she felt it necessary to begin her article with a definition of
handicraft. Her definition, however is open enough to in-
clude virtually any article created by the human hand,
from my daughter's braided friendship bracelet to an Hans
Coper vessel.

In the years since Home's article was published, the de-
bate has carried on without solution. Paul Greenhalgh of
the Victoria and Albert Museum , who recently visited
Vancouver, wrote in a 1989 article, “...one issue seems to
be constantly dominant, either overtly or by implication,
that of the nature of the relationship between contempo-
rary ceramic and fine art practice. The issue arises be-
cause of an undercurrent feeling that the discipline has
lost its way, that it has forgotten its real traditions and now
courts the wrong one.” (p.19, source illegible ) The title of
Greenhalgh's article answers the question thal arises
about where he stands on the issue, “Art and Craft: A Di-
chotomy of Falsehood’.

More recently, “The Studio Potter’, in its current issue has
provided us wilh more input to the debate by asking the
question, “Is it possible to develop a unified theory of
craft?”. The question takes its stimulus from the debate
raging in physics generated by Stephen Hawking in his
summary work, A Brief History of Time. A number of con-
tributors entered the “Studio Potter” debate, among them,
Bruce Metcalf, Metcalf writes, “Previous attempts to es-
tablish a single generative theory in the art world have al-
ways failed. Theories of naturalistic and idealized repre-
sentation, nobility of purpose, expression communication,
autonomy, semiotics and deconstruction have all been ad-
vanced and found wanting. Why would anybody in the
craft word think they might succeed where many hun-
dreds of brilliant minds have failed? *

“...[ think crafts just too pluralistic and complex to be
guided by any single theory.” “Studio Potter, Dec. 1994,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 10-11.

Does the answer really matter? The motivations of those
asking and answering the question remain obscure. If the
answer is that pottery is a handicraft, who benefits or
loses? If the answer is that pottery is art, who benefits or
loses?

Home attempted to close her discussion of handicraft
verses art by stating, *...1 should be made clear that the
appellation of “handicraft” to a pot does not make it auto-
matically a work of art or place i on a higher plane than
the manufactured ware. The qualification of character ex-
acted by the definition should forbid lazy workmanship
and exact a high standard of design and technique.”
(p.69) This is pretty fuzzy stuff. Character does not seem
to automatically include quality workmanship or high de-
sign standards and technique. lt could just as well be ar-
gued that manufactured ware has high quality workman-
ship, design standards and technique as prerequisites to
successful marketing of the product.

The issue of a British Columbia style of pottery raised by
Home is of the greatest interest. “The art of the Pacific
Coast Indian has impressed itself on the pottery from
British Columbia. From the earty work of Emily Cart...to
the more recent work of Marjorie Robertson and Doris
Lecog, there has been a definite attempt to carry on the
traditions and spirit of the Indian and the pioneer.” (p, 69) |
doubt that Home would have written this today. It has be-
come the epitome of politically incorrect behavior for non
natives to explore native art traditions on the one hand
and, on the other, other traditions appesr to have sub-
sumed British Columbia pottery. Within the broad collec-
tion of B.C, pottery available in the Gallery of B.C. Ce-
famics it is a simple matter to select out work that is char-
actenstic of Asian, British or American traditions and styles
but nothing stands out as representative of British
Columbia, What does stand out is an emphasis on individ-
ual expression that is derived from one or another of these
traditions. There is, aS well, a focus on technique which
overwhelms style and content. Malraux has argued,
“During times when all previous works are disdained, ge-
nius languishes; no man can build on the void, and the
civilization that breaks with the style at its disposal soon
finds itself empty handed.” Voices of Silence, (p. 281)
This may well be what has happened to the British
Columbia style that Home wrote about in 1944.

DORIS LECOQ, HOME, 1944

it may be arguable that it is important for there to be a
British Columbia style in ceramics. Without doubt it is im-
possible for such a thing to exist when, a5 Malraux argues,
there is a disdain for previous traditions. The adoption of
traditions from elsewhere precludes the development of a
style that is typically British Columbian because the artist