Talk:Pewabic Pottery

General Request for Assistance

I have extensively rewritten (expanded) the Pewabic Pottery article. Nevertheless, I could use some professional (e.g., potter/artist/somebody connected with Pewabic Pottery particularly) help in this endeavor. Please note that one of our contributors opened the Mary Stratton article, and that it is a bare stub that needs lots of work. A bunch of source material is already in the pipe in the Pewabic Pottery article, if anyone wants to take a stab it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. 7&6=thirteen 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

Detroit Aquarium (I put it in)

Does anybody know if the (now closed) Detroit Aquarium -- the U.S.A.'s oldest public aquarium -- was outfitted in Pewabic Pottery. As I recall the tile had that look. I thought it pertinent. The building still stands. It would be worth a note if it were true. 7&6=thirteen 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

I added it. It was in fact Pewabic Pottery. It was completely outfitted in tile from the Pewabic Pottery. [1] 7&6=thirteen 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

Architectural tile list

The list does not include the national (non-Michigan) examples that are cited in this article, namely: Noteworthy examples include the Nebraska State Capitol, the Herald Square in New York, and the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Anybody think it should have a separate listing? I had one at one point, and somehow it got dropped in all the reedits. Sorry. 7&6=thirteen 22:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

Further reading (I put this in, what do you think?)

I combined the lists of books from the Pewabic Pottery and the Mary Stratton article into one comprehensive list (complete with ISBN numbers) in the Mary Stratton article. Anybody think that the more comprehensive list should be put here, too? 7&6=thirteen 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

I decided to add the list from the Mary Stratton book. If you think that is wrong, feel free to make the change. 7&6=thirteen 00:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

7&6=thirteen 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Stan

Dubious claim

"that made Pewabic what it became: one of the finest and most creative laboratories of the International Arts and Crafts movement" I have highlighted what is a very big claim that is only supported by one reference from someone who is clearly biased as he is the Curator on Pewabic Pottery history. Such a huge claim, the finest of a very large international movement, needs much better references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.9 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The cited source didn't appear to make the claim that they were the finest, but neither does the article, it only claims *one* of the finest. In either case though, these might be called "peacock words" where the article claims something is great, rather than presenting facts that leave the impression of greatness with the reader (WP:Peacock). The cited article appears to do a very good job of avoiding peacock terms: after reading it I am convinced of the truth of this article's claim of greatness, yet I could not find the cited article literally making such a claim. It should be possible to recreate that effect in this article, the only trick is whether it can be done in the opening/lead paragraph. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I do not understand what point you are trying to make. Are you saying the sentence should be re-written, if so I would go for this. As it is currently written it is confusing, suggesting greatness perhaps rather than claiming directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.226 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we both agree "one of the finest...movement" does not improve the article much. I would not call this dubious, but rather too blunt. The evidence supporting this should be spread throughout the article, so that the reader is left with this impression, rather than being told they should have this impression. I compare this to the cited source, Brunk's description of the Pewabic pottery history exhibit. In other words, to have an encyclopedia entry, to be on the national historic monuments register, to be remembered for a hundred years, there must be something true about "one of the finest", but there is no need to say this so bluntly in the article.

It is important that something along these lines be included in the opening; so outright deletion of the "one of the finest...movement" is not an improvement. I suggest replacing it with something factual and informative, that leaves the reader the impression that this article is worth reading. I am no expert in pottery, but I found the bit about producing pottery reliably (so it could be functional) but personally (so each piece was an artistic creation, rather than only the original design having creative content, while all further pieces were empty duplicates) very interesting.

Whatever is chosen, it should convey the importance of the subject matter and draw the reader in. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack.Thanks. Perhaps the dubious tag was,to use your terminology, blunt! But nevertheless it highlights misleading / over promotional / pushing the envelope or whatever. I would agree that a re-write would improve the article. This would need to be carefully done so that it does not stretch the truth, as it currently does, and that over reliance should not be be placed on what is after all a far from independent sources. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.226 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think overall the article has a lot of independent sources, so to be clear we are just talking about rewriting (part of) one sentence. The easy solution is to move the short bios of the founders into the main article, out of the opening. The colorful language is only needed in the intro. As I said, I am no expert in pottery, but the part about individual but reliable production was interesting. One could just read through some of the other sources for nice catch phrases. I think most of the other articles are more independent, as in, not written by employees :) Here is a sample first paragraph, but again, no claims of expertise:

Pewabic Pottery is a studio and school located in Detroit, Michigan, founded in 1903 by the artist and teacher Mary Chase Perry Stratton and Horace James Caulkins, her partner. The studio is known for its iridescent glazes, some of which grace notable buildings such as..., and some of which are on display at notable museums such as .... The pottery continues in operation today and is a registered historical landmark.

Then the rest of the opening could be moved into the main article, maybe under sections such as History and Famous work. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. I'm happy to leave the much needed edit in your hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.226 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made two new section (headings only) to hold the previous opening, then barely had to change those sections to make them fit the headings, and then added the proposed opening (from this talk page) as the new opening. I broke the edit up into pieces to make it easier to see what changed. I removed the hyperbole/peacock "one of the finest" even though it was now in the main body of the article and so less harmful to the article. I did not include any new material, as I feel that is more the purview of subject specialists. (And hopefully Stan addresses this below). JackSchmidt (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Colleagues:

Thanks for joining us. Your thoughts and attention are most welcome, of course. I'd like for someone else to share the workload, too. So feel free to edit, write, research and collaborate.

I think that your ideas about rewriting the article are all to the good.

That being said, I think that we need separate articles on Pewabic Pottery Mary Chase Perry Stratton and Horace James Caulkins as they are not synonymous. Indeed, Pewabic continues without either of them, and Mary outlived James by 40 years. But their dance helped create the organization and make it better. Of course, this article entirely overlooks the very real contribution of Charles Lang Freer, who was the inspiration for much of the work (he brought in the pottery from everywhere, and he certainly had the collection of fabulous pieces Freer Gallery, and Mary and James decided to meet or better the shapes and glazes, and was a purchaser, collector, and on some level a collaborator. This is all documented in the articles that are cited as sources in Pewabic Pottery. Another area where this article is weak is that it does not discuss the evolution and experimentation of James with his kilns (there were iterations after the "Revelation kiln", and of Mary with her glazes. Again, this stuff is discussed in the sources that I cited in the article. Also, some of the comments of Mary about the development of her glazes, and some of her justifications for not writing them down, could bear quotation. FWIW, that's what I think the article needs. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

It also glosses over the initial research (Stratton and Caulkins spent a lot of time in other Potteries) (e.g., in Cincinnati) examining process, etc., and learning from it, so that they were rooted in more generalized experiences of Arts and Crafts, and does not explicate the rather painful and long trial and error method used in developing the glazes, which effectively were a form of 'alchemy.' All that is in the articles that I linked to.

I know were not writing a book here, but these are subjects that are barely touched on in the brief thumbnail that this article is.

Food for thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Stan Minor corrrections. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Stan