ART.
THE ART OP POTTERY.
UNTIL recently it has been quite understandable why unuseful pottery has not been seriously considered as belonging to the sphere of art and has been relegated to the region of knick- knack. But with the revival of the craft as it is practised by men like Mr. Bernard Leach and Mr. Shoji Hamada, we are now forced to give to pottery a place amongst the arts ; for there is no doubt that both of these potters can be ranked as artists of exceptionally high merit.
What position, then, does this art occupy in relation to painting and sculpture ? It has often been said that it is a form of sculpture ; but with this I do not fully agree ; rather do I incline to the belief that it has many qualities pertaining to each art and that, accordingly as the particular potter may have the painter's outlook or that of the sculptor, so does it tend towards the one or the other of the above-mentioned arts.
To judge from the greatest examples, one outstanding difference, the most fundamental one perhaps, between painting and sculpture is that of movement in the rhythm of design. The general tendency in the rhythm of a picture is expansive ; it seems to work from a source outward ; it is, to resort to the use of a more scientific term, centrifugal. Sculpture, on the other hand, is centripetal. No good piece of sculpture is confined to the limits of its surface statement ; it gives the feeling of depth, of profundity ; as if the rhythm were continued into the interior of the material itself. Sculp- ture has the beauty of the tiger—tense and crouching before the spring ; its power is potential.
Apart from any psychological reasons which make the artist choose which art will the better suit his particular mode of expression, the actual crafts in their application suggest a possible explanation of this difference—the painter builds up his picture from the empty canvas, while the sculptor chips inwards until he arrives at his completed unity.
A casual glance at the work of either of the potters I have mentioned leaves one with the impression that it is very similar ; but closer observation and analysis reveal a vast difference in conception. Mr. Leach seems to be a potter with a bias towards the painter's outlook, while Mr. Hamada, had he been at all attracted to any other art, would have taken up sculpture. There is no essential difference of quality in their work (they arc both equally good)—only a difference in out- look. Mr. Leach's work suggests that he coaxes the mass of inert clay through its natural outward direction until the com- bined graduations of form adjust themselves, at his guiding touch, into a well-balanced equilibrium. Mr. Hamada, on the contrary, does not accept, to the same extent, the outward tendency of the revolving mass, but, ever master over his material, compels it, by pressure, into aesthetic equilibrium. From their work one would imagine that Mr. Leach, in throwing on the wheel, works delicately with his fingers, while Mr. Hamada uses his hand more as a whole. Both get perfect balance in their work, but arrive at it differently. Their pots contain both power and grace, but Mr. Leach's have more of grace, Mr. Hamada's more of power.
I do not say that all examples of their work conform to this analysis, but, to my mind, it suggests the general difference between them.
So far I have only alluded to the forms of their pots. With reference to pattern it may be said that, unlike most potters who merely apply it irrespective of the shape of the vessel, both of these artists make the pattern synthesize with the form to which it has been added. In this superaddition of pattern to form pottery differs from either painting or sculpture. It is interesting to observe how Mr. Hamada has adapted the same basic pattern to a variety of shapes ; it becomes a new pattern and an integral part of whatever shape it decorates. In the same way the colour and texture of each glaze is care- fully selected in relation to the form to which it is fused. Few painters understand this subtle relationship of colour and texture to form.
There are so many good pots in each exhibition that it becomes difficult to pick out for special commendation any one pot ; nor is it possible to give a correct idea of the work in general, for each piece is quite individual. Most of them arc so personally technical that to describe them would take up too much space. Both artists are extremely willing to explain the processes of any of their pots. One effect, however, which attracts me is obtained by painting in wax, on the biscuit ware, a pattern the background to which is laid in with a heavy non-running glaze, which, when applied, does not adhere to the wax pattern. The wax, when fired, disappears and leaves the clay body of the pot sunk between the masses of the thickly applied glaze of the background. But practically every effect is equally fascinating and attractive.
Both potters get most of their materials in the neighbour. hood of St. Ives, where their pottery is situated, and manu- facture their own clay in the constituent proportions necessary for the different kinds of stoneware they require. They always make their own glazes, for they cannot get their best effects "from the usual glazes, which have lost all texture quality through having been over-purified and over-concentrated to suit commercial ware. The older Chinese and Japanese potters understood the value of what are at present called im- purities in glazes. Such impurities, however, must be under- stood in order to be used to advantage, and only potters like Mr. Leach and Mr. Hamada, who treat each piece as a work of art, can get full value of effect from the use of them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hamada's exhibition will have closed when this article appears, but no collector should miss Mr. Leach's exhibition in the Cotswold Gallery, Frith Street, Soho. It is to be hoped that both potters will find some means of having, in London, a permanent display of their work, which can be seen at any time ; for, as it is, their
Previous page
