Paul Lewing on wed 24 jun 09
We've been having an intense and interesting discussion recently on
the china painters' equivalent of Clayart, PPIO (Porcelain Painters
International Online) about why the art show/ art critic/ gallery/
museum world doesn't take china painting seriously as an art form. I
decided to just ask that question here and I'll forward any responses
to that list. So far the discussion has centered on a couple of issues.
China painters don't generally make the forms they paint on, they buy
commercially produced forms like plates and vases. Sometimes china
painted tiles are accepted in galleries and shows (mine certainly are)
but the other forms are not usually. China painters argue vehemently
that oil painters and watercolorists do not make the surface they
paint on, why should china painters?
If Kurt Weiser and Bridget Cherie Harper bought the forms they paint
those amazing images on, would you, as a gallery owner or show juror,
accept them?
Another issue is the never-ending debate about what's copied and
what's original. This is like the never-ending debate among clay
artists about art vs. craft. In china painting classes, every student
typically paints the same thing on the same form, often following a
"study" provided by the teacher which details what colors go where in
what order and may even include an outline for the student to trace
onto the piece. The lively debate at present is about the teacher
"correcting" the student's work. Many china painting teachers wipe
off what the student has painted and repaint it so it looks like their
work. Students often go home with a piece that is indistinguishable
from the teacher's because the teacher essentially painted it. Would
you touch a student's work and expect them to keep that? Have you
ever had a teacher do that to your work?
And just why is it that china painting is not taught in ceramic
schools just as another decorating alternative like underglaze or raku
or wood firing? This, by the way, is my goal with my book and the
workshops on china painting that I've been teaching. Especially since
Kurt's show has been touring around the country, there's a lot more
interest in it, but I still don't know of a single art school or
university that offers it as a regular part of their curriculum.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
www.paullewingart.com
Eva Gallagher on wed 24 jun 09
Hi Paul - I think years ago in Europe it was taken more seriously and I
think still is. My mother studied ceramic design in Prague in the 1930' and
40's and bemoaned the fact that when we came to Montreal in the early 1950'=
s
that there was no china painting here. I still remember her trying to find
the special oil that she needed.
In Europe, tables, tiled heating stoves, etc often had painted tiles on the=
m
and china painting on all sort of forms were all part of the curriculum.
Eva Gallagher
Deep River, Ontario
http://stevenhilljourneyworkshopjuly2008.blogspot.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Lewing"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: china painting taken seriously
> We've been having an intense and interesting discussion recently on
> the china painters' equivalent of Clayart, PPIO (Porcelain Painters
> International Online) about why the art show/ art critic/ gallery/
> museum world doesn't take china painting seriously as an art form. I
> decided to just ask that question here and I'll forward any responses
> to that list. So far the discussion has centered on a couple of issues.
>
>
| |
|
