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.