James Freeman on sun 1 may 11
Here we are, discussing whether or not rubbing ink into the crackleur of a
real, actual glaze is somehow "cheating". This morning, I got around to
opening my current issue of Ceramics Monthly. There, in the section
entitled Emerging Artists, is a gentleman who painted red common bricks wit=
h
Martha Stewart latex paint. That's the entire piece, painted bricks
displayed in a grid, and he is an "artist", in fact one of the ten best
under-recognized ceramic artists in the world. I think this authoritativel=
y
settles the argument: If latex paint is not "cheating", then ink in an
actual glaze certainly cannot be. QED.
Pushing the envelope even further, it occurs to me that if the glaze can be
dispensed with in favor of a coating of colored plastic while still
qualifying as ceramic art, can we not, by precisely the same logic, also
dispense with the clay component? Can I call a work constructed of Fimo
clay "ceramic art"? One may argue that in the first case at least the bric=
k
was "ceramic", while in the latter case nothing is ceramic. Even if we
accept this argument, if the painted clay article qualifies as ceramic art,
then so must an enameled copper object. In the first case the substrate is
ceramic though the coating is not, while in the latter case the coating is
ceramic while the substrate is not. As my grandmother would say, "same
difference".
Exploring further, if an unfired, plastic surface can be called a glaze,
then can I not similarly call an unfired plastic substrate a ceramic
object? For example, can I carve a lump of Corian and call it ceramic? It
is, after all, composed of unfired alumina hydrate in a plastic binder.
What of the Corian competitors which employ silica or whiting fillers in
place of the alumina? Better yet, can I mix raw clay, silica, and other
clay body and glaze constituents as fillers into a plastic resin, then mold
or otherwise form objects from this substance and call the resulting pieces
"cold ceramics"?
My own opinion is that if the ceramic object serves only as a substrate for
a painted surface, then the resulting object is a painting, not ceramic
art. One does not see a painting on a wood panel entered in a woodworking
exhibition, nor does one call a painting on canvas an example of fiber art.
As such, how can a painting on a brick (or a pot) be ceramic art?
Food for thought, on this cold, dreary, wet May morning.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Randall Moody on sun 1 may 11
Technically speaking a ceramic is an inorganic, nonmetallic solid prepared
by the action of heat and subsequent cooling.
As to your last point. I believe that if the emphasis is the wood panel or
the canvas rather than the painting then it would be acceptable to enter
them into a woodworking or textile show. Look at the painted wooden chests
or lacquer boxes of the past. You wouldn't deny them entry into woodworking
shows.
My opinion is that the over emphasis on technique and what is an
"acceptable" way to work or what is an acceptable treatment of the material
is what separates craft from art. (I give everyone permission to disagree
with me on this.)
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:17 AM, James Freeman m
> wrote
>
>
> Pushing the envelope even further, it occurs to me that if the glaze can =
be
> dispensed with in favor of a coating of colored plastic while still
> qualifying as ceramic art, can we not, by precisely the same logic, also
> dispense with the clay component? Can I call a work constructed of Fimo
> clay "ceramic art"? One may argue that in the first case at least the
> brick
> was "ceramic", while in the latter case nothing is ceramic. Even if we
> accept this argument, if the painted clay article qualifies as ceramic ar=
t,
> then so must an enameled copper object. In the first case the substrate =
is
> ceramic though the coating is not, while in the latter case the coating i=
s
> ceramic while the substrate is not. As my grandmother would say, "same
> difference".
>
> SNIP
>
> My own opinion is that if the ceramic object serves only as a substrate f=
or
> a painted surface, then the resulting object is a painting, not ceramic
> art. One does not see a painting on a wood panel entered in a woodworkin=
g
> exhibition, nor does one call a painting on canvas an example of fiber ar=
t.
> As such, how can a painting on a brick (or a pot) be ceramic art?
>
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Ann Brink on sun 1 may 11
I think the way it works is that once the artist arranges the bricks and
mounts them on the wall, it becomes an artwork, just as the famous urinal
did when displayed so. (maybe not a "work of art" in our opinion, but
anyway....)
I also think that to be called a ceramic artwork, the artist would have to
have shaped or manipulated the clay in some way. Otherwise it's a painting
on found objects.
Ann Brink in Lompoc CA
(mostly about pottery)
> Here we are, discussing whether or not rubbing ink into the crackleur of =
a
> real, actual glaze is somehow "cheating". This morning, I got around to
> opening my current issue of Ceramics Monthly. There, in the section
> entitled Emerging Artists, is a gentleman who painted red common bricks
> with
> Martha Stewart latex paint. That's the entire piece, painted bricks
> displayed in a grid, and he is an "artist", in fact one of the ten best
> under-recognized ceramic artists in the world. I think this
> authoritatively
> settles the argument: If latex paint is not "cheating", then ink in an
> actual glaze certainly cannot be. QED.
>".
>
>"?
>
> My own opinion is that if the ceramic object serves only as a substrate
> for
> a painted surface, then the resulting object is a painting, not ceramic
> art. One does not see a painting on a wood panel entered in a woodworkin=
g
> exhibition, nor does one call a painting on canvas an example of fiber
> art.
> As such, how can a painting on a brick (or a pot) be ceramic art?
>
>>
> James Freeman
>
>
steve graber on sun 1 may 11
you hit on one of the biggest reasons i dropped my CM subscription and stop=
=3D
ped =3D0Aadvertizing there.=3DA0 the work i see in it is not "pottery" anym=
ore.=3D
=3DA0 it's =3D0Aartsy-fartsy, "not my" style.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Askip firi=
ng the clay =3D
and paint it and call it "ceramic art".=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0Ayears back it seemed=
i'd f=3D
lip thru their magazine and see little that interested =3D0Ame.=3DA0 i wond=
ered=3D
why i kept re-upping the subscription.=3DA0 CM's=3DA0focus turned into =3D=
0AMFA =3D
promotion of various schools.=3DA0 when i mentioned to them how it would be=
=3D
=3D0Ainteresting to see an article of ceramic tool supplier's and their wor=
k,=3D
they =3D0Afelt that was considered "advertizing" and not suitable for thei=
r =3D
pages.=3DA0 i =3D0Acould care less about showing my work but found others d=
oing=3D
exceptional pottery =3D0Athat i wasn't aware of until i reviewed their too=
l =3D
websites for more general =3D0Ainfo of their tools.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D=
A0Steve Grab=3D
er, Graber's Pottery, Inc=3D0AClaremont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve Tool =
- fo=3D
r awesome texture on pots! =3D0Awww.graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery=
.c=3D
om =3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Clay's website=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.com/bl=
ogs/ =3D0A=3D
=3D0A=3D0AFrom: James Freeman =3D0ATo: Clayar=
t@LSV.=3D
CERAMICS.ORG=3D0ASent: Sun, May 1, 2011 7:17:22 AM=3D0ASubject: Ink, paint,=
so-=3D
called cold glazes: Cheating?=3D0A=3D0AMy own opinion is that if the cerami=
c ob=3D
ject serves only as a substrate for=3D0Aa painted surface, then the resulti=
ng=3D
object is a painting, not ceramic=3D0Aart.=3DA0 One does not see a paintin=
g on=3D
a wood panel entered in a woodworking=3D0Aexhibition, nor does one call a =
pa=3D
inting on canvas an example of fiber art.=3D0AAs such, how can a painting o=
n =3D
a brick (or a pot) be ceramic art?
James Freeman on sun 1 may 11
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Ann Brink wrote:
I also think that to be called a ceramic artwork, the artist would have to
have shaped or manipulated the clay in some way. Otherwise it's a painting
on found objects.
Very interesting perspective, Ann.
Suppose a hypothetical husband/wife team. Wife makes and fires clay bricks=
,
which husband then paints. Are these still "ceramic art"? If they are, is
only the wife a ceramic artist, since husband only painted on found
objects? It seems that both would be ceramic artists, since both had a han=
d
in the creation of the piece of ceramic art. If so, why am I not a ceramic
artist if I paint purchased clay bricks? After all, I have collaborated
with an anonymous brick maker just as husband has collaborated with wife.
Taken a step further, why can't I paint a mug or flowerpot purchased at
Walmart and call it "ceramic art"?
I am in no way arguing here that the painted bricks are not art, I am just
questioning whether they are "ceramic art", a very specific subset.
Just thinking aloud.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Kanika Sircar on sun 1 may 11
Do you not consider Bennett Bean to be a ceramic artist?
Kanika
--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Freeman"
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 2:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Ink, paint, so-called cold glazes: Cheating?
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Ann Brink wrote:
>
> I also think that to be called a ceramic artwork, the artist would have t=
o
> have shaped or manipulated the clay in some way. Otherwise it's a
> painting
> on found objects.
>
>
>
>
> Very interesting perspective, Ann.
>
> Suppose a hypothetical husband/wife team. Wife makes and fires clay
> bricks,
> which husband then paints. Are these still "ceramic art"? If they are,
> is
> only the wife a ceramic artist, since husband only painted on found
> objects? It seems that both would be ceramic artists, since both had a
> hand
> in the creation of the piece of ceramic art. If so, why am I not a
> ceramic
> artist if I paint purchased clay bricks? After all, I have collaborated
> with an anonymous brick maker just as husband has collaborated with wife.
>
> Taken a step further, why can't I paint a mug or flowerpot purchased at
> Walmart and call it "ceramic art"?
>
> I am in no way arguing here that the painted bricks are not art, I am jus=
t
> questioning whether they are "ceramic art", a very specific subset.
>
> Just thinking aloud.
>
> All the best.
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
> preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
>
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I shoul=
d
> not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>
Snail Scott on sun 1 may 11
On May 1, 2011, at 9:17 AM, James Freeman wrote:
> My own opinion is that if the ceramic object serves only as a substrate f=
or
> a painted surface, then the resulting object is a painting, not ceramic
> art. One does not see a painting on a wood panel entered in a woodworkin=
g
> exhibition, nor does one call a painting on canvas an example of fiber ar=
t.
> As such, how can a painting on a brick (or a pot) be ceramic art?
I believe that ceramics is unusual for its dialogue
between form and surface. Few other craft media have
this duality. Both the form (clay) and the surface (glaze,
engobes, slip, etc) may be ceramic. However, one or
the other component might conceivably be something
else (most commonly a non-ceramic surface coating).
The presence of the other (the underlying clay form)
still allows for the entirety to be placed within 'ceramics'
as a medium. I have in fact seen painted textiles and
painted wood categorized as textile and woodworking,
respectively, though usually with some considerable
workmanship in the nominal medium as well. These
media, though, lack the millenia-long history of surface/
form duality that characterizes so much of ceramics.
Clayforming and glaze application (or engobes, fired
slips, etc) are both ceramic processes. Whether a given
object must utilize both to be 'ceramics' is surely up to
the juror/viewer with an eye to their own intentions.
However, if unglazed clay may be termed 'ceramics',
why should clay covered in paint, glitter, roofing tar,
wax, chrome plating, or chewing gum be less so?
The argument, in my mind, mainly points up the artificial
nature of the separation between 'ceramics' and 'art' in
general. Most of the art world doesn't care what something
is made of, as long as the use of that material makes
sense within the artwork as a whole. Only the traditional
craft media, it seems, still attempt to self-segregate.
Identifying categories of media is a useful thing, and
allows dialogue on topics shared in common by its
practitioners. When it becomes a means of narrowing
the discussion instead, it requires some careful scrutiny.
I find the question of whether something is or is not
'ceramics' to be consistently boring and usually pointless.
If something is said to be 'not ceramics', is does not follow
that it is also 'not art'. It has simply failed some test of purity
of process. If the 'pure' process does not result in better art,
what good is it? Skill for its own sake, regardless of the
field of endeavor, is simply BB-stacking. As human beings,
we admire skill for its own sake without regard to product.
However, we cannot reasonably judge the product based
on the maker's adherence to a particular skill set. We must
consider whether those skills were the appropriate ones,
and also whether they were sufficient.
We might ask whether the painted bricks of the example
were well-done, and whether the maker's methods were
suitable for carrying forward the intentions of the project,
and further, whether the intention itself was a good one.
Asking whether it qualifies as 'ceramics' is simply not
interesting to me. Unless I am jurying a show with the
stated theme of 'ceramic art', or grading a course studying
ceramics, the question is merely one of definitions and
nomenclature, not of substance.
-Snail
Vince Pitelka on sun 1 may 11
Using India ink to accentuate crackles is just a faster way of introducing
carbon into the crackles. At this point, pretty much anything is fair game=
,
especially in American raku, because that particular category of ceramics i=
s
so done and overdone. I mean, my god, how much more alkaline blue crackle,
white crackle, and copper flash can the world stand? Anyone in academia
knows that there is very little American raku being done in academia,
because it has just grown old and tired. Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but I
hate to see people hanging onto a technique that is so aesthetically
exhausted. On the other hand, if you find something truly original in
American raku, more power to you.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
James Freeman on sun 1 may 11
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Kanika Sircar wrote=
:
Do you not consider Bennett Bean to be a ceramic artist?
Kanika...
Sure, of course. But is there a difference between a glazed and pit fired
pot that is accented with areas of paint, and a brick that is painted with
house paint? Perhaps not.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Vince Pitelka on sun 1 may 11
Kanika Sircar wrote:
"Do you not consider Bennett Bean to be a ceramic artist?"
Hi Kanika. I am not sure what your point is. Ann Brink said "I also think
that to be called a ceramic artwork, the artist would have to have shaped o=
r
manipulated the clay in some way." Bennett Bean certainly shapes and
manipulates the clay, but then uses oil paints, gold leaf, and other
post-firing finishes on his work. But it certainly conforms to what Ann
suggested. I would certainly consider Bennett Bean a fairly extraordinary
ceramic artist.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
William & Susan Schran User on mon 2 may 11
On 5/1/11 10:22 PM, "Vince Pitelka" wrote:
> Anyone in academia
> knows that there is very little American raku being done in academia,
> because it has just grown old and tired. Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but I
> hate to see people hanging onto a technique that is so aesthetically
> exhausted. On the other hand, if you find something truly original in
> American raku, more power to you.
I teach raku every summer semester, not as much for the results, but more
for the process. At a community college where most students enrolled in
ceramics are non-art majors, finding ways to help them better understand th=
e
ceramic process is sometimes a challenge. I find the raku process allows al=
l
students in the class to become more involved in the entire ceramic process=
,
from concept of the form to the glaze firing.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
Randall Moody on mon 2 may 11
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Kanika Sircar wrote:
> "Do you not consider Bennett Bean to be a ceramic artist?"
>
> Hi Kanika. I am not sure what your point is. Ann Brink said "I also thin=
k
> that to be called a ceramic artwork, the artist would have to have shaped
> or
> manipulated the clay in some way." Bennett Bean certainly shapes and
> manipulates the clay, but then uses oil paints, gold leaf, and other
> post-firing finishes on his work. But it certainly conforms to what Ann
> suggested. I would certainly consider Bennett Bean a fairly extraordinar=
y
> ceramic artist.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
The term "ceramic" has to do with the heating and cooling of the material,
specifically an inorganic non-metallic solid, not the shaping or other
manipulation. Using the proper definition of ceramic, a fired terracotta po=
t
that was bought from the local garden center and painted with acrylics stil=
l
qualifies as a piece of ceramic art. It may be bad or kitchy ceramic art bu=
t
it is still ceramic. The real question then becomes, "Is it Art?" This
question goes for many items that are glazed and fired.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D on mon 2 may 11
> James Freeman said:
>Better yet, can I mix raw clay, silica, and other
>clay body and glaze constituents as fillers into a plastic resin, then mol=
d
>or otherwise form objects from this substance and call the resulting piece=
s
>"cold ceramics"?
***************** I believe that may already be done somewhat .
There is something called cold porcelain that " resembles"
porcelain but is not fired. It is used to cold cast figurines
etc but I dont know what its made of.
You also said:
>As such, how can a painting on a brick (or a pot) be ceramic art?
******************* How would you then define chinapainting? It is a
painting......... on a pot :O)
marci the neither fish nor fowl chinapainter
James Freeman on mon 2 may 11
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Snail Scott wrot=
e:
Asking whether it qualifies as 'ceramics' is simply not
interesting to me. Unless I am jurying a show with the
stated theme of 'ceramic art', or grading a course studying
ceramics, the question is merely one of definitions and
nomenclature, not of substance.
Snail...
The bricks appeared in Ceramics Monthly, a self-segregating, craft-specific
journal, and were further held forth as the work of one of the ten best
under-recognized ceramic artists in the world. The latter is an extremely
high bar to jump, and the former is not insignificant. It is only the
former about which I raised the question. Is the painted ceramic brick
installation truly "ceramic art" (segregated by the publisher of the
magazine, not by me), or is the nominal ceramic component dismissible as de
minimus, and not a necessary aspect of the work? Had the bricks been forme=
d
of plastic, or plaster, or concrete, the piece would have been precisely th=
e
same. Such being the case, it seems that the "art", the claimed "message",
exists in the paint and the arrangement on the wall, with the nominal
ceramic substrate contributing nothing to the discussion.
In the work of Bennett Bean, the "message" is conveyed by the ceramic
vessel, and the paint serves mainly as embellishment. In the example of th=
e
bricks, the entire message is conveyed by the paint, as the artist admits i=
n
his statement. Had these bricks appeared in a generic publication such as
American Craft, this discussion would indeed be invalid and
"uninteresting". It is only their inclusion in a ceramics-specific journal=
,
held up as near the pinnacle of the ceramic arts, that I question.
To me, the determination as to the craft-specific categorization of a given
object lays in whether or not the chosen substrate is sine qua non, or if i=
t
may be replaced with any other material without altering the message. A
painting is a painting, whether on a panel, a canvas, or the hood of a
Chevy, as the message is (ordinarily) conveyed by the surface coating, and
not by the substrate. Can the same not be said of the painted bricks? The
message, to the extent that it exists, is carried by the Martha Stewart
paint, which could have equally been applied to blocks of most anything.
As to the stacking of BBs, I do understand the Kantian paradigm which lead
inexorably to our present day divorce of skill from art, but can such be
equally applied to the realm of craft? Can craft even exist absent skill?
Perhaps it can.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
pdp1 on mon 2 may 11
Hi James, Snail, all,
Is there a difference between a 'Bennet Bean' painting Bricks, or, a 'Benne=
t
Bean' pickled in Formeldehyde, and the Carboy being 'painted'?
Perhaps not...even if to some ( to 'Bennet Bean' posibly, or his creditors
certainly ), there may be.
It always interests me to discover the ways in which we may conclude that
somehting is 'the same as' or an equivilent to, something else, or when
merely drawing a line from one abstract attribute shared or seen in each.
A Horse is the same as a Cat, since they each have four Legs.
A Cat is the same as a Chair, snice they each have four Legs.
A Chair is the same as half-a-Spider, or, two Chairs is the same as one
Spider, since, each will be seen to have eight Legs.
This reminds me of my days in school! ( - or since then, in reviewing the
bills passed by ledgislators ).
They specialize in these sorts of 'equations'...and, on others enforcing
them.
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Freeman"
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Kanika Sircar
> wrote:
> Do you not consider Bennett Bean to be a ceramic artist?
>
>
>
>
> Kanika...
>
> Sure, of course. But is there a difference between a glazed and pit fire=
d
> pot that is accented with areas of paint, and a brick that is painted wit=
h
> house paint? Perhaps not.
>
> All the best.
>
> ...James
James Freeman on mon 2 may 11
Marci...
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM, marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D
wrote:
******************* How would you then define chinapainting? It is a
painting......... on a pot :O)
marci the neither fish nor fowl chinapainter
It's a painting done with ceramic glazes (admittedly specialized glazes, bu=
t
glazes nonetheless) on a ceramic substrate, using ceramic materials, and
fired until melted or fused, so it is indeed fish, or maybe fowl, whichever
you identify with. Fish. Definitely fish. If you china paint a brick, I
guess that's a fish too, unless you paint a chicken on it, in which case yo=
u
are back to fowl.
All the best.
...James, who is likely more foul than Phish
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
James Freeman on mon 2 may 11
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Randall Moody wrot=
e:
The term "ceramic" has to do with the heating and cooling of the material,
specifically an inorganic non-metallic solid, not the shaping or other
manipulation. Using the proper definition of ceramic, a fired terracotta po=
t
that was bought from the local garden center and painted with acrylics stil=
l
qualifies as a piece of ceramic art. It may be bad or kitchy ceramic art bu=
t
it is still ceramic. The real question then becomes, "Is it Art?" This
question goes for many items that are glazed and fired.
Randall...
If we accept your definition, that a ceramic object with a non-ceramic
coating is still ceramic art, then the converse must also be true; that a
ceramic coating over a non-ceramic object must also be ceramic art, as bot=
h
employ "heating and cooling of an inorganic non-metallic material" (and all
that this implies). Under this definition, an enameled copper vessel would
be a work of ceramic art. Since it clearly is not a work of ceramic art,
perhaps there is an insufficiency in this definition?
I don't think we need to ask "Is it art?". We can, for the sake of
discussion, stipulate that it is, indeed, art, so can focus on the question
of whether or not a nominally ceramic object, and one wherein the
non-ceramic coating carries the supposed meaning, is ceramic art.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Snail Scott on mon 2 may 11
On May 2, 2011, at 9:43 AM, James Freeman wrote:
> Snail...
>=3D20
> The bricks appeared in Ceramics Monthly, a self-segregating, =3D
craft-specific
> journal, and were further held forth as the work of one of the ten =3D
best
> under-recognized ceramic artists in the world. The latter is an =3D
extremely
> high bar to jump, and the former is not insignificant. It is only the
> former about which I raised the question...
As usual, I have not yet received the CM which holds
our discussion's origin objects, so I can't comment on=3D20
anything but the description. But, to formulate my own=3D20
dialogue upon the yet-unseen objects: Are they art?
Yes, probably, as they seem to attempt communication=3D20
or presentation other than for purely pragmatic goals,=3D20
and do so in visual language. So, they seem to be art.
(Good art? Bad art? A topic for another moment.) Are=3D20
they ceramic? Yes, as they are bricks, made of fired=3D20
clay. Thus, they must be ceramic art.=3D20
> Is the painted ceramic brick
> installation truly "ceramic art" (segregated by the publisher of the
> magazine, not by me), or is the nominal ceramic component dismissible =3D
as de
> minimus, and not a necessary aspect of the work? =3D20
I believe that even if the ceramic aspects of the work=3D20
are largely or entirely irrelevant to the nature of the=3D20
work, it would still be ceramic art. If the ceramic nature=3D20
of the object were detrimental to the intentions of the=3D20
work, it would be bad ceramic art, but ceramic art=3D20
nonetheless.=3D20
As to whether the object is worthy of high recognition,=3D20
it must surely rest on whether the venue (CM) ought to=3D20
recognize technical skill in the use of the ceramic=3D20
elements (alone or on combination with other skills),=3D20
or whether intellectual skill might be sufficient (choosing=3D20
the 'found' brick as a suitable material). It seems that in=3D20
this case, CM is suggesting the latter. =3D20
This is reminiscent of a piece I once did involving painted=3D20
bricks. I drew 1/4" scaled blueprint drawings of brick walls=3D20
onto actual bricks. It was surely ceramic although I did not=3D20
make the brick. I made others in which I obtained leather-
hard bricks from a local brickworks and altered them, and=3D20
at other times made both actual bricks and objects that look=3D20
like bricks which (in spite of being real clay) are actually=3D20
representational sculptures of bricks. the blueprint-brick was,=3D20
I thought, an interesting though minor idea, expressing the=3D20
dichotomy between intention and actual making. Whether=3D20
you think it was good art or bad it likely would not have been=3D20
improved if I had made the brick from scratch, regardless of=3D20
the level of skill exhibited, and still less if I had made some=3D20
complicated, highly-detailed shape just to show I could.
> Had the bricks been formed
> of plastic, or plaster, or concrete, the piece would have been =3D
precisely the
> same. Such being the case, it seems that the "art", the claimed =3D
"message",
> exists in the paint and the arrangement on the wall, with the nominal
> ceramic substrate contributing nothing to the discussion...
I beg to differ, here. For the idea to work, the identity of=3D20
the materials must be made known to the viewer. The=3D20
fact that the paint is a specific decorator brand seems=3D20
relevant, as does its application to a real building material.
One could, I suppose, use drywall, or stone masonry, or=3D20
some such, but brick seems to suit, both as a construction=3D20
material and for the visual/aesthetic properties of the work
(which are again conjectural to me). Blocks of plaster or=3D20
plastic would have looked the same, but require lying to=3D20
the viewer about an important aspect of the work.
I am not a fan of work that requires close reading of the=3D20
wall label, but I recognize the legitimacy of the practice.
>=3D20
> In the work of Bennett Bean, the "message" is conveyed by the ceramic
> vessel, and the paint serves mainly as embellishment. =3D20
But what an embellishment! In my appreciation of=3D20
Bean, that surface decoration is the raison d'etre for=3D20
the clay elements. The clay is essential, but not the=3D20
main reason we look at his work and admire it as we do.=3D20
Edward Eberle is another artist who, I suggest, uses clay=3D20
mainly to provide a substrate for the surface work. More=3D20
elaborate claywork, in both cases, would only compete=3D20
with the true emphasis of the work: the surfaces.
> ...A painting is a painting, whether on a panel, a canvas, or the hood =
=3D
of a
> Chevy, as the message is (ordinarily) conveyed by the surface coating, =
=3D
and
> not by the substrate...
I think I might have a very different response to a=3D20
painting on the hood of a Chevy than on a piece=3D20
of stretched canvas, especially if the form or subject=3D20
were relevant. (Paintings of road-killed animals?=3D20
Images of idled, shut-down auto factories?) A plain=3D20
canvas substrate may be treated as a neutral, like=3D20
the white pedestal used in 3-D exhibitions: it's just=3D20
there to hold the 'real' stuff up. It's like the Chinese=3D20
stagehands of legend - we see them, but understand=3D20
that they can and should be ignored. When the artist=3D20
diverges from neutralaccepted norms, however, the=3D20
substrate does indeed become part of the artwork=3D20
for better or worse.
> As to the stacking of BBs, I do understand the Kantian paradigm which =3D
lead
> inexorably to our present day divorce of skill from art, but can such =3D
be
> equally applied to the realm of craft? Can craft even exist absent =3D
skill?
> Perhaps it can.
In this, I suggest that it cannot. At least, it cannot and=3D20
still be considered good craft. The role of skill is, I=3D20
think, intrinsic to craft, though it may be optional in art=3D20
generally. A work of art may be excellent for its=3D20
expression of an idea even if its means are crude in=3D20
execution. Not all artworks are also craftworks. Likewise,=3D20
not all craftwork is art. It becomes art when the skill of=3D20
execution is harnessed to the maker's own vision and=3D20
purpose, not just to execute a known form well (though=3D20
this is also a worthy endeavor) but to create a new one.
Though many artworks are better for the expressive=3D20
and skilled aspects of human work being harnessed=3D20
together, the lack of skill - of craft - does not necessarily=3D20
diminish a particular artwork unless that (absent) skill=3D20
was a necessary aspect of its successful creation.=3D20
Then, its absence is crippling. We all know artists whose=3D20
work is second-rate due to lack of skill, but we also know=3D20
someone whose skills are top-notch yet applied solely to=3D20
making blind replicas of existing work, or to painstaking=3D20
execution of meaningless tripe and hackneyed subjects.
I like to see skill represented in the pages of CM, but I=3D20
also like to see people thinking about the possibilities=3D20
of the material and its role in art beyond the craft world.
The honoring of skill is truly the purview of craft, but
not exclusive to it.
-Snail
p.s. hope to see my CM in the mail soon, to find out what=3D20
I'm talking about!
>=3D20
> All the best.
>=3D20
> ...James
>=3D20
> James Freeman
>=3D20
> "...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, =3D
too
> preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
>=3D20
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I =3D
should
> not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>=3D20
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
L TURNER on mon 2 may 11
James,
Since this discussion has progressed to the simple question of the
definition of "ceramics", I have gone to the ACerS home page to see
what the sponsor of Clayart has to say on the subject:
from the About Us FAQ page, about halfway down:
quote:
"What is a ceramic?
In the simplest terms, ceramics can be defined as inorganic,
nonmetallic materials. They are typically crystalline in nature
(having an ordered structure) and are compounds formed between
metallic and nonmetallic elements such as aluminum and oxygen
(alumina), calcium and oxygen (calcia), and silicon and nitrogen
(silicon nitride).
In broader terms, ceramics also include glass, enamel, glass-ceramics
(a glass containing ceramic crystals), and inorganic cement-type
materials (cement, plaster and lime). However, as ceramic technology
has developed over time, the definition has expanded to include a much
wider range of other compositions used in a variety of advanced
applications."
end qoute.
Using the ACerS definition, CM is correct in classifying the art work
as ceramic.
L. Turner,
The Woodlands, TX
Randall Moody on mon 2 may 11
Ok so we can add "predominantly ceramic material". That would still make th=
e
bricks ceramic art since the piece is predominantly ceramic with a coating
of non ceramic material. The enameled copper vessel is predominantly copper=
,
a metal, and thus would not fit the definition.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:22 PM, James Freeman
wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Randall Moody > >wrote:
>
> The term "ceramic" has to do with the heating and cooling of the material=
,
> specifically an inorganic non-metallic solid, not the shaping or other
> manipulation. Using the proper definition of ceramic, a fired terracotta
> pot
> that was bought from the local garden center and painted with acrylics
> still
> qualifies as a piece of ceramic art. It may be bad or kitchy ceramic art
> but
> it is still ceramic. The real question then becomes, "Is it Art?" This
> question goes for many items that are glazed and fired.
>
>
>
>
> Randall...
>
> If we accept your definition, that a ceramic object with a non-ceramic
> coating is still ceramic art, then the converse must also be true; that a
> ceramic coating over a non-ceramic object must also be ceramic art, as
> both
> employ "heating and cooling of an inorganic non-metallic material" (and a=
ll
> that this implies). Under this definition, an enameled copper vessel wou=
ld
> be a work of ceramic art. Since it clearly is not a work of ceramic art,
> perhaps there is an insufficiency in this definition?
>
> I don't think we need to ask "Is it art?". We can, for the sake of
> discussion, stipulate that it is, indeed, art, so can focus on the questi=
on
> of whether or not a nominally ceramic object, and one wherein the
> non-ceramic coating carries the supposed meaning, is ceramic art.
>
> All the best.
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
> preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
>
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I shoul=
d
> not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>
paul gerhold on tue 3 may 11
James,
I am afraid you misinterpret Bean's work. If you follow the history of his
efforts they have been primarily about the surface decoration with the
ceramic part being the carrier for the decoration. When he became bored
with just decorating pots his pieces became more complex and started to
incorporate hand built elements, but still the driving force was still the
surface decoration.
Now I admit not having seen his work for several years so maybe he has
changed focus, but I doubt it since he is one of the masters of surface
decoration. His surfaces were a mix of glaze and paint which gave wonderfu=
l
contrasting values.
Paul
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:43 AM, James Freeman m
> wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Snail Scott > >wrote:
>
> Asking whether it qualifies as 'ceramics' is simply not
> interesting to me. Unless I am jurying a show with the
> stated theme of 'ceramic art', or grading a course studying
> ceramics, the question is merely one of definitions and
> nomenclature, not of substance.
>
>
>
>
> Snail...
>
> The bricks appeared in Ceramics Monthly, a self-segregating, craft-specif=
ic
> journal, and were further held forth as the work of one of the ten best
> under-recognized ceramic artists in the world. The latter is an extremel=
y
> high bar to jump, and the former is not insignificant. It is only the
> former about which I raised the question. Is the painted ceramic brick
> installation truly "ceramic art" (segregated by the publisher of the
> magazine, not by me), or is the nominal ceramic component dismissible as =
de
> minimus, and not a necessary aspect of the work? Had the bricks been
> formed
> of plastic, or plaster, or concrete, the piece would have been precisely
> the
> same. Such being the case, it seems that the "art", the claimed "message=
",
> exists in the paint and the arrangement on the wall, with the nominal
> ceramic substrate contributing nothing to the discussion.
>
> In the work of Bennett Bean, the "message" is conveyed by the ceramic
> vessel, and the paint serves mainly as embellishment. In the example of
> the
> bricks, the entire message is conveyed by the paint, as the artist admits
> in
> his statement. Had these bricks appeared in a generic publication such a=
s
> American Craft, this discussion would indeed be invalid and
> "uninteresting". It is only their inclusion in a ceramics-specific
> journal,
> held up as near the pinnacle of the ceramic arts, that I question.
>
> To me, the determination as to the craft-specific categorization of a giv=
en
> object lays in whether or not the chosen substrate is sine qua non, or if
> it
> may be replaced with any other material without altering the message. A
> painting is a painting, whether on a panel, a canvas, or the hood of a
> Chevy, as the message is (ordinarily) conveyed by the surface coating, an=
d
> not by the substrate. Can the same not be said of the painted bricks? T=
he
> message, to the extent that it exists, is carried by the Martha Stewart
> paint, which could have equally been applied to blocks of most anything.
>
> As to the stacking of BBs, I do understand the Kantian paradigm which lea=
d
> inexorably to our present day divorce of skill from art, but can such be
> equally applied to the realm of craft? Can craft even exist absent skill=
?
> Perhaps it can.
>
> All the best.
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
> preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
>
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I shoul=
d
> not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>
James Freeman on tue 3 may 11
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:48 AM, paul gerhold wrot=
=3D
e:
James,
I am afraid you misinterpret Bean's work. If you follow the history of his
efforts they have been primarily about the surface decoration with the
ceramic part being the carrier for the decoration. When he became bored
with just decorating pots his pieces became more complex and started to
incorporate hand built elements, but still the driving force was still the
surface decoration.
Paul...
Interesting thoughts. I'm not sure I have misrepresented Bean's work,
though it is certainly possible.
First, it was not I who brought up Bean's pots, and he is not one whose
works I have studied deeply (though I am now intrigued, so will spend a bit
of time doing so). Having said that, Bean is, and considers himself to be,
an object maker. This is his Artist Statement:
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
To understand an object I want to connect with it, to live with it, to have
it around me. I=3D92ll buy one if I can afford it but some things don=3D92t=
exi=3D
st
anywhere but in my head. Those I have to make. In making I learn what=3D92s
there. The things I make influence what I buy and the things I buy influenc=
=3D
e
what I make. From this process objects accumulate. Then comes the problem o=
=3D
f
=3D93putting a thing in the world.=3D94 How do you present a pot, a painti=
ng, =3D
a
piece of sculpture? You need some place to put it. So I work on the house. =
=3D
I
don=3D92t make any distinctions between making things, cooking, gardening, =
an=3D
d
building houses. Elements from the garden appear in paintings and the
surface obsession of the pots appears in the house as consciousness of each
decision about material and finish. Each cross-pollinates. Curiosity about
how to express identity results in having my DNA done. That image then
surfaces in collages and then again in rugs. The paintings and the pots hav=
=3D
e
both contributed their imagery to the rugs. It=3D92s a dance where ideas ar=
e
applied in different ways depending on the medium.
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
I think it is important to note that he refers to his pots, repeatedly and
pointedly, as pots. They are wildly decorated pots, but they remain pots.
The surface decoration is just that, surface decoration, and the underlying
form, be it plain or fanciful, is the object that carries the meaning via
it's intrinsic decoration.
He even considers his paintings to be autonomous objects, and not just
another decorated surface. This, from his painting-specific Artist
Statement:
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
I=3D92m not exactly [sure] how much of this process I believe in or even if=
m=3D
y
deceased relatives believed in it, but these paintings are my way of dealin=
=3D
g
with my memories of them. Their memory only exists in my mind. The painting=
=3D
s
reflect the quality of these memories =3D96 the fragmentary glimpses of tho=
se
who are gone. 2005
The most recent paintings have replaced identifiable figures with the use o=
=3D
f
the figure as an abstraction. In the earlier pieces there were porcelain
elements, which have been discarded. Also I am generating much more of the
imagery rather than appropriating it from found images. 2007
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
This statement also contains an interesting aside. Though his earlier
paintings sometimes contained porcelain elements, he still considered them
to be paintings, and not "ceramic art", nor pots.
There are even more references in his writings to his assignation of primac=
=3D
y
to the object nature of his pieces; rugs qua rugs, house qua house,
paintings qua paintings, and most importantly for us, pots qua pots.
Thanks for bringing this to the fore, Paul. Much more to think about.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Michael Flaherty on thu 5 may 11
At the risk of chiming in on an unresolvable debate I can't help but prod=
=3D
a=3D20
little. The question through all these posts seems to be whether or not =
=3D
a=3D20
technical definition of ceramics can clarify whether an art piece is a pi=
=3D
ece of=3D20
ceramic art. This starts off with the natural question "is it clay?" but=
=3D
=3D20
proceeds to get extremely nitpicky and less useful when we realize that=3D2=
0=3D
ceramics, clay, glaze, etc. are all really messy categories. There are m=
=3D
aterials=3D20
that overlap ceramics and nonceramics, and there are art objects that=3D20
incorporate ceramic and nonceramic materials. What proportion of an art=3D=
20=3D
piece must be ceramic in order for the piece to be placed in the "ceramic=
=3D
art"=3D20
category? Even an oil painting will have some ceramics in it (in the for=
=3D
m of=3D20
airborne particles, or materials used in the paint medium) so can it be c=
=3D
eramic=3D20
art? I realize that's a ridiculous question, but if you follow the "is i=
=3D
t clay?" line=3D20
of reasoning to its logical conclusion I'm afraid that's where you will e=
=3D
nd up.
So if a technical qualification is unsatisfactory where does that leave t=
=3D
he=3D20
category of ceramics? There are other possible tests. As someone else h=
=3D
as=3D20
pointed out above, all these categorizations are artificial anyways, and =
=3D
rather=3D20
arbitrary at that. We could just as easily define a ceramic art piece by=
=3D
asking=3D20
asking whether its maker is a trained ceramicist. Or by asking whether t=
=3D
he=3D20
piece is exhibited in a venue (gallery or publication) that self-defines =
=3D
as a=3D20
ceramic venue, like Ceramics Monthly. I'd imagine that either of these t=
=3D
ests=3D20
by itself would produce as unsatifactory results as the "is it clay?" tes=
=3D
t=3D20
sometimes does.
For me personally, and I think this seems to be a growing trend among man=
=3D
y,=3D20
art pieces only derive their meaning from their context. There are many=3D=
20=3D
things to consider, which means that there will always be grey areas, whi=
=3D
ch is=3D20
a good thing since if we could exactly resolve what we are doing it would=
=3D
n't=3D20
be very exciting anymore. When I am thinking aobut the "ceramicness" of =
=3D
an=3D20
art object I ask myself all kinds of questions: Is it art? Is it clay? =
=3D
Does the=3D20
artist identify the piece as ceramic art? Has the piece been made with a=
=3D
t=3D20
least some intent to enter a dialogue about ceramics (either technical,=3D2=
0=3D
thematic, aesthetic, cultural)? Is it successful in entering that dialog=
=3D
ue?=3D20=3D20
Would other ceramic artists recognize it as ceramic art? And others that=
=3D
don't=3D20
come to mind right now. Depending on how the piece responds to these=3D20
questions I may or may not put it into certain artificial categories in m=
=3D
y head=3D20
like art, craft, ceramics, sculpture, etc.
You'll note that the "is it clay?" question is only one of many. I don't=
=3D
want to=3D20
say that it's not important, but I do think that if a piece resoundingly =
=3D
responds=3D20
to all the other questions positively that it's possible to have a cerami=
=3D
c art=3D20
piece that isn't made of clay. Something I always thought of as ceramic =
=3D
art is=3D20
Garth Johnson's Pottery Liberation Front website. Yes, it's a webpage, b=
=3D
ut it's=3D20
made by a ceramicist for ceramicists, it's definitely an art piece, and i=
=3D
t=3D20
definitely has much more ceramic content than many pots or sculptures I'v=
=3D
e=3D20
seen. It is _about_ ceramics in a way that could never be expressed thro=
=3D
ugh=3D20
a clay medium. Ceramics is not just a material, but it is also a field o=
=3D
f study=3D20
about that material and everything else that goes along with it.
One last thing: what about "Fountain"? Is Duchamp's urinal ceramic art?=
=3D
=3D20=3D20
Obviously it is ceramic material, but does it have any particular releven=
=3D
ce for=3D20
ceramicists or the study of ceramics? Don't get me wrong, that piece has=
=3D
=3D20
influenced all of us more than we can understand, but I don't think it ha=
=3D
s=3D20
anything to do with ceramic art. Some writers have tried to force it int=
=3D
o the=3D20
ceramic category just because it's made of porcelain, but I've never quit=
=3D
e felt=3D20
like it fit.
William & Susan Schran User on thu 5 may 11
On 5/5/11 7:07 AM, "Michael Flaherty"
wrote:
> One last thing: what about "Fountain"? Is Duchamp's urinal ceramic art?
> Obviously it is ceramic material, but does it have any particular releven=
ce
> for ceramicists or the study of ceramics? Don't get me wrong, that piece=
has
> influenced all of us more than we can understand, but I don't think it ha=
s
> anything to do with ceramic art. Some writers have tried to force it int=
o the
> ceramic category just because it's made of porcelain, but I've never quit=
e
> felt like it fit.
When the subject of "what is art?" comes up in discussions at school I
respond to the students: "art's anything you can get away with". Whether it
is art next week, next year or centuries from now, that is for history to
decide.
I love relating this Mark Rothko quote to my students:
"Look, it's my misery that I have to paint this kind of painting, it's your
misery that you have to love it, and the price of the misery is thirteen
hundred and fifty dollars."
Ceramic art narrows the boundary a bit due to the historical context.
Duchamp's "Fountain" is not immediately defined as ceramic art because of
it's context in the history of art. It is an object that defines a differen=
t
way to think about "what is art". With this in mind I believe ceramic art
relies on the intention of the artist, though often this might not be
obvious.
Then there is also the question: "what is good or bad ceramic art?"
I enjoy going back and reading old Ceramics Monthly about the up and coming
artists, then seeing how many show up in the magazine again in 10 or 20
years. Again, history does a fine job of separating the good from the flash
in the pan concepts.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
| |
|
