodfiring at Muchelney. Seems crazy to say that what she’s producing is not “real”. Her work has taken a leap in the past few years; I wish I’d taken photos of her stand at Oxford back in 2017. I’m not surprised she’s become so popular.

NaomiM wrote:Lisa Hammond gas fires, as do a lot of potters who are based in towns and cities. Nick Rees has semi-retired and is now enjoying gas firing because he can use clay and glaze combinations that weren’t available when he was woodfiring at Muchelney. Seems crazy to say that what she’s producing is not “real”. Her work has taken a leap in the past few years; I wish I’d taken photos of her stand at Oxford back in 2017.  I’m not surprised she’s become so popular.

Nothing crazy about saying that they are not real, as I have no complaints about her gas firing, just the mess that the resulting product is when she is trying to replicate the effect of what a long or several long wood firings might produce. You might not agree, which is fine, but to say the idea is crazy just isn't valid.

I dont see the connection with woodfiring, and I collect a lot of it. No wood firing potter would come close to the effect that Akiko manages with her chips of porcelain. Pots straight from the fire-box are pretty gnarly and a very different kettle of fish, while those further up might have a dusting of ash but no lumps. Potters these days, both in the UK and Japan, add piles of pure wood ash on the pot, or even spray it on, before firing in a gas kiln to give that run of pure glaze down the sides.

why not stage a pot off?

I only made the comment because I visited her probably 15 years ago the first time with the intention of asking her to show pots at the Harlequin Gallery but when I saw them in "real life" I was not impressed. I visited her studio again and saw her work at fairs in subsequent years with the same intention but there was nothing about them that I thought of interest. As her pots are the kind of thing that I ought to like, I thought my comments were valid. They were not said to cause an argument but to state an alternative view that people may consider or not, as they wished.

An alternative view to the "Emperor's New Clothes" brigade, perhaps?

Potty ain't it! I only know that I wish I had bought one of her Moon Jars a couple of years ago!
I rather like some of her work. Not that I would pay any of the prices that her work is fetching nowadays. The pottery world is a small world enough as it is, without decrying someone who is doing something a little different.

I’m just curious to know what or who you would consider a better alternative to her work. Maybe 10 years ago there was? but these last few years she’s really found her style. I’ve not seen anything similar, although maybe some of Charles Bound’s pieces but they aren’t anything like the pure chunky white that Akiko achieves. Maybe Eddie Curtis or Adela Powell, but, again they’re doing their own recognisable styles. You can spot an Akiko a mile off.

There was a lady on Facebook showing a picture of the Eight-Yes 8- pieces she had bought from Akiko Hirai's Goldmark exhibition. Apart from they must have cost her more than a pretty penny, there was nothing there I would personally have bought. Nothing looked particularly striking. They did seem to be appreciated by lots of people on there though. Mind you, given Goldmark prices, I have never bought anything from them.
Your question of an alternative to Akiko Hirai Naomi. Modern Studio ceramics is now such a wide field, that there is a smorgasbord of choice everywhere.

I don't mean an alternative per se. I mean who is/was doing the same/similar thing, which might be considered better. Considering we have Rogers/Malone/Collier/Dickinson/ad infinitum all doing rip offs of Leach and Wenford Pottery, I find it odd that Akiko might be considered a poorer version of someone or some thing else when there are no alternatives presented for comparison. Fine if you dont like her work - there are plenty I dont like, who others rave about - but maybe best to just leave it at that.