Is the dualistic distinction between the 'arts' and the 'crafts' a valid one that we want to support and perpetuate? It may be that Studio Potter's call for a discipline of Craft History is a mistake, because it starts out from worn out concepts that accept the prejudices of Art History. What is pottery, anyway? Definitions are basic, and an inclusive definition is necessary if we are to indicate the full range of possibilities open to the potter; that is, if we are not going to raise a style to an ontology.