Karen Sullivan on fri 6 sep 02
I think that the issues of art vs. craft
are significant to clay artists.
I have often felt beat up by sculptors, or
painters...because clay is not considered a fine art
material in their eyes.
A memorable discussion in grad school was
a painter stating that styrofoam was a
more valid fine art material than clay.
This sentiment has done a lot to isolate
the various art mediums from each other
in any number of venues....galleries...school
art programs....the market value of
the work...the list is endless.
My interest in the discussion is out of
self defence. I also have a curiosity
about how history has influenced our values.
Most recently I was reading Kevin Hluch's book...
he stated that the difference between painters
and ceramic artists was that painting was a
solitary activity. Clearly identified with the
energies of a single individual.
Ceramics was historically a community activity,
in which each segment of the process was conducted
by various members of the group.
Kevin mentioned the change in Ceramic activities being
generated solely by an individual has been a recent
phenomenon. The rest of the world had not evolved
the the change of community to individual in
giving value.
I think that the above is a compelling argument
when confronted with statements diminishing
the value of clay. I had always tried to evaluate
references of whether the content of the object
was the basis for establishing value.
Whether function was the element that diminished value.
Forgive the re-visiting of a dead horse...
but I think it is a prejudice that exists
in the art world...
bamboo karen
| |
|
