Sorry, I just realized I put this as a comment not a new post.
Discourse and Decoration: The Struggle for Historical Space
By: Paul Greenhalgh
I understood from this writing that Paul's main point was that ceramics has been and is criticized for having no core or "thread", denying it appropriate and acknowledged historical and contemporary significance or "space". He was saying that the rendering of this comes in the intentional shedding of light on ceramics for all that it truly is through research and embracing what is known and found.
It was helpful and interesting that Paul clarified that avant-grade has been about changing the world, that it is not innovation and experimentation (two things that it seems like ceramics has always been about).
Greenhalgh stated that there are things at ceramic's core in its usage and practices that ensure its importance and endurance. I thought it was amazing that he said a focal point needs to be understanding, shedding light on and emphasizing the relationship between people and objects, because this is where the most intrigue lies. It seems true that in one way or another we are all after articulation in this interaction, cultivating it and allowing it to captivate us and others would definitely count as embracing ceramics for what it is.
Greenhalgh talked about two ways of evaluating an object that add to its significance: through the genre itself or the permanent heritage that is taped into through creation by a maker that the piece at hand will now carry, and secondly the physical permanence of ceramic works that allows for concepts to also endure. He mentioned that this takes away from the realness of considering and finding interest in the makers personality. I wonder if these two things could be seen and used as tools in the creation of ceramics, rather than being added significance the artist was originally oblivious to. I also believe that no matter what the artist personality seeps into a piece. It is tragic if we are unable to attempt to acknowledge it.
"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." This sounds like a lot of power lies in the field of ceramics and allowing it to amount to it's worth has to do completely with what Paul is calling exposing to the light what the thread of ceramics is. It was cool to read that this thread has to do with things that we all have at least somewhat become in tune with harboring, like the personality of the maker, process of making, meanings of ceramic objects, and emotional responses.
-Dehmie
Dehmie,
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up some interesting interpretations of the article. I saw some of the points he made in a different light perhaps than you. I don't think, until the very recent, that innovation and progression has been at the forefront of ceramics. I see it heavily weighed on tradition and following what has worked in the past. I think that this is part of the reason why Greenhalgh has to describe the avaunt-garde and give significance to the ceramic heritage. I also think that there has always been a thread, but it has been misconstrued or ignored by much of society.
You bring out some great views of this article. I strongly believe that they can be used tools in creating a message or an idea. The choice of a medium is specific to what the creator wants to invoke. The actual permanent nature of the creator as you mention is something that I think if the artist is aware of, it definitely is a tool because they are deciding and filtering what comes through on that interpretation.
ReplyDeleteDehmie,
ReplyDeleteIt is so significant that we, as ceramicists, make objects. We make "things." "Things" that can be used, held, experienced. Objects have this beautiful tendency to not just reference an image or an idea but to form connections between maker, user, and environment. These connections are part of what can make objects so relatable. I think it is also important to note that the difference between "contemporary" and "avant-garde" is that one seeks to leave you speechless and the other seeks to purposefully break tradition. We, in our world of connections/references/definitions, can only see and therefore speak from what we know. Art works to connect and therefore fill this "memory bank." Lastly, your point on the permanence of clay is very significant and something I feel we often forget. Clay itself is historical. Sure, we have fancy ways of chemically "aging" it now but just the material we begin with is rooted in historical use and context. Then, we chemically alter it and make it permanent. We don't just create sand-castles (although sometimes it really can feel like that). We create permanent objects that we then send out into the world to make connections and give birth to new ideas. We are object-makers.