Paul Greenhalgh reading
In the Paul Greenhalgh reading, I found it incredibly interesting about how he speaks about ceramics in terms of not being avant-garde. He brings up an interesting point of how ceramics has become "moribund" due to the fact it is not avant-garde anymore. This led way to me thinking about how crazy it is that in a material that people often use everyday in their lives has transformed into something that is just innovative and experimental. Greenhalgh describes avant-garde as being a process of challenging societal norms, which makes it interesting to me that ceramic, a material that is widely used amongst our population is something that does not possess a quality of creating radical change. I feel, in terms of functional ceramics at least, that people have the potential to have daily interactions with these objects, which seems to me would have the most power of influencing change. Especially when people use these object within their homes, they share moments with the objects when they people are at their truest states. These objects are part of the experiences people have when the individuals are not in a moment of societal influence, but when they are purely individuals or human beings. This is why it is mind blowing to me that something that interacts with people during a vulnerable state mostly has lost the quality of creating radical change in society.
This concept leads me to think about what would an avant-garde ceramics piece look like, both functional and non-functional? Is it even possible to create something that fits that quality? I personally think that Greenhalgh is incorrect about the idea that it is up to historians to establish a historical space for ceramics. I feel that if we can create things that not only express our individual ideas, but express ideas that work towards change and unifies people, we can create our own impact in history.
I think that I took a slightly different idea from the Greenhalgh reading than you did.. One quote that stood out from this reading gives ceramics a positive position when considering if it has the potential to create change; "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." I have always thought of ceramic artists along with other "crafts" people as participants of a greater community. They are more directly involved in society unlike some "fine arts" that almost have a discussion about society as outsiders rather than with society. By being so deeply ingrained in society, ceramics has the potential to transform it in a way that may be more subtle than the fast moving and radical change that we see coming from the fine arts, but is equally as valid.
ReplyDelete