Instructions for Posting Reading Responses

Hi All,

If you are not able to log onto the blog to post please remember to send me your Gmail email address.

I'm able to sign in either by going to the csuadvancedpottery page, selecting sign in, and then signing in with the same user name and password as my gmail account or signing into gmail, and selecting "blogger" from the "more" dropdown menu at the top center of the page.

There may be other ways as well . . .

Here are the instructions again for posting to the blog:

1. On the course home page (this page) please create a new post. ( Please don't add reading responses as comments on the readings page or other pages)

2. One you've written your response please make sure to add the label "reading 1".  (Since this label has already been used you should be able to just select this label from the Post Settings menu on the right side of the screen) 

3. Feel free to add additional tags with any search information you think would be useful - ie. the name of the author or subject, article title etc.

thanks and please let me know if you have any additional questions.

best,

Del

Reading 7

Garth Clark. “Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties.” Ceramic Millennium. 2006. pp. 318-336.

When a sophisticate object meets a story, it seems that the object becomes a legend regardless of its genre; craft or fine art. More tragic or bizarre the story, more profound it shakes the soul as well as every nerve. It seems unclear whether the story is attached by critics or connoisseurs later or born in the process of object making. Either way, the story could increase the market value of the object. Artists should be the center of the stories. Critics and art historians could lead the way how the stories are consumed and transformed into the legend. The history how the modern painting builds the wealth, fame or power could be a good benchmark. The problem is if ceramists and potters are ready for the responsibility to be the legend. I understand that William Murray, a Zen Buddhist himself, tried to bear the weight by creating the myth of Japanese tea ceremony in western world and by charging high prices for his pots, while Bernard Leach, with a good grasp of the reality, tried to manipulate the limits where the myth existed. 

 

To me, the Otis group is more about sculpture focusing on clay material with a touch of firing process. Does it mean that the strategy the Otis group had taken is the way to survive in high pricing market? Then, should ceramics become sculpture or any state of art trend? I agree to Clark’s saying “the fine arts market is not for everybody...most ceramist do not fit…only particular artists will survive in this world.” However, I believe it doesn’t mean an object from craft cannot be the legend with million dollar value. I believe the breathtaking story is the major factor to differentiate the object from the cheap and fancy stoneware and bone china at wholesale retail stores.   

 

Reading 7

   The article, “Homer, Ceramics, and the Marketplace Anxieties”, gives a brief
history of ceramics.  Not having as stable a history as painting, of which it was
compared, I felt that Bernard Leach was its main drawback.  When he unethically
stated that pieces should be affordable and then went to Japan and sold pieces for

higher prices, he set back potters, ceramists, and sculptors in marketability, and
divided the community.  The ceramic field is slowly coming into its own, but
variable pricing still impacts.  People in the field vary their pricing standards. 
Those who sell low hurt those selling higher, which comes across as a lack of
uniformity and cohesiveness in the field, leading to uncertainty of the value of
the field as a whole.

   Anyone starting out in this career should have a good day job, and work their way
towards a full time career in ceramics because of the market as it is today.  With
established artists crossing over from other fields, competition becomes stiffer.

To do well the individual has to market themselves.  It’s no longer good enough to just
make and sell.    

reading 6

   The article, “Studios, Academies, and Workshops: Ceramics Education From the

Mid-Nineteenth Century to World War II”, gives an idea of what a ceramic education

was like and how it evolved over time.  We’ve come a long way from 30 people in a room with 3 kick wheels and dead mice in clay.  It makes you appreciate the level of teaching and instruction done today.

   Studio Pottery is taught under the category of Fine Art at the university level, but it is available to everyone, young and old, at community centers, workshops, high schools, and junior colleges.  Equipment is plentiful so no one is left standing to observe.  Tools and clay are generally included. 

   The most current state of the art facility opened not to long ago at Harvard University.

It is a 15,010 sq. ft. facility that houses a studio, gallery, independent workspaces for

professional artists, a digital resource room, and a research collection work of visiting artists.  There are skylights and openness allowing viewing of pottery activities.  Offered

are “classrooms for wheel-thrown, handbuilt, and sculptural ceramics, as well as clay

and glaze chemistry labs, plus plaster and mold-making design areas.  There is also a large room dedicated to the use of energy-efficient kilns. Firing options include gas

reduction, soda, electric, raku, and saggar firing.”  It doesn’t get much better than that.  We've come

a long way.

      

Reading 7

In our current practice of ceramics (ours as in here, at CSU) though much of what we are up to in the art building tucked away on campus is unknown, its easy to see that we are free from a lot of the historical limitations and perspectives that ceramics experienced (suffered, really). I was surprised to hear what was considered high or good art, who was considered an artist as ceramics built its way up into the field it now is. The people who made the pots for some time were not the artists, the people decorating and showing them off were the artists. Our culture and ceramic world is strongly individualistic. It is important to see this scope of ceramics historically and recognize the access we have to making a life as an artist, while similar historical pressures still exist. With that access comes a need to discover and learn discipline in practice as a ceramist that allows our art to be projecting forward.

-Dehmie

Reading 7

In Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties Garth Clark explores the history of the ceramic market in the west over the last 100 years.  After reading this I was struck by how, like everything else, the pricing and success of ceramics is all about perceived value.  Throughout history the market for ceramics as well as other art has risen and fallen according to social trends.  Many artists who have had successful careers and were able to sell their work (while alive) were equally as good at marketing themselves as they were at their trade.  
We all need to make a living right?  But what is considered acceptable marketing, and what is considered selling out?   And is selling out really that awful?  In every other market the producer/business bases their product or service on what the consumer wants.  But in art we are expected to make work for ourselves, and then sell it...when you really think about it it's totally irrational.  Is it possible to do your own work, while still appealing to a wide enough range of buyers to be successful?

Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties

In the reading the author, Garth Clark, traces the development of the market for individual ceramic artists in the last 100 years in the U.S. and Britain. The article says that the modern ceramics market originates in the trade of Chinese Porcelain in the West in the 16th century. The porcelain that was being traded was primarily for the super wealthy and functioned more as currency and signifiers of wealth rather than fine art to be appreciated. Credit for establishing a larger ceramics market goes to Josiah Wedgwood who opened an "elegant London gallery where London's beau monde could socialize, browse and shop." By the end of the 18th century the basis of the modern ceramics market was created.

More recently, the Arts and Crafts movement took ceramics from solely an object of industry to an individual art and craft. Individual artists were able to make a living by selling pots but most had a secondary mode of income, whether its was teaching or working for a kiln company. The practicality of teaching ceramics became more reasonable as more ceramics programs were popping up around the country. Bernard Leach had an important role, both negative and positive, for the ceramics market. While he personally advocated for affordable pots for the masses, he regularly sold his pots for high prices in Japan.

Out of the 50s and 60s came abstract expressionist like Peter Voulkos and Paul Soldner who were able to sell work at a much higher price than ceramic art previously. This signaled a new age of ceramic art that, although still operating on the margins of the art world, it was at least within it and not without. Since the 80s the ceramic market has proved to be stable albeit limited.

This article is very interesting because I feel like talking about money and the commercial side of things is looked down upon and shunned by the ceramics field. Ceramicists often have a idealist picture of what it means to be a potter, drawing from the morals taught by Leach that pottery is supposed to be a humble and inexpensive art form. This idea negatively affects many potters who struggle to make a living selling their work at unreasonably low prices. All artists, including ceramicists and potters, need to identify how to make money with their art if they expect make a living doing it. As students it is important to learn the "hows" of selling their work, not just the "how" of making it.

Reading 6

"Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties" by Garth Clark was an interesting read on the history of the value of ceramics. From the high value of porcelain to the the arts and crafts movement, the idea of what a potter is has changed drastically from art to craft. In the 1920's, Bernard Leach promoted functional pottery as a craft to be sold to the community at an affordable price while other artists fought for it to be an art. 1950's the Otis Group fought for pottery to be recognized as an art. In so many ways, parts of those movements of pottery still exist today. Porcelain is seen as a delicate clay and is high art for pottery because of the material. Functional wares are desired to be affordable and aren't recognized fully as art. There may be art involved but most people recognize it as craft. The Otis Group I think had the biggest impact on today's value of pottery. Galleries are searching for ceramic sculptures and art, sculptures are priced to the value of the piece, not the medium. And most definitely the structure of universities has changed drastically in what is taught about ceramics, allowing students the freedom of students to produce their own work. There are still issues on universities teaching students to be studio potters but that is slowly improving as the population of ceramicists keeps growing. The main point I got out of this essay was how lucky I am that I have the skills to be a studio potter and the education to be a studio potter. That I can keep growing and know there is a market out there for the things I make, that I have to stay confident and create my art.

Homer, Ceramics, and Marketplace Anxieties

This reading discussed the history of a ceramic marketplace, explaining how ceramics has only enjoyed a specific fine arts market for the last fifty years. Before that, ceramic arts have been wedged into craft or decorative arts markets. During the 18th century, ceramics only gained recognition within a decorative arts context, with collectors gathering porcelain objects as a demonstration of wealth rather than artistic merit, or antique dealers hopping onto the "vase mania" created by Josiah Wedgewood.

The nineteenth century witnessed several important moments of ceramic advocacy, such as the Arts and Crafts Movement which promoted pottery as a  rebuttal to the low quality industrial product. However, even this movement had its problems; for instance, the "dirty work" of pottery (clay mixing, throwing, kiln firing, etc.) was all completed by "nameless labourers," while the fine artists recognized within the field only completed the plans, sketches, and china painting of pots. In the early 19th century, potters managed to make a living in industry, or by adopting secondary careers catering to tourism or teaching (which often became a primary occupation).

In the 20th century, studio artist Bernard Leach sought to establish pottery as an accessible and affordable art form, but his business plan was full of fallacy, hypocrisy, idealism, and dishonesty. Where he failed in making ceramics accessible, he succeeded in establishing unhealthy expectations that all pots be inexpensive, causing more damage than good to the marketplace. Only in the 1950s did ceramic artists begin to establish their own fine arts market, caused by the academic rebellion by artists like Peter Voulkos. Even so, many potters found themselves existing as part of an insular, self generating economy in which potential fine artists busied themselves teaching instead of making an asserted effort to make and sell art. In the last 50 years, ceramics has enjoyed larger economic growth and acknowledgement as a fine art, but it still lacks the prestige and market value of many painters. It is therefore important for ceramic artists to advocate for themselves in the marketplace.

In order to make it as an artist, a potter must "give up their cherished culture of amateurism," abandon the undiscriminating idealism popularized by Leach, and refute the privileged opposition to involvement with a market economy which is often provided by ceramic artists with other means of income. There is no such thing as a starving artist; fruitless struggles to create art will eventually lead one to take on a new profession and cease to exist as an artist. Advocating for the value of one's art is necessary to sustain ceramics as a legitimate form of fine art.

Reading 6

Tanya Harrod. “Studios, Academies and Workshops: Ceramic Education from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to World War II” (1999).  Garth Clark, ed. Ceramic Millennium. 2006. pp. 259-276

Harrod explains the history how pottery as craft evolved into fine art in UK and US. Facing the crisis in fine art during the 19th century, the “intelligent artists” of the Art and Craft movement and the Avant-garde showed anti-academy approach questioning the skills taught by the academies through systematic study of casts and copy. They took new media and unfamiliar methods for experimentation such as painting on objects of everyday use including ceramics. Pursuing self-education, they used the workshop and studio as the ideal site of learning and considered clay as a resolution for other artistic problems.

Even though originally ceramics program in Europe focus on training students to design for industry, “Murray promoted the status of studio pottery as an area of experimental fine art by keeping technical instruction to the minimum.” But Leach felt art schools were still dismissive while Cardew set a social value on teaching pottery.

Ceramics in US was different from the developments in Britain because of highly professional women potters and detachment from European neo-orientalism. The ideological antipathy to the academy or to industry was not found either. However, education at Alfred and Cranbrook suggests the fragile nature of the crafts (ceramics) with highly gendered courses and emphasis on design, architecture, painting and sculpture.

Looking back over my experience that I started pottery at a community studio and was inspired by Sanam’s workshop there, it is interesting to read the history of ceramics education and its difference between Europe and US. Through CSU programs, I have learned on material and process that the community programs are lacking. The fine art courses gave me chances to development my views on clay works as fine art. But it is also true I am still uncertain about ceramics identity. Harrod’s questions on ceramic education might be still ongoing.     

In this reading Tanya Harrod discusses the evolution of pottery in the United States and Britain in the past 150 years from a simple craft to a fine art. Many modernist painters used pots for explorations of surface design in 3D space. Artists such as Picasso took the art and craft of pottery seriously and had a respect for the process. Harrod then discusses the evolution of ceramics in the United States, looking at Alfred and Cranbrook. It is interesting that ceramics at Alfred has evolved from highly gendered craft to a widely accepted fine art in less than 100 years. The arts and crafts movement of the 60s help lift pottery from purely a humble craft to a fine art in its own right.


It is very exciting that artists today have combined the different aspects of clay (craft, art, design, engineering) into their artwork in different ways. As artists and potters today we must drawn on these different aspects and put them into our work.

Reading 6: What is art anyway, how many dead mice does it take to make a good clay body, who gives a damn about clay?

In Studios, Academies, and Workshops: Ceramics Education from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to World War II, Tanya Harrod explores the emergence of ceramics as an expressive art form. In both the UK and America, ceramics received little recognition as a legitimate field of study and artistic expression during the early-mid 19th century. While there were various ways in which artists utilized clay, it was commonly viewed as an experimental medium for painters or designers to explore form or function. Some artists like Bernard Leach defended ceramic arts as a means to an end instead of as a mere tool, but there was still a very distinct division between these artists and the rest of the art world.

What struck me about this article was the divisionism between different material artists. It seems to me that the struggle to elevate and legitimize ceramics almost widened the rift between it and other art forms. I get the impression that it polarized ceramic artists and critics: on one side, there were those who thought it deserved academic recognition and respect as an art form in general, and on the other were those who saw it as a mere experiment. 

There were still more divisions within the ceramic community. Biases of a Eurocentric, patriarchal nature are evident in the different studio roles which men and women filled, as well as the belittling of African ceramic tradition by European academic potters. Even among self proclaimed ceramic artists, it seems there was contention regarding who could make art well, or what constituted worthwhile ceramic art. 

After WWII the debates regarding context and relevance seemed to fade into the periphery. Thankfully so; I know I would personally be bored to tears if china painting was still primary curriculum in ceramic studies, and I greatly appreciate working in a facility bereft (for the most part) of dead mice. 

Reading 6 (Ceramics Education in the 19th Century)

     Tanya Harrod discusses the many different approaches that have been taken to the education of potters. Early in the reading she mentions how in Europe potters had an anti-academy view of education, going to the countryside and learning from rural potters with no formal training. Even today an informal training could be extremely beneficial to the artist's sensibilities. Ignoring contemporary ideals or instruction allows for an expansion of imagination and for unique or just plain bizarre approaches to form, function, methodology, and intentions with the possibility of permanently and radically changing the field of ceramics.
     When learning from someone, regardless of their background and training, the student cannot help but to incorporate elements of the teacher's style into their own work. The more formalized that training is, the less original expressions of the student's own ideas. This is not to say that ceramic education should be solely exploratory or guesswork but that teacher intervention should be kept to the absolute minimum, allowing the student to pursue their interests within the field while giving them the tools to do so without contaminating their budding insights. CSU has found a nice balance between individual expression and formal instruction.

Reading 6

In this reading, author Tanya Harrod describes the ways in which artists experimented with ceramics and other media at the end of the 19th, and into the 20th century. Harrod raises important questions regarding how an why certain artists, including Picasso and Matisse, chose to experiment with ceramics in response to the growing dissatisfaction with the art academies. For European painters, Harrod says, "one way of questioning the skills taught by the academies of art through the systematic study of casts and copies was through self-taught experimentation in other media" (Pg. 260)

At the time, ceramics had become a new type of expressive art, and not just an elevated area of industrial design. Experimentation by artists in this, and in other media was also sparked by, as Harrod states,  "...that familiar anti-modern nostalgia for earlier cultures and non-European cultures", and anti-industrial desires. This is an important point, as it seems only fair to say that the appropriate response to industrialized products would be hand-made objects, and ceramic made objects as the perfect vehicle

For these artists, the "ideal site of learning became the woodshop and the studio, not the academy" where "processes of self-introduction were favored." (Pg. 261). This raises questions regarding the "studio" potter, and the occasional ceramicist. Harrod questions "How much of the vigor of what we more commonly see as "studio" pottery...derives from a self-taught, experimental approach?" (Pg. 263) In other words, how did studio potters view the role of ceramics in the academies, and how does this help them relate to, or differ from, other artists working in this media.

Reading 5

Elaine Scarry, On Beauty and Being Just, 1999
 
Scarry’s main argument is to reveal the inconsistency of political complaints against beauty that it distracts our attention from wrong social arrangements and our act of generation of beauty is eventually destructive to the original object (beauty). However, when she points out that beauty assists us in our attention to justice, I guess her concept of beauty might be based on more than humanities even though she does not clarify. 
 
Because, personally, I am thinking justice relates to the law of the universe beyond the human value; wrong or right, good or bad. I have believed the law of the universe, like the identical seeds that germinate with a time difference to avoid sudden extinction under the changing environment, is beauty. I would say maintaining (or following) this beauty is justice whether or not a human being can understand or feel it. As a microcosm of the whole universe, a human being has the innate power to detect, interpret and recreate beauty. 
 
However, like Ten Thousand Beings in universe realize the reasonable perfect system in milliard ways, it is also natural that the human gazes toward beauty are inevitably distorted and the act of generation of beauty mirrors the original in a wide variety of appearances. So, I would happily accept this inconsistency that beauty not only distracts our attention from (wrong) social arrangements, but is destructive to the object. Because this is the way it is. I could be tempted to set up the idea of sublime and demote beauty because it allows me to relieve wrestling with changing appearances of beauty.

For me, pursuing beauty means journey to the law submerged under the surface. It could be ugly, hysteric, and aggressive, but also lead me to the real nature that frees me from the unjust attachment to the world. So, I like to think that beauty have never been banished from humanities in the last two decades, just have worn different colors.  

Reading 5

I really enjoyed "On Beauty and Being Just" by Elaine Scarry.  She's a wonderful writer, and it is fitting that this examination of beauty is quite beautifully written.  For me one of the most interesting parts of the reading was the discussion of beauties place.  Does it belong in the realm of the real or the ideal?  Scarry says "Permitted to inhabit neither the realm of the ideal nor the realm of the real, to be neither aspiration nor companion, beauty comes to us like a fugitive bird unable to fly, unable to land." This is an idea that I think artists can understand.  Is an actual object inherently beautiful, or is it the idea that is beautiful, or both, or neither?  Supposedly art is subjective right? So when we look on a "beautiful" painting, what are we seeing, and why do we think that painting is beautiful?  Is anything objectively beautiful? It seems to me that beauty is conditioned.  Different cultures have different ideas of what is beautiful, and people have different tastes in art.  So perhaps beauty can live in the realm of the ideal more effectively then in the realm of the real.
Later on Scarry suggests that "The beholder, in response to seeing beauty, often seeks to bring new beauty into the world..." This is another idea that I would imagine resonates with artists.  It is the idea of beauty as muse.  Perhaps this is just a side effect of being an artist, but I often find myself studying beautiful elements of the world that surround me.  Patches of light on the floor, the patterns made by shadows on architecture, the way trash and debris move across the ground on a windy day.  When I look at these things my mind often spirals off into the mode of creation, because I see beauty, I want to create beauty.  Is this why we pursue beauty? So that we can in some sense harness it's power, and use it to create?

On Beauty and Being Just

In the reading "On Beauty and Being Just" the author Elaine Scarry details and refutes two specific political complaints about beauty. I had trouble following her argument against beauty. I have always felt that beauty isnt a bad thing and I really identified with Scarry's idea that beauty has a "two-part scaffolding". First our attention is drawn to the beautiful thing then our attention is heightened and it can be "extended" to other things. I have always felt that the art that resonates with me the most is the art that somehow heightens my attention, I feel more aware.

 Simone Weil stated in the article that "at the moment we see something beautiful, we undergo a radical decentring" and requires us "to give up our imaginary position as the centre...A transformation then takes place at the very roots of our sensibility." He is saying that when we experience something beautiful it changes us, it changes our perception of ourselves and our perception of the thing.

Another interesting idea Scarry talks about is the relationship between beauty and the beholder. the first idea is that "the beholder, in response to seeing beauty, often seeks to bring new beauty into the world. Second, the beholder wishes to fill their consciousness with beauty making their internal lives more beautiful. Thirdly, Scarry offers a more interesting solution. It is that beauty is a "contract" between the beautiful thing and the perceiver. Since beautiful things heighten our consciousness they makes us feel more alive, and in return the perceiver confers on the beautiful thing the gift of being "alive".
 
It is an interesting space that the artist then occupies between the beautiful object and the perceiver. While we do not participate directly in the exchange of "aliveness" between perceiver and object, we facilitate that feeling through our artwork. It is interesting to think about how we can facilitate feelings of aliveness or heightened consciousness through our use of materials.

Reading 5

"On Beauty and Being Just," by Elaine Scarry, brought up a few arguments that I had never thought about before.  As an artist, I am constantly thinking of the visual affects objects or anything around me have, whether that is beauty, or a deeper emotional response from something.  I liked that Scarry related the idea of beauty to objectification.  I agree, that whether the thing of beauty is a human, animal, or object, giving it the title of beautiful makes it into just a thing for someone else’s pleasure.  I think that creating something to be the object of someone’s pleasure isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it depends on the intent of the thing itself.    

I was also very interested in how the reading made me think deeper about the everyday labels we apply to people and things around us.  I had never thought about how the label of beauty could “distract attention” from something else.  I think the author is asking people to look deeper than the first visual response they get from looking at something, and to start thinking about a more emotional or mental response to the things around us.    

Reading 5

In this reading titled “On Beauty and Being Just” author Elaine Scarry discusses the ways in which beauty exists in the world, and how we come to recognize and admire it. She notes that there are political complaints about beauty, but that they are unjust. The two political critiques of beauty are that one, beauty distracts from wrong social arrangements, which makes us indifferent to it, and two, that when we attend to something and regard it as beautiful, we destroy it. She notes that these two complaints are easy to discredit because they are fundamentally contradictory to each other. The main argument that Scarry makes is that beauty “far from contributing to social injustice in either of the two ways it stands accused…actually assists us in the work of addressing injustice.”

Scarry states that we are able to make beauty as we wish, and that “People seem to wish there to be beauty even when their own self-interest is not served by it”, that we need beautiful object in the world, even if the object itself does not contribute to our own happiness directly. Another interesting point that she makes is the idea that beautiful objects are placed throughout the world “to serve as small wake-up calls to perception.” Beautiful objects and people wake up our attention, and we cannot help but focus our attention to this perception.

Reading 5

    "There are two separate political arguments.  One is the claim that beautiful things distract us from injustice, and therefore sabotage our ability to dedicate our energies to increasing the overall well-being of the world.  The other is that when we look at a beautiful object, whether a person, or a flower, we actually damage the object by turning it into a mere object that we feel superior to."
    This article prompts the question, "What is beauty?".  It means different things to diffferent people.  Since we can't right the wrongs of the world, we look to beauty, do what we can, and move on, concentrating on the good in the world.
     If referring to the "beautiful person", how fortunate they are , for they are treated differently than the rest simply because of how they look.  How shallow and an injustice in itself.  If refering to the simple pleasures in life, they make life worth living.  Life becomes tolerable amongst the evil and injustice in the world, to create a sense of balance and justice in our lives.  Looking at the beautiful in the world doesn't do damage.  If it did, everything we stared at would be damaged.
    I tend to agree with what John Keats, the poet, states in "Ode to a Grecian Urn", "beauty is truth, truth beauty.
    

On Beauty and Being Just

Prior to reading Elaine Scarry's On Beauty and Being Just, I never really thought about the arguments against beauty. I suppose it hadn't occurred to me that there are opponents of beauty or that beauty could create injustice, but Scarry's depiction of these arguments in her article helped me identify them within society. In either case, Scarry makes an excellent rebuttal to the political and nonpolitical arguments against beauty and makes the case that attention to beauty can, in fact, increase social justice.

One point that particularly interested me was Scarry's assertion that"beautiful things have been placed here and there throughout the world to serve as small wake-up calls to perception, spurring lapsed alertness back to its most acute level. Through its beauty, the world continually recommits us to a rigorous standard of perceptual care; if we do not search it out, it comes and finds us." The beauty of a person or object not only draws our attention to the object, but increases our alertness to the rest of our surroundings. It can be inferred that this kind of perceptual care increases our care of the object in itself. Perhaps as observers to beauty, we are impelled to preserve it and to go to lengths to perpetuate it.

Scarry strengthens this point in the section titled Beauty assists us in our attention to justice. She provides three assertions for ways in which observers of beauty engage with it and espouse it. For one, observers of beauty often deliberately attempt to create beauty themselves. An example of this could be artists making beautiful art to interpret the world around them. Secondly, beholders of beauty may become internally beautiful in the act of observation. As beauty is largely accepted as a primarily external quality, this argument is somewhat dissatisfying. Scarry also suggests that by observing an object as beautiful, we instill it with lifelike qualities. For me, this point speaks most loudly to justice. She says that we often perceive objects as beautiful and treat them with the attentiveness that we would pay to a human. For instance, we protect the surfaces of paintings with fervor, memorize poems and struggle to familiarize ourselves with them, and dote upon art objects like friends or idols. This care seems to me to promote an attitude of justice and care for the objects; an attentiveness to their wellbeing. It doesn't seem like too far a stretch to me that this kind of attentiveness would translate to an attention to justice in other areas of life and society.

Reading 5

I was confused in reading this excerpt from "The Revival of Beauty." I think most of my confusion stemmed from my own perception of beauty and what I have grown up to know. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is something I often refer to art. Some individuals enjoy one painting while others might enjoy another. Through reading this article, there are many thoughts that have opened up about beauty in my mind. The author talks about this idea of beauty being the cause of social injustice...what does that refer to? The example of a beautiful boy who turns birdlike because everyone gawking at him and he becomes miserable with discomfort...what does that refer to in actual life? This section of the excerpt really stumped my thinking about beauty. How can it lead to injustice? I started thinking about standards of beauty that society holds and how that might be an injustice.

The author also talks about "beauty prepares us for justice," another stumping idea. The relationship between the viewer who searches for beauty and the beauty to be sought sounds more familiar. We each individually have an idea of what beauty means to us and do search for it through art, clothing, make up, working out, everything in the world. But how does that prepare for justice? What does justice mean in this context? We all believe in internal beauty but it's the external beauty that we seek but what does that have to do with justice? I thought internal beauty is more just than external because of it's pureness. But even that raises the question how is that sought and how is it just?

Thinking about beauty as being just or unjust is something I haven't considered and reading the article, it was very bewildering. The author closes the article with talking about the caves that will closed because they can't allow too many tourists because it will destroy the beautiful caves. Through this I started understanding where the author saw justice fit into the beauty. Should it be hidden away so that it can live on forever or enjoyed for as long as it is there? This goes back to the whole idea of permanence and how we strive to keep the ancient artifacts but what is good about preserving them when they are out of context and barred from the public to enjoy or learn from them. Should beauty shielded or enjoyed?

"Material Consciousness"

Reading 4 "Material Consciousness"

I was very interested in Sennet's idea of a "domain shift", meaning shifting a technique or approach to one craft/material and applying it to a different craft. I liked the example he gave of a weaver's technique being adapted to carpentry and boat building and then to street and city planning into an "urban fabric". This "domain shift" reminded me of Nao's talk where he said that he has a particular way of working that is geared towards ceramics but can be shifted to drawings, paintings, design or any other project. Nao's diverse use of materials and craft relate directly to the type of synthesis being discussed in the reading.  Personally I really am interested in applying techniques across crafts as a way of broadening my approach to clay and other materials.

Reading 4

In "Material Consciousness" Richard Sennett makes the claim that people are interested in what they can change, going through three stages when they attempt to change the object of their interest. Metamorphosis a change in procedure, Presence a sign or mark of existence, and Anthropomorphosis the imputing of human qualities to a raw material. Appropriately, Sennett compares metamorphosis with evolution. In that small things are gradually changed by virtue of individual craftsmen learning and passing on that knowledge with the end result of having created entirely new type-form from the slow improvement of the old one. This is only obvious looking back, as the contemporary craftsmen we have no idea what any given innovation will do. And this is still going on today. Thinking about not only pottery but any skilled discipline in this light encourages experimentation for its own sake. Any idea or theory, no matter how inane it may seem, becomes valid in the possibility of radical developments and changes to a discipline. The difficulty of thinking outside the box is that once done, a new box is constructed around the new boundaries. Humanity started with a tiny box. Through metamorphosis that box grew and multiplied. Even if a thought is only just outside the box it still extends the boundary further than ever before. It is the responsibility and privilege of skilled tradesmen to strive to increase the size of their box, and if nothing else place a sphere around it instead.

Reading 4

"Material Conciousness" From Craftsman by Richard Sennet (2008)

Sennett writes that craftsmen have been depressed, ignored, or misunderstood by social institutions in history and the social space of the workshop became a fragmented space. However despite this mistreatment, what has kept craftsmen doing good work is belief in their work and their involvement with its materials. 

To explain material consciousness, Sennet focuses on what makes an object interesting. Since good quality work depend on curiosity about the material and people become interested in the things they can change, their material awareness or material consciousness has taken the 3 forms; metamorphosis, presence, and anthropomorphosis.

Metamorphosis is a change in procedure as when potters switch from coiling rope on a fixed platter to building it up on a free spinning wheel which is an entirely new way of building up form. This change leads to the next; Ancient pottery became more complex with the use of slip and controlling firing to achieve a vitreous shine surface. Slip decoration also opened up expressive possibilities that serve as social commentaries and economic value.

Challenging the ancient concept of metamorphosis which is the natural cycle of form decaying into its simplest elements, Western civilization found a philosophic solution in the Plato’s dualism between intelligible world of a mathematical formula and sensible world of images. The craftsman could guard against decay in three different ways. Metamorphosis can occur through the evolution of a type-form, in the judgment about mixture and synthesis, and by the thinking involved in a Domain shift.

Presence as a second category of material consciousness is a personal mark of his or her presence on the object. Presence relates to self-referential, emphasizing the word “I” in the modern way of thinking. The history of ancient brick stamps shows a connection between craftwork and politics because craftworkers, and especially slave craftworkers, dwelled in an anonymous space between warfare and personal service. The small size of bricks also suggest of their presence. A brick which suits the human hand implies a human and intimate quality.

Anthropomorphosis is the metaphor referring to human qualities discovered in the material. The humanizing language such as the “honesty” of brick or the “friendliness” of brick wall, shows the dualisms of modern material consciousness; the contrast between naturalness and artificiality. “Honest” brick in the 18th century is brick to which no artificial color has been added to the clay and it makes the building honest; rough-hewn and irregular. Brick seemed to fit more largely in the search for authenticity.

Contrasted to brick, stucco is a dynamic material that permitted quick, cheap constructions of grandeur, thus could give craftsmen more freedom to experiment in a way of play and fantasy. The modern debate on two different versions of craft is about the virtues of naturalness and the contrary freedoms of fantasy-artifice. But craftsman can pair honesty and fantasy, brick and stucco and play off each other. For example, Alvar Aalto’s Baker House with curved walls that are made of brick and in a self-consciously “primitive” way simulated some of the qualities of “honest brick” by technology.

Reading 4

The text this time was long but a good read. I got a lot from the summary at the end of the paper. The author talks about what the craftsman represents. I still find myself a little lost in distinctions and discussions about craft and art, but Sennett states that the craftsman represents the desire in each of us to do something well, concretely and for it's own sake. I really enjoyed this perspective. He also talked about how quality operates and stated that standards of quality desperate design from execution. This was helpful perspective to grasp. It was very powerful to read about the social transformation that Sennett talked about within studio/workshop space and how it had become fragmented space during the renaissance. It is interesting to think about how apprentices and masters were "bound tightly together". This juxtaposition seems to be something transformatively powerful, if the freedom exists for material consciousness, freedom to be the artist and or craftsman that the material calls you to be. The space that a great creator of things is yours to create in and learn in, what an inspiring outlook if set up in this way. Sennett talked about craftsmen belief in their work, invironment and it's materials, this was interesting to think about along with how he talked about the engagement with material and the way he said we "seek inwardness when material engagement proves empty".

-Dehmie

Reading #4

Material consciousness is such a fascinating concept.  What makes us care about a thing?   When reading this article I kept coming back to this idea.  Why do we value some objects over others?  Why do we as craftsmen spend so much time creating something in a specific way, with a specific outcome?  When discussing Metamorphosis the author touched on the "just so" theology; that change has to happen in a specific way, almost like fate.  This idea seems illogical to me, especially in contrast to Ruskins later discussed idea of cognitive evolution.  It seems to me that this idea of constant metamorphosis is how and perhaps why craftsmen work.  Much like evolution the craftsman finds beneficial mutations in their work, and adapts these mutations creating a new product or way of working.  This to me is a perfect example of material consciousness.  
Moving on to the idea of presence and anthropomorphism the idea of why something is important comes into play.  What both these sections really seemed to boil down to is that we care about objects, and we are conscious of their material make up because of how they relate to humans.  The idea of attributing a work to a person, or giving an object a personality speaks of how much we value human interaction.  The object becomes a means of communication, a bridge between people, cultures and time.  The object becomes a story telling device, and therefor becomes memorable and important to it's viewer. 

Reading 4

Chapter 4 "Material Consciousness", from The Craftsman
By Richard Sennett

I found Sennett's thoughts about material consciousness very interesting. Many of his ideas came back to one's interest in working with the material, which most often comes from change. I thought it was interesting how he described the history of clay's ability to arouse material consciousness, by either altering, marking, or identifying with the material. He writes a lot about change and "how the principle guiding one practice can be applied to quite another activity", which means a "domain shift". By applying old techniques in a different way or to a different activity, clay is able to continue to change and grow with history. Thinking about the first potters using a coil building system in the exact same way we do today makes me realize how little the system has changed in comparison to the outcome. As the time the system has been around increases, the more people and different personalities and ideas have to impact how it can be used.

Sennett also has some interesting thoughts not just about the artist or crasftsman, but also about the critic. He put the critic's job into a different light than I had thought about at first. Sennett describes how spectators at the time of Aristotle became some of the first critics and "sought to speculate then about what the stage characters did not understand about themselves." He also adds the thoughts of classicist Myles Burnyeat, who describes how these audience members turned critics, began "seeing with the minds eye". This is an interesting thing to think about as a potter participating in critiques of fellow class-people. For the artist to take an outsiders view on a piece can be thought more of as seeing with the minds eye in some cases, than a critique. As makers, we often overlook details in our own work that we wouldn't in a peers.

Sennett talks a lot about the beginning of bricks and the brick maker's that labored on huge projects in ancient Rome. One thing that he points out is the size of the bricks and the messages they can send. Bricks are made more personal by the small size they are formed in so they fit into the human hand. This is interesting to think about in the relation of the bricks to the humans using them to create a much larger aggregate. The once hand-sized bricks become huge buildings. The clay goes through so many different points and hands to end up in its final position it is hard to give credit of the project to just one designer holding the whip.

Erin Doherty

Reading #4

Esther Schwepker
Reading Response #4

I really enjoyed reading this excerpt from Craftsmen. I never thought about history in terms of metamorphosis, where a just a small brick had such huge impact in history to create arches or creating cement by adding volcanic ash. These little details I feel like I over simplify or overlook in it's importance to the bigger picture. This bigger picture being the constant cycle of innovation in which we find new ways to build, create, or use certain things. Looking at Greek pottery, they developed methods to create a specific look. How they made the vessels, applied the slip, added sawdust during the firing and other steps show the discovery but also the understanding of what is happening to the clay's surface. This innovation and consistency reminds me of the decisions I make in pottery or art without thinking about it. The decisions I make because of the aesthetics as well as the trial and errors to get there. When the author touches on the maker's mark, I think about my own signature that I apply to my work. Through his explanation, the maker's mark is all about the decisions that the maker makes...the shape of a vessel or the specific imagery displayed or the fingerprints that are left behind. The clues that taunt the viewer saying "I exist." This little description makes me wonder what I give to the viewer. What I intend for the to see but also what I don't intend for them to see. I feel that this article has challenge me to think  about the development of my ideas and how I perceive references in my work; to focus more on the metamorphosis, presence, and anthropomorphism. But also it has helped me to think of the questions I need to address when reflecting upon my work. What attitude do I want to give? Where does it reflect me as the maker? Does that distract from the object? How has this object developed and from where?

Reading 4, logan

"Material Consciousness"

After reading this article i was intrigued with this idea of material and how it relates not only to the conscious mind but the sub-conscious mind as well. one could look at an individual and their intentions with a specific material, or you can look at the material and how it shapes the individual. could one not look at the clay or ceramics as the driving force, instead of the individual? in other words, i feel people adapt/grow in relation to the material. i would argue an individual, especially primitive, who is learning ceramics on their own has no idea what their doing instead they are playing, exploring, and experiencing the material with no consciousness. by doing so they reach these states of mind, or this  realization where they may need to fix something, smooth something, attach something, and it is this that forces the individual to find or adapt a tool. if we are completely conciuos about our material we should adapt tools, methods, and techniques before even diving into the building process. within ceramics and sculpture i feel there is this power within the material that forces an individual to experiment or get lost, making the consiuos state of material less important than the driving force of the material itself.      

Reading 4

In "Material Consciousness" in his book The Craftsmen, Richard Sennett describes the ways in which we relate to objects, and what it is about certain objects that we find interesting. He addresses the question of whether our consciousness of things is independent from the things themselves, which he notes is a complex philosophical question. What he proposes is that we become particularly interested in the things that we can changes, and this idea is centered on the concepts of metamorphosis, presence, and anthropomorphosis.

In thinking about these concepts, he describes them in a way that relates back to the working with clay. He notes that metamorphosis can be as direct as a change in procedure, presence as simple as leaving a maker’s mark on an object, and anthropomorphosis as when we impute human qualities to a raw material. Metamorphosis, he says, “provokes material consciousness in three ways: through the internal evolution of a type-form, in the judgment about mixture and synthesis, by the thinking involved in domain shift.” Presence is an extremely important idea in the ways in which we relate to certain objects, as when an object has a mark made by the hand of the maker, the object immediately takes on important meaning. When this happens, using the example of the brick maker,  “the anonymous slave brick maker or mason made his presence known.”

Later on in his writing, Sennett talks about the mechanized production of brick taking away the notion of the brick as handmade object, which had certain natural properties. This idea is perhaps one of the most interesting of the reading because of the way it questions the way we think about a handmade object, and its place in our world as always changing.

Reading 3

Erza Shales' Where What's Done Comes Undone (Is a Museum), brings forth some very relevant points relating to the role of the museum in relation to the world of modern ceramics. I particularly enjoyed his point about in the museum we forget to let the real world, the physical world push back against us. As artists we spend so much intimate time crafting such refined works, but somehow many of us fall into the lull of gallery display. The gallery as I see it offers a setting for admiration where as settings such as the home where interaction is likely more encouraged, offer up a greater sense of curiosity and delight.

When we get to interact with an object, we essentially gain insight into its existence and or its purpose. It is the same in ceramic work- it reminds us of the item's "thingness" as Shales refers. In the realm of the handmade there is imperfection, yes even in the fine arts. But it is in those minor imperfections that we find human connection, and meaning. As Shales describes the unglazed parts of a pot, it raises the question of, is the work flawed? or is it intentional? This curiosity brings us to evaluate why this thing is in the world, and if we should strive to keep it in our world. But where do we keep it?

By housing work in the museum space, we can ensure its eternal presence, but at the cost of losing the true human connection to the work simply because we cannot investigate it for ourselves for a full understanding. In that sense the museum could become a mausoleum. On the opposite view is the notion of keeping it within the social realm where it can be engaged, but at the risk of endangering its permanence. It boils down to artist intent and what they wish to display and the best way they see fit to convey that intent.

Reading 4

In the chapter "Material Consciousness" from Richard Sennett's The Craftsman he introduces three ways in which craftsman "guide the metamorphosis of their craft"and how the metamorphosis is dependent on our material consciousness. The three things that he talks about as guiding the evolution of a craft are   metamorphosis (change in how the craft is done, or change in procedure), presence(the craftsman leaving their mark), and anthropomorphizes (imputing human qualities to a raw material).

I was interested in the anthropomorphic section of the chapter where Sennett introduced the idea with the example of brick walls being described as friendly or honest.  people started anthropomorphizing brick because of color variation.  because there is variety within a group of people and variation within a group of bricks they are related and the bricks are personified.  we often personify a pot or a piece in class and give it human describers but I do not always think about why we do this.  Sennett points out that the reason for Anthropomorphism in craft is not only for explanation but to "heighten our consciousness of the materials themselves and in this way to think about their value".    When we naturally give human qualities to a inanimate object it means that we are able to relate to it differently that something that was not anthropomorphized.  

When considering presence, metamorphosis, anthropomorphosis, and trying to understand why these things are relevant and important, this was the most clarifying quote that i took from the chapter: "we could of course treat clay simply as a material that is necessary for cooking and for shelter.  Bun in this utilitarian spirit we would eliminate most of what has made this substance culturally consequent".  It is the history and the slow metamorphosis that makes ceramics "culturally consequent".  Without any material consciousness or acknowledgement of this history you are eliminating what i think Sennett is saying is interesting about clay as a material.  It is what makes a cup made of ceramic relevant in a world where plastic cups might be more accessible.  

It is also exciting to think about the evolution of craft as something that does not end.  I am not sure that Presence and anthropomorphosis are things that we as makers have the most control over, but metamorphosis is something that continues to evolve.  We have the potential to be involved in the evolution of ceramics in this way. It is interesting to think about the technologies that are being developed today that will metamorphosize ceramic practice in the same way that the invention of the potters wheel did.  

Material Consciousness

I love the way Richard Sennett discusses metamorphosis and ceramics. It’s true that we’re fascinated with that which we can change; as artists, I think we all understand the allure of utilizing one material to generate something different. Our entire society relies upon such practices; from creating buildings from bricks, concrete, or steel to developing infrastructure like roads in a logical and meaningful pattern. Out of this necessity comes developments in technology and refinement of concept, which eventually births the luxury of choice and the ability to expand upon pure utility to generate objects and systems with layered purposes. The first pots were built in the most efficient way possible, with the pure intent of storing grain or the like, and with time they developed into pictorial objects, capable of engaging social commentary, or even establishing an economy. These conceptual shifts paralleled physical developments such as discoveries about the wheel, firing techniques, and glaze/clay/slip chemistry. 

Looking back on these developments, our knowledge and opinions allow us the 20/20 vision to think of them as “just-so” developments. The physical and conceptual metamorphosis of ceramics seems, to us, entirely logical and almost predestined, as if the coexistence of clay and wheels necessitated the development of wheel throwing as a building process. In making such an assumption, we take for granted the slow and evolutionary developments in the thought process of the craftspeople who preceded us. We forget that the development of this art form wasn’t linear, that there are many places the building process could have gone and still could go. Developing new methods of making objects requires “more engaged states of consciousness” than simply following technological developments in a straightforward procession of building techniques.  

In contemporary craft, we are challenged to participate in an “engaged state of consciousness” as the technology and concepts of our craft change. Advancements in our personal practice, as well as the culture of craft, are never straightforward; it may take weeks, years, or decades for a cognitive snap to occur, facilitating new developments. In Sennett’s words, “put as a principle, ...metamorphosis arouses the mind,” which I suspect is why the development of such ancient processes as wheel throwing continues to fascinate us, and why the craftsperson still plays an important role in modern society. 

reading 3

In the essay, Where What's Done Comes Undone (Is a Museum), Ezra Shales writes about a topic that is often discussed in the world of ceramics, whether or how art is affected when it is placed into the confines of a museum or art gallery. When so much of the beauty of ceramics comes from the ability to handle and touch the object's glaze and clay textures, it is difficult to appreciate work as much when it is placed upon a pedestal, as when it is found in the home. Shales takes this stance, and describes the perks of being able to handle an object as well as the connection it allows you to make to the artwork that a more formal setting could not.

Shales also brings up an interesting point about how people only see the "boutique best of all", or the final pieces of art like a final draft in literature, not the "historical flaw" that lead to the perfect museum piece, and how the flawed piece can give us more insight and understanding to the final piece. We know more about the process in which it was made and we are able to understand the flaws because we aren't perfect either. This reminds me of the "hand of the artist" being left behind. This seems to correlate to the ability to feel the textures and flaws of the clay or glaze. The hand of the artists invites us to touch the same spots they touched and can enable us to share the experience with the artwork and become more connected with it.

Connection is an important thing in art, in the ability to sell it to others but also in expressing ones-self or an idea, and physical connection can be stronger than just the ability to view something. Long after a sight or image disappears, the touch remains in one's memory and on their fingertips. Shales says that, "Our eyes move too fast and don't slow us down," the way that feeling an object can and I agree. The placement of artwork in a museum setting can take away some of the excitement and understanding of a piece, but is a necessary display for realistic viewing. If every museum could allow it's visitors to handle the artwork people would perhaps have a better experience and appreciation for the work but there would also be a lot more accidents and broken ceramics. Perhaps ceramics were meant to be handled, loved,  used "as tools for feasting", and eventually broken as we as humans are, instead of being placed on a pedestal or behind a locked door for most of their lives.

Erin Doherty

Reading 3

In Where What’s Done Comes Undone (Is a Museum), Ezra Shales touches on a pretty widespread trend in the art and craft world, which is a deep seated dissatisfaction with the museum. While the museum surely strips artworks of their original meaning by providing a bare, sterile context in which to view them, I’m sure most of us would agree that viewing art objects in a museum is better than not viewing them at all. They do their job of housing relics, artworks, and communicating ideas about them, but they undeniably change the way we would see them, especially when these objects are ones that are meant to be interacted with. This begs the question of how we might better approach the construction of a museum setting. 

Shales mentions that he prefers settings in which an intrusion is present, where the viewing of art can be accompanied by lively discourse, where the church like reverence and silence can be broken through. These sorts of environments surely make the viewing of art more comfortable and genuine. But while we can all agree that we like to interact with art, that touch is important, and that the museum is too sterile and neutral a backdrop for most art objects, it’s hard to come up with reasonable compromise. Let’s face it, the public can’t be trusted to handle most art objects. If we allowed viewers to pick up functional pottery, how might we ensure that the pots get returned to the pedestal safely? That the viewers don’t chip the lid while admiring a finial? How could we allow viewers to interact with a Ken Price sculpture and trust that they don’t let their children climb all over them and scuff up the surface with their sneakers? 

Shales points out  that this dilemma of how to properly preserve and experience artwork illustrates a human failure --“either our ability to design obsolescence, or behavioral tendency to break things.” It’s important to keep this idea of the lacuna, or the gap, in mind when we design alternative galleries or museum spaces.  

Reading 3

As artists we are especially tactile beings. When I was reading this article I kept thinking about critiques and how the first thing we always do is pick things up and look at the feet or touch the surface of the glaze. The author was saying that the tactile experience of things helps us to understand them in a way that nothing else can and depriving people, artists, of that experience is jeopardizing on multiple levels. There is a part of the article that the author is talking about a friends house and the variety of the art and belongings that they have in their home. He is talking about the lines that define and place art and objects under certain labels, or some artifacts above others, being erased and this allowing him to appreciate these objects of creation. I find this state of mind/observation and experience admirable and refreshing. I was excited that the author talked about the interaction between glazed and exposed parts of the pot, how powerful juxtaposing joined and uncovered parts of a vessel can be.

"Maybe we learn more from our mistakes of touch," I thought this summed up the article pretty well. I thought about this in regards not only to objects that exist as completed works of art in museums but also in the process of creating.

-Dehmie

Reading 3

     In Ezra Shales’ essay “Where What’s Done Comes Undone (is a museum)” he talks about a “participatory authorship” which he feels is missing in the institution of a museum and achieved more readily in places such as flea markets, auctions, and homes.  He talks about his grandmother’s china, which was locked away for its protection not only limiting his admiration of the pieces but also “weakening the development of understanding”.  He was unable to fully understand the pieces in his grandmother’s china cabinet without holding them and using them in a formal ritualistic way in which they are intended. 

     In so many ways I agree with Shales; ceramic objects are so often made for use, they are made to be held and to interact directly with the body, and they do loose something when you can only look.  It is kind of sad that many people never get the experience of holding a hand made ceramic cup, but I appreciate the museums ability to give such a wide spread introduction of art and ceramics. 

     I think that museums have purpose and opportunity in the display of ceramics, which is important, and worth sacrificing the ability to touch.  Museums reach a much wider audience than anyone’s home collection, or even a ceramic gallery has the ability to.  Not very many people have an upstairs neighbor, like Shales did, that will introduce them to ceramics as art; most people will get this education in a museum.  It is also important to recognize the age of most ceramic pieces in a museum.  They usually are historically significant, and have become representations of cultures that are no longer in existence.  I think for this reason, it is important to protect them and ensure that they will be around for future museum goers to view and learn from; and one way we do that is by restricting touch.    

     I think that it is true as Shales said that “our eyes move fast and don’t slow us down quite the way stroking an artifact can induce an attunement in breathing”.  Touch allows us to be more connected with an object and to notice more of its details.  Ideally we could all touch the artifacts in a museum, but as we can not I think it is the museums responsibility to help us slow down our eyes and connect through other strategies than touch. Hopefully the museum will be successful in creating a meaningful relationship between the art and its viewer without touch so that they may continue that relationship with ceramics they encounter outside of the museum.