Reading 2 Spring 2014

In Phillip Rawson's book, Ceramics, he discusses the history of sculpture as well as how many cultures have shown the use of the "potter's space." From his examples of Japanese and European ceramics, I have come to understand that what he means by "potter's space" is the 2D surface of the clay held within a 3D realm. This space has many possibilities through true metaphor or conceit. Does the artists want to fool the eye, expand on what could be there or does the artist create the shape of a vessel to invoke something deeper? Through his explanation of how the space around the sculpture, the surface of the sculpture, and the form of the sculpture all create a visual language that can only be achieved through the art of ceramics.
When applying "potter's space" to my own work, I think about the form and the space around it. The surface gets lost to me. When Rawson talks about the centerpieces that invoke more of a vessel and create a movement around the table to engage the viewer, it is done with the surface of the piece but also the form. I forget how much the surface means to the actual form. It completes the message that is trying to be said, whether it be the type of clay that is being used or the images that speak of whether the sculpture is a metaphor or a desire to be more like the Greek vases that show perfection in man. Through reading this excerpt of Rawson, I thought about Ken Price. His work has environment around the objects but also the surface themselves create an interest and depth. Where most things look like they rest on the surface, his work looks like its growing from within. His use of the potter's space is about engaging the viewer to not think about the clay being a medium but the clay being the subject.