Paul Greenhalgh Reading
I found the article by Greenhalgh to be quite intriguing for the simple reason of how he so effectively seemed to settle a long lived debate of ceramics as an art. I enjoyed how he acknowledged that ceramics has never truly lived up to the status of avant-garde but then again, the avant garde has not been clearly been apparent in modern times (at least not in America or Europe). However pottery and ceramics from their primitive days served a far more integral part of human survival through their functionality, more than they functioned purely as art- which is where I believe the rift between art and craft develops from. Though I believe that simply because the human civilization has indeed evolved with and and in part from ceramics it is so deeply rooted in ourselves. As Greenhalgh describes it- ceramics are "deeply assimilated into it [the world]."
Rather than trying to classify between artists and craftsman within the ceramic world, I think it would be more appropriate to describe these individuals as artisans. These are creatives who qualify the line between the aesthetics, process, and concepts of art with the often present functionality of the work. So indeed as Greenhalgh states- ceramics is itself, its own realm of creation; one that is in fact more a part of human culture than say painting, or drawing.
I agree that we shouldn't feel the need to create such a harsh dichotomy. We've been stuck on the art/craft debate, and, as Greenhalgh mentions, wasting our time with it, when we could just be discussing processes and activities on their own. I think that especially in current times, ceramic arts have a very unique place in the art world.
ReplyDeletei highly agree, not only as a potter myself but the soul history behind ceramics is so rooted within our creation, it may be hard to classify it as "art". Why in a way it could be the primordial ooz to witch the creativity between people and materials began, may be!
ReplyDelete