Interview

Q. Who are you and what do you do?

A. Who I am is not that important. I am a potter. I work in ceramics and I also teach, presently at the Emily Carr University of art and design, in Vancouver. I also write extensively on issues related to ceramics, which have been widely published. But basically, I am a potter. On a personal level, there is not much else to say that would be of interest. If anything relevant to an understanding of my work needs to be addressed, I will do so in context. Artists are not anymore interesting than anyone else. What they do is interesting.

Q.Can you tell me more about your work?

A. Yes. Most of my work involves the making of highly decorative yet functional pottery. The intent is to explore the nature of ceramics as a specific and autonomous art form within art and culture. I try to do in ceramics what can only be done in ceramics, to say with ceramics what only ceramics can say. For me, this involves making decorative, functional pottery. At the same time, I am interested in ceramics in all its possible contexts, in architecture, in design or elsewhere for example. Yet I feel that pottery making is central to the art and it remains central to my work for that reason. Ceramics is really a multi-disciplinary art form, combining various aspects of art, craft, design and even media. Photography and computer applications can readily be applied to ceramics, for example. Such categories as art, design, crafts, media, are irrelevant in ceramics. The only moniker that is relevant is “ceramics”, and not ceramics as a material, which it is, but ceramics as an art form, which it is as well. This double definition seems to confuse a lot of people, even within the field itself. Ceramics defy the various art categories since it encompasses them all. I try to address this directly in my work, so that it is altogether art, craft, design and media. It is all of these things and none of them, simultaneously. What it really is, is ceramics, but ceramics doesn’t enjoy currency in art right now. Since it is hard to impossible to pigeon-hole ceramics in an acceptable category (art, design, media, or even crafts), it is simply ignored by the mainstream. Curators are after all bureaucrats who love neat little boxes where things fit neatly and tidily. If you do not fit in their neat little white boxes, you may as well not exist. The art world constantly speaks of multi-disciplinary art but in actuality, things are very compartmentalized.

Q.Why did you choose to work in ceramics then?

A. I started at 17, 18 years old. It is really the only thing I have ever done, since. I didn’t know what I was doing in choosing ceramics then. It seemed like an interesting direction. My father said once, disappointingly, “He could have been anything he wanted, and he is making little pots!” I always knew I am an artist but I also knew I didn’t want to make “art”, not in the conventional sense anyway. I wanted my work to have an actual impact in the real life of real people, not art for museums. Ceramics was appealing as well in its physicality and the necessity for actual manipulation in its transformation and its experience. Of course at the time I wasn’t aware of that consciously. It is only later that I realized that this was what attracted me in the first place. Ceramics in so many ways operates contrary to the general direction art and culture is taking. It is a highly skilled, technical practice, aspects not particularly prized in art right now, but it is also slow and very long lasting in a world where everything is very fast and instantly obsolete. If find ceramics to be endlessly challenging and full of new possibilities to explore. It is inexhaustible in its richness and potential. The fact that it is not considered relevant as an art form now is a huge part of its attraction for me. I have always made a conscious (and unconscious) effort to do the exact opposite to what everybody else is doing, in art or elsewhere. This has proven to be very profitable conceptually, not so much politically though.

Q.So where can we see your work?

A. That is a bit of a problem, actually. Virtually, my work is extensively featured on two websites: at www.paulmathieu.ca, you will find a large selection of works from the last 35 years, as well as writings on my work and writings I have published; at www.ceramicsresearch.ca, can be found more material pertaining to current researches where I investigate the relationship between computer technologies and ceramics as forms of archives. Both websites are constantly revised and upgraded. Otherwise, it is somewhat difficult to experience my work. I have no commercial representation whatsoever, and the kind of work I do receives very little, if any, institutional support. It is rarely, if ever, shown in galleries or museums since they seem to consider, erroneously in my opinion, that it is not in their mandate to do so. It is shown sporadically, here and there but it remains largely invisible, certainly underrepresented, considering the vitality of ceramics, and related practices, across Canada right now. There is nowhere to see it or to purchase it, actually. In the world in which we live in order to get commercial representation, the work needs to be marketable and for art to be marketable, it needs to receive institutional support. It needs to be exhibited and collected in art galleries and museums and, of course since it all goes together, by collectors. This doesn’t happen in Canada in any significant way for the kind of art I do, that is to say contemporary art in craft media. This doesn’t only affect me, but many other major practitioners all over the country. It is a huge problem, for many, but not too many, yet among the very best. If I have always been provided with the means to do my work, and for that I am thankful, I am not provided with the means to exhibit or sell my work, in the current political context anyway. Funnily enough the work should be readily and easily marketable. It is seductive, accessible and easy to relate to, superficially anyway. Yet before stopping to work at marketing it a few years back (I just gave up), I had solos shows of my work in reputable commercial galleries in New York, Chicago, Montreal and Toronto where I did not sell a single piece! It is not tenable for commercial galleries to exhibit and market my work.

Q.But surely, your work is supported by craft organizations? Such associations exist all over the country to promote crafts and ceramics and they usually support galleries where the very best work is regularly featured?

A. Well actually, no. I have never received any support from any crafts organization to exhibit my work. Maybe twice in group shows, that’s it, and then years ago. I must add that if it was in a competitive exhibition, with a prize to win, then I won! Yet, I have never been asked to exhibit my work in craft galleries and when I have approached them with a proposal, I have always been refused. For many years I would have been very interested to show my work in such venues, and it would have made a real difference in my professional life, but now, frankly, I would find it an embarrassment. Craft organizations across the country are so out of touch with what is currently happening of significance, that they are integral to the fact that craft practices have such a bad reputation right now. To be associated in any way or form with crafts now is embarrassing. Craft associations are supposed to be professional organizations but actually, they are political associations, very ideological and with obsolete ideological positions. They are only interested in promoting their members. Needless to say, I am not a member of any. For years I was represented by the best Canadian contemporary crafts gallery, Prime, in Toronto, but it changed ownership a few years ago and I stopped this relationship. No other gallery has taken its place and no other continues the rigorous and dedicated work they did, certainly not “galleries” run by crafts associations. As an anecdote, Prime was situated around the corner from the Art Gallery of Ontario, and for twenty-five years, the art curators from that institution would walk by without any of them ever entering to check it out …. But then contemporary crafts have no place at the AGO either, or other like places, except in their gift shops of dubious taste where crafts are sold to generate profits for the acquisition of contemporary art! So crafts is used to subsidize contemporary art practices but it is not good enough to be considered, exhibited and collected by these very places. Interestingly, Canadian museums are full of historical crafts but these are usually of foreign origin, thus acceptable. Canadian institutions are, still, colonial institutions. They show things that have been accepted elsewhere or, better still, that come from elsewhere. Contemporary Canadian works are invisible. In my opinion, it amounts to a national shame.

Q.Since you work in ceramics, surely those institutions that support ceramics directly as part of their mandate must have shown interest in your work at some point?

A. Well, actually, no, not really. Although there is a Canadian Ceramics and Glass Gallery in Waterloo and the Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art in Toronto, I have never exhibited my work in either of these places, if we make exception of not very important group shows, once or twice. They both have a few examples of my early work in their holdings, which they received through gifts from donors or patrons, but they have never purchased a work for their collections. There are other public collections of ceramics here and there but their holdings tend to be regional and do not apply to what I do. The Burlington Art Centre has quite a few early works that were donated to them but they have made no new acquisitions in nearly twenty years. The National Crafts Collection at the Canadian Museum of Civilization has a few minor things of mine as well, more as an afterthought that necessity, but then this could describe their whole collection rather well too. The Musée de la Civilization in Quebec City has nothing at all but the Musée des Beaux-Arts du Québec has been a keen supporter lately, by accepting works I give them for tax receipts. But there is no consistency, it doesn’t make sense.

Q.How about private collectors?

A. Again, there is no serious collector of ceramics, or art collectors interested in ceramics, that I know of, in Canada, and none that have acquired works in more than a decade now. It is almost impossible to sell on the International market without support and, basically, there is none. And contemporary art collectors are not interested at all, unless it is the work of a “conventional” artist who happens to use ceramics, as a material. Most collectors are followers, not leaders anyway. They collect what other collectors collect, and basically for status and prestige. They do not so much collect “works” but “names”: this is by so and so, etc. They all have more or less the same sanctioned pieces by the same sanctioned artists. If your work isn’t approved by institutions, galleries and museums, collectors are not interested. Ceramics is of no interest to them. They are only interested in what they already know and in what other people tell them to be interested in. Perception and image are everything to collectors and to curators too, who do not so much do their job for the general public but for the perception of other curators. Ceramics is also too cheap, it doesn’t have the instantaneous value, thus meaning, conferred by money.

Q.How do you explain the situation you describe?

A. As I see it, the crafts community, and specifically the ceramics milieu, suffers from a very deep inferiority complex. This inferiority complex is also endemic in Canadian art in fact and this is part of the reason ceramics is treated the way it is. To be taken seriously on the International scene, Canadian institutions and their curators must follow trends coming from elsewhere and conceptual ceramics is a specifically Canadian phenomenon. It has not been sanctioned elsewhere yet, so it cannot possibly be taken seriously here. Crafts and ceramics want desperately to be taken seriously as legitimate art forms, not an easy task in the current climate in art. In order to do so, they operate under the false pretense that anything that looks like art is art, but then so does the art world itself … The crafts and ceramics authorities, in museums, art galleries, in academia, etc., all think that it is better to support and exhibit second rate “art” (craft that looks like art) than first rate “crafts” (crafts that is obviously crafts). Sculpture anything, no matter how second rate it would be perceived within sculpture, is inherently perceived as better than first rate pottery (or weaving, for example). I do not make second or even first rate sculpture. I am not a sculptor and I am not an artist either, in the conventional, current meaning of the term. Certainly not a contemporary artist! I do not make art for now. In that sense, it is not contemporary. I have larger and higher ambitions. I am a potter, I make pots, as best as I can. This is not good enough today. There is no obfuscation in what I do, it is what it is and what it is remains evident, or so it seems to anyone. At the same time it is much more that what it seems, but everyone is so clueless about crafts and ceramics and pottery, that the value, significance or meaning of what I, and others do, escapes everyone. It is easier just to ignore it. Pretend it doesn’t exist. I see crafts as highly disruptive and subversive forms of art. Since the art world appears to value disruption and subversion above all else, one would think that it would recognize these strategies in crafts and value their contribution. The problem is that crafts are disruptive and subversive about the current concept of art itself, about the hegemony of conventional contemporary art in its experience and in its display and to disrupt, to contest and to subvert art itself is not acceptable. Yet that is what the best crafts, the best ceramics do, by their very existence. One of the main problems is that craft practices and craft objects do not need the context of art institutions to operate and have meaning. They do so intrinsically. Presently, art acquires meaning and operates solely within the institutional museum context. Outside the museum, art would basically be meaningless. The art that is promoted by museums is the art that requires the museum for its very existence. Nonetheless, crafts today like any other art need the museum for political and economic reasons since the art museum is the sole repository of value, thus meaning, for art now. Outside the museum now, art serves no purpose, has no meaning, one could even say that it doesn’t exist, except as a commodity. It has been evacuated from the social sphere, except as an opportunity for tight social groups to congregate and find each other superior to everybody else. This is the only “social” role art plays today. In my opinion, it is a huge problem but everyone prefers to ignore it.

Q.Yet, you have received numerous recognitions from the art as well as the crafts community, haven’t you?

A. Yes, I have. In fact I am the only potter in Canada to have received each and every important prize and award available now. I won’t name them all here but the list is rather impressive. You see, in order to continue to do my work, which I largely subsidize myself, I teach first of all Teaching is an activity I consider essential to my practice as an artist. But I also need to win important national awards and prizes. These significant revenues permit me to continue to do my work, since I sell on average one work a year, at most, and I have never made a profit, in 35 years, from the sale of my work. I am not the only one in this situation and I know of many others who operate, no matter what, under similar circumstances. Meanwhile, institutions whose mandate, funded my taxpayers, it is to promote and support art practices are not doing anything, even those who are specifically defined by their commitment to crafts. I must add that if these prizes and awards are usually administered by groups and associations, they have always been given to me through the intervention of individuals, who know and respect my work. If we had taken a general vote to make these decisions I would never have won anything. The crafts community doesn’t approve of my work more than does the art community. I do not seek approval from anyone, anyway. But it is nice when it comes, and I am grateful that it does. It is true that I have received important recognition through major National Art awards but let me illustrate my point. When I won the Chalmers Award for excellence in Crafts, the other categories of winners that year were for Dance (performance and choreography), Theatre (playwriting and direction) and Music (composition and performance). Now, I was very familiar with the work of all the other winners. I had seen their performances, read their books, listened to their music, etc., some of them for many, many years. Yet none of them knew of my work or knew who I was. They probably still don’t, as a matter of fact. But then, they have the excuse of working in other fields, in entertainment. So when I won the Governor General’s Visual Arts Award Saidye Bronfman Award for Crafts, all the other winners were also visual artists, two
painters, three sculptors, a media artist and an art administrator. Again, They were all very familiar to me and I had been following their work closely, some of them for many, many years. Yet they knew nothing of my work, they didn’t know who I was. They probably still don’t, as a matter of fact!

Q.To change the conversation, let’s return to your work. You have been associated over the years with a group of ceramists from Montreal, notably Léopold L. Foulem and Richard Milette. Can you tell me about this group?

A. Well, this is it basically, the three of us, although others are in the periphery or have been influenced by the ideas explored in our independent works. Roughly, we define ourselves as conceptual ceramists, in the sense that our work is much more about ideas than it is about materials or about objects. We materialize ideas by making things, and these things are ceramics, but the idea, the concept, is primary. Again, one may think that since art is obsessed by conceptualism, still, such work would be well received and accepted as art. Well no. It is difficult to impossible for perfectly intelligent people to see beyond the material itself and beyond their preconceived ideas, their prejudice, concerning ceramics.

Q.What makes your work similar and what makes it distinct, if anything?

A. This is an important question. Although we have known each other for a long time (Léopold was first my teacher, then he was Richard’s and the two are now married actually and work together in close proximity), we are all quite different, despites similarities. First, we are all interested in concepts over materials. Yet we all specifically work in ceramics, which is a very material practice. In order to appreciate and understand what we do, you have to forget everything you think you know about ceramics. Yet, our work is obviously ceramics. We all consider ceramics to be a specific and autonomous art form, different from any other art form while being in essence the most interdisciplinary art form there is, as I said earlier and will repeat here. Ceramics defy categories; it is altogether art, design, craft and media, even. It incorporates easily, seamlessly all these aspects, still perceived as separate in institutional academic structures, in museums, etc. As I said earlier, our work expresses what only ceramics can express. Yet stylistically, for example, our individual works are very different. They do not look the same at all. In fact, a non-stylistic approach to art-making is one of the essential characteristics of our work. The work looks the way it looks by conceptual necessity, not by aesthetic choice. Even conceptually, our work is somewhat different. Both Léopold and Richard make work that is fundamentally non-functional, in a practical way, although it usually, if not always, makes clear references to functional pottery forms. It is essential for their work to be non-functional in order to operate as they intend. My work on the other hand is generally functional, even practical in an obvious way. In my case, it is essential that it be so. Function is part of its subversive intent in a world that sees art as fundamentally useless. Nonetheless, function (and decoration too), in their case as in mine, are still there to operate as concepts. It just does so differently in my case than in theirs. Over the years we all have learned a lot from each other and the influences are reciprocal. Yet, Léopold is without contest the leader of the group. Without his presence and model, neither Richard nor myself would be doing what we do now. His influence has not been too widespread otherwise, since people are generally influenced stylistically (they do work that looks like someone else’s work). The fact that style is not a relevant factor in his (our) work inhibits possible followers or imitators. Yet its influence is far-reaching, world-wide in fact. I should also add other differences between us. Richard and Léopold’s work uses commercially available material from the hobbyist market. Their work is thus neutral, referential and, although beautifully and carefully made, with great skill, it is not, purposefully, original at the levels of materials or techniques. My work, on the other hand, uses materials I developed independently and that are specific to my practice. I also use techniques that are more idiosynchratic, that I developed around the limitations and potentials of my materials and my needs. I know of no other potter who quite glazes pots like I do, for example. Yet, process and technique are not really relevant to understand the work. Contrary to so much crafts, that is not what it is about. The work is not about its making. Also, Léopold and Richard work with earthenware, low temperature clay and glazes that they buy ready made. I work with high temperature clay and glazes that I have developed and formulated myself. If they use decals or transfers on a piece, they use commercially available material; if I use decals, I will design and produce my own. These differences are not significant otherwise. Their method is essential for their work, and mine is essential for my specific intents. In the end and in both cases, it is still the concept that has precedence over anything else.

Q.You are also associated together and have shown together over the years as Gay men. What is the significance of this connection?

A. Our identification as Gay men provides a form of bonding and it has been instrumental in bringing us together, of course. It creates another common ground, beyond the art form we practice, beyond ceramics. It also provides subject matter that we all explore, if differently again, in our work, when necessary. It is important to stress that sexuality is not the subject OF the work, it is a subject FOR the work. Cezanne paints apples and mountains, but his work isn’t about apples and mountains, specifically. Of course sexuality a more loaded than apples and mountains! Sexuality is in no way pervasive as a subject in our works, yet it manifests itself periodically, most often as an analogy for marginalization between two cultural practices, one around sexuality, the other around art. Homosexuality cannot possibly be taken seriously by contemporary culture. Neither can ceramics. Gay people are only allowed two roles in society, the comic figure (Oscar Wilde, Elton John or Liberace, for example) or the tragic figure (Oscar Wilde, again, Matthew Shephard or Robert Mapplethorpe). To be taken seriously, one needs to combine the two seamlessly, altogether comic and tragic, like Oscar Wilde and closer to us, the art collective General Idea. But otherwise it cannot, it is never allowed to be taken seriously. Ceramics suffers the same fate. It is only allowed to be either cheap gifts or very practical things, like bricks and tiles. Despite the significant and seminal contributions both homosexuals and potters have made and continue to make, they are never taken seriously, and they are not allowed to. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it does have its disadvantages. Take the example of Douglas Coupland. He is a serious writer who obviously wants to be taken seriously and generally is. In his work, there are tangential gay characters and gay life has a presence, if limited. Yet that is as far as it goes. If Douglas Coupland was a serial killer and he wrote books with a character who is a serial killer, nobody would get killed! In order to be taken seriously, gay sexuality has to be sublimated or inoperative in his books. Otherwise he would be a “gay” writer and his work, the very same work mind you, would not receive the reception it presently enjoys. I do not want to compromise. In my most recent work, I use gay imagery for just such a reason. I make pots (not serious), by hand (not serious), in ceramics (not serious), that are decorative (not serious), and clearly practical (not serious), with naked male bodies (not serious either). The result, in my intention, is to make work that is absolutely dismissible yet impossible to ignore. The fact that they are pictorially articulated in ways that are specific to ceramic surfaces just add to the confusion since no one, not even art experts (especially art experts!), really “get” them. They do not have the necessary theoretical tools to understand them. It is much easier to rely on familiar conventions to analyze, thus dismiss, them. The right criteria need to be used in order to do justice to the work, yet if you do not know what these criteria are and use inappropriate ones instead, you will judge the work negatively. This is what tends to happen with ceramics.

Q.How about gay curators or gay collectors, have they shown interest in your work?

A. It is a cliché to think of the art world as fundamentally gay, but this is neither true nor false. Although many curators and collectors and artists are gay, gay identity is still largely kept quiet in art circles. I do not know of any curator, or collector to have shown interest in my work because of a shared identity. But then curators or collectors, whatever their sexual orientation have basically shown very little to no interest in my work anyway. Gay people, especially men, make all of their decision based on taste, on what they like. Gay people tend to have very defined taste but very little of it, usually. My work is “tasteless”, it is not about taste. You do not need to like it to experience it and to appreciate it. It may even be better not to like it to really experience it. Art is not something one “likes”. Art is something one experiences and that experience yields some form of understanding, a new experience. Whether you like the work or not is largely irrelevant in either the experience you have or the understanding you receive. Food is something you “like”, it is largely informed by taste. Taste is detrimental to art experiences. Yet taste is still pervasive in art. Photography curators, for example, are interested in photographs because they like photography, and they are not interested in sculpture, for example, because do not like it. It is all very sad, really. But then the art world is really a very sad place that also happens to be very funny. That is why it takes itself so seriously.

Q.Who do you work for then?

A. My work is really very accessible. I make forms that are instantly recognizable, pots, vases, plates, bowls, etc. You know instantly what you are looking at, what it is for, what you would do with it. If this makes the work accessible it also makes it easily dismissible. I work for everyone really, but you do have to give it attention and time. It appears easy and simple but it isn’t. If you bother to really experience the work, there is space for everyone and anyone in it. The work is also expensive, probably very expensive even. If you are interested in acquiring it, it is priced as would any other important contemporary art object. My ideal collectors would be fashion designers like Marc Jacob or Karl Lagerfeld, or musicians like Elton John or Rufus Wainwright. People with money and sophistication, a rare combination …. But how would they ever find out about my work since it never receives any coverage that would bring it to their attention. I make invisible work, it seems. Right now all of it goes into storage, so I make it for the warehouse. There is no rush anyway, it is not going to go bad. Ceramics main material advantage is that it is incredibly resistant to time. Eventually it will be appreciated and someone will benefit from it. This used to piss me off a lot. Not anymore. I have made peace with the fact that it will profit other people eventually, people who wouldn’t talk to me right now if we met, probably, people who would not show my work now, would not buy my work now, would not write or consider my work now. These same people, or their equivalent, will eventually appreciate it and profit from it. Profit more than appreciate, in fact! The longer they wait, the more it is their loss. But one doesn’t make work to store it away. I would like to share my work with everyone but it is not readily possible now, unfortunately.

Q.You mentioned at the beginning that you write. Why do you write?

A. I write because I enjoy it but also primarily to explain the work I do. Nobody understands ceramics it seems. The more authority they have, even within the field itself, the less I think they understand it. If you do not have a basic understanding of something, you cannot really appreciate it and experience it fully. Knowledge itself is not enough. Everyone knows ceramics. It is familiar and ubiquitous, but almost no one understands it. Because I have been working with it, and thinking about it for a long time, I have some insight. I write to share these insights. When I write, I rarely refer to my work. I write about other people’s work. It is more interesting to me. Yet, of course, like anyone else, it is all about my work, about me, in the end. I write to understand what I do better, so I can make better work. I hope it has the same effect for other people. Funnily enough, it is really easy to get published but one wonders if anyone ever reads anymore … Writing is taken more seriously than pottery making. It gives legitimacy to my work, or will do so eventually. Leaving an extensive paper track will make my work more valuable in the future and this will benefit even more those who will appreciate it, show it, market it (buy it and sell it) and collect it, then. I have no doubt this will happen, but probably not soon. I want these people to get as much benefit from my work as they can so they can enjoy it even more. My writings will be very useful. It is my hope that they will use the profits made to encourage and support young artists who need it, by buying their work right away, but of course I have no control over this. By the way, my more recent book “The Art of the Future: 14 essays on Ceramics” is available to download on line for free, text and images at www.paulmathieu.ca/theartofthefuture. Have a look and let me know what you think.

Q.Why do you call yourself a potter?

A. Because it is true, quite simply, since I make pots. Of course one can call oneself what one wants these days sand get away with it. I could easily call myself a sculptor (anything is a sculpture, basically) and get away with it. But it would feel pretentious to me, an usurpation. I leave that to others, it is a crowded field. If the art world was not suffering from “artism” (the belief that certain art forms are better than others), this would be irrelevant. I call myself a potter to make people aware of the prejudice words and labels intrinsically carry.

Q.Why do you refuse to talk to the press or have your picture taken?

A. I do not see the necessity to have my photo featured in any way, in any context. As I said at the beginning, artists are not anymore interesting than anyone else. Their work is interesting. Photographs of artists take the focus away from the work. They distract and they make it easier to avoid dealing with the work. If the meaning of your work depends on your personality, then you are not doing very good work, I think. Anyway, in my personal case, who I am is of little to no importance as far as my work is concerned.

All past experiences dealing with the press have been very frustrating and a complete waste of my time, so I made the resolution to stop. Journalists are not interested in what interests me and they ask irrelevant questions. The press is almost exclusively interested in spectacle and in entertainment. I have nothing to “sell” and what I do is not in any way entertaining. The press is not interested in visual art, even art journalists. They are interested in promoting people and events that do not really need promotion. It is so much more easier for them that way. The more you need to be promoted, the least promotion you get. Just think of Paris Hilton! It is the same for art journalism. Journalists are interested in promoting themselves through other people and events. I find them utterly unprofessional. I will not be party to such insignificance. As an example and on the other hand, sports journalists are very professional. They are knowledgeable about sports and athletes, and they are genuinely curious, while art journalists are as uninformed and prejudiced about art as the average person. They just make a career of their limitations and prejudice. I am too long winded anyway and nobody wants to listen or even less read a rant! I thank you, if you have made it that far.