Head, Heart and Hand: Studio Pottery in Nelson 1956-1976
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Head, Heart and Hand: Studio Pottery in Nelson 1956 – 1976 Vic Evans 2007 Head, Heart and Hand: Studio Pottery in Nelson 1956 – 1976 A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University Vic Evans 2007 Abstract This thesis considers the growth of the studio pottery movement in New Zealand between 1956 and 1976. It uses Nelson as a case study to represent trends that took place across New Zealand. It seeks to explain the spectacular growth of interest in hand-made pottery and the surge in participation at both the amateur and professional level and the effects that this had on the movement. The people who were involved in the revival of studio pottery were, in general, relatively well-educated and prosperous individuals who had experienced changes that had taken place within the New Zealand education system from the late 1930s. Others had similar experiences overseas. In New Zealand they were also the beneficiaries of a relatively stable, highly protected and prosperous economy. Furthermore, New Zealand was subject to the same influences that impacted on individuals overseas – issues relating to work and play and the place of women in society. Overseas experts introduced the pioneers of the New Zealand movement to pottery traditions based on a confused blend of Anglo-Oriental craft philosophies. The experts also linked their beliefs to middle-class unease about industrialisation in the Western world. When the movement reached a level of participation that indicated it would have a significant cultural and economic impact the supporters of the imported tradition began a national organisation and assigned to themselves the role of guardians of the tradition. They attempted to define what ‘standards’ should be adhered to and, as a result, who could exhibit their work in national exhibitions. The standards were based on the Anglo-Oriental traditions that were largely foreign to most New Zealand potters and the buying public. Potters needed to adapt the traditions to be financially viable. This thesis will show that many participants in the movement had no difficulty selling their work to a public that had an almost insatiable appetite for hand- made pottery. Because the ‘standards’ set by the national organisation were largely irrelevant to many potters who did not seek national recognition, the organisation began to lose control of the movement. A second generation of potters, many of whom did wish to make their mark nationally, were not prepared to accept the controls of the pioneers so, by the end of the period this thesis considers, major changes within the movement were underway. i CONTENTS Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Abbreviations and Illustrations iii Introduction: 1 Chapter One: The Leach / Yanagi / Hamada tradition: Domination from Abroad. 16 Chapter Two: Children’s Education and Adult’s Play: From School to Clubs and Beyond. 44 Chapter Three: Economic Encouragement and Economic Benefit. 67 Chapter Four: Standing our Ground: Maintaining a Standard. 86 Conclusion: 108 Appendix: 115 Bibliography: 116 Acknowledgements The researching and writing of this thesis was far more enjoyable than I expected. In part, this was because I have been associated with the studio pottery movement for many years and I had many questions that I wanted to answer. More importantly however, the people who helped me research and write the thesis made me feel it was a worthwhile project. My thanks to the following people: My supervisors, Professor Margaret Tennant and Dr Lachy Paterson gave me constant guidance throughout the process. They encouraged me and presented me with examples of good practice. They questioned any unsubstantiated assumptions I was tempted to present. They undertook the mundane task of checking my drafts for errors – showing no hint of exasperation – even when the mistakes were blindingly obvious. Without their help I would not be writing this now. Phil Sharpin, a friend, colleague and fellow history traveller who tirelessly proofread my many drafts. Our discussions at the Prince Albert and local coffee shops were often the highlight of my week. Sir Robert Jones and the Scholarship Selection Committee at Massey University for awarding me the 2007 Sir Robert Jones Postgraduate Scholarship in History. The many librarians and archivists who gave me technical assistance. They include: Anna Wilkinson of the Nelson Provincial Museum, the staff of the Elma Turner Library, the Alexander Turnbull Library, Te Papa’s Oral History Archives and the Distance Library at Massey University. Many people were prepared to discuss the topic with me or provide me with personal records. They include: Moyra Elliot, Dr Damian Skinner, Helen Sutch, Brian Easton, Margie Pope, Peter Gibbs, Mike Rogers and the men and women who belonged to the pottery clubs and agreed to share their experiences with me. My children, Vicki and Stefan, who never questioned why I was doing this but showed dutiful interest. Finally, a special thank you to my wife Mersyna who, over a much longer period than it has taken me to write this thesis, has given me the support to go on. Vic Evans ii Abbreviations AJHR Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives. ATL Alexander Turnbull Library. NZP New Zealand Potter magazine. NZPG New Zealand Potters’ Guild. NZSP New Zealand Society of Potters. NCP Nelson Community Potters. NIDC Nelson Industrial Development Company. Also known as the Nelson Industrial Corporation and the Nelson Industrial Promotion Co. Ltd. CPN Craft Potters Nelson. Illustrations Figure I I am indigenous. 25 Figure II Bernard Leach at Coromandel. 35 Figure III Christchurch welcome committee. 36 Figure IV Serious craft. 48 Figure V Child-centred learning. 49 Figure VI The selection of work for exhibitions. 95 Figure VII Pottery status. 98 Figure VIII Master Potter. 105 iii Introduction On becoming the new Director of Nelson’s Suter Art Gallery in 1976, Austin Davies faced a financial problem. Needing to generate income, he organised a huge craft pottery exhibition and sale: ‘Queues for the exhibition stretched around Queen’s Gardens’ lake. “We charged people $2 to get in and made a $13,000 profit – it paid my salary for the next year,”’ 1 he recounted. 2 A number of years later, reflecting on his first years as a potter, former Czech refugee and internationally known potter, Mirek Smišek, wrote, ‘In the nineteen fifties there were no potters in Nelson and in other parts of New Zealand pottery making was a part-time activity.’ 3 Between 1956, when Smišek became New Zealand’s first professional studio potter, working in Nelson, and the 1976 exhibition at the Suter Art Gallery, the number of people involved in the studio pottery movement nationally had ballooned from one committed craftsman to thousands of full time potters, enthusiastic amateurs, and appreciative supporters and customers. 4 As a result of this growth Nelson gained an international reputation as a centre of excellence in studio pottery. 5 Smišek appears to have sensed the potential for growth when he decided to make his living as a full-time potter in 1956: ‘It [the support of people in Nelson] gave you immediately a feeling of goodwill 6 everywhere and this positiveness – I knew I was doing the right thing.’ 1 Mic Dover, ‘Portrait of the Artist’, Nelson Mail, 20 May 2006, p.15. 2 Nelson Evening Mail , 5 January 1977. Davies planned for the profit (then $4,800) to go towards the gallery modernisation fund. This earlier interview took place during the exhibition, which carried on for approximately another month giving the figure quoted. 3 Mirek Smišek in correspondence to Peter Gibbs, circa 1990, pp. 2 – 3. 4 By the late 1970s it was estimated that there were 2000 professional potters in New Zealand and 20,000 amateurs. See New Zealand Potter (NZP), 23:1, 1981, p. 2. In 1980 Peter Cape put the number at 5000 ‘currently working’ and ‘2000 of them … potting full- time’. See Peter Cape, Please Touch. A Survey of the Three-Dimensional Arts in New Zealand , Auckland: Collins, 1980, p. 80. 5 One estimate put the number of club members in Nelson at 240. See Jim Chappèll in correspondence to David Nightingale, Nelson Community Potters Incorporated, 10 December 1976, Tasman Bays Heritage Trust / The Nelson Provincial Museum, Archives collection, AG 277. 6 Mirek Smišek, interviewed by Dr. Damian H. Skinner, 17 February 1999. 1 George Wingfield Digby, one of the earliest writers on the modern studio pottery movement, defined a studio potter as follows: The artist-potter (or ‘studio-potter’, as he is often called) makes his pots with his own hands from the primary materials, right through the processes of designing, preparing the clay, throwing 7 on the wheel, decorating, glazing, and firing. He may of course employ help and some mechanical aids … but in fact the work from beginning to end is his, directly under his control and responsive at every stage to his initiative and inspiration’. 8 Digby’s definition, with its emphasis on the control of the processes by the potter, informs the discussion of studio pottery in this thesis. The thesis will seek answers to the following questions: why did studio pottery attract so many New Zealanders between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s, and what changes had taken place in New Zealand society that actively encouraged the development of the movement during this time? In seeking answers to these questions the thesis will also investigate why and how the imported traditions that formed the basis of the movement were altered to suit the needs and desires of the local participants and their communities, and the demands of the commercial world.