American Pottery’s Local Makers: From New York Storage Jars to Biloxi Art
Ten American pottery works trace local makers and manufacturing towns, from Commeraw’s New York jars to George Ohr’s Biloxi experiments.
Ten works in the Metropolitan Museum of Art make those regional differences tangible. Their dates stretch from Thomas W. Commeraw’s late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century production to Ohr’s bowl of about 1897–1900. They do not represent every American pottery tradition. Instead, they show several distinct ways of organizing ceramic work: an urban producer supplying utilitarian vessels, companies making both household and display pieces, family-linked experimentation, and a maker who carried an unusually large share of the process himself. American pottery’s history runs through local workshops and manufacturing towns: Commeraw’s New York waterfront, Bennington’s earthenware firms, Anna’s sculptural stoneware, Baltimore’s ornamental production and the glaze experiments of Massachusetts. By the time George E. Ohr was folding thin clay walls in Biloxi, the identity of a potter could be as important to a vessel’s meaning as the thing it was designed to hold.
The reporting combines the Met’s object records with museum research on Commeraw, Chelsea and the American art-pottery movement. This is a collection-based history, not an account of a gallery visit or a claim to have handled these objects. The photographs show the results of work; the institutional records help connect them to makers, places and markets. Together they complicate the idea that American ceramics can be explained by a single national style.
Before the celebrated maker: the working vessel
Consider the anonymous American stoneware jar dated 1800–1870, accession 20.109.3. At 10¾ inches high, it has a comparatively broad mouth, a short neck, rounded shoulders and a body that settles toward a stable base. In the museum photograph, its surface is dark and lightly uneven. The record notes faint bands created during forming on the wheel. Those marks are a clue to manufacture, not an elaborate decorative program applied afterward.
The anonymous jar is a useful starting point precisely because no named maker accompanies it. The collection can preserve evidence of a forming process even when it cannot attach that process to a surviving biography. The image is monochrome, so it establishes silhouette and surface rather than original color. This is the documentary imbalance that any history of craft must confront: objects survive with different amounts of information about the people who made them.
A second anonymous American jar, accession 18.95.11, is dated more broadly, 1800–1900, and identified as earthenware. It stands 10½ inches high, close to the first jar’s height. Its orange-brown surface and dark vertical streaks make a much stronger color impression. Yet its basic arrangement is familiar: a substantial body, shoulder, short neck and open mouth. Similar function-related shapes can cross material categories; a shared silhouette does not make the two objects the same kind of ceramic.
New York: a waterfront business with a name
Thomas W. Commeraw’s stoneware jar, accession 18.95.13, makes a different kind of information visible. The museum dates it 1796–1819 and associates it with his work in New York. Blue foliate decoration spreads across the light-colored body, while the upper band carries the place-name Corlears Hook. The decorative flourish and the lettering have different jobs: one draws the eye around the vessel, and the other connects the object to a specific production landscape.
The Met identifies Commeraw as a free African American potter working on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. Its account locates his kiln at Corlears Hook along the East River, in the area now between the Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges. This is more than background biography attached to a pretty jar. It changes the story from an anonymous example of an old household material to the work of a named entrepreneur within a city’s manufacturing economy.
The Henry Ford’s account of Commeraw adds the business pressures behind the surviving vessels. Its researchers describe him as a successful businessman in the first decade of the 1800s, followed by a more difficult financial environment. Court records involving promissory notes document his attempts to raise capital; by 1819 he had lost the pottery to creditors. This is not the story of a craft practiced outside commerce. Access to finance could determine whether the workshop continued, however accomplished its products.
Commeraw’s subsequent life also shows why workshop history cannot be separated from the social circumstances of its maker. The Henry Ford records that he left for Sierra Leone with his family in 1820 and returned to the United States in 1822 after a disastrous venture in which relatives died. The museum does not establish a return to pottery production. His surviving vessels thus belong to a specific period of work, while later research has recovered a life that earlier scholarship misidentified or overlooked.
Bennington: household forms and ornamental ambition
The Covered Bean Pot made by Lyman, Fenton & Co. in Bennington, Vermont, takes the comparison from storage to a more articulated household form. The Met dates the object 1849–58 and identifies its material as mottled brown earthenware. Its height is 8¾ inches. A domed cover, raised knob and long projecting attachment give the eye several distinct points of attention rather than the single open rim of the earlier jars.
Seen as a manufactured product rather than an isolated antique, the covered pot combines several responsibilities. Its body provides capacity, its cover closes access and its projecting feature changes the vessel’s outline. The surface treatment adds another layer of work. The distinction between utility and ornament is therefore already unstable here: a recognizable household form can carry a visually ambitious finish without ceasing to refer to domestic use.
The Met records this particular object as 1849–58, while the displayed maker biography gives a narrower span for Lyman, Fenton & Co. The date range is retained here rather than silently reconciled. What the collection establishes clearly is the connection between Bennington, a named maker and a richly finished earthenware form. A regional comparison can proceed from those facts without assigning the pot to an undocumented firing or year.
Two Bennington objects, two ways to occupy a room
The United States Pottery Company vase, accession 1984.395.3, was also made in Bennington and is dated 1852–58. At 11½ inches high, it is taller than the covered pot. A spreading lip, constricted lower body, pedestal and angular base produce an upward, display-oriented silhouette. Both objects are cataloged as earthenware, but the architecture of their bodies directs attention differently.
The two Bennington records name different producers: Lyman, Fenton & Co. and United States Pottery Company. That difference matters because a town’s reputation is built from particular enterprises, not from one anonymous regional hand. The covered pot and pedestal vase show how a shared place could supply objects addressing different spaces in the home. Their proximity in date does not establish that they came from the same workshop or followed the same commercial plan.
Anna, Illinois: a vessel becomes sculptural theater
The Snake Jug made at Anna Pottery in Illinois, about 1877, pushes a familiar vessel toward sculpture. The Met credits Cornwall Kirkpatrick, Wallace Kirkpatrick and Anna Pottery, and identifies salt-glazed stoneware with cobalt decoration. Its recorded height is 9⅞ inches. The image shows serpentine bodies winding around the neck and sides, with small modeled faces caught within the dense arrangement.
This object also resists the notion that visual experimentation belonged only to the later studio artist working alone. The maker fields name two Kirkpatricks and Anna Pottery, placing the sculptural vessel within a family and firm. A jug can remain recognizable while its exterior becomes an elaborate modeled composition. The object supplies evidence of that conjunction without requiring a complete symbolic interpretation of every snake or face.
Baltimore: ornamental variety within a manufacturing center
Two Chesapeake Pottery works provide a close comparison within a named Baltimore producer. The first, accession 1992.290, is a vase dated 1882–85. It is 6½ inches high and 3¾ inches in diameter. Its green surface is organized into horizontal bands, with repeated relief ornament and small feet. The overall body is cylindrical, but the decoration divides that cylinder into distinct visual registers.
The Walters Art Museum’s account of Baltimore ceramics connects that production to a larger setting. The city combined maritime trade, access to raw materials and fuel, rail connections and an incoming labor force. Its discussion of D. F. Haynes and Chesapeake Pottery describes both practical and ornamental ceramics. Those conditions help explain why decorative ambition and manufacturing were not opposites: a pottery needed materials, expertise, transport and customers as well as a compelling pattern.
The Pilgrim Vase, accession 1984.443.3, is dated 1880–85 and also cataloged as American earthenware made in Baltimore. At 9 by 8¼ inches, it presents a broad, flattened circular face, with a short neck, paired upper handles and a standing base. Flowers and birds occupy a central field surrounded by patterned borders. The title should be retained as the museum gives it, but it does not prove that this particular decorative object traveled with a pilgrim.
Placed beside the cylindrical vase, the Pilgrim Vase makes product variety concrete. One body supports repeated bands around a curved wall; the other offers a broad face for birds and flowers. These are different uses of ceramic form within the same named pottery. The comparison is not evidence that every employee performed every stage. It shows that the producer’s identity could encompass multiple shapes and decorative approaches rather than a single signature silhouette.
Chelsea: the glaze experiment meets the business
Chelsea Keramic Art Works’ stoneware vase of 1886, accession 2018.294.47, is only 6⅜ inches high and 3 3/16 inches wide. Made in Chelsea, Massachusetts, it has a rounded lower body that narrows into a long neck. Its red-brown surface is darkly mottled. Unlike the densely patterned Chesapeake examples, much of its visual force comes from the continuous transition between body and neck.
The Met’s study of Hugh C. Robertson describes a family of trained English ceramists and a maker whose work took him through New Jersey before Massachusetts. He became associated with Chelsea Keramic Art Works and later Dedham Pottery, pursuing glaze color and texture over a long career. The 1886 vase belongs to Chelsea’s production, but its red-brown appearance alone should not be used to assign it to a particular experimental recipe. The maker’s sustained experimentation is the context; the object record remains the evidence for this vessel.
The Met’s research on another Chelsea vase traces Hugh Robertson’s sustained interest in glaze color and texture and his familiarity with Chinese ceramics in museum collections. This is an important corrective to the idea of a sealed national tradition. American art pottery developed through looking, borrowing, testing and responding to objects made elsewhere. A vessel made in Massachusetts could be locally produced and internationally informed at the same time.
Biloxi: concentrating the process in one maker
George E. Ohr’s earthenware bowl, about 1897–1900, turns the opening itself into the main event. The Met records a height of 3⅛ inches and width of 6 inches, with production in Biloxi, Mississippi. Its thin walls bend and fold inward, creating a rim that rises and dips rather than maintaining a regular circle. Green, ochre and darker passages of glaze move across the altered surface.
The museum describes Ohr’s practice as a combination of wheel throwing and subsequent manipulation. He prepared clay, formed vessels, changed their shapes, made glazes and fired the work. For this bowl, the important consequence is visible: an initially open vessel can be compressed until interior and exterior are no longer easy to separate. The familiar container becomes a way to study a material while it can still be pushed and folded.
Ohr’s working arrangement offers a different emphasis from a collection label naming only a manufacturer. The Met describes a maker involved in preparing clay, throwing and altering forms, producing glazes, firing, advertising and taking wares on the road. The artistic object and the work of sustaining a business were intertwined. His individual identity was not merely a signature added after production; it ran through the activities that brought the object into being and toward an audience.
The exhibition changed the market, not every workshop at once
The Morse Museum places the expansion of American art pottery in the decades following the Civil War and emphasizes the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876 as an important stimulus. European and Asian ceramics broadened the examples available to American makers and audiences. The museum also highlights the prominent role of women, including china painters and founders such as Maria Longworth Nichols of Rookwood in Cincinnati. The ten works pictured here are therefore a selective route through a much larger movement, not a claim that its history was exclusively male or limited to these towns.
The regional comparison leaves a more useful picture than a single national style. New York makes the business and identity of a named Black potter visible. Bennington joins household forms to display-oriented earthenware. Anna demonstrates sculptural complexity within a pottery firm. Baltimore shows variety within an industrial setting. Chelsea connects family skill, international models and glaze experimentation. Biloxi concentrates many stages of production and promotion in Ohr’s practice. The vessels are different because the work, markets and ambitions behind them were different—not because one century suddenly discovered that clay could be art.
Comments
Post a Comment