Re: Svend Bayer

by minarima Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:55 pm

I thought it would be constructive to share images of a recent charity shop find that has been confirmed as being by Svend Bayer and made in the 1980s at Duckpool Cottage. This was confirmed by Svend Bayer himself via a mutual acquaintance.

It measures 27 cm in diameter (10.6 inch) and 7.8 cm in height and is not marked.

by **studio-pots** Sat Jan 07, 2023 2:23 pm

During that period Svend didn't mark his work but to anyone that knows the work, it is typical and couldn't be by anyone else.

by **philpot** Sun Jan 08, 2023 4:35 pm

If you look at the previous pages of this thread you will very similar items. You should have come here first!

by minarima Sun Jan 08, 2023 4:40 pm

philpot wrote:If you look at the previous pages of this thread you will very similar items. You should have come here first!

I knew this was made by Svend, but my question asked was if it was made at Wenford Bridge, or later at Duckpool Cottage.

by **studio-pots** Sun Jan 08, 2023 8:09 pm

minarima wrote:
philpot wrote:If you look at the previous pages of this thread you will very similar items. You should have come here first!

I knew this was made by Svend, but my question asked was if it was made at Wenford Bridge, or later at Duckpool Cottage.

Wenford Bridge would have been a different stoneware clay body and marked at least with the Wenford Bridge seal. However, if it had been made at Wenford and there was no other seal you would have needed Svend to confirm or not.

by minarima Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:59 am

Thanks for this info.

Btw do you know why Svend chose not to mark his work during this period?

by **studio-pots** Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:15 pm

I think that I might have asked him but I have forgotten.

Svend did have exhibitions with me and another couple of potters that I used to exhibit also didn't mark their work at the time (Dan Kelly & Chris Lewis). I think the feeling was probably that they wanted to make work that people bought for the aesthetic value of it rather than because they thought it was some kind of investment.

by **philpot** Mon Jan 09, 2023 7:25 pm

Richard Batterham is about the only potter I can think of that did not mark his work but is instantly recognised by his style and quality.

by **NaomiM** Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:16 pm

I think it's the Japanese aesthetic expounded by Hamada that functional pottery shouldn't be marked because people should be buying the pot not the potter. Warren Mackenzie was of the same mindset

by Sponsored content