Shards: Garth Clark on
Ceramic Art
“Resident Alien From the Land of Pop: Richard Slee in
Context”
Garth Clark poses an argument in this article about the
context of Richard Slee’s ceramic art.
Is Slee a potter? A ceramic
artist? A Pop artist? Having announced himself as a “crafts”
potter, Clark calls Slee out for enjoying the provocative reactions he gets
from his audience with this name, as his body of work clearly does not fit in
with that of the crafty potter world. He mentions that through Slee, Clark has
realized not to take the artist’s words about themselves as truth to their art
– or at least what their art means to the rest of the world. Although some of his work can be classified as
functional, it is not based around the idea of function, and so doesn’t really
belong in that contextual box. Slee’s
Pop art influences are obvious in his use of bright colors and polished finish,
but do not connote pop-culture meanings like those of Warhol, and so can’t be
classified with this genre either. Struggling
to find the perfect definition of Slee’s work brings Clark to the comparison of
Slee with many other artists such as Ken Price, Howard Kottler and Jeff
Coons. Other influences are
“refrigerator” ceramics, or ceramic-ware that is focused on the intersection
between style and economy, and British studio pottery. Although each of these comparisons stands
correct for a moment, these moments are brief.
Slee’s work cannot really be defined, which gives him more freedom as an
artist than those who put themselves into boxes – at least boxes that actually
define who they are. Clark closes by
sharing some of his own ideas about Slee’s work, discussing the feeling of isolation despite the sense of play initially given by the use of bright
colors. This poetic irony parallels nicely with Slee's status as a "resident alien" in the land of crafts.
It's interesting to think about the balance in deciding on a direction or area that you want your work to reside in. It seems like this "box" can either help us focus as artists or cause us to become hindered in some regard, perhaps in creativity or successful composition. It was also interesting to read that Clark says that Slee is free because her work doesn't quite fit in a box, or cannot be defined. I think it depends on the artist, their motives for making and how they decide on a finished piece in contentment, to determine if definition, lack of definition or conceptualization of their work will feel pressing on their freedom of influence as artists.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Paul Greenhalgh's argument and then reading this summary, it is interesting the way Clark's own interpretation of artists categorizing themselves. It just reminds of my own inner battle to know where I stand as an artist but it's not about the title, it's actually about the art and it's role in the world. How is it viewed? What emotions or views are portrayed? What does it say to the environment? Questions that are so hard to think about unless we actually do drop the title or designation that we want to give our pieces.
ReplyDelete