MarilynMFA@aol.com on sat 22 jun 96
Were the decorative ceramic vases (intricately incised and excised) by
Adelaide Alsop Robineau in the early part of this century fine art? She grew
tired of painting on the blank vessels produced by others and decided to
create her own porcelain forms instead of bowing to the male-dominated world
of ceramics at the time. She incised exquisite, complex designs. One of my
favorites is her "Scarab Vase (The Apotheosis of the Toiler)". The scarab
beetle, originally an Egyptian symbol, meant "to become" or "to create" and
represented a "phenomenon" or "marvel." This was an appropriate iconographic
motif for her to use and relates to the theme of the vessel. The idea was
that the beetle repeatedly rolled its egg in a ball of dung uphill until it
achieved success. Adelaide, it is said, spent over one thousand hours of
slow, patient work on this piece. At the end of the first firing, there
appeared several cracks at the base of the vessel. She patiently filled the
cracks with ground porcelain, reglazed the piece, and the second firing
resulted in a perfect object with no hint of the earlier damage. Did all
this work make her vase more functional? Did she perhaps use decoration as
an end in itself?
Did the primitive Neolithic Jomon potters of Japan, beginning prior to 4000
B.C., do their intricate, elaborate cord-markings and complicated openwork
patterns of their vessels as an after thought? This hunting-gathering
culture fed on nuts, berries, and shellfish, and hunted deer, wild boar,
raccoons, and squirrels. Could they at the end of their day say to
themselves, "I think this vessel that I have made looks a bit plain, perhaps
I should make a few curious, bizarre and elaborate incrustations on it so
that it will be regarded as a work or art and not just a vessel in which to
store the remains of my great aunt Alice?"
Or did their work become "art" because it was the expression of a dynamic,
robust and virile society? They had meticulous workmanship and a delight in
plastic decoration which belied their use of a natural, unwashed, lumpy clay.
They added clay in extensions as the shapes of their vessels grew. Was this
an attempt at integrating the decoration with the vessel form or was it an
attempt to subordinate the vessel shape to ornamentation? Or are these mute
monuments to the strong accord with nature and art felt by the Jomon people
and to their longings and aspirations ?
The whole problem with ornamentation began around the turn of the 20th
century. Ornamentation became the object of heated discussion and was much
maligned. In many art circles surface embellishment is referred to
pejoratively since the time of one of the great leaders in the functional
movement, Adolf Loos. Loos was a Viennese architect who believed, with his
fellow artists in the new functionalism, that function and beauty were the
same and lack of decoration an ideal. He published a treatise entitled,
"Ornamentation is Crime" in which he vilified decoration, ornamentation and
those who use them. He even said, "The evolution of culture is synonymous
with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use." This vituperation
was probably a reaction to the fin de siecle excess and the Art Nouveau and
Jugenstil influences but since this time, most of the art community has
expounded the theories of Loos and taught the principle of "form following
function." The adjective "decorative" was firmly established as an insult in
contemporary art parlance. Since the 1970's there have been several
movements that have challenged the taboo against decorative art. They have
been inspired by non-Western art forms such as Islamic, Byzantine, and celtic
art.
Earlier civilizations such as the Jomon, the Maori, etc., ornamented their
functional objects when they had peaceful occupations, extra time, and no
thought for monetary gain. Beyond the symbolic content that was no doubt
present, I believe there was a joy in the rhythmic decoration itself. When
primitive man made his experiences visible, he created ornament. Why do we
disparage ornamentation now? It is against the objective order of these
things that we should measure any judgments, pro or con, that we make about
ornamentation.
Thanks for listening,
Marilyn, in Utah
Eleanora Eden on wed 6 nov 96
There was a wonderful thread of posts in early summer that are germaine
to the current thread on form. Here's an excerpt:
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 MarilynMFA@aol.com wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
>
> Did the primitive Neolithic Jomon potters of Japan, beginning prior to 4000
> B.C., do their intricate, elaborate cord-markings and complicated openwork
> patterns of their vessels as an after thought? This hunting-gathering
> culture fed on nuts, berries, and shellfish, and hunted deer, wild boar,
> raccoons, and squirrels. Could they at the end of their day say to
> themselves, "I think this vessel that I have made looks a bit plain, perhaps
> I should make a few curious, bizarre and elaborate incrustations on it so
> that it will be regarded as a work or art and not just a vessel in which to
> store the remains of my great aunt Alice?"
>
> Or did their work become "art" because it was the expression of a dynamic,
> robust and virile society? They had meticulous workmanship and a delight in
> plastic decoration which belied their use of a natural, unwashed, lumpy clay.
> They added clay in extensions as the shapes of their vessels grew. Was this
> an attempt at integrating the decoration with the vessel form or was it an
> attempt to subordinate the vessel shape to ornamentation? Or are these mute
> monuments to the strong accord with nature and art felt by the Jomon people
> and to their longings and aspirations ?
>
> The whole problem with ornamentation began around the turn of the 20th
> century. Ornamentation became the object of heated discussion and was much
> maligned. In many art circles surface embellishment is referred to
> pejoratively since the time of one of the great leaders in the functional
> movement, Adolf Loos. Loos was a Viennese architect who believed, with his
> fellow artists in the new functionalism, that function and beauty were the
> same and lack of decoration an ideal. He published a treatise entitled,
> "Ornamentation is Crime" in which he vilified decoration, ornamentation and
> those who use them. He even said, "The evolution of culture is synonymous
> with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use." This vituperation
> was probably a reaction to the fin de siecle excess and the Art Nouveau and
> Jugenstil influences but since this time, most of the art community has
> expounded the theories of Loos and taught the principle of "form following
> function." The adjective "decorative" was firmly established as an insult in
> contemporary art parlance. Since the 1970's there have been several
> movements that have challenged the taboo against decorative art. They have
> been inspired by non-Western art forms such as Islamic, Byzantine, and celtic
> art.
>
> Earlier civilizations such as the Jomon, the Maori, etc., ornamented their
> functional objects when they had peaceful occupations, extra time, and no
> thought for monetary gain. Beyond the symbolic content that was no doubt
> present, I believe there was a joy in the rhythmic decoration itself. When
> primitive man made his experiences visible, he created ornament. Why do we
> disparage ornamentation now? It is against the objective order of these
> things that we should measure any judgments, pro or con, that we make about
> ornamentation.
>
> Thanks for listening,
> Marilyn, in Utah
>
Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
Paradise Hill
Bellows Falls, VT 05101 eden@maple.sover.net
Sam Tomich on thu 7 nov 96
Is there a trend towards any particular direction right now in the field
of ceramics, or does it reflect anything goes that seems to be a 90's
theme? Does anybody see a backlash to all the abstract art and
contemporary art forms like "trash" art whereby a type of craftsmanship
revival is coming into vogue. A renaissance of sorts? Just curious...
Sam in Hawaii
| |
|
