NEWSLETTER, June 1976, cont'd: . 36

Our thanks go out to all of you and also to spouses who put up with us or
even actively participated in our endeavour.

But without pots all this would be wasted work. We think we have a great
show but next year we would like to see more contributions from our member-
ship to make our annual 8.C. Ceramics a bigger and better show each year.

To the people who got in the show - CONGRATULATIONS ! And to the people
who were juried out - don't be discouraged, we'll see you again next year.

Please let us know your opinion of the show and any ideas to make it
better next time.

Thank you all again,

Hanna Kristmanson.

FINANCIAL REPORT of CERAMICS '76 by BARBARA BEACH:

Expense ; Income
Prize money | $1500.00 Entry Fees $ 720.00
Refreshments Donations
Opening Night $ 251.16 for awards $ 435.00
Jurors' Fees —_——_—
Incl. transportation §$ 464.12 $1155.00
_ Printing + Misc. $ 183.35 Net cost $1243.63
$2398.63 $2398.63

The amount of $1243.63 represents the cost to the Guild.

Ce ed

JURORS' REMARKS

Albert Borch:

The small number of entries submitted to this show made it very difficult
to jury a meaningful show.

Of the entries submitted, my overall comment is that very little of it
was of a professional standard. Many ideas were expressive and original
but often the total piece fell down in sloppy craftmanship and/or pres-
entation which eliminated it. Much work seemed to be that of beginning
students and should not have been submitted to a professional show.

I am left with the distinct impression that many fine potters and ceramic
sculptors simply have not submitted their work to the show for whatever
reason, and this seems unfortunate hecause it doesn't leave a clear
impression of what truly is happening in ceramics in B.C.

Byron Johnstad:

I was both surprised and disappointed at the quantity of quality work
from which we had to select. I personally was disappointed to see _ so
little well-made functional work offered.

I know that there is a far greater amount produced than the submissions
would indicate, and hope that shows in the future will be able to
present a more realistic picture of the clay products available in this
province.

Frances Hatfield:

This exhibition was presented as two categories - functional ware and
sculptural ware.

Immediately I noticed some confusion in what people felt were the two
areas. Objects appeared in the sculptural arena, which really were
functional ware with some additional non-functional aspects. Persons
entering in this category should take a careful look at their work to
decide if it is truly a sculptural entity. A great number of these
entries fell between two stools.

Functional ware lacked the participation of a number of the obviously
competent “ware” potters of 8.C. For what reason? Had they participated
the whole feeling of "function" in this part of the show would have been
stronger. Much of the ware in this category simply did not measure up

to the standards required of utility pottery.
cont'd.