Instructions for Posting Reading Responses

Hi All,

If you are not able to log onto the blog to post please remember to send me your Gmail email address.

I'm able to sign in either by going to the csuadvancedpottery page, selecting sign in, and then signing in with the same user name and password as my gmail account or signing into gmail, and selecting "blogger" from the "more" dropdown menu at the top center of the page.

There may be other ways as well . . .

Here are the instructions again for posting to the blog:

1. On the course home page (this page) please create a new post. ( Please don't add reading responses as comments on the readings page or other pages)

2. One you've written your response please make sure to add the label "reading 1".  (Since this label has already been used you should be able to just select this label from the Post Settings menu on the right side of the screen) 

3. Feel free to add additional tags with any search information you think would be useful - ie. the name of the author or subject, article title etc.

thanks and please let me know if you have any additional questions.

best,

Del

Reading 7

Garth Clark. “Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties.” Ceramic Millennium. 2006. pp. 318-336.

When a sophisticate object meets a story, it seems that the object becomes a legend regardless of its genre; craft or fine art. More tragic or bizarre the story, more profound it shakes the soul as well as every nerve. It seems unclear whether the story is attached by critics or connoisseurs later or born in the process of object making. Either way, the story could increase the market value of the object. Artists should be the center of the stories. Critics and art historians could lead the way how the stories are consumed and transformed into the legend. The history how the modern painting builds the wealth, fame or power could be a good benchmark. The problem is if ceramists and potters are ready for the responsibility to be the legend. I understand that William Murray, a Zen Buddhist himself, tried to bear the weight by creating the myth of Japanese tea ceremony in western world and by charging high prices for his pots, while Bernard Leach, with a good grasp of the reality, tried to manipulate the limits where the myth existed. 

 

To me, the Otis group is more about sculpture focusing on clay material with a touch of firing process. Does it mean that the strategy the Otis group had taken is the way to survive in high pricing market? Then, should ceramics become sculpture or any state of art trend? I agree to Clark’s saying “the fine arts market is not for everybody...most ceramist do not fit…only particular artists will survive in this world.” However, I believe it doesn’t mean an object from craft cannot be the legend with million dollar value. I believe the breathtaking story is the major factor to differentiate the object from the cheap and fancy stoneware and bone china at wholesale retail stores.   

 

Reading 7

   The article, “Homer, Ceramics, and the Marketplace Anxieties”, gives a brief
history of ceramics.  Not having as stable a history as painting, of which it was
compared, I felt that Bernard Leach was its main drawback.  When he unethically
stated that pieces should be affordable and then went to Japan and sold pieces for

higher prices, he set back potters, ceramists, and sculptors in marketability, and
divided the community.  The ceramic field is slowly coming into its own, but
variable pricing still impacts.  People in the field vary their pricing standards. 
Those who sell low hurt those selling higher, which comes across as a lack of
uniformity and cohesiveness in the field, leading to uncertainty of the value of
the field as a whole.

   Anyone starting out in this career should have a good day job, and work their way
towards a full time career in ceramics because of the market as it is today.  With
established artists crossing over from other fields, competition becomes stiffer.

To do well the individual has to market themselves.  It’s no longer good enough to just
make and sell.    

reading 6

   The article, “Studios, Academies, and Workshops: Ceramics Education From the

Mid-Nineteenth Century to World War II”, gives an idea of what a ceramic education

was like and how it evolved over time.  We’ve come a long way from 30 people in a room with 3 kick wheels and dead mice in clay.  It makes you appreciate the level of teaching and instruction done today.

   Studio Pottery is taught under the category of Fine Art at the university level, but it is available to everyone, young and old, at community centers, workshops, high schools, and junior colleges.  Equipment is plentiful so no one is left standing to observe.  Tools and clay are generally included. 

   The most current state of the art facility opened not to long ago at Harvard University.

It is a 15,010 sq. ft. facility that houses a studio, gallery, independent workspaces for

professional artists, a digital resource room, and a research collection work of visiting artists.  There are skylights and openness allowing viewing of pottery activities.  Offered

are “classrooms for wheel-thrown, handbuilt, and sculptural ceramics, as well as clay

and glaze chemistry labs, plus plaster and mold-making design areas.  There is also a large room dedicated to the use of energy-efficient kilns. Firing options include gas

reduction, soda, electric, raku, and saggar firing.”  It doesn’t get much better than that.  We've come

a long way.

      

Reading 7

In our current practice of ceramics (ours as in here, at CSU) though much of what we are up to in the art building tucked away on campus is unknown, its easy to see that we are free from a lot of the historical limitations and perspectives that ceramics experienced (suffered, really). I was surprised to hear what was considered high or good art, who was considered an artist as ceramics built its way up into the field it now is. The people who made the pots for some time were not the artists, the people decorating and showing them off were the artists. Our culture and ceramic world is strongly individualistic. It is important to see this scope of ceramics historically and recognize the access we have to making a life as an artist, while similar historical pressures still exist. With that access comes a need to discover and learn discipline in practice as a ceramist that allows our art to be projecting forward.

-Dehmie

Reading 7

In Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties Garth Clark explores the history of the ceramic market in the west over the last 100 years.  After reading this I was struck by how, like everything else, the pricing and success of ceramics is all about perceived value.  Throughout history the market for ceramics as well as other art has risen and fallen according to social trends.  Many artists who have had successful careers and were able to sell their work (while alive) were equally as good at marketing themselves as they were at their trade.  
We all need to make a living right?  But what is considered acceptable marketing, and what is considered selling out?   And is selling out really that awful?  In every other market the producer/business bases their product or service on what the consumer wants.  But in art we are expected to make work for ourselves, and then sell it...when you really think about it it's totally irrational.  Is it possible to do your own work, while still appealing to a wide enough range of buyers to be successful?

Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties

In the reading the author, Garth Clark, traces the development of the market for individual ceramic artists in the last 100 years in the U.S. and Britain. The article says that the modern ceramics market originates in the trade of Chinese Porcelain in the West in the 16th century. The porcelain that was being traded was primarily for the super wealthy and functioned more as currency and signifiers of wealth rather than fine art to be appreciated. Credit for establishing a larger ceramics market goes to Josiah Wedgwood who opened an "elegant London gallery where London's beau monde could socialize, browse and shop." By the end of the 18th century the basis of the modern ceramics market was created.

More recently, the Arts and Crafts movement took ceramics from solely an object of industry to an individual art and craft. Individual artists were able to make a living by selling pots but most had a secondary mode of income, whether its was teaching or working for a kiln company. The practicality of teaching ceramics became more reasonable as more ceramics programs were popping up around the country. Bernard Leach had an important role, both negative and positive, for the ceramics market. While he personally advocated for affordable pots for the masses, he regularly sold his pots for high prices in Japan.

Out of the 50s and 60s came abstract expressionist like Peter Voulkos and Paul Soldner who were able to sell work at a much higher price than ceramic art previously. This signaled a new age of ceramic art that, although still operating on the margins of the art world, it was at least within it and not without. Since the 80s the ceramic market has proved to be stable albeit limited.

This article is very interesting because I feel like talking about money and the commercial side of things is looked down upon and shunned by the ceramics field. Ceramicists often have a idealist picture of what it means to be a potter, drawing from the morals taught by Leach that pottery is supposed to be a humble and inexpensive art form. This idea negatively affects many potters who struggle to make a living selling their work at unreasonably low prices. All artists, including ceramicists and potters, need to identify how to make money with their art if they expect make a living doing it. As students it is important to learn the "hows" of selling their work, not just the "how" of making it.