Cathi Newlin on thu 12 jul 01
At 06:53 PM 7/12/01, you wrote:
>Janet, I have often be mystified by this as well. Why are there so many
>clay sculptures produced that reference pottery forms....? Why aren't there
>more clay sculptures that have nothing to do with pottery?
When I was taking both ceramics and sculpture classes, it was the
*sculpture* instructor who looked down on pottery (both wheel and
handbuilding) as simply a craft. We were forbidden to use high fire clays,
glazes of any kind (patinas only!), and the walls of the piece had to be
substantially thicker than traditional pottery. We were also *not* allowed
to use our hands-only modeling tools.
I think at the time, I was more interested in sculpture than pottery, and
was disappointed in the class-I imagined brilliantly glazed forms with no
functional value at all. Then my ceramics instructor (and still my friend)
introduced me to handbuilding. I never threw a pot in 3 years of ceramics,
and never took another sculpture class! I bought my wheel 2 years ago to
teach myself to throw so I could throw basic shapes to embellish. I never
intended to make functional ware, but as I'm still working on the basics,
I'm throwing lots of functional stuff, and becoming more interested in
those aesthetics too.
Huh...and I *began* as a 2-d artist and intended to remain so!
Janet Kaiser on thu 12 jul 01
Cathi
You do not want to know! This is a can of worms which
should remain firmly shut! For further illumination,
search for functional, non-functional, teapots,
baloney, etc. in the archives... All will be revealed!
But in the meantime, just to give you a taste of some
of the ardour this subject can raise... (Please note
this is my PERSONAL opinion, so do not take it
personally, OK? :-)
If you want to make plates which cannot be used for
food, it is fine by me! BUT having said that, I am one
of those die-hards who would refuse to exhibit or want
to own one, unless it had some hanging device and it
was designed to be hung on the wall right from its
conception. In which case it would not longer be a
plate... It would be a ceramic wall hanging or semi 2D
object and preferably no longer anything the least bit
resembling a conventional plate.
There are hundreds of makers/artists around the world
making non-functional plates, bowls, cups, teapots,
jugs and even vases(!) and people must obviously buy
these "useless" items, otherwise they would not
continue making them. However, in a home which is
cluttered beyond redemption, the only space I have left
is very precious and mostly confined to a little free
wall here and there. Maybe someone who does not suffer
from chronic squirrelitis and owns many inherited bits
and bobs, has exactly the right place and space for a
work of art shaped like a plate. I really do not and to
be honest neither do I have the inclination... Plates
are to eat off and from. Their beauty is revealed anew
each time you or I get one out of the cupboard, serve a
meal on, eat off, wipe the gravy up with bread from,
wash up, dry and put away a plate.
It is no longer a plate when gathering dust as some
objet d'art on a table top... It becomes an
affectation. Yes, I will even go so far as to say that
non-functional functional ware is the ultimate conceit!
Make it from fur! Stitch it in needlepoint! Carve one
from wood... Do practically anything else and I will
stop, look and maybe even admire it. But making a
ceramic plate (or any other domestic item) which cannot
be used shows a paucity of imagination and originality
IMHO.
So there you are... I did warn you! I must also admit
that not only am I a die-hard, but I am an
old-fashioned one... Plenty of others on clay art will
leap up and tell you not to take any notice, which
indeed, I do myself. Art schools are pumping out the
next generation of artists who work in clay, but have
no intention of ever making anything which is
"functional" i.e. can be used as something to eat or
drink from, cook or arrange a bunch of flowers in.
After all, there are no ceramic police around and
everyone is free to make what they want. But given the
versatility of clay and the inventiveness of man, why
they have to use traditional vessels and forms is
simply beyond me and my kind!
Enough of this! I remember saying my lips were sealed
last time this subject came up and I let fly... In the
meantime, do not expect any sort of consensus of
opinion in this forum. It is one of those questions
which we will wrangle over for ever!
Happy "plate" making!
Janet Kaiser - ducking for cover!
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
HOME OF THE INTERNATIONAL POTTERS' PATH
Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales Tel: (01766) 523570
E-mail: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> On another, more subjective note...
> I've been handbuilding some plates lately. They are
becoming less and less
> functional, both in form and in finish. Is there any
conventional thought
> on "functionless" functional pottery?
Matt MacIntire on thu 12 jul 01
Janet wrote:
JK >> But given the versatility of clay and the inventiveness
JK >> of man, why they have to use traditional vessels and forms
JK >> is simply beyond me and my kind!
Janet, I have often be mystified by this as well. Why are there so many
clay sculptures produced that reference pottery forms....? Why aren't there
more clay sculptures that have nothing to do with pottery?
Surely there may be some (few) artists who might make non-functional objects
which comment somehow on pottery forms. I just don't understand why this
trend is so hugely popular. Why don't more clay sculptors have the courage
to abandon the idiom of traditional pottery forms and make pure
sculpture...? Why not just make functional pots, if one is interested in
pottery forms...?
There are only two explanations that I can imagine. Most consumers would be
unlikely to pay handsomely for a teapot by an unknown artist. However,
consumers do seem willing to pay large amounts of money for a mediocre
sculpture that references a teapot. (this is another mystery to me, but I
digress) ...so the first reason this trend may be popular is that it
presently appears to be an effective way of turning clay into cash.
Second, it would seem (to me) that for a clay sculptor to abandon pottery
forms takes great courage as an artist. A clay sculpture that is not about
pottery has a severely limited audience. Most people understand pottery.
Sculpture, in any medium, is much more elusive and many people would
probably consider it beyond their needs. Somehow, by making forms that
reference pottery, it might be easier to create an acceptable art object.
For most non-artists I have known, sculpture is virtually inaccessible, yet
pottery seems way too familiar to be ART. No wonder so many clay artists
figure the middle of the road is where they ought to find their
inspirations. It seems unfortunate that so many artists choose this path.
Matt
Lee Love on fri 13 jul 01
"Pots about pots" are fine by me. Just as long as the maker and buyer
know what the item in question is. After all, I am a potter married to an
artist. Plates and platters lend themselves well to being canvases.
I am far more critical of things that are made for use but don't
function well in their use. It is like false advertising. I call these
objects that don't live up to their promise, "dysfunctional pottery."
Lee In Mashiko
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Kaiser"
>
> If you want to make plates which cannot be used for
> food, it is fine by me! BUT having said that,
----- Original Message -----
>
> > On another, more subjective note...
> > I've been handbuilding some plates lately. They are
> becoming less and less
> > functional, both in form and in finish. Is there any
> conventional thought
> > on "functionless" functional pottery?
Jean Cappadonna Nichols on fri 13 jul 01
I promised myself I would not get involved in this controversy, but here I
am! As a sculptor who frequently uses the vessel form as a means of
expression, I decided to address your quandary. First, let me emphasize that
the creative mind has the freedom to use whatever it chooses to express
itself. I have often wondered why that simple fact can't be understood and
that there is so much intolerance in that arena. One only has to read
"letters to the editor" in Ceramics Monthly every month to realize that many
of you continue to harp against that one idea, keeping the argument alive and
kicking. That, by the way, is another reason why art critics still cannot
accept clay as anythig but a craft medium and craft as a fine art. Clay is a
medium, not holy water to be sprinkled on the chosen few.
Secondly, I am a female artist who uses clay as my medium and who makes
sculpture incorporating teapots, pots, cups, irons as teapots, frogs as
teapots, etc.; some of these images are used to reference the everyday,
familiar items that we have in our homes that we use...they are known as
"Domestic Icons." We use vessel forms as we would use any image as part of
our iconographic vocabulary; they express an aspect of our everyday lives and
culture, just as nature, family, etc., does.
Thirdly, there are many wonderful books that have been written on the history
of ceramics. If you don't understand an issue, educate yourself as to why
these things are in existence instead of blindly criticizing what you don't
understand. Not everyone has to follow the same mold; we only have to respect
what each other does. That is what tolerance is all about.
respectfully submitted,
Jean Cappadonna-Nichols
Katheleen Nez on fri 13 jul 01
Dear Janet: I say to people in the gallery that I
cannot bring myself to make non-functional work becuz
I was raised as a functional potter. Sounds purist but
not entirely true. My gallery owner was after me for a
time to make platters decorated on the interiors -
since I paint on raw bisqueware and apply no glaze
inside(I feel it compromises the look I am trying to
achieve), you wouldn't want to drag your fork across
the surface (fingernails on the chalkboard). However,
I finally gave in and made a series of platters using
a specific sets of designs (from a archeological site
at Mesa Verde in So Colorado). I numbered them and a
rich guy came in and bought the whole series. I have
since found out that he had glass plates made to fit
the insides of the platters and he served Thanksgiving
dinner last year on his 'chargers'. He also loves the
idea that he's the only guy who has a set. Would I do
this again? Weelll, I'll balk but throw enuff $$$ @
me...everything else I make is functional. oh well.
the comprimisable NEZ Gotta watch out for that guy
he's Famous for turning pictures of pots into
serigraphs & postcards he makes Megabucks off of...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Marie Gibbons on sat 14 jul 01
so, what is the difference between sculpture that references traditional
pottery forms and that set of absolutely beautiful China that you display in
a beautiful China hutch, never to be used and only to be looked upon? the
owner has interpreted the China as a piece of art.... just because you think
you are making functional work doesn't mean that the owner of the work will
want to use it.... and just because you make non functional work doesn't mean
it has no function.... it provides something to the soul.... to the
environment, in my opinion it functions very well. this whole argument is
just senseless, bickering over what one does with clay to what another does
with clay, and each second guessing the other.... why can't we all just see
the beauty in this medium that we have all be drawn to... and appreciate the
versatility it allows? To be honest this drives me crazy all this
deffinition... I work with clay because i connect with clay... i do it my
way, you do it your way, doesn't it just make the medium that much more of a
wonder?
marie gibbons
www.oooladies.com
Janet Kaiser on sat 14 jul 01
How very amusing! Pretty emotive language and on the
whole, an intolerant and arrogant reply to some
informed and honest (clearly labelled "personal")
opinion and appraisal of the current situation.
Furthermore, being neither blind nor uneducated and
totally oblivious of what is published in Ceramic
Monthly (there are other contemporary ceramic
publications around the world) my criticisms are based
on current trends here in the UK & Europe, including
academic theses and historical references. What was
mistakenly interpreted as my personal prejudice and
subjectiveness, is shared by some of the leading
artists, makers, educators and academics of our time.
Far from harping on, this is a serious discussion which
occupies the attention of a great many people working
in clay, especially those who live from the fruits of
their labours. On the whole, discussion over here is
informed and tolerant of both traditions, with each
respecting the other's work. There are no ethical
prejudices on the scale suggested, but there is concern
that ceramics are lagging far behind other art/craft
forms, such as glass.
I in turn respectfully suggest using "domestic icons"
ad nauseum is currently one of the major reasons for
preventing the majority of art critics taking ceramic
art and sculpture seriously. Developing artists need to
move away from these overdone and pretentious forms, so
really new and innovative "ceramic art" can start to
reclaim its proper place in the scheme of things. To
put it bluntly, non-functional teapots should join
Dresden shepherds and shepherdesses on the museum
shelves. They are now utterly passé and are already
generally considered the arty-farty kitsch of the
1980-90s. Great fun, but dead and gone.
Looking back over the past 50 years one can follow the
transition started by post Leach and Cardew studio
potters like Lucie Rie and Hans Coper. The
non-functional aspect of modern potting took hold and
progressed through the years with Soldner & Co. But,
the unfunctional teapot (for example) has now quite
honestly been done to death, so it is imperative we
develop in other directions if we are to be treated as
serious artists. It is high time to move on.
Far from being the royal "we", I am referring to those
of us who are concerned about the direction in which
ceramic art is developing: both makers and consumers.
With the huge increase in perfectly able hobby and
amateur potters with access to all the materials and
resources previously only available to professionals or
students, the status of work/art by all makers/artists
is being seriously undermined.
Professional artists and potters need to develop into
areas where the lesser skilled or educated (for want of
better descriptions) are unable or fear to tread. We
need more individualists and leaders, with fewer
copying ideas and concepts however meaningful and
unique they consider their own work.
Ceramic art needs many more innovators and inventors.
Where are the Andy Goldsworthy and Dale Chihuly of the
ceramic art world?
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
HOME OF THE INTERNATIONAL POTTERS' PATH
Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales Tel: (01766) 523570
E-mail: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> One only has to read
> "letters to the editor" in Ceramics Monthly every
month to realize that many
> of you continue to harp against that one idea,
keeping the argument alive and
> kicking. That, by the way, is another reason why art
critics still cannot
> accept clay as anythig but a craft medium and craft
as a fine art. Clay is a
> medium, not holy water to be sprinkled on the chosen
few.
> Secondly, I am a female artist who uses clay as my
medium and who makes
> sculpture incorporating teapots, pots, cups, irons as
teapots, frogs as
> teapots, etc.; some of these images are used to
reference the everyday,
> familiar items that we have in our homes that we
use...they are known as
> "Domestic Icons." We use vessel forms as we would use
any image as part of
> our iconographic vocabulary; they express an aspect
of our everyday lives and
> culture, just as nature, family, etc., does.
> Thirdly, there are many wonderful books that have
been written on the history
> of ceramics. If you don't understand an issue,
educate yourself as to why
> these things are in existence instead of blindly
criticizing what you don't
> understand. Not everyone has to follow the same mold;
we only have to respect
> what each other does. That is what tolerance is all
about.
| |
|
