a n d e r s e n   s t u d i o

  a n d e r s e n   d e s i g n

We recently received an invitation in the mail to attend a "celebration of the achievement of artists who participated in an "Artists in Maine Communities" for project entitled "Mudslide", which features the ceramic arts. The purpose of the celebration was described in part as "hoping to further the participation of Maine Ceramic Artists. The project is a part of the "Creative Economy" initiative that Governor Balldacci has encouraged. It was funded in part by $10,000.00 from the state and matched by contributions from six different foundations including The Maine Arts Commission and The Maine Community Foundation.

The goals of the project are described as "to bring artists together, to help foster dialogue, and create connections between artists and their communities in new ways, to collaborate with other organizations, to introduce and generate a greater appreciation of the ceramic arts within local communities , and lastly to bring communities together through celebration"

The invitation was personally addressed to Weston Neil Andersen but Weston wasn't up to going so early in the morning and suggested that I go ahead and he would arrive later.

When I arrived I introduced myself and my involvement in Andersen Studio/ Andersen Design, describing that we have, up until now, been a family business. But, that there is no generation coming after my own with an interest in contunuing the business and so we are looking to find a way to continue what we have established through the ceramic community. I annouinced that one can learn more at www.andersenstudio.com

The event was introduced by announcing a goal "marketing Maine crafts"; and expressing the opinion that a State such Kentucky is perceived as a craft state, not because they have more crafts or better crafts or older crafts than Maine, but because Kentucky has been marketed this way. *¹

The Mudslide project was explained as a project in which ceramic artists conduct workshops, and then the work created in the workshops, would be exhibited in a show. I commented that this would exclude Andersen Design from the exhibit, as we already train people, on the job. and that the training is a lengthy and expensive process. It wouldn't make sense for us to conduct workshops.*²

The response to my comment was twofold, the first part of the response being the opinion that since Andersen Design is already known, Andersen Design doesn't need the exposure of being included in the show of Maine crafts and secondly, that maybe if I listened there would be some other way that we could fit into the project. I replied "fair enough" to the second thought, and the program moved on to a presentation from the first artist who had received one of the grants last year.

The artist was a young woman who appeared to be about 23 years of age. She began by describing herself as one who pursues ceramics as a hobby. She conducted workshops for which (I believe she said) the participants paid to attend. The participants were allowed to keep one of the bowls that they made, while the remainder of the work created in the workshops were donated to a charity that feeds the poor. The artists, were given first choice on buying their own creations and accounted for the majority of the sales – as I understood. How that relates to creative rights, or intellectual rights, I am not sure.*³

The young artists pointed to the fact that the project benefited the community in that she was able to pay the musicians that played at the fund-raising event, and also pay for the rental of the space where the event occurred. The project also benefited the suppliers of ceramic materials from whom the artist had purchased supplies. The proceeds of the show, which equaled the amount of the artist's stipend were donated to a charity that gives food to the poor. The only contributing participants who did not get paid for their contributions were the ceramic artists.

Technically, if the participants paid for the workshop, the young artist who presented the workshop should be considered to be working in a professional status, rather than as a hobbyist. It is unclear to me whether the choice to donate the proceeds of the teaching to a charity was the presenter's choice, or if it was required by the terms of the grant that any proceeds earned, would be donated to a charity. It was my understanding that the young artist had her own kiln and working space which was used to teach the classes. Although the realtor who provided the space for the benefit was paid a rental fee, there was no mention of the artist receiving payment for the use of her space and equipment, which were used for teaching the class. Hopefully the $500.00 stipend that she was allotted did pay for the electricity, but that stipend also had to cover teaching the class and marketing the fundraiser/exhibit of the artist's work. Possibly the individual artist will be able to benefit by continuing to teach classes on her own, having established an identity within the local community by conducting the workshops.

There were questions and discussion about the price charged for the ceramic bowls. Since the project was funded by a grant and the artists conducting the workshop didn't charge for her time and the artists who produced the bowls were not paid for their labor and ( apparently) paid for the workshop as well as accounted for a good portion of the sales of the bowls, the consideration of the price charged, did not entail expenses for producing the bowls. The consideration of the price charged related only to whatever it was thought the public would pay. The primary way that the project benefits the economy is, apparently, in it's value as a fundraiser for a charity for the poor.

The work-shop is located in a low-income community and so our young artist thought that $10.00 was an appropriate price to charge within the local economy. Someone mentioned a fundraiser that was located in Boothbay and said they had charged $12.00.

Meanwhile, I had been trying to refrain from participating in the conversation (since I clearly sense that I didn't fit in), but on the mention of the Boothbay Region and the price of "$12.00 because it was for the "year round community" , I entered the conversation, as I know Boothbay and it's economy, and Boothbay is not low-income.

I said to the young artist that if she were doing ceramics as a profession that she would have to pay employee wages and benefits, and that she would be competing with in the market place with products produced in countries where the labor costs are next to nothing because labor rights are virtually non-existent (unitentionally mirroring the project "being celebrated"). I went on to comment that it was the musician and the renter of the space and the supplier of the materials, that had benefited economically from this project. The artists making the ceramics made nothing, but it is good that she is introducing ceramics to the people of that area. I observed that this is how Andersen design, a long standing, privately-owned ceramic studio, might "tie in to the project", being that we have a large and classic line of ceramic designs that have sustained their marketability for over fifty years, and that might provide a basis for employment in lower income communities. I further discussed problems of the economy and the vanishing middle class, possibly speaking for five minutes. Just as I was finishing the last sentence of my thought, I was interrupted by an older woman who said something to the effect of thanking me for speaking but "we" want to hear from the grant recipient and not from you.

"Fine" I said. "I'll leave", after which, something was said to the effect that I shouldn't do that just because I was expected to keep my thoughts to myself (or whatever) and I said , with emotion, that I didn't appreciate being told to "shut up" and left.

I don't know why, Weston Andersen, a well known, recognized, and professional ceramic artist, was invited to this event. I am certain Weston has never signed in as a guest at Watershed, and so the invitation came across as quite intentional to us. Did Watershed think it would be a valuable use of Weston's time to sit quietly, with thoughts kept politely to himself so that he can learn from the experiences of ceramic hobbyists doing their bit to help the economy and the ceramic arts by creating ceramic bowls to be sold as fund-raisers for charities for the poor? If this is a "celebration of the ceramic arts", then the professional community is being very much excluded from the celebration, as is the privately owned business sector excluded in the economic model upon which the Mudslide project is based.

Charities are needed because the economy isn't working – because people don't have jobs – because people do not have meaningful work. Why isn't this state supporting it's on-going existent businesses? Creative economy grants should be geared toward job-creation. Awards granted to non-profit organizations would be far more effective if those non-profit, and often educational organizations, worked hand in hand with privately owned businesses to stimulate jobs in the economy. Today more than ever, education needs to address actual employment needs.

If attitudes were different, the workshops project administered by Watershed might be complementary to our own effort to find a way to continue our business through the ceramic community. Our own business can survive beyond the current generation of our family only if the larger community welcomes it. Our first hope is that our business will survive as a Maine craft, and if not that, then an American-made craft. Either way, it is a daunting challenge.

I question the view that charity can be equated with economic development. I acknowledge, that considering the small amount of the stipend that the artists received from the grant, that the generation of income to three different entities is a contribution to the economy, although not a contribution to the ceramics industry as a viable part of Maine's economy. Economic development needs to stimulate the economy, and while recognizing the need to extend a helping hand to those that have fallen between the cracks of our economy, funds that have been generated by grants from a state-wide program to stimulate the economy are better used to stimulate the creation of jobs, such that the funds generated by the sale of pottery bowls might have been re-invested in the ceramic workshop, with the idea in mind that the ceramic workshop can be instrumental in developing employment, and that, in turn, would enable an otherwise recipient of charity, to purchase food through income derived from gainful employment, which offers greater personal dignity that surviving via the charity of those more fortunate.

The economic model of any government funded-program needs to be considered in relation to the larger economic context. Since this partly-government-sponsered project purports to support crafts in the state of Maine, it needs to be said that the professional crafters community is already suffering from the economic effects of competing with cheap labor abroad. There is no harm in hobbyist creating work to be sold for charitable causes, but there is a reason to question the use of government funds that are meant for stimulating economic development being used to fund enterprises that have no labor costs, even if those enterpises justify their purpose through contributions to charities for the poor. They are still yet another craft product with an unfair advantage over American crafters who have to pay for labor and fund the cost of worker's rights.

Susan Mackenzie Andersen October 28. 2006

Footnotes

*^{1 No actual support information was provided for the opinion that a state like Kentucky is known for crafts because of it's marketing program. While it is certainly a plausible explanation, If one is going to use another state as a model, one should also look at other factors, such as what government programs are in place in those states that support the continued existence of a craft industry.}

*^{2 In fact it would might be possible for Andersen to be involved in an educational workshop , provided that there was an outside class room space made available to us, and we were paid for our service. The Mudslide project mentioned the possibility of working through Community Colleges. Community College programs are funded by the government. At the moment that I am writing this, I have not had time to explore the extent to which the Community Education Funds are available to small crafts in the state of Maine.}

^{*3 A good point of comparison would be the ceramic craft industry involving places where the public can go in and paint their own dishes. This might be the sort of business that could be developed out of the mudslide project, but is it customary in this sort of business or in educational work shop enterprises, for the business operator or educational administrator to retain the work made by the attendee's and sell those works for a profit? If so there is a uncertain disctinction between an educational work shop and a manufacturer, and different sets of laws that regulate those distinctions.}

More Blogs

Email Mackenzie Andersen

Last Update: 10/292006 Web Author: Mackenzie Andersen Copyright ©2001 by andersen studio - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED