An analysis of the ordinary within craft .I
Bernard Leach’s atypical portrayal of craftsmanship allows him to create objects without being contaminated by the decadence of society and it’s forever changing trends. Through the removal of exaggerated ornamental flourishes, personality, passionate emotions, pre-planning, he is then able to create from a place of simplicity, humility and innocence, thus his designs have a more organic nature. The lack of judgement or even awareness of imperfections and mistakes suggests not only an unconventional mindset but further implies he actually takes delight in them, as he doesn’t have the preconceived negative formula we are all fed. Instead, the value is placed on the health of objects and deeper, richer values such as how the austerity, straightforwardness, specifically how “tea settles in them.” This alternate understanding of how to elevate the quality of an object allows for a more abundantly intense level of craftsmanship to be achieved.
“An article without the flavour of personality, bought without pride, something anyone could have bought anywhere and everywhere,” quotes Soetsu Yanagi about Bernards work. The mere fact that “anyone could have bought” it and “everywhere” is very much against the current rhythm of the 21st century. A century that prizes limited editions. However, by removing the flavours of personality, Bernard is able to fully create items without the decadence of society’s desires. The objects are born from simplicity and innocence, there are no ulterior motives for the design. It’s purpose is written on its face, while ordinariness runs through the grains of clay, which is mirrored in his raw and unrefined crafting process. The concept that the ‘flavour’ is removed is contradictory to our current way of thinking. We universally believe that flavour is what makes ‘the dish,’ it amplifies the best parts, and enhances the original taste. Yet, here Bernard suggests; through his objects; that flavour is instead the aspect that is distorting the object, distracting us from it’s true purpose, aesthetic and taste. The extreme focus on the exaggerated flavours gives way to the consumer becoming blind to the actual nature of the item. Additionally, it could be perceived that flavour is then used to conceal the lack of, or imperfections that may have appeared along the way. Arguably, it has then become a trojan horse for inadequacies, society using it so cavalierly that it’s impact isn’t as noticed anymore, therefore more and more needs to be added. Thus, a high tolerance towards embellishments, individuality and distinctiveness is developed. The depiction of the items being the ‘commonest crockery,’ again suggests lack of seasoning or flavour, perhaps even considering it bland - which the typical perception of this is an insult. Yet, instead it’s ‘common’ genetics is what gives it depth and meaning. Within his work, the bland design is a natural byproduct of the simplicity it stems from but alternatively it is that they don’t need the excessive ornamentals or intense ‘flavours’ to give it meaning, and purpose. By removing and stripping away the excess, Bernard has actually gained depth and a richer value by allowing the raw state of his pieces to stay humble, austere and true.
In addition to this, Bernard’s lack of awareness and thought within his craftsmanship illuminates the notion that too much thought can cause the objects unrefined nature to become distorted by the desires of man. With “the shape revealed no particular thought: it was one of many,” further implies that from too much thought, the opportunity for the object may have an “occasion for it to be poisoned by over-awareness.” Through fostering an environment free from the enforced expectations, which we normally place on our designs, the piece is left untainted, and therefore more true to it’s original purpose. This concept is displayed physically through his process as “the work had been fast: the turning was rough, done with dirty hands: the throwing slipshod: the glaze had run over the foot.” The nature of the objects necessitates a quick and almost careless craftsmanship because if too much time is spent on each one it allows room for thought, reflection and analysis, leading then to the influence of his desires on the design and eventually destroying the honest essence of it. It is considered typical of this age that extreme value is placed on personalisation, artistic expression and attention to detail within craftsmanship. Yet, here the ‘dirty hands’ and ‘work was done fast’ undoubtedly contradicts the present day values, and the semantic field with ‘fast’ suggests an urgency to his work; it is of great importance that it is done quickly before it is spoiled by the disease of thought and awareness. Though this leads to his work being perceived as ordinary, plain, and austere, they are able to exist beyond the intangible trends and fashions. Their existence transcends time because they are not defined by eras or styles, thus allowing them to become incessant boycott to this century. Ultimately, the thoughtless way he works is an antithesis to the rhetoric that is perpetuated from media and the internet.
The ordinary atmosphere that is embedded into his pieces is further signified through the fact they are “not the product of nervous excitement, so it does not harbour the seeds of perversion…no optimistic ideas gave it birth, so it can not become a plaything of sentimentality.” The typical connotations of ‘nervous excitement', ‘sentimentality,’ and ‘optimistic ideas,’ would be regarded as positive, good, and strived after even, welcomed. Many brands aim for their products to be an item of sentimentality; holding onto memories. Yet, our hyper-reliance on these to birth our creative ideas and designs implies that in only these moments can craftsmanship can be pursued, yet Leaches work shuns “the world of brilliance and colour.” It’s mono-tone essence is a breath of the freshest air. Depicting the aforementioned words in a more negative light signifies that he does not chase after any of those aspects, indirectly then proposing that one can end up designing something misaligned than what was originally intended. Instead, it is implied that by creating from a mindset of simplicity and plainness you are not bathing the object in ornaments born from artificiality or ego. Rather the embellishments come of they own accord, dictated by the intangible desires of the objects itself. The pursuit of sudden strokes of inspiration, ‘optimistic ideas,’ and to saturate my work in my personality, my passion implies injecting the object with dual motives, serving the purpose of the item and simultaneously feeding our ego. Typically, there is nothing wrong with designing from a place of optimism, however it leaves the ground fruitful for ‘seeds of perversion’ to grow. Thus, one could the seeds as man’s pride, so when the agenda of our actions are poisoned by ego, the humble reasons we started designing with cease to exist. They are burnt and extinguished by the consuming flame of hubris.
Furthermore, when hubris festers underneath porcelain the object then becomes a vessel for ego, a billboard for one’s amour-propre, while within Leach’s work “there is nothing in it to justify inscribing it with the makers name.” Even the typical makers mark is regarded as a gateway to tainting the objects essence, as the archetypal portrayal of pride is considered a common hamartia for most, not limited to, craftsman. Yet, by initially removing thought and awareness, then abstaining from carving his name into it, he has subsequently eliminated the opportunity for pride or ego to germinate; perhaps preventing the downfall of his work and again reinforcing the idea that his pieces are beyond the confines of societal whims. On the other hand, the value that Bernard places on an object is sculpted by it’s health, and how it functions as intended. “They looked to see how the green tea settled into them. They were particular how the rims of the bowls feel to the lips and how the endless ring is varied.” This clearly depicts the difference in standards they evaluate with. Conclusively, they analyse the object in motion, in use, how it behaves, feels and interacts.
To be continued in Part 2.
Human-made.
