Dan Wilson on sat 16 may 98
Lorca,
The discussion of aesthetics as it relates to ceramics is frought with
dificulties this is obvious. This problem is not unique to ceramic artists
though. Barnett Newman said when asked about aesthetics:"I expressed myself
on this issue many, many years ago, when at a conference of aesthetics held
in Woodstock, I said to these aesthetes, "Even if you are right and even if
you can build an aesthetic analysis or an aesthetic system that will
explain art or painting or whatever it is, it's of no value really, because
aesthetics is for me like ornithology must be for the birds."
The problem of aesthetics becomes more dificult since ceramic art, as we
think of it, is a relative newcommer to the field of contemproary aesthetic
theory. It was not until the 1940's or so that ceramics began to be used as
a medium for aesthetic expression. That is, as a medium for the creation of
the object of aesthetic contemplation. This is not to say that pottery does
not exhibit all of the formalistic qualities found in the other arts of
painting or sculpture or that potters were not concerned with formalism in
the context of their creations but that their aesthetic concerns were
tethered to and limited by instrumentalism.
" Instrumentalism: Pragmatic interest. The theory of art that includes
art as manufacture, art as education, art as religious or moral
indoctrination, art as an instrument for the expression or communication of
emotion and art as an instrument for the vicarious expansion of
experience." (Aesthetics and Art Theory and Historical Introduction. Harold
Osborne. E.P. Dutton and Co. Ltd. New York. 1970)
Traditional ceramics has generaly followed two main themes which fit into
the instrumentalist theory of art. Art as manufacture and art as an
instrument for the vicarious expansion of experience. And to a lesser
degree Art as education. Art as manufacture really needs no explanation as
it relates to ceramics other than to say that in western culture two major
themes have dominated in this area. The Greek notion of beauty as it
relates to function and the more contemporary notion of Form Following
Function which grew out of the architectural theories of the 19th century
and restated by the Bahause in the 20th. These themes resonate today. How
though, does ceramics act an instrument for the vicarious expansion of
experience or as an instrument of education? The answer lies in decoration.
It is in decoration that we see, and by extension, vicariously experience
the experiences of others. From scenes of daily life to symbolic
representations of cultural cosmological views or through representations
of indiginous natural forms applied to the pot; it is decoration that
informs , teaches and enables us to vicariously experience the world around
us. This is the common ground and some may say the field of contention, so
to speak, between the painter and the ceramist when we begin to discuss
ceramics as it relates to contemporary aesthetic theory. ( I'll have more
on this later). Suffice it to say for now that the dominating theme of the
American Art Pottery movement of the 19th and early 20th century is based
on the notion that the unglazed pottery form served as the canvas upon
which a painting was executed. Much the same as the rectangular surface of
the painter served as the surface upon which lines, shapes and colors were
applied. How does your work fit into this model?
Dan Wilson
Note: I am not a professional so my perspective may be innaccurate. I
have not addressed your second question but would probably approach it from
an historical and socio/economic point of view.
___________________________original______________________
"I believe that you can get any more minimal or formal than a pot. I wonder
when this form if ever will be brought in or even understood in art schools?
NgtvSpace on sun 17 may 98
Dan and all:
Well that was a kick ass response! It definetly gave me an insight when the
painters attack me in crits for having this need to "embellish", meaning to
decorate. I came to ceramics thru painting, my paintings on canvas suck in
comparison to the clay, my process of glazing is some what Ab X (Abstract
Expressionist) I dont belive in little brushes or sitting down when I glaze (
unless I am doing majolica), so yes I see the caly as a canvas. Now the latest
trend in painting is "painting outside of painting", meaning that paintors are
making all kinds of crazy objects and painting them, the result of which never
makes any sense... Look at Elizabeth Murray's paintings, they are simulacral
clay pieces...the materiality of clay can never be substituted ( I'm accused
of being a purist, I believe paper clay are for whimps)...Thank You for your
response I'd like to think more about what you said....
Lorca
NgtvSpace on wed 20 may 98
Dan:
Barnett Newman also said that sculpture is something you back into as you are
looking at a painting....
Lorca
| |
|
