According to Greenhalgh, Art history has put little focus on
the Art of pottery. Only a select few art historians have chosen to
put some focus on it, but for the most part pottery has been neglected. He asks
why clay is different from any other art media? Pottery has moved from the
classification of avant- garde (meaning “new and unusual or experimental
ideas, especially in the arts, or the people introducing them.) Does the fact
that it has moved from avant –gardism mean it is less important of an art? And
if it is no longer avant-garde, what is it classified as now? (According to Greenhalgh
if something is no longer avant-garde it should be considered academic.) That
brings the question of “is there a relevance of this to ceramics?” Ceramics has
not been subject to many of the art movements that have gone on throughout the
history of art. Does that mean it is separate from other forms of art making?
Ceramics interacts with people in a way that other arts cannot. He talks about
how art can make one think in 5 distinct areas. He says that “successful
objects provoke interest in all 5 areas.” In my opinion, a successful ceramics
piece can do the same, so is it art in that way? Ceramic works are separate
from their makers more-so than arts of another media. They are is most cases
about the form and not so much about the actual maker. Of course it will have
certain traits that only it’s maker can give them, but to a person seeing the
work hundreds of years later, that would not be so evident. They would focus
more-so on the actual form. The fact that ceramic is such a durable media,
makes it possible to last for hundreds of years unlike other art forms. In conclusion,
Greenhalgh says “the next move will not come from the makers; they are too busy
making. It must come from the historians.” It needs to be exposed by the
historians in order to gain historical importance in the Art History world.
You bring up some interesting points about the influence of a maker on a ceramic piece. In its timelessness, I suppose a piece of ceramic art does lose some of the maker's touch, but I think that with contemporary ceramics, individual artists still have a lot of opportunity and potential to give their work a personality of its own, so to speak. For instance, an Ayumi Horie cup has a lot more personality and speaks more about its artist than a still life painting.
ReplyDeleteThe movement from avant-garde makes me wonder how much culture played into. The values, trade, and accessibility either heightening the value of clay or even devaluing it. I also think Paul Greenhalgh's argument fits into the argument about mass production: is it still art? As more things become cheaper and more accessible does the value of the material become unimportant?
ReplyDelete