While Pilcher might not be interested in reading snippets about a certain potter's daily life, I am. I like seeing pictures of your kids and pets, and I like posting about my own. I like that I can rant and rave about the weather, current events and our latest home project turned nightmare. I care if you read, but I am not offended in the slightest if you pass on a post.
Honest discussion of pottery does happen here in the blogosphere but not in any linear, organized way. In recent weeks, Tracey Broome has used her blog as a sounding board for some true soul-searching and the direction her work is taking. While any critique of her work is generally positive, and accolades make us feel good, I'm not sure her point was to seek out approval or support. Maybe it was just to get it out of her head. What difference does it make?
Our Clay Club meets once a month. Last year sometime, we had a critique. Several of us novice potters brought work to be critiqued by the likes of Michael Kline and Linda McFarling, among others. I plopped the basket (pictured above) up on the banding wheel in the center of the room and stepped back. What I received was a true gift: honest, informed critique from potters who know their craft well. There were a few folks who loved the pot as is (and were appalled that anyone could find anything wrong with it), and I was grateful for the compliments. The difference was being able to view the pot on its own merits versus being able to see the potential the pot held. I returned to my studio with an armload of ideas and my work improved dramatically.
I guess what I'm tring to say is that if Potsapalooza were meant to be a manifesto on my current ceramic work, I probably would have far fewer readers. And I would have named it something more serious.