Talk:Ethical pot

discuss[edit]

This article has lacked sources for a while whose heard of this term and where? there are not sources, and it is a dubious to put an ethical pot as the opposite of a fine art pot, rather, it seems more like an environmentally friendly (non-toxic?) sort of pot. Goldenrowley 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should clarify the "fine art pot" on ceramics (art) that I merged from a stub, says it is the opposite of the "ethical pot (utilitarian pot)" and I want to verify that is the correct thing to say with a source. Goldenrowley 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldenrowley. No I have not heard this term before, but I am from the industrial and scientific side of things. I have done a bit of hunting and found:

A scan through B.Leach's "A Potter's Book" found no mention of the term. BUT other sources reference this book to "ethical pots" Maybe the description was coined after publication (it does sound a pit modern to me), that is speculation but see the reference to Watson below
"Bernard Leach is famous for a book he wrote in 1940 called The Potter’s Book, the notion of the “ethical pot” and some rather plain pottery."

http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/culture_review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1170379314&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&

"The so-called 'ethical pot' of the Leach tradition (utile, democratic, ego-less, craft) and the 'modernist' pots (self-conscious, non-functional, experimental, art) perceived to be direct descendants, through their work and teaching, of Staite Murray and post-war potters, particularly Lucie Rie and Hans Coper."

http://www.aber.ac.uk/museum/collections/collectingceramics.shtml

Personally I find associating Leach with ego-lish pottery to be quite laughable. He used "A Potter's Book" to extol his views, and these show prejudice and arrogance. The "Leach tradition" seems more to be imposing one style, philosophy, and "I'm right & you're wrong" Still that is my opinion, though I'm far from alone, and so it has no place in Wikipedia
"The pot according to these criteria carried a message of a natural shape derived from Oriental forms that transcended mere good looks. He identifies this phenomenon as the "ethical pot," a phrase, according to Charles Counts, that Watson invented himself."

http://www.studiopotter.org/reviews/?review=book020

ThanxTheriac 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for these sources I can see this page needs to be toned down to reflect it is a catchy phrase ^in ^ popular culture but also a bit of a controversial and one sided ^view^. I will do so as soon as possible. Goldenrowley 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldenrowley. I have edited your words a little. I think they now read better and hope you agree. Just a few points:

"According to another they are modernist, utile, and " What is utile? Am I being ignorant by not knowing, or was it a typo?
The latter part of this sentence does not really make sense. "naturally shaped" and originally as concieved should derive from "Oriental forms that transcended mere good looks." Can you re-write it?
And just for my own interest what is "democratic in usage."

ThanxTheriac 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do more research on this art theory, both phrases "Oriental forms that transcended mere good looks." and "democratic in usage." come from the theorists, not us so keep them in quotes and unchanged. I know they are obvisouly political in nature -- saying Oriental is better than western art, for example. The best I can do is report their theory withuot laughing too much. Goldenrowley 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldenrowley. You're right, if they are quotes they must stay unchanged (even if they don't appear to make much sense!) What about the "utile" Is that the exact quote? ThanxTheriac 17:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utile is one of the quoted words, from the article provided above "collecting ceramics" there are some good things in these articles by the way not just about this art movement, but touching on modern art ceramic and theories since WWII. Thanks for bringing them in. Goldenrowley

Well, well, well. That's a new word to me. Thanks for highlighting that the article is worth a read. I'll will do. (when time allows!) ThanxTheriac 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:St Ives.JPG[edit]

The image Image:St Ives.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]