I find the analogy Paul Greenhalgh uses in this chapter quite clever: the
thread and beads reference the study of fine art. Relating to the medium of clay, the thread is the
“collective culture of clay” as a historical practice while the beads relate to
less abstract, more specific historical contributions to the clay culture. It
is an important thing for us, as artists in training, to keep in mind that it
is necessary to possess knowledge of the medium’s past. Without that we will
only create misrepresentations.
Greenhalgh claims ceramic history
has many beads but no strong theory connecting them unlike the other mediums. For example, the Avant-garde and Modernism movements are
unrelated to clay. He does provide
two definitions as to what people claim as Avant-Garde. The first is an improper definition:
experimental, original, and innovative art. The second, historically proper,
relates to the European art movement in which the goal was to change the world
with art. It is indisputable when Greenhalgh claims, “to accuse ceramists of
not being avant-garde is to criticize them for something they don’t do, and
rarely ever did.” However, it is
exciting to think that contemporary ceramics is changing the world, unrelated
to the European Movement. Richard
Notkin, Beth Cavener Stichter, and Matt Wedel are some big names that create
successful, world-changing objects.
-Emily Somer
I think that ceramics has a really unique position within the arts as a practice that has an incredibly important history in culture and in craft, but also has the potential to carry very modern implications. I agree that the idea that contemporary ceramics is changing the world is very exciting. It makes me wonder if ceramics will, in the future, be looked at along with major art movements. As ceramic art tradition matures as a participant in "the arts" rather than as a craft it will be interesting to see if the discipline is able to join the avant-garde, as well as keep sight of its historical situation.
ReplyDelete