Vol. XVII, No. 9. 
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 
January 1916 
E were unable to start the Beginner's 
corner this month because the an- 
nouncement of the competition was 
so late that we did not receive enough 
material even for a competition, so 
we have decided to extend the time 
and have the competition close the 
fifteenth of February so that all 
will have plenty of time. We re- 
peat our competition offer: 
We would like material for a "Beginner's corner" in Ker- 
amic Studio, little helpful articles or suggestions from those 
who have had some experience in teaching. We would be 
glad to pay for such articles and hope to start the department 
in the March issue. To collect enough material to make 
a good start, we will offer the following prizes for articles sent 
in by February 15th. 
First prize — Year's subscription to Keramic Studio or 
$4.00 in color studies. 
Second prize — Nine months subscription to Keramic 
Studio or $3.00 in color studies. 
Third prize — Six months subscription to Keramic Studio 
or $2.00 in color studies. 
All articles to be not over 600 words or under 200. Shorter 
notes paid for in cash if accepted. 
* * * 
Designs for little things to make are much needed both 
in conventional and naturalistic decoration, also sheets of 
small motifs with sections of application. We have an over 
supply of plate designs and arrangements for larger pieces, 
also of studies of flowers, so do not wish contributions of that 
nature at present. 
We would be pleased to have submitted instructive articles 
on any subject connected with ceramics and ceramic design, 
with or without illustrations. And we are always glad to 
receive letters of criticism or suggestion from our readers. 
They are very helpful in calling to our attention what is needed 
and the things that have been neglected or have escaped our 
notice. 
THE WEAKEST LINK IN THE CHAIN 
Anita Gray Chandler 
WHY is it that we sometimes hear people say, "No, I don't 
care for china-painting"? These are the same people 
who would not think of saying, "No, I don't care for music, 
or sculpture, or painting." So it cannot be a general lack of 
artistic appreciation. A college professor known for his good 
judgment in art, and for the fine color plates he makes for his 
own work (Biology) said to me recently, "You paint, do you 
not? What is your branch?" China-painting," I answered, 
and he said one word, "Oh." You know how he said it. It 
showed a trace more interest and consideration than if I had 
answered "Sign-painting," or "Calcimining." So, in justice 
to a beautiful art and my own humble interpretation of it, 
he was induced to view my work, and amended that "Oh" 
by commenting, "Your work is different. It is not what one 
expects when you say 'china-painting.' " I felt a little thrill. 
Why? What is most china-painting like? And why is it 
like that? 
China-painting is a legitimate art, a useful art; and it is 
one of the most ancient forms of painting, as pottery, its na- 
tural ally, is perhaps the oldest form of plastic art. Yet, listen 
to this well-known Boston critic speaking of an admirable ex- 
hibition of the Mineral Art League given last year at the Arts 
and Crafts gallery on Park Street: "China painting, as we 
know, has for some years past been in process of evolution 
from feminine accomplishment towards art. As regards de- 
sign it has got rather far along. The dreadfully realistic 
apples, pears, pansies, that once constituted 'fired china,' 
have been superseded by more geometrical and symmetrical 
styles of decoration. One will be pardoned for feeling that 
an art in which the practitioners do not actually make the 
articles that are ornamented is liable to superficiality." We 
will be pardoned for asking if this gentleman accuses the por- 
trait or the landscape painter of "superficiality" because each 
does not "make" the canvas he "ornaments," or the etcher 
because he does not personally superintend the manufacture 
of his copper sheets. 
It seems to me the weakest places in china-painting lie 
not wholly in poor design or the superficiality of the workman- 
ship. They might be summed up rapidly under two heads, 
thus: 
I. Lack of draughtmanship. 
II. Lack of study. 
And the teachers themselves are most to blame. A great 
number of teachers know little of the accepted methods of 
teaching. Of course there are many who stand like beacon 
lights along the new and better road. To these I do not allude. 
The former require of a pupil no preparation/' no understand- 
ing of art even in a general way, no note-book work — nothing 
apparently except a desire to "paint china," commendable 
in itself, possibly, but insufficient. 
A prospective pupil comes to a teacher and says, "I want 
to paint china — plates for my rail you know, and things to 
give my friends for Christmas. But I don't know how to draw 
a straight line." Then the teacher who is probably a seasoned 
veteran in the process of taking raw material and turning it 
into a nice machine that paints roses something like her own 
inside of a month, says suavely, "Oh, that's all right. You 
don't have to know how to draw to paint china. You trace 
your design just like you do in embroidery, then I will show 
you the rest." 
The average pupil comes to a teacher with one thought 
in mind — to turn out as much china as possible, and perhaps 
a little more, in a given time. Consequently she gets an equa- 
tion like this: — Maximum speed — minimum time — Maxi- 
mum output — minimum quality. 
She is glad if her teacher paints most of the design, per- 
mitting the pupil to wash in a few leaves or spaces so that her 
signature may be affixed with some truthfulness, "because 
you get more done that way." Or, if she is self-reliant enough 
to do her own work she almost weeps if she doesn't get a plate 
ready for fire in one lesson, and does weep if the teacher takes 
off half a dozen dizzy lines. 
(Continued on page 134) 
****, 
