I doubt that these symbols really are Chinese characters. In the first image, the left component of the first character vaguely resembles the radical 隹 mirror-imaged, and as a whole it may be a transformation of the character 雛. The second symbol may be a transformation of 常. The character in the second image consists of 辵 (with an extra stroke on top) and 巾 in seal script, but that character does not exist.

In addition to the difficulty in recognizing these as characters, the calligraphic style of the characters seem incongruous. The writer in the first image seems to be aiming for a running-hand style, as evidenced by the connecting strokes in the second character. However, the left side of the first character distinctly lacks connection between the horizontal strokes, which would have been written in succession therefore likely connected. This increases the likelihood that the inscriptions are produced by someone who is imitating existing calligraphic works, but themselves unfamiliar or at least unskilled with the practice.

According to @dROOOze's suggestion, the first image seems to be 錦書, or 錦畫. I agree with this reading, especially since it fits the context of inscription on a colourful piece of pottery. The character in the second image consists of 辵 (with an extra stroke on top) and 巾 in seal script, but that character does not exist.

In addition to the difficulty in recognizing these as characters, the calligraphic style of the characters seem incongruous. The writer in the first image seems to be aiming for a running-hand style, as evidenced by the connecting strokes in the second character. However, the left side of the first character distinctly lacks connection between the horizontal strokes, which would have been written in succession therefore likely connected. This increases the likelihood that the inscriptions are produced by someone who is imitating existing calligraphic works, but themselves unfamiliar or at least unskilled with the practice.