Greenhalgh criticized
a long practice of “the negation of ceramics by the art history industry” which
is based on the Modernism theory. By defining the avant-garde movement as the
activities of various groups rejecting established values to change society “through
the radical use of arts” and pointing out that avant-gardism is not same as experimentation
and innovation, Greenhalgh tries to disclose the fallacy of academic attitudes toward
ceramics. As he notes, the contemporary fine art practice including avant-garde
strategies is already established convention that art students learn in the legitimized
public institution.
To build a
ceramic theory, Greenhalgh suggests the careful speculation of relationship
between people and objects as a starting point. He also outlines the comprehensive
study of ceramic objects in five areas: 1) process and method 2) the maker 3) the
subject matter 4) related objects chronologically and contemporarily 5) the
object’s relation to human life. Therefore, Greenhalgh urges that the “historical
space” for ceramics could be achieved through focusing on genre itself as well
as the profound heritage built by a history of emotional and physiological
response to objects.
Ceramics seems
to require artists and historians a broader and longer view because it involves
not only the multi-process from form making to firing but also the physical and
psychological experience by touching and using objects in daily life. Different
from avant-gardism, these technical and functional characteristics imply an important
role of historical references to making objects. As Greenhalgh writes, “ceramics is a plural activity and has
always enjoyed stealing from anywhere and everywhere within visual culture.”
No comments:
Post a Comment