"Ceramic vessels can be culturally symbolic, aesthetically moving, and personally expressive, but emphasis of these attributes at the expense of a functional vessel's immersion in life is surely akin to embalming an animal for display rather than permitting it to live out its existence in the wild, or even in captivity."
I found this sentence to really help pull some things together for me in reading this article. I think that especially for those of us working on functional objects, even showing our work in the spaces on campus we have trouble with finding a way to allow the pieces to occupy the space in a way that the audience can approach them the way we want. The framework of displaying work and its effects is something that this semester has come into focus more for me. I liked reading this article and thinking about this on a bigger and deeper level.
This article took a while for me to get through, but as always gave me a lot to think about. The will to preserve as a phrase seems to reference much more than just objects in a museum before even reading this article. As humans I think we do have the desire to have things last. This made me think of the objects we create and their vulnerability. We are always mentioning that what we put into the world through ceramics becomes a permanent structure. But it seems as though a these objects permanence really depends on our will or efforts to preserve them, to care for them. I actually find myself interested and comforted by thinking about the susceptibility of my work to time, to weathering almost. I think we do fear what will be lost over time, ceramics as a medium has done a lot to preserve history and art is a very distinct way it seems. I am not sure that we have always had access to or been seeking the perspective delineated in this article. It is very good for us to be thinking about what the setting of a museum does to the interaction with and interpretation of objects. It was cool to read about how the inevitable framework of museums and the effects on the objects chosen to dwell within them can be used as a tool to critique and enhance. Ceramic vessels and sculptures are often and I think can always be seen as a dwelling place, literally in regards to functional work but also for concepts, ideas, even history and techniques. Museums then seem to act as collections of dwelling places. It makes sense that critique, understanding and intention are required to really evaluate what is occurring as the objects come to be in these spaces, from there we find tools to use in the process. Sometimes reading these articles makes me feel like there are people out there, including ourselves, thinking too hard about things. But that is only because it takes a while to soak in what you are newly being exposed to.
Dehmie,
ReplyDeleteI love how you refer to a museum as a "setting" in which ceramics may or may not eventually live. It makes me think about how good pots tell stories. This appoach could be a fun way to interpret pieces. Are the pots the characters? What is the plot? Who are the narrators? It's almost theatrical. I am a strong believer in the idea that all of the arts share key ideas, terms, and pursuits so this is where my mind went with this. Just kind of a fun thought.
I would, however, say that ceramics act as more of a link to the memory of a dwelling place rather than being actual dwelling places. Interaction and the evoking of a response to a given object in its context is still at play but ceramics are things. This is not to say that we cannot also create an environment for them to live in as well as use visual elements to remind the viewers/users of a space/place.
"I think that especially for those of us working on functional objects, even showing our work in the spaces on campus we have trouble with finding a way to allow the pieces to occupy the space in a way that the audience can approach them the way we want". I found this an interested thing that you said, because as I read the article, I found myself thinking along these same lines, though I tend to relate these questions to my own sculptural work.
ReplyDeleteAfter I have made a piece, and it is in it's finished form (whatever that might look like), I have some things to figure out, like how might this read to the viewer/ It is difficult sometimes to make sense of these forms when I as the maker don't even know the answer.
To relate back to what you are saying, it's hard to put work into a setting that is approachable. This is an issue we all face at some point or another, and when thinking about my own work, I really don't know whether the setting needs to be more approachable, or perhaps its the work itself that needs to be more approachable.