Paul Greenhalgh sets a stage for an
important conversation in his article “Discourse and Decoration: The Struggle
for Historical Space”. He makes several points pertinent to ceramics. The most
compelling, I believe, were that ceramics should not aspire to fit into what is
considered avant-garde (which is now perceived as “a mélange of tried
establishment formulas” 165) and that ceramics draws across disciplinary lines
and ceramicist have the ability to reject or embrace the “continual crossovers
and correspondence,” (16). Greenhalgh opens up the unique possibility for
ceramicists to think about the longevity of their work and how it defines an
era and tradition of human history.
This article came at a critical
juncture in my own practice in thinking about my work and how it nestles in to
both the fine art and craft arenas. I was particularly drawn to statement that
“Ceramics does not change the world with gestural sweeps by large individuals;
it is absorbed into the world and transforms it by being deeply assimilated
into it,” (168). It reminds me of the work by Linda Sikora. She says in her
artist statement, “I am interested in pottery form for its familiarity and
congeniality, its ability to disappear into private/personal activities and
places.” This relates to Greenhalgh’s point about ceramics being “absorbed into
the world.” Both of these related statements about ceramics articulate my attitude
towards my practice in this field.
I think the quote you mentioned about ceramics being absorbed and transformed into our culture was one of my favorite mentions as well. I feel like ceramics/pottery is an art form, that because of commercialization etc., has perhaps trivialized the medium because it is son easily mass produced. But even still in that sense, ceramics are still such an integral part of our culture, like your quote by Sikora, and it often is overlooked.
ReplyDelete