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.