NB: [video clip starts] I suppose again for me a judge of anything is 'Does it stand the test of time?' I could go upstairs and I could point to things which are from the 18th century and medieval periods which have just got such a timelessness about them. And for me looking at this again it doesn't have that appeal whatsoever. It's just dead clay to me really. And I think even the graphic element I think is so ... you know, what is it? It doesn't have any graphic qualities at all. I think the glaze obliterates the drawing. There's no truth to material in any sense which these guys preached about. {video clip ends]
You know to see it against some works in the present day, I just ignore it. I just walk past it. I suppose there's this anthropomorphic shape, but again I can't see what the fuss was about really. And in terms of the graphic, if you're going to make a statement then make a statement. Why is it so inconspicuous? It's so disguised by the glaze and the mark making's so timid. Go and see some of those slipware dishes, see the vigour in some of those things. Or go and look at some of those oriental pieces again, which they were kind of inspired by. Go back to the source and you'll see that kind of evidence in those pieces, but not from what these people at the time were kind
MP: I suppose for somebody like Staite-Murray you've got to take it in the context of the time. It was 1930 and it was maybe made for a particular type of 1930s London interior.
NB: Yes, but I can only draw on what I see now and my own prejudices and standards of quality, as superficial as they may be. I can only go from a gut instinct, which is the way I assess things anyway, and it doesn't have any appeal whatsoever really. I'm sure they'd hate what I do, but again it's this value [that] people, especially museums, bestow on objects, because someone says 'Staite-Murray' [and] everyone then worships the ground that Staite-Murray walked on you . But I don't think it stands the test of time. Sorry.