Talk:Jean Népomucène Hermann Nast

Ceramist
Being trained and working in ceramic (an unusual phrasing} does not define someone as a "ceramist." This word is a recent invention. It is used by American art potters. Jean NHN was not American and not an art potter.
 * Thank you for responding here. I think your definition is more narrow and subjective than the common definition of ceramist. And it is limited to a more contemporary interpretation based exclusively in fine art. Can you cite some third party resources as to this distinction? You of course, can create a category for American Art Potters. Please remember too English wikipedia is not exclusively about American usage. many words have multiple definitions some with distinct uses in a particular field, subsection of society or time perios. The term "modern" being a good example. I am not categorizing the company Nast founded as a ceramist, but the individual. My computer dictionary defines a ceramist as "a craftsman who shapes pottery on a potter's wheel and bakes them it a kiln." Yes, a more general definition. Jean Népomucène Hermann Nast himself produced ceramics. An article in the February 1996 issue of the The Magazine Antiques describes Nast as a French ceramist. CApitol3 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A second definition I found describes someone who works producing fine or applied art in ceramic. Houghton Mifflin's American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th edition, © 2000, defines ceramist as "one who makes ceramic objects or artwork." CApitol3 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi - I am not American so have no desire to see exclusive American usage. My position is of someone trained & experienced in ceramics, and with a worldwide view. I do not dispute Jean NHN produced ceramics, but that does not make him a ceramist. In the English language the use of the word ceramist is modern and largely confined to American ceramic artists. The word is not used by others. It is certainly not used by those in the industry, as Jean NHN was, or by historians. I would not hold your computer dictionary descrption to be much value: anything that describes the process of firing as "bakes" shows a lack of understanding. The description from the Hertiage Dictionary & The Magazine Antiques rather proves my point, that is an American term. It is not apropriate to use a American word for someone who was not, especially considering that "potter" not only accurately describes him but is a word that exists in all dictionaries. I feel extremely strongly the category should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.126.129 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that you,and your probably very smart, and interesting cohort of arts=related people use the term to mean one thing, while more generally it means another. With the general definition I have found in two dictionaries, and the references in the periodical the Magazine Antiques, Nast is a ceramist. Where comes the authority to apply such limitation on the category? Why not have a category of art pottery, with sub-categories for Americans, Danish, British, etc. I do not doubt your expertise,. more the correctness in so dramatically narrowing the scope of the category. Usage evolves, and is varied across different groups. Artists who produce contemporary art pottery and have come to think of their self-reference as ceramists is correct might not be happy to see Nast or Wedgwood included. But the term has a far more general meaning. I have seen people producing industrial ceramic products refer to themselves as ceramists, and the two dictionary definitions I have found would include them. CApitol3 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)