Proof | Renzorodriguez

What we count as proof

A few working definitions, so nothing on this page reads as a bigger claim than it is. If a detail below doesn't match what you see elsewhere, the version here is the one we stand behind.

"Studio visit" means we were in the room: Every workshop, kiln shed and print table we describe was visited in person, usually across two or three sessions. We don't write profiles from press releases or phone calls alone. Where a maker asked us to leave out a supplier name or a client, we did, and the piece still runs without it.
Numbers come from the makers, not from us: Material costs, firing losses, stall fees and quoting habits are reported as they were told to us, with the maker's name attached. We don't average them, round them into a range, or present them as an industry standard. One ceramicist's clay price in Salt River is not a Cape Town figure.
Photographs are process, not styling: We shoot in the light that's already there, with the jigs, offcuts and half-finished work left where they sit. If a bench looks tidy in a photo, that's how it was that morning. Nothing is rearranged for the camera, and no piece is photographed in a room it wasn't made in.
Corrections stay visible: When a maker tells us a figure was wrong or a technique was described badly, we fix the text and note what changed at the foot of the piece. Silent edits make an archive untrustworthy, and this one is meant to be read years from now.
We are not a trade body or a directory: Being featured here is not an endorsement, a certification or a ranking. We don't take payment for coverage, we don't run sponsored profiles, and we don't publish a studio because it asked nicely. If a workshop appears in an issue, it's because the work and the process held up to a long conversation.

What makers say after the issue runs

Feedback from the studios we have visited, printed and followed up with months later. These are the parts of the process that held up in practice, not the parts that sounded good on the day of the shoot.

The profile ran with the tool list intact, including the jigs we built badly at first. Two students emailed asking about grain direction because of it. That is the kind of detail we never get asked about otherwise.

Furniture workshop, Braamfontein, Johannesburg

We talked about firing losses and glaze failures on the record. It was uncomfortable to read back, but three makers from other studios reached out to compare notes on Western Cape clay bodies. That conversation is still going.

Ceramics studio, Woodstock, Cape Town

The piece explained screen registration on long tables properly, without pretending small runs are easy. We have since had two interior designers ask for swatch books before placing orders, which saves everyone a print day.

Textile printing studio, Glenwood, Durban

What stood out was the follow-up. The editor came back eight months later to check whether the sourcing notes on reclaimed timber still held. Some of it had changed, and they printed the correction.

Maker and former studio tenant, Selby

I use the archive in teaching. The interviews about quoting and material costs give students something concrete to argue with, instead of the usual portfolio talk that skips the numbers and the failures.

Design lecturer, Cape Town

Our studio visit was photographed over two days, not rushed into an afternoon. The images show the workshop as it actually runs, including the mess, which is why we still send people to that issue.

Two-person print studio, Observatory