JMC 3-1 OFC

First issue of 2010

Editorial Introduction

Articles

The Multiple Modalities of the Copy in Traditional Japanese Craft by Christine M. E. Guth

“Traditional Art Crafts (Dento¯ Ko¯gei)” in Japan: From Reproductions to Original Works by Kida Takuya

Crafting Hip and Cool: David McDiarmid’s Handcrafted Lamb Suede Dancefloor Outifts, 1980–1989 by Sally Gray

Life in a Zulu Village: Craft and the Art of Modernity in South Africa by Anitra Nettleton (pdf)

Statement of Practice

Ardmore Ceramic Art introduced by Fée Halsted and Jennifer Fair Cohen

Primary Text Commentary

Overseas Education and Arts of West Africa by Tanya Harrod

Exhibition Reviews

Industrial Ceramics, or Ceramics at Home? by Alan C. Elder

Crafting Modernist Aesthetics by Hana Leaper

A Crafted Presence by Russell Baldon

Book Reviews

The Craftsman and the Critic: Defining Usefulness and Beauty in Arts and Crafts-Era Boston reviewed by Kenneth L. Ames

The Saturated World: Aesthetic Meaning, Intimate Objects, Women’s Lives, 1890–1940 and “Make It Yourself”: Home Sewing, Gender, and Culture, 1890–1930 reviewed by Leah Dilworth

Beauty Ntshalintshali and Mavis Shabalala (2009). Guineafowl Tureen, 29 x 35 x 28cm. Masterpiece Collection: Ardmore Ceramics. Photo used with permission.

I agree with Bickford Berzock & Frank that ‘it is clear that today the market for African ceramics is outpacing scholarship. Published research on African ceramics is highly idiosyncratic and uneven in depth and cultural representation. Only a few traditions have been the focus of in-depth study by multiple researchers offering complementary perspectives’ (Bickford Berzock & Frank, 2007). Notwithstanding the lack of scholarly research, here I discuss the question of whether African ceramics is harboured or hindered by European industry, influence and appetite and its impact on village and studio practice.

The largest pottery studio in South Africa, Ardmore Ceramics, is an interesting case. It was founded by white South African artist, Fèe Halsted after she had trained a disabled black South African, Bonnie Ntshalintshali, and discovered a powerful dynamic in combining European and African craft traditions. By ingenuity, by thrift and by chance, Halsted developed the style that has made Ardmore Ceramics internationally renowned (Ardmore Ceramics, 2010). Not quite African nor European in neither aesthetic nor sensibility. Intricately decorated ware in a Western ceramic tradition, the work is brightly coloured and the forms unique, featuring flora and animal motifs with almost mythological figurines in fantasy narratives. The only thing African about them is perhaps the subject matter, the style of modelling and colouring. They seem to evoke a familiar African aesthetic, however they do not have a sense of traditional tribal pottery, the work more resembling narrative-based wood carvings of Malawi and Zimbabwe. Ardmore pottery would be most comfortable in an upmarket home, office or gallery; the concept is technologically European with an African aesthetic spin and justifiably heavy price tags. In 2008 eight Ardmore pieces fetched over GB£20,000 at Bonhams in London (Prendini Toffoli, 2008). The Ardmore website currently has a set of candlesticks for GB£7,500. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve coveted Ardmore Ceramics for years but have never quite had the funds to shell out for one. They are a fabulous example of co-creative practice. Each piece is made in stages of construction, sculpting and painting by different artists to produce a shared outcome.

The influence of the European drive for production and saleability might be a strong influence in the style evolution of the potters’ wares.

It seems that the successful African potters are for the most part discovered then engineered into greatness by Europeans. Without European business entrepreneurship these potters would, it seems have continued in their craft serving their communities. Their craft would then have remained in its pure, traditional and primarily functional form.

Ardmore is in stark contrast to traditional craft pottery of the African village. With the latter, clay is dug by hand, dried and ground like grain, hand built by coiling and burnished. Then wood or smoke fired in aloe leaves as the first firing and a final firing in umTomboti wood – toxic while burning, its oils stain pots a deep lustrous black. The pots are finally glossed up with animal fat.

The now internationally renowned Nesta Nala from the Tugela Ferry area of Zululand worked exclusively in that tradition. Nala was the foremost potter who brought Zulu pottery onto the world stage. She passed on her skills to her daughters and at her death in 2005 many in South Africa considered her a national treasure. She represented South Africa at the Cairo International Biennale for ceramics in 1994, received South Africa’s prestigious Vita award for craft in 1995, in 1999 participated in the Smithsonian Institute’s Folk Life Project in Washington. Her work is represented in major collections in South Africa and worldwide (Ceramics Today, circa 2001). Her pottery was traditional in the true sense – functional pots used in everyday Zulu tribal life and prized by the local rural community for its beauty. Considering the rudimentary equipment and method, her work is startling, exhibiting purity of form, perfect proportion and embellished with exquisitely simple reliefs. While much of her decoration style was in the Zulu geometric patterning tradition, she later experimented with fish and other motifs. Hints of European influence are found in her later pieces where she was encouraged to sign and date her work – a very unAfrican practice. Nala’s promotion and exposure at the Association of Potters of Southern Africa and Corobrik National Ceramics Exhibitions of the 90’s generated interest in traditional Zulu pottery. Had Nala not been discovered and catapulted onto the world art stage, her work would have remained in rural obscurity. Although world-renowned she remained a rurally based, traditional village potter until her death, never crossing the divide to a studio tradition. She left her legacy in the Nala family of potters and paved the way for other Zulu potters like the Magwaza family and the noteworthy Clive Sithole.

Clive Sithole is an exception—a true studio potter who studied traditional techniques under Nesta Nala. Heavily influenced by Nala, his works feature traditional Zulu form with added sculptural elements and a more Western style pit-firing. His work is considered a new development in the history of the craft. Successfully positioning his pot-making as an art form, he developed a style that incorporates bovine reliefs from the Zulu tradition of young boys making clay bulls (Van Wyk, 2010). His pots fuse the form and functionality of Nala’s and his own decorative style. While there are other examples, one hopes Clive Sithole heralds the future of African potters – creative practice unfettered by European influence yet relevant on the world art scene.

Bernard Zondo and Zinhle Nene (2009). Porcupine Tureen detail, 29 x 27 x 20cm. Masterpiece Collection: Ardmore Ceramics. Photo used with permission.

The end-use of African ceramics is fascinating and requires more research. Where the potter creates traditional ware, it is functionally useful to Africans as everyday or special occasion ware. The very same piece in the hands of Europeans becomes an art piece separated from its context and devoid of its utilitarian function yet prized for its beauty and market value. African Art Centre in Durban assists craft producers to sell their ware to collectors, interior decorators and particularly tourists. The high-end work is earmarked for galleries and collectors and the remainder is generally relegated to tourist curios. An unsurprising phenomenon is the plethora of studios of previously disadvantaged potters industriously churning out Africanesque pottery for Western consumption. Far worse is white South Africans churning out Western ceramics decorated in a kitsch quasi-African style. This is unduly harsh criticism of black craft studios as tourist patronage keeps bread on the table of these craftspeople who otherwise have no source of income.

The success of traditional pottery seems inextricably linked to Europeans; either as facilitators or business leaders on the one hand or the purchasers on the other. This symbiotic relationship has the drawback of the best artefacts ending up overseas, however the benefit is increased interest and trade in pottery (even from the tourism sector) allowing potters to develop and refine their practice and supports more people in the community learning the craft, ironically ensuring its survival as a tradition. At this juncture whether an African potter is studio-based or works traditionally does not seem to affect their fortunes, only that they are discovered and promoted. It is likely that as more potters like Clive Sithole come up through the ranks, African pottery will organically develop its own aesthetic and become increasingly self-assured. And that which is created in studios will influence the village potter.

Bibliography

• African Ceramics (2010). Arts and crafts from Africa. Retrieved 20 February, 2010, from http://www.ceramicsafrica.co.za/index.htm
• Ardmore Ceramics (2010). Ardmore’s history. Retrieved 20 February, 2010, from http://www.ardmoreceramics.co.za/about/history.php
• Bickford Berzock, Kathleen & Frank, Barbara E. (2007). Ceramic arts in Africa. African Arts (Spring). Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0438/is_1_40/ai_n18646981/?tag=content;col1
• Capolo, Mark (2008). Traditional Zulu village and pottery. Travel Blog 17 March. Retrieved 28 September, 2009, from http://www.travelblog.org/Africa/South-Africa/KwaZulu-Natal/Pietermaritzburg/blog-257001.html
• Ceramics Today (circa 2001). Nesta Nala & Clive Sithole Retrieved 21 February, 2010, from http://www.ceramicstoday.com/potw/zulu.htm
• Chennell, Louise, & Talbot, Kathy (2008). Exhibition review: Sankofa: Ceramic tales from Africa. Interpreting Ceramics (10).
• Colleen (2010). Traditional smoke firing. Ceramics South Africa, (15 January). Retrieved from http://ceramicssouthernafrica.blogspot.com/search/label/Traditional%20South%20African%20Ceramics
• Davern, Fiona (2006). Made in South Africa. Design Seven, p. 76–80.
• ELC Art and Craft Centre Rorke’s Drift (2010). The passion. Retrieved 20 February, 2010, from http://www.puul.de/centre/index.html?=ceramic_studio.html
• Folk Art South Africa (2010). Ceramics and pottery. Retrieved 20 February, 2010, from http://www.folkartsouthafrica.com/category.php?cid=1
• Inkosi Imported Crafts (2010). Zulu clay pots. Retrieved 19 February, 2010, from http://nkosiimportedcrafts.com/Zulu_Clay_Pots.html
• Prendini Toffoli, Hilary (2008). Evermore Ardmore. Financial Mail, September 5, p. 86–87.
• Sizana Craft (2010). Homepage. Retrieved 19 February, 2010, from http://www.sizanacraft.co.za/contentpage.aspx?pageid=3643
• Tatham Art Gallery (2008). Ardmore Ceramic Studio: HIV/AIDS exhibition. Retrieved 15 February, 2010, from http://www.tatham.org.za/ardmore-ceramics-studio.html
• The Pottery Studio (2010). About the potters: Nic Sithole. Retrieved 10 February, 2010, from http://www.potterystudio.co.za/about.html
• Van Wyk, Gary (2010). Interview with Clive Sithole. African Arts, 21 February. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0438/is_1_40/ai_n18646986/
• Zizamele Ceramics (2010). The art of changing lives. Retrieved 11 February, 2010, from http://www.zizamele.co.za/index.html

Steven Smith is a Lecturer in Advertising Design at the Institute of Communication Design, Massey University, New Zealand.  Steven has been a practicing studio potter in South Africa for over twenty years and has a keen interest in Zulu culture and craft, especially pottery.

Editorial introduction

Articles

Style, Skill and Modernity in the Zisha Pottery of China by Geoffrey Gowlland

Elbert Hubbard, Transcendentalism and the Arts and Crafts Movement in America by Jonathan Clancy

Hungarian Pottery, Politics and Identity: Re-presenting the Ceramic Art of Margit Kovacs by Juliet Kinchin

‘Acts of Association: Allison Smith’s Craft as Civic Practice’ (pdf) by Jennifer Geigel Mikulay

Looking is a Way of Touching by Gabriela Gusmao

Commentary by Mireia Freixa and Anna Calvera

Reviews

Application of the Arts to Industry by Salvador Sanpere i Miquel

Design in the Age of Darwin: From William Morris to Frank Lloyd Wright by Baird Jarman

Jean Nouvel Cesar, Anthology by Patricia Ribault

Battleground: War Rugs from Afghanistan by Susan Cahill

Kingdom of Beauty: Mingei and the Politics of Folk Art in Imperial Japan by Alicia Volk

Craft in Dialogue: Six Views on a Practice in Change by Henrietta Lidchi

As the Journal of Modern Craft enters its second year of publication, it seems an appropriate time to go back to basics. And so, after a year of trying to push the boundaries, this time round we offer a series of writings that go right to the heart of “modern craft” and its interpretation.

In articles by Tom Crook, a historian and theorist of nineteenth-century modernity, and Nicolette Makovicky, an anthropologist and material culture specialist, we are treated to two such methodological inquiries. Crook’s subject, the Arts and Crafts Movement, could not be more familiar to readers of this journal. By reframing the Movement as an ‘alternative modernity,’ however, he breathes new life into that subject. Crook’s account gives us new tools for understanding well worn aspects of the Movement like the debate over machines, medievalism and other forms of historicism, and the growth of interest in indigenous craft traditions from around the world. Of particular interest is his use of Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of ‘dialogics,’ in which opposing positions and processes are seen as producing one another through continual interrelation, rather than resolving dialectically into new, stable syntheses.

Makovicky’s fieldwork among lace makers in contemporary Slovakia has led her to make a closely parallel argument. Just as Crook warns against seeing the Arts and Crafts Movement as either modern or anti-modern, Makovicky refuses the false choice between understanding ‘traditional’ craft either as a fictional construct, or as a fragmentary and threatened anachronism. Rather, she presents the choices made by individual lace makers as conscious responses to modernity, in which change and tradition are constantly reintegrated into one another. Especially when read together, these two essays exemplify this journal’s ambition to chart new methods in the study of modern craft, both by turning over old soil and ploughing new fields.

Much the same could be said about the prominent place given to British ceramics in this issue. Art historian Penelope Curtis outlines an unexpected comparison between the most famous name in English pottery—Bernard Leach—and the sculptor Barbara Hepworth. For many decades these two figures lived near one another in St. Ives, a small town in the west of England, but a notional art/craft divide prevented scholars from drawing connections between them. Interestingly, readers may feel that of the two, it is Hepworth who seems the more committed to the form-giving possibilities of handwork; but in any case, Curtis shows how the vessel form that forms the heart of studio ceramics can be seen afresh as it moves across disciplines.

Ceramics is also the focus of this issue’s Primary Text and Statement of Practice. In pairing David Queensberry and Alison Britton, we have intentionally taken a step back into the politics and possibilities of the 1970s. At that time Queensberry, a leading designer within the ceramic industry, was Britton’s tutor at the Royal College of Art. Despite his emphasis on functional design, she and many of his other students (including Carol McNicoll, Jacqueline Poncelet, and Elizabeth Fritsch) set off in a diametrically opposed direction. Britton turned to handbuilding, pattern and decoration, and fragmentary composition to forge a powerful new postmodern sculptural idiom. Now, thirty years later, it is Britton who teaches ceramics at the Royal College of Art. Her statement, written with the benefit of hindsight looking back at a long and successful career, describes her studies with Queensberry as the beginning of a journey of formal and conceptual experimentation.

Queensberry, too, has stuck to his guns. We have reprinted a talk he delivered back in ’75, in which he expresses alarm at the direction that young ceramists seem to be taking. In a new preface to this lecture, he reaffirms his convictions, arguing that the global transformations in production that have happened since make the teaching of design skills more important than ever. Queensberry’s and Britton’s positions reprise the old debate: should craft be oriented to design or fine art? But both write in full awareness that those two frameworks of reference are themselves fluid and unpredictable. 

The issue’s final article brings to our pages the work of Julia Bryan-Wilson, one of the most exciting new scholars working at the intersection of art and craft history. The lesbian identity politics that she locates in the work of Harmony Hammond might initially seem distant from modern craft’s fundamental concerns, as discussed elsewhere in this issue. But it is telling that Hammond, too, sought to break down false distinctions: “between painting and sculpture, between art and women’s work, and between art in craft and craft in art,” as she put it. In Bryan-Wilson’s analysis, Hammond looked to craft not as a reassuring source of identity, nor simply as a tool of Feminist critique, but rather as a means of queering seemingly stable oppositions and thus opening up new discursive possibilities.

Finally, we have the pleasure of announcing two new initiatives at the Journal of Modern Craft that are intended to embody this spirit of ongoing dialogue. This issue is our first to include a Response to a previously published article. We actively encourage such contributions, and hope to be able to feature other commentaries by our readers in future issues. Also, we are glad to be able to announce the launch of a new website at www.journalofmoderncraft.com. This new digital interface will carry selected content from the journal, and will also provide useful links, blog posts, and an open forum to which all our readers can contribute. Academic publishing is a slow and careful affair, and any scholarly journal—no matter how multiple and inventive—runs the risk of instituting a new orthodoxy. By actively promoting dialogue through printed and digital means, we hope to avoid this, and thus to do justice to the subject of modern craft, which is always on the move.