William Lucius on fri 30 mar 01
I have been following this one with interest. The organization for my
contribution resulted from the condiment tray that they put on our table at
dinner. It consisted of form (rectangular tray) glazes (green and white)
and design (wax resist fish). As archaeologists, we are trained to view
ceramics (or any other product of human behavior) in terms of function and
decoration. In the case of the small dish, its form was directly related to
the serving of olive oil and yam butter, but it could have just as easily
been round or oval. I would suggest that form may also be an expression of
decoration. To explore this duality further, glazes are by defintion
sanitary for utilitary ceramics - they keep the oils and other nasties away
from the clay body. But in this case the deliberate combination of two
contrasting glazes on the tray was an expression of decoration - there is no
functional reason for their combination. And finally, the fish designs.
Painting, incising, punctates and all other such techniques are usually
considered as simply decorative, but designs are applied to convey specific
information (think of the old Lone Ranger who inspects the paint lines on
the arrow to determine which tribe is trying to kill him).
So which is more important is a hueristic question - it opens our minds so
that we can learn. The form has primacy, since it necesarily is what the
glaze sits upon. It should have functional validity, but it also may be an
expression of decoration (teapots that do not pour are in my mind set
suspect because they obviate the functional). Glazes that do not perform a
sanitary need are immediately suspect of being merely decorative (I make and
prefer utitlitarian vessels). Finally, we should have a specific message
before we use a painted or combed or whatever design, otherwise leave it
alone.
William A. Lucius
Institute for Archaeological Ceramic Research
845 Hartford Dr.
Boulder, CO 80305
ilwwal@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Brian Molanphy on sat 31 mar 01
william,
thank you for your well-written post. i wonder about the last line:
'Finally, we should have a specific message
> before we use a painted or combed or whatever design, otherwise leave it
> alone.'
>
i suppose archaeologists generally would prefer that a 'message' be
specified, if only to allow them to describe ancient objects conclusively.
however, most, if not all, contemporary potters are under the influence of
modernism and its progeny. i think a premeditated message is too much to
ask of artists these days, given the liberties they (we) have taken over
the past century.
> ----------
> From: William Lucius
> Reply To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:12 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: glaze vs form
>
> I have been following this one with interest. The organization for my
> contribution resulted from the condiment tray that they put on our table
> at
> dinner. It consisted of form (rectangular tray) glazes (green and white)
> and design (wax resist fish). As archaeologists, we are trained to view
> ceramics (or any other product of human behavior) in terms of function and
> decoration. In the case of the small dish, its form was directly related
> to
> the serving of olive oil and yam butter, but it could have just as easily
> been round or oval. I would suggest that form may also be an expression
> of
> decoration. To explore this duality further, glazes are by defintion
> sanitary for utilitary ceramics - they keep the oils and other nasties
> away
> from the clay body. But in this case the deliberate combination of two
> contrasting glazes on the tray was an expression of decoration - there is
> no
> functional reason for their combination. And finally, the fish designs.
> Painting, incising, punctates and all other such techniques are usually
> considered as simply decorative, but designs are applied to convey
> specific
> information (think of the old Lone Ranger who inspects the paint lines on
> the arrow to determine which tribe is trying to kill him).
> So which is more important is a hueristic question - it opens our minds so
> that we can learn. The form has primacy, since it necesarily is what the
> glaze sits upon. It should have functional validity, but it also may be
> an
> expression of decoration (teapots that do not pour are in my mind set
> suspect because they obviate the functional). Glazes that do not perform
> a
> sanitary need are immediately suspect of being merely decorative (I make
> and
> prefer utitlitarian vessels). Finally, we should have a specific message
> before we use a painted or combed or whatever design, otherwise leave it
> alone.
>
> William A. Lucius
> Institute for Archaeological Ceramic Research
> 845 Hartford Dr.
> Boulder, CO 80305
> ilwwal@hotmail.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> ____
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
| |
|
