|
|
Nampeyo pots are sufficiently rare that when they appear in the literature they are generally presented singularly as specimen pieces. The 27 "Nampeyo" pots in this collection are a sufficient number to allow us to try something new. This essay will compare and rank the quality of "the Old Lady’s" work using these 27 pots as a database.
Marti Cusick (Struever) notes that
it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether specific pottery specimens were constructed and painted by Nampeyo. The roles played by Lesou and her daughters; the prodigious output of other potters emulating Nampeyo’s style; the artist’s own variations beyond familial and tribal boundaries give rise to serious problems of attribution. Pottery was not signed. Records are scarce and incomplete. (1984:9).
She then defines four classifications of attribution for pottery believed to be by Nampeyo:
Documented as made by Nampeyo Where tangible collection records, or photographs, with names and dates exist.
Attributed to Nampeyo
Where opinion based on consultation with other students of Nampeyo, and consideration of design elements, layouts and construction of known Nampeyo vessels indicates the likelihood of the work being hers.
Possibly by Nampeyo, or made in her style
Where judgments, determined by the appearance of known design motifs and compositions, leave some doubt as to whether the unit was done by her or someone reproducing the Nampeyo style.
Probably painted by a member of Nampeyo’s family
Where certain patterns appear that have become classic Nampeyo family designs there is the possibility that these motifs and layouts may have developed after Nampeyo lost her eyesight, possibly by 1920. There is strong evidence that she continued to mold pottery for a considerable time after she could no longer see to paint it (1984:9).
Using Marti’s criteria, there are currently 27 pots in the collection that meet the minimal standard: 27 pots that I judge to have been significantly touched by Nampeyo. Some of these pots were both formed and painted by "the Old Lady," some were formed by Nampeyo and painted by a daughter. Of those painted by a daughter, some are signed, some are not. (For detailed discussion of each pot, see the catalog entries.)
Obviously, other students of Nampeyo might judge these pots differently or exclude a particular pot (or two) from consideration. Indeed bowl 2010-20 is the only pot in the collection that has contemporaneous documentation as "Made by Nampeyo – Hopi" (perhaps Marti’s highest category), but has such poor form and design that it may well not meet the minimum standard of her lowest category (probably painted by a member of Nampeyo’s family). Such inconsistencies are what make connoisseurship intellectually challenging and fun.
I grade these 27 Nampeyo pots according to the following criteria:
Form
Painting
Rarity
Size
In general Nampeyo’s genius was more in the design than in the forming of her pots, so the painting of her pots (generally) carried the most weight in my evaluation.
As detailed in the discussion in Appendix C, there are six defining characteristics of Nampeyo’s mature painting style:
A tension between linear and curvilinear elements often represented as a contrast between heavy and delicate elements.
A deliberate asymmetry of design.
The use of color to integrate design elements.
The use of empty (negative) space to frame the painted image.
The use of a thick above a thin framing line on the interior rim of her bowls.
Confident, bold, and impulsive painting.
A pot that displays all six of these characteristics is generally more striking than one that displays fewer than the full set.
Overall aesthetic is a function of 1) form plus 2) painting.
Rarity may be due to an unusual shape, design, ethnographic use or age. Overall size matters some, but I would grade a small great pot much higher than a large clunky large one.
As in school, grades run from "A" (excellent), "B" (good), "C" (average), and "D" (poor). (I hope I have avoided buying any "F" Nampeyo pots.)
Speaking at a ecursos de Santa Fe conference on "Historic & Modern Pueblo Pottery" on October 18, 1990, J.J. Brody spoke about what makes a pueblo pot "great." I cited his remarks in Appendix C, but they are worth repeating here. "The symbolism," he said, was "below the level of consciousness." The form is simple and basic geometric; the painting reinforces the form; the painting lines are crisp, controlled and harmonious; and "most of all" the pot is "dynamic," a source of perpetual discovery. He concluded: "you should feel the handwriting and character of the artist" (1990b).
That’s an "A" pot.
A gorgeous pot with the iconic Nampeyo aesthetic fully realized that represents the very highest achievement of Hopi/Tewa ceramics would be graded "A." Pots that did not reach this aesthetic standard of "A" might still receive a grade of "A" if shape, design, use or age is particularly unusual.
A pot that was a "good" example of Nampeyo’s craft because it clearly demonstrated her unique talent, but was not the very best aesthetic (not her very best work) would receive a "B." A pot that did not reach this aesthetic standard of "B" might still receive a grade of "B" if its shape, design, use or age is particularly unusual.
A pot that was arguably by Nampeyo but with a design that seems distracted, rushed or applied without much care would be graded "C." A pot that did not reach this aesthetic standard of "C" might still receive a grade of "C" if its shape, design, use or age is particularly unusual.
I have not bought (and could not afford to buy) every Nampeyo pot on the market. I have tried to acquire pots that I thought were at least "good" ("B") examples of her work.
As Barbara Kramer (among others) notes, Hopi and Hopi/Tewa pottery-making is often a family affair. The European notion that "it’s not a good Rembrandt because his son did some of the painting" is out of place at Hopi. Annie had her own style but (apparently) could also paint quite like her mother when called upon to do so. Some of Annie’s work is the equal of her mom’s and the two are difficult to distinguish. Fannie was also a good painter, though I think rarely as good as her mother. Nellie (I’m told) was a particularly kind person, but both technically and aesthetically a rather poor potter.
This mother/daughter pot is aesthetically wonderful, incorporates many of the (six) iconic design strategies defined by Nampeyo and is among the best Hopi/Tewa pottery made. A pot that did not reach this aesthetic standard of "A" might still receive a grade of "A" if it represents an unusual or unique insight into the mother/daughter collaboration or its shape, design, use or age is particularly unusual.
A "good" example of Nampeyo’s pottery-forming skills with a design by a daughter that, while well formed and aesthetically pleasing, does not represent the highest achievement of Hopi/Tewa pottery would receive a grade of "B." A pot that did not reach this aesthetic standard of "B" might still receive a grade of "B" if it represents an unusual or unique insight into the mother/daughter collaboration or its shape, design, use or age is particularly unusual.
A pot by Nampeyo and painted by a daughter would be graded "C" if the pot has an ordinary form (perhaps thick or uneven) and the design by a daughter seems distracted, rushed or applied without much care. A pot that did not reach this aesthetic standard of "C" might still receive a grade of "C" if it represents an unusual or unique insight into the mother/daughter collaboration or its shape, design, use or age is particularly unusual.
While formed by Nampeyo and painted by a daughter, this pot is not particularly attractive or well designed.
A fine example of her work, but the design is too balanced and therefore not dynamic enough to get an "A." The design is also a bit simple: You glance at it and "get" the impact; it does not draw your eye in and play tricks like a great Nampeyo pot. The + is because it’s made of "sikyatska" yellow clay that fires red. These are uncommon for Nampeyo. For example, the State Museum of Arizona (Tucson) has a great Nampeyo collection, but only one red-clay pot.
This is an extraordinary bowl because it is an early (ca 1895) white-slipped pot with a classic ancient Sikyatki design adopted by Nampeyo throughout her Sikyatki Revival painting life. It has all the(6) iconic strategies that make a Nampeyo bowl great. Appendix B explains my feelings about this bowl –in 10 pages!
This is a fully-realized design, carefully-done and shows extraordinary skill. The everted rim adds a special touch. The "-/B+" is because the design is too busy and a bit too balanced to be a fully great Nampeyo pot. It is spectacular, but not very Zen. For most folks it is probably an "A," but I am a hard grader.
This little canteen is a tour-de-force. It contains the iconic Nampeyo "clown face" and many elements of the "sky band hanging bird design" originally realized in 1993-04. The convex surface projects the image toward the viewer. It’s like a Hopi Faberge egg. The pot earns a "-" because the design lacks the negative space which highlights Nampeyo’s best work.
This little dish and simple design are an everlasting joy to watch. The design swirls in space and draws and fascinates my eye. It’s got all 6 of the iconic Nampeyo design strategies and in spades.
The design is carefully done by a fine painter, but just sits there and repeats itself around the pot. The design lacks the energy that makes Nampeyo a great painter. The surface is a bit eroded, but there is nothing wrong with this pot. It just does not show off Nampeyo’s skills very well.
This is one of the great pots in the collection. The design is full of energy and tension and draws the eye in. The design fully realized all of Nampeyo’s design strategies and is both simple and complex at the same time. I could look at this pot for hours (and have). If you want the glorious details, read Appendix C, my 7-page paean to this pot.
This is a fine demonstration of the great skill of Nampeyo. There is focus and motion in the design and it all works well. Somehow the bowl does not reach greatness, perhaps because it was so badly broken and the break lines distract the eye.
This bowl is "out of the box" for a Nampeyo pot. It does not follow the usual rules of her design and is thus hard to compare. Until the recent sale on eBay of two similar pots, I had never seen anything like this design. The pot closest to this in design sold for $4,266.99 at an eBay auction on 9/28/10. The second similar bowl sold for $3,550 that same night and a week later was offered to me for $8,500. (Photographs on file.) The unusual "pure abstract" design gives this pot extra value. The "cleaned" background on part of the pot is distracting and lowers the value. I’ve taken acetone to the pot and black lighted it and still have no idea why the background is smudged in general and clean in that one spot. A mystery, but one that lowers the value.
Another "out of the box" Nampeyo pot and one that was apparently done for only a short time. Thus it is rare and is in perfect condition. Like 2006-11 the usual Nampeyo aesthetic standards do not apply. The design is not as compelling as her best work, but is not trying to play that game. The form is very unusual and rare. Marti S. has two like it and I know of two others. It’s not designed to be a stunner but fully delivers what it is supposed to be. The face is full of character and presents itself well.
This is a good example of an unusual Nampeyo design. (Not as rare as 2007-16, but unusual.) This example is smaller than most and is not balanced on its bottom. There is slight damage to the design. It fits a "niche" in the Nampeyo design repertoire, and is "fine." Just not great. The design is pleasing but does not draw the eye and play design games like the great Nampeyo pots. (Larger examples of this pot have more visual impact, but for me are not as satisfying as the great Nampeyo designs.)
This is a really small bowl and I loved it well before Ed Wade said it was Nampeyo. My first reaction (every time I look at it) is to smile. This is an engaging foot. J The bowl is unique in the Nampeyo oeuvre. With crackled slip on the inside and stone polished on the outside, the finish is a mongrel between Polacca ware and Sikyatki revival ware. ("Walpi Polychrome," though this pot is monochromatic.) The design contains neither traditional Polacca elements nor Sikyatki Revival motifs. The bowl is a snapshot of Nampeyo in transition experimenting with new finishes and designs. It’s a sweet piece but not monumental, hence the "-" sign.
This is an "A" because of the aesthetic qualities of the pot and its ethnographic story (including the strap). If the design was on a perfectly preserved (like-new condition) pot, I would appreciate it but give it a B+ as a Nampeyo pot. Those funny "radio dial" designs seem odd to me and don’t add much aesthetically, though I generally love the "sky band hanging bird" design. The addition of the old strap and the probable story of its ethnographic use by (maybe) a member of the Nampeyo family put it over the top (as an "A" pot). This is the only Sikyatki Revival pot by Nampeyo I know of that was actually used. It’s rare (perhaps unique) pot, hence the top rating in spite of those radio knobs.
As an example of a Polacca C style (actually Walpi Polychrome) bowl by Nampeyo, this bowl is very, very rare. That it was likely made by Nampeyo for her personal use and used for several decades in her home is a stunner. The fact that it was broken (and therefore traded by Fannie to Dick Howard) simply adds to its story and charm. The repairs bother me not at all. If the collection has a true museum piece, this is it. The interior design is intact under all that patina and is well-executed, though a bit static, as all such Polacca C designs seem to be. This just serves as a design benchmark to demonstrate Nampeyo’s genius of design subsequently developed as Sikyatki Revival ware. I tiptoe around this bowl in wonder that it is in my home. (A bit romantic and dramatic.)
Again this is a deceptively simple design beautifully executed and displaying all six of Nampeyo’s design tricks. Although small, the visual impact is big. It’s no better painted than canteen 1999-03, but the simpler design and negative space allow the design on 2010-11 to shout out more.
The pot is unusual in that it is made with yellow clay that fires red and not just slipped with the (fires) red clay. The design is by Annie painting her own style with disjointed elements and has no sense of overall motion.
Nampeyo canteens are always special and this form gains some points. Again the painting (likely by Annie) uses the classic Nampeyo four mountain (swastika-like) image as a central focus and builds only a loosely organized image around it. As with 1997-04, the fragmented design elements are typical of Annie painting with her own style.
Three years ago, Ed Wade showed me an almost identical pot (several times larger but same design) on his dining room table. He identified it as "by Nampeyo." The form on the Wade jar was perfect and the design (unlike jar 2002-09) was also perfect. Nampeyo very likely formed jar 2002-09. It is unclear who painted it. (See Wade’s evaluation). If I had to guess I would think that Annie painted the pot using her mother’s (not her own) style and classic Sikyatki design elements. The size of the pot adds to its value. The fact that the pot is asymmetric and the painter had to try to adjust the design to the awkward shape either detracts for the value (resulting in a B+ grade) or adds to the human appeal of the pot (giving it an A- grade).
The bowl was formed by Nampeyo; the design very likely was painted by Annie. The painting is well-done using a class Sikyatki motif adapted and developed by Annie. 2006-01 is a fine example of the best of Annie painting in the style of her mother (Sikyatki Revival). If it were not for the pot having been broken and simply glued, I’d give the bowl an A-. With the breakage into two pieces, I evaluate it as a B+. If the breakage bothers you a lot, then I’d say B.
If the pot was simply a Hop/Tewa pot, I’d grade it B- since it has a very powerful but crudely painted design. If you buy the Ed Wade idea that this is an early Fannie-learning pot, then it is special and unique and I’d grade it "A." (Steve Elmore had a larger but identically designed pot painted by the same hand as 2006-15.. He believes his pot was both formed and painted by Nampeyo, but I do not think she would have done anything so crude in the 20th century. )
This is one of three signed Nampeyo pots that are carefully painted, presumably by Fannie. There are a limited number of signed (by a daughter) Nampeyo pots, and this increases it value.
The bowl is casually formed and painted without much attention. If it were unsigned I’d rate it C-. Since it is a 1930’\s signed Nampeyo pot, I’d rate it C+.
An unimpressive small pinch pot, though a good example of a Nampeyo and family producing for the tourist market. Because it is signed and small, it is an "authentic" Nampeyo pot that can easily be wrapped in a sock and tucked in a suitcase. This specimen made it all the way to England in the 1930s.
This is a poorly made and casually-painted pot. Unsigned I’d give it a "D." Since it is signed "Nampeyo" I’d raise the grade to C+. Because it is likely painted by Nellie, it is especially unusual, raising the final grade to B-.
This is a classic Nampeyo design, but is not carefully painted. If just signed "Nampeyo" I’d have graded it B. Since it is signed Nampeyo/Fannie in that order, it was made shortly before the "Old Lady" died. Such dual-name signatures are particularly rare, so I give the pot a final B+/A- grade.
I love this little pot. It is very well painted using classic Nampeyo motifs. Without knowledge of its actual size, it looks monumental. That you can feel the ridges of Nampeyo’s fingers on the inside adds value in my estimation. The "Nampeyo" signature also adds value.
This is an odd one. The Harvey label ("Made by Nampeyo—Hopi") is contemporaneous evidence that it is by the "Old Lady." Nampeyo used the mouse-like design on other bowls, but the form of pot 2010-20 and the painting are far below the standard of anything I have ever seen by Nampeyo. I speculate that the pot was formed and painted by a young Nellie. That would exclude it from a discussion of "Old Lady" Nampeyo pots. As simply a clunky pot by an unknown artist, I would grade it C- at best. However, the paper Harvey label is in-and-of-itself a significant and rare addition to a Nampeyo collection. It also evidence that a century ago a Harvey employee had reason to believe bowl 2010-20 was by Nampeyo. If it really was made by Nampeyo, it is an interesting example of her ability to do poor work, what Rachael Sahmie called Nampeyo’s PMS pot. (See catalog entry for pot 2002-09.) (Talk about making lemonade out of lemons.) The label makes the pot extraordinary, though still clunky. Averaging all this out I’ll keep it in the Nampeyo subset and give it a grade of B-, though that is easily debatable (downward).
2005-16 Seedpot with eagle-feather design
2009-17 Walpi Polychrome piki bowl , transition period, 1890s
1993-04 Sky hanging bird bowl
2002-03 Shallow dish with feather design
2010-11 Small canteen with "bird hanging sky band" design variation
2007-16 Effigy pot
2009-10 Worn large Sikyatki Revival canteen with strap
1999-03 Small clown face canteen
2009-08 Small bowl with footprint design, transition period, 1890s
1996-05 Bird wing bowl, painted by Nampeyo or Annie
2002-09 Large imperfect bat-wing pot, painted by Annie (?)
2006-11 "Pure Abstraction" design bowl
2007-12 Nampeyo/Fannie signed pot
2006-15 Small eagle-tail seedpot, painted by a young Fannie? (Grade depends on the viewer & story.)
1985-01 Seedpot signed "Nampeyo"
1988-01 Red ware bowl, two birds
2000-07 Detailed canteen, painted by Nampeyo or Annie (?)
2006-01 Kwatoko bowl, painted by Annie
2008-06 Four-moth pot
2010-05 Small vase with avian design signed "Nampeyo"
1997-04 Redware bowl formed by Nampeyo, painted by Annie
2006-02 Avian design, badly broken bowl
2003-07 Formed by Nampeyo, painted by Nellie
2010-20 Red clay bowl with mouse-like creatures & Harvey Co. label
1997-01 Simple bowl signed "Nampeyo"
2002-11 Eroded bowl
2002-12 Tiny seedpot signed "Nampeyo"
Part of the fun of connoisseurship, of course, is training one’s eyes to see details of quality. It is the nature of such activity that different eyes, of course, will see different values. My eyes sort Nampeyo’s work according to what I see. Others will see the pots in this collection differently. Perhaps some of what was discussed here will allow others to evaluate and rank the many Nampeyo pots not in this collection. That should provide many hours of argument and discussion. I can hardly wait….