Patrick Veerkamp on sun 5 may 96
Vince: I want to preface these remarks by apologizing for dismembering
your recent post with such abandon but I don't think I changed the
intended meaning.
"You are right about the widespread neglect of ceramic history. But placing
more emphasis on ceramic history should not take precedence over general art
history." "I do know that it is important to view and make ceramics
within the broader context of art history and world history."
Good point. Seems to me as if those among us who wish to be called
artist should indeed be interested in understanding their work in the
context of the history of art and society. Furthermore, if we aspire to be
artists in the waning of the 20th century then understanding
contemporary art and society need also be considered as part of the
education process.
"Otherwise, it is appalling how completely the study of art history
neglects fine craft."
We have three so called "focus areas" in our curriculum here at SU -
painting, sculpture, ceramics. Our art historians do a great job of
teaching students about the history of art and typically use examples of
painting, sculpture, and architecture. But, as you say, they rarely use
pots to make their point. The students and I have made an effort to
"sensitize" these individuals to the problem and sure enough they are
responding to our concerns. For instance, I have asked one of my
colleagues to consider including Adrian Saxe and Betty Woodman in his
Post-modern Seminar next semester. (we'll see if he follows through)
Fact is, I taught the art history survey for a number of years (I spent
much of my misguided youth studying art history and have an M.A. in this
field) and I know it's possible to integrate pots into the lecture. The
problem is that most art historians have virtually no background in the
history of pottery and have to make a real effort to ferret out
information from the relatively few (good) sources available on the
subject. I feel it's is partly my responsibility to direct my
colleagues to the source of information.
"So it is up to ceramics teachers to make up for this lack." "Ceramics
faculty need to put together their own slide collections. It is
the only way to really break the cycle that you speak of."
Yep, in the meantime we who teach have to take it upon ourselves to find
a way to teach ceramics history. If you're fortunate and teach in a
large Univ. you might have someone to teach a ceramics history survey
course. If not you'll just have to make the time for it within the
regular course structure. Personally, I attempt to integrate it into all
my ceramics courses. I do a general (albeit selective) survey of
ceramics in the intro classes. At the intermediate level I focus on
American ceramics (inclusive of native American) and in the upper
level seminars on modern/contemporary. One hour, once a week; admittedly,
it's not a comprehensive coverage but it's a pretty good start. BTW,
they are tested on the material and in all my classes there is a writing
component (formal analysis). In fact, I believe that you can
"technique" the spirit right out of art. I act on the assumption that
what's between the ears is as (more?) important that what's between the
covers of your glaze notebook.
"But of course if the history of the media itself is neglected then the
student is really missing out."
No doubt about it. I had a good mentor in this regard. I studied (MFA)
with Richard DeVore and Colo State and I observed his teaching methods with
great interest. He began on the first day of the Ceramics I class by
punctuating his introductory lecture with images from the history of
ceramics. Likewise, he set the tone for the course by talking about pots
(yes I said pots) as art. He never differentiated between "one of a
kind" pots and utilitarian pots, he simply dealt with each one
individually on their own merits. His criteria was simply were they
"personal, passionate, pertinent". He didn't ignore technique, far from
it. He simply had a way of putting it in it's proper perspective, as an
integral part of the artists attempt to convey complex feelings and ideas.
It seems to me the history of ceramics can also be viewed from this point
of view.
Patrick Veerkamp
Southwestern University
veerkamp@southwestern.edu
| |
|
