Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ceramic Sculpture: Craft or Fine Art?

23 views
Skip to first unread message

jeanne...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
I know many of you feel like we've run this topic into the dirt but the times
just may be achangin'. If you are a sculptor who happens to work in clay and
have chosen to leave it in that medium as a finished product, I'd like to
know what the response has been when you have entered shows or approached
fine art galleries. Were the pieces readily accepted or turned down because
of the medium? what surface treatments received the most positive response?
What fine art galleries do you know of that include ceramic sculpture in
their collection? (I'm making a distinction here between 'fine art' galleries
and 'fine craft'galleries, but I'm ready to hear about both. Please
distinguish.) The bottom line question is whether or not you think that
ceramic sculpture (not pottery) has made the leap from being a craft
material,as it has long been considered, to being accepted as fine art? I'm
writing an article for Art Calendar Magazine on this subject and would like
to hear as many responses as possible. In case you aren't familiar with this
publication you just might want to check it out. It is a magazine geared
toward the working artist with articles designed to cover topics such as
marketing your art, starting co-ops,legalities of doing business in the art
world and, in the April issue, one article will cover the current state of
corporate art collections. Inquiries- Art Calendar-(800)597-5988 It was good
even before I started writing for them. Anyway, I look forward to hearing
from anyone who would like to respond to this subject. Thanks. Jeanne

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Andrew Werby

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
In article <7dgp0i$b48$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jeanne...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[I studied with the artist who, more than anyone, got ceramics
(and not just sculpture, but wheel-thrown work as well) recognized
as a fine art medium. Peter Voulkos, starting in the 1950s, made
art with an Abstract Expressionist sensibility and such a sense
of exuberence that the art world found it hard to ignore. His
medium was ceramics, but instead of sticking with the Japanese-
inspired craft pottery fashionable at the time, he used the medium,
and the techniques associated with it, in new ways, stacking
thrown forms to make assemblages, and piercing the walls with
intrusions of different colored clays, (which he calls "pass-
throughs"). He made rough but vigorous sculpture in clay, which
brought ab-ex into 3d like nobody before him had done. Following
his lead, other sculptors started getting noticed for their work
in ceramics; people like Ken Price ( who is still going strong),
Robert Arneson (now deceased), Richard Shaw (known for his delicate
trompe l'oeil assemblages), Steven DeStaebler (who mostly works in
bronze now) and Clayton Bailey (check out his amazing website at
www.claytonbailey.com). I'd say that at this point, ceramic sculpture
is considered a classic form; right up there with bronze, which Mr.
Voulkos also rediscovered as a medium which the artist can use directly.
By working out simplified lost-wax investment casting techniques that
enable artists to control the aspects of this medium hitherto out of
reach and relegated to specialists, he became not only the man who got
ceramics recognized as art, but the one who made bronze-working
accessible as a craft.

As for the galleries, it should be understood that most of them don't
handle sculpture of any kind. For the majority, art begins and ends
with oil on canvas. Paintings are easier to store, easier to show, and
easier to sell. So sculpture is something of a specialty item to start
with. Then you have to realize that each gallery tends to champion a
certain aesthetic stance, which may- but usually doesn't- include
ceramic sculpture as a permissible vehicle. In these days, when major
fine art galleries have devoted their spaces to installations of dirt,
dung, and insects, it seems rather naive to wonder if ceramics, with
all its ancient and modern history, is capable of being considered
"fine art". Its marketablity is another issue.]

UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools

jeanne...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
In article <drewid-2703...@coat29.ppp.lmi.net>,

[Andrew, so good to hear your response. I was hoping you'd be out there and
ready. Your insights into the history of ceramic arts making their move into
the fine art world were most insightful. However most of the artists you
named made their entry in the 60's and early seventies. And I'm more than
aware of the strange things that have been included of late in some pieces of
art such as dung, dirt and insects and one wonders about these. I guess what
I wanted was more anecdotal, stories from emerging sculptors who are using
clay and what the response of the market place has been for them. After all,
most of us aren't Peter Voulkos and Ken Price. Recent trends have indicated
that more and more sculpture is being shown in galleries and has met with an
equal interest by the public. Also many people(clients) are choosing to put
their sculptures out in the garden which opens up yet another range of
possiblities for ceramic sculptors. So, in fact, the issue I am asking about
is the marketability and the qualities of the ceramic sculpture that is being
purchased. Meet you on the flip flop. Jeanne.]

>
> UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
> http://unitedartworks.com
> http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

william crain

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Hi Jean, I see you made it back to the news table via deja sorry i couldn't
have been of more help, be that as it may regarding your interrogative: it
seems a two part: One , esthetically is ceramics art or craft ? Well
according to Websters and a comparison thereof they cover their dereares
but suggest that craft lacks that creative hierarchy . In the second part
concerning galleries, unless its an independently wealthy gallery,
salibility is the bottom line not weither a commodity is craddled in a
particular hierachy of definition. It's not necessary to force the pieces
into the puzzle matrix .....for me stonecarving by hand is a craft nothing
more nothing less and like the ole Chinese proverb: I'm a potter i make pots
and every now and then I make a great pot.

The definition of art/craft is evolving as evidenced by art history...and as
insinuated by Art Calendar (and several other art rags) fish wrap can be
art . Unfortunately your interrogatives come back to theoritical
dynamics....if you want to make art choose something that is already
accepted as "art" say Picasso ceramics, and make copies of it and vuala you
have your art and in the gallery door......the dynamic is, can a robot make
art? and, to what degree do we delinate the boundries and finally is the
King dancing without his clothes on ? William Crain
jeanne...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7dgp0i$b48$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

Cathy Morgan

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
I work with iron mostly, and don't work with clay, but you can see the
parallels. A lot of it has to do with the artist's intent and belief and as
a consequence, how the artist presents the work.
Years ago I read a funny excerpt from a ceramics conference. Someone in
the audience asked "what's the difference between a bowl and a vessel?" and
someone on the panel answered "about $500."
It took me another ten years or so to decide I really wanted that extra
$500. Now I do, so I call myself a sculptor and call my works "vessel
forms" rather than "openwork bowls." (This also saves a few steps in
describing the work to someone who hasn't seen any of it, but who has seen
lots of bowls.) Also, I think of my work differently - making one body of
work at a time, that explores a definite question or theme. I no longer
require that a piece function as a fruit bowl.
I do see myself working on the border between "craft" and "art" although
the distinction doesn't make much difference to me. This may have
disadvantages (not as clearly perceived maybe) but it's fun. I think it was
Wendell Berry who pointed out in The Unsettling of America that a lot of
wildlife flourishes in the margins - where forest meets field, for example.
I think a lot of artists can flourish right where "the craft movement" and
"the art world" meet.

--
Cathy Morgan, Morgan Sculpture
iron and mixed media vessel forms


Fred Mason

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Cathy Morgan wrote in message <7dlon2$460$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
- - - > > > SNIP < < < - - -

> Years ago I read a funny excerpt from a ceramics conference. Someone in
>the audience asked "what's the difference between a bowl and a vessel?" and
>someone on the panel answered "about $500."


One of the problems, IMHO, is the use of the term "ceramics" in many areas
"doing ceramics" has come to mean buying greenware and decorating it.
Having worked on a number of show committees this type of work does not
qualify for exhibit and sale. Many of the shows that I have done and work
with specifically weed out the "doing ceramics artists."

Fred

Cathy Morgan

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
Hmm, good question for artists who work with clay - "what's the difference
between a piece in ceramics, and a piece in clay?" $X? On the other hand -
there are some fine journals with "ceramics" in the title.

jeanne...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
In article <7dob42$25i$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,

Both Cathy and Fred seem to have hit the nail on the head for quite a few
people. During an interview with renowned sculptor, Peter Shire, he pointed
out that the language itself can be a problem. Why should we use the term
"Ceramic Sculptor"? We don't say "Bronze sculptor", we just say sculptor. All
of us who work in clay have got to drop the "ceramic' part in any of our
written material that we might hand out or how we describe outselves. We have
so many other rules for being politically correct, what's one more? I'm still
waiting for people to tell me about their marketing experiences. How are we
moving ahead with our sculpture that happens to be made of clay? Details,
please!

>
> Fred

Stephen Rowley

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
jeanne...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Why should we use the term
> "Ceramic Sculptor"? We don't say "Bronze sculptor", we just say sculptor. All
> of us who work in clay have got to drop the "ceramic' part in any of our
> written material that we might hand out or how we describe outselves.

There is an established and discerning market for ceramics in the UK.
For these people buying contemporary ceramics is less intimidating that
buying contemporary 'art'.

> We have
> so many other rules for being politically correct, what's one more? I'm still
> waiting for people to tell me about their marketing experiences. How are we
> moving ahead with our sculpture that happens to be made of clay? Details,
> please!

For marketing purposes there is a real benefit in catagorising yourself
as a ceramic sculptor - to appeal identify yourself to those people who
buy and collect ceramics.

I find it useful to label myself 'marine sculptor' Because there are
people who look for marine art. It helps us find each other. Also it
helps me keep a handle on my identity. My CV, statement and images are
all focused around this identity.

Other sculptors do label themselves - stone-carvers, installation
artists, land artists, wood sculptor, portrait sculptor. In most cases
these help market and artist come together.

Steve

(marine artist and arts marketing consultant)

---------------------------------------------
'On a clear disk, you can seek for ever'

Stephen Rowley http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/srowley/


jeanne...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
Steve, Thanks for your reply. I'm sure your observation is correct in
certain situations. If you are approaching a gallery, collector or venue that
is looking for "marine art", it's a good idea to label yourself as such if
that is, in fact, what you are doing. However, the larger market place might
be more willing to admit you if you didn't label yourself in any particular
way, simply saying that you are a sculptor would perhaps be more open ended.
A few more doors just might open up. If the content of all of your work comes
under one heading then I suppose hanging on to the focused label is most
appropriate. In your response you mentioned that people in the U.K. are more
willing to buy "Contemporary ceramics" than they would be to buying "ceramic
art". I don't understand that unless the contemproary ceramics consists of
pottery. Could you explain please? Is it the price tag or are they not
willing to accept sculptue created in clay as fine art?


article <3701B2...@dial.pipex.com>,

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

0 new messages