Reading 2, Logan

Again I can't help thinking about the subjective quality behind critiquing, analyzing, and classifying art. Through out this reading ceramics was either this metaphorical object or this conceit object, but I would argue these objects hold no current meaning to use as artist/people, or that is to say they don't hold nearly the same meaning to us as they did to the culture or civilization they derived from. Yes, from a technical perspective historic pottery provides us with techniques/styles, glazes, clay bodies, tricks of the trade, etc... but this metaphorical or conceit meaning truly only held value to those current civilizations at the time. Specific purposes within ceramics like funerary jars or spiritual figures were only relevant to those who believed in them, artist may have learned specific glazes, clay bodies, or application processes from this historic art, but in no means does it carry the same meaning. People create and have created ceramics to fit their cultural needs, and those cultural needs have significantly changed through time. To keep these metaphorical or conceit ideas pinned to ceramics through history is silly to me, simply because they are subject to just as much change.  I'm more interested in artist writing about art, rather than writers writing about art. Writers have different prerogatives in life when compared to an artist. Artist that write about art share those selective skills therefore are more able to write about the topic more specially in an educational and factual manner.