Material values
The pricing of objects that you make is one of the most difficult aspects of being a working potter. When you begin to produce and sell, any amount that people are willing to pay to buy one of your items seems wonderful. I still am amazed and humbled when people are willing to trade their hard-earned money for one of my pieces. It is, in fact, the ultimate compliment. That being said, it’s still necessary to price the work, and attempt to earn the best living that you can.
I firmly believe that the pricing of an individual piece must make sense within the framework of how the rest of the work is priced. I don’t price based solely upon materials cost or time to produce. In the final analysis, it’s a judgment of the “market value” of the individual piece, within the context of the body of work being shown. For a customer to decide to purchase something, I think that they must both like the piece and believe that it represents a good value. The more unique that the work is, the less influence other potter’s pricing has on the buying decision.
That being said, I believe that there is a strong influence on pricing that stems from a cultural bias towards materials. To be more specific, I believe that in the US, people perceive glass, for instance, as having a higher intrinsic value than clay. Two bowls of equal quality and uniqueness, one of clay and the other of glass, could carry an identical price of say $300. I believe that most people would believe the glass bowl to be inexpensive, and the clay bowl to be pricey. That’s not to say that all glass costs more that all clay, but after many years of observation, I believe that a hierarchy of intrinsic value exists. The exact hierarchy may differ by culture; in Japan, for instance, ceramic objects are more highly prized that in the US. I think that this hierarchy extends to virtually all media: oil vs. acrylic vs. watercolor vs. pastel vs. pencil etc… If you were to be able to quantify this cultural hierarchy in a scientific way, I believe that you would find clay to be close to the bottom in terms of the public’s perception of the value of the material. I find this to be particularly ironic because of the technical challenges associated with making pottery.
I suspect that Dale Chihuly is single-handedly responsible for raising the perceived value of glass and all things made from glass, and more power to him. While we have our superstars in clay, I don’t think that there is anyone working in clay today that has achieved Chihuly’s level of popular awareness, desirability, and brand identity. His acceptance and the price points that he has established have benefited all glass artists and craftsmen by extension. Hopefully education and discussion will,over time, enable designer craftsmen working in clay to positively influence this materials bias and drive a greater appreciation for ceramic objects.