After reading Discourse and Decoration it has come to my attention that the ceramics medium seems to be a more personal experience than I ever considered. When one picks up a ceramic cup the holder cannot help but have some sort of relationship to it, a more physical relationship than one would have with a painting.
As Greenhalgh said, it is not up to us as the makers to change the way ceramics is seen, but up to the historians, and those who speak about ceramics and all art. So, as an artist, I turn my attention towards my making.
In comparison with avant-gardism, with my art I hope to change the world. So with my art I hope to influence and encourage. As most of you know my interest is in sculptural ceramics. So am I an avant-garde artist that works with clay? Or am I a ceramic artist that holds avant-garde values close?
Recently, I have been questioning how to reach more people with my art, this writing brought to my attention the very personal relationship has with a ceramic piece of work. Does art reach us more closely when we personally are able to handle, to touch, to immerse oneself with that object or set of objects?
I will continue to make ceramic work, with new notions in mind. If I can make a piece remind one of their childhood not by sculpting a scene fro their childhood, but creating something that makes one want to climb, to jump, to touch.. I have succeeded in reminding one of some characteristics of the nature of their childhood.
You raise some swell points in your response. I love that idea of having a relationship with any ceramic work you handle, its a thought I like to have when I make functional objects. Personally i think it is strange that people love to have say a full set of store bought, identical mugs in their cabinet; I would much rather have a variety if mug/cup forms from which to choose rom and use. Every piece should offer a different experience in its use. I also couldn't agree more about wanting to create art that makes people want to "climb, to jump, to touch." Having that powerful of an impact on a person is probably one of the most gratifying feelings as artist.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMatt, you bring to attention some very interesting questions as you speak of store bought versus artist bought. This line may become hazy at times, as Molly Hatch demonstrated to us when she visited. She now is able to create a piece that Anthropologie then takes and replicates, enabling more individuals to buy her work at a lower price. Her friends are happy because they can now afford to buy her work! But it does blur the line of hand-made and store-bought.. Which brings me to another point Greenhalgh brought up during the Panel Discussion at CSU, which is the idea of locality. Where some things should remain individually and artistically crafted, where as, others should remain to be manufactured without evidence of a maker. Instead, the lack of difference between the objects made is valued. Greenhalgh brings this to light with the example of going to the doctor to get a shot, and having the doctor explain that he himself hand made the needle he is about to use! So ceramic ware, yes, clothes, yes, jewelry, yes, but cars engines? seat belts? airplanes and elevators?
DeleteIt has become prevalent in western cultures to place the "fine china" in the cupboard for display and rare use, where as in some eastern cultures the same ware is used daily. So this makes me question: would individuals be happier using artfully crafted hand-made items everyday versus mass produced cookie cutter products? Are the individuals who do use their friend's hand-made mug in the morning getting more out of life? Are then these eastern cultures really LIVING everyday because they are more immersed in the presence of art everyday? Where as western cultures tend to only use artfully crafted ware on special occasions. Which in turn makes the occasion all the more special?
I agree with Greenhalgh that the historical space for ceramics could be achieved by historians but I also believe that a third party who is willing to support ceramics with a substantial amount of capital and a influential social power, could considerably improve the environment of ceramics community. For example, if a member of Rockefeller family (co-founder of MoMA) or a major shareholder of Shell Oil Company is a passionate advocate of ceramics, its position would be quite different. Actually, art history has showed the power of patronage in Renaissance backed by de' Medici family of Florence, and the golden age of Chinese art under the Emperor Qianlong’s reign. Interestingly, even the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting (Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko ) around the world in 1950s and 1960s for the propaganda war with the Soviet Union.
ReplyDeleteJin, you have a point, not only art historians have the power but also those who have the money carry with them the power to support ceramics space. But how do we as artists reach those people with the power? Do we have to die first to get this space? Ken Price is a perfect example of the artist reaching the audience of the individuals who have the power to give ceramics a well deserved space in art history. But with the mention of all of these influential groups, comes the notion of money, those who have the money, have the power. But is it necessary?
DeleteChelsea, I am not sure whether I can deliver my ideas effectively, but I like to try. I think the power of clay (pottery, ceramics) has been rooted into personalizing the experience (personal engagement) with clay objects, and that’s the reason why ceramics has survived as a genre over time and thrive now with amateur craftspeople compare to other genres.
DeleteI am happy I can make something meaningful to me with clay and share the experience with people like me. So, frankly speaking, I don’t care whatever art historians said or whether the power players have interest in ceramics or not. I am in honeymoon with clay. However, as Albert Camus’ argument, I keep asking inherently if it is enough and searching the answers.
I don’t know if ceramics (artist) need to reach the power players, but I believe ceramics could be the major art movement with more public, official, and cooperative approach to the world. How about actively participating in public art installations including large scale constructions such as September 11 Memorial and the world’s future tallest building in China. If ceramists dream this kind of vision, the picture of our ceramic community will change in the future.
I think it is interesting that you said that it is up to the historians not the artist. It makes me wonder, should we fight for where are pieces stand? Isn't that how we create art? We decide what to make and how history impacts us, why should we let a historian categorize us when it is our choices that defines us?
ReplyDeleteWhen you compare your work with the avant-garde, I do not think it would be smart to call yourself an "avant-garde artist that works with clay", rather your second propositions "a ceramic artist that holds avant-garde values close". AFter reading this passage by Greenhalgh, one of the main ideas that I found extremely important is that if movement or style was created with a certain media, or with a certain media in mind, we cannot classify objects objects that are not that media in the same manner. I think that not only would it make more sense to say that you hold avant-garde principals close in your work, but it also leaves your work to its own classifications, without limiting the way we think about it.
ReplyDelete