What Is Ceramics, Is It Art?

[S. Dean]

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but to me it is much less about the medium/material than the intent of the maker.  I can paint a bedroom wall in my house with the intent of changing the color of the room, or I can paint on canvas with the idea of creating art.  

 

As a material ceramics can encompass a wide range of intent by the maker, including art, craft, commercial functional, industrial and more.  In my mind, if it's intended to be art, then judge it as art and apply all the standards that are used when critiquing art.  Same argument for items intended to be craft - judge it on elements of how well it is made, form/function (including whether it is functional enough with the interplay between form and function), balance, design, decoration, etc.   A commercially produced ceramic mug from a big box store likely gets judged by another standard.  And sometimes a spark plug is just a spark plug (unless it was intended to be art ).

 

I have similar views on photography - I don't critique vacation snapshots with the same standard as I would for works by Robert Mapplethorpe, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz..........

 

Personally, I consider myself a craftsperson not an artist. 

 

-SD

[Marcia Selsor]

I agree that intent is a huge part of creating good work.

-art.

Marcia

[Judith B]

Yes S. Dean, that is a very good point! Does it mean that you should make your intent known, or should it be up to the viewer? 

 

I think with ceramics it can get very tricky to classify (which is why I think the label art/craft is irrelevant anyway) because when people collaborate say, a potter makes a piece and an illustrator paints it. Is it a beautiful functional piece? Or is the whole a unique artwork? Like Picasso did with potters in Vallauris...

[S. Dean]

Yes S. Dean, that is a very good point! Does it mean that you should make your intent known, or should it be up to the viewer? 

 

I think with ceramics it can get very tricky to classify (which is why I think the label art/craft is irrelevant anyway) because when people collaborate say, a potter makes a piece and an illustrator paints it. Is it a beautiful functional piece? Or is the whole a unique artwork? Like Picasso did with potters in Vallauris...

 

Good questions Judith and thanks for adding nuance/complication to my simplistic view!    

 

If pressed, I think it depends on whether the viewer is able to understand the maker's intent from the nature of the work itself.  The ends of the spectrum are easy - some things are so clearly non-functional/sculptural/insert other characteristic that its evident that the maker was intending to create art. Conversely, near me in Seagrove, NC, there are many potters working within a well defined functional tradition.  This type of work tends to lend itself to an understanding that the maker is a craftsperson.

 

The problem lies in the messy middle where things don't fit nicely into a binary category of art or craft.  Work (and life generally) tends to be more analog.  Studio pottery contains elements of both art and craft  (e.g., design, functionality, decoration, "originality" (pandora's box), execution, surface, construction, etc.). Here, in my mind the maker needs to be clearer of her/his intent.  To the extent that a reviewer agrees or disagrees with the maker, then it is up to them to justify why.

 

Admittedly, I'm not burdened or benefitted with an MFA, design or like eduction.  Hopefully others with continue to chime in and keep the conversation going. 

 

-SD 

[glazenerd]

Dean: from another perspective perhaps.

 

I view clay formulation as an art: if it is done with the utmost precision and care. I would make the safe assumption, that I am the only one that sees it this way. Educators: please temper the following remark according to intent. If I had attended a college for the arts, and learned the text book definitions for clay formulation: I would be making clay like everyone else.Not having this background, meant that I had no preconceived ideas, opinions, or training that would limit me from exploring clay from every aspect.I did not break any "rules," because I was never taught any rules. I think this freedom extends into the "craft" as well: I can tell when a potter has decided to "break the rules." I am okay with pottery "language," in that it defines various segments of the craft: makes communicating with other potters much easier. I am not okay with definitions, when they are used to suppress freedom of expression.

 

Nerd

[S. Dean]

Dean: from another perspective perhaps.

 

I view clay formulation as an art: if it is done with the utmost precision and care. I would make the safe assumption, that I am the only one that sees it this way. Educators: please temper the following remark according to intent. If I had attended a college for the arts, and learned the text book definitions for clay formulation: I would be making clay like everyone else.Not having this background, meant that I had no preconceived ideas, opinions, or training that would limit me from exploring clay from every aspect.I did not break any "rules," because I was never taught any rules. I think this freedom extends into the "craft" as well: I can tell when a potter has decided to "break the rules." I am okay with pottery "language," in that it defines various segments of the craft: makes communicating with other potters much easier. I am not okay with definitions, when they are used to suppress freedom of expression.

 

Nerd

 

Nerd:

 

Thanks for chiming in.  My admittedly simplistic view on this art/craft debate was that we should evaluate the final product by the intent of the person that made it.  I believe you are introducing the concept of working in an artful manner.  This perspective opens up a fascinating new branch to this art/craft conundrum with so many questions and so few answers. Such as,

 

• If clay formulation is an art, is the final product (the clay body itself) a piece of art?  If yes, what artistic standards, words or expressions (whether existing or new) would you use to describe the resultant clay body as a piece of art? 
•  
• Is it possible to go about your work in an artful manner or practice the art of something without the intent to make art?  For instance, I work for a hospital system, and there's an understanding that there is an art to practicing medicine.  The idea being that providers who practice the art and science of medicine are able to achieve a better result/higher level of care than those that only practice the "science" of medicine.  Are providers who practice the art of medicine artists?  Is their diagnosis/care art?
•  
• Certainly a scientific exploration of a clay body (or practicing medicine) could be done with "utmost precision and care" while following the textbook rules - does utmost precision and care distinguish practicing the art of something?  Is there something more required like the ability to combine intuition with knowledge and go down a path that isn't necessarily "textbook"?
•  
• Do you have to be working outside the rules to be an artist/can art be created by someone working inside the rules? 

Ok, this is making my head hurt.... time to head into the studio and make some pots.  Have to remember that this is the ultimate goal - irrespective of what we call the finished product. 

 

-SD

[glazenerd]

"who practice the art and science of medicine are able to achieve a better result/higher level of "

 

I think perhaps you just defined in a nutshell; the ongoing debate about art vs. craft.

 

"who practice the art and science of pottery, are able to achieve a better result/higher level of ......

 

"Intuition". Great choice of words.

 

Edited to make the intent plainer.

[Judith B]

AH thank you so much Sean and Nerd to share such interesting perspectives! 

 

  Studio pottery contains elements of both art and craft  (e.g., design, functionality, decoration, "originality" (pandora's box), execution, surface, construction, etc.). Here, in my mind the maker needs to be clearer of her/his intent.  To the extent that a reviewer agrees or disagrees with the maker, then it is up to them to justify why.

 

I really like your idea of viewing a piece as art or no depending on the maker's intent. I feel like it allows for a lot more diversity and perspectives, it just opens the field to so many things. 

Some people when looking at art argue that the intent or explanation sometimes takes away the first emotional encounter with a piece of art, some argue that without an explanation it is impossible to understand. In any situation, as a maker, being able to say: for me, this piece is art, I can tell you all about what inspired me and what I tried to convey, is so powerful.

[Marcia Selsor]

"who practice the art and science of medicine are able to achieve a better result/higher level of "

 

I think perhaps you just defined in a nutshell; the ongoing debate about art vs. craft.

 

"who practice the art and science of pottery, are able to achieve a better result/higher level of ......

 

"Intuition". Great choice of words.

 

Edited to make the intent plainer.

 

I have corrected the title to what I remembered originally: The Medium if the Message. Please read Fred Sweet's comment which reassured me I was right to begin with. after searching to get the correct spelling of McLuhan's name, I came up with the incorrect title to the book! it IS Message not Massage.

 

 

when I was in college (art school) in the 60s I took a course shared with the music academy called the Psychology of Creativity. It was a great course. One of the textbooks was The Medium is the Message. Great discussions with art students, designers, musicians, etc. The focus was about creativity being way beyond the arts. Just as you say intuition playing a large role, but also the elevated levels of consciousness throughout the creative process. It was a fascinating course.

Marcia

[Fred Sweet]

Marcia-

I think you wanted to say "The Medium Is The Message", not The Massage.

Fred

[Marcia Selsor]

I thought so too. But when I searched for that title it kept coming up Massage (/) I know it was the 60s but I agree that the title should be medium is the Message. But you do the search. I dare you to find that title  especially under out of date text books. Search Marshall McLuhan. I double checked and attributed it to my age. But I am glad you mentioned it. Here is what I found on 2 websites. Thinking that I must be getting old, I thought I got the message wrong all these 50 years ago. Thanks for agreeing with what I originally thought

 

https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-McLuhan/e/B000AQ24OE/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

https://www.alibris.com/Medium-is-the-Message-Marshall-McLuhan/book/4277129?matches=19

 

 

Marcia

[Fred Sweet]

Marcia-

Guess I didn't read deeply enough into my research. I had stopped on McLuhan's oft cited statement, which is as I used in my question to you. Upon your suggestion, I went back and found the following:

 

From the Marshall McLuhan website: https://www.marshallmcluhan.com/common-questions/

 

"COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS (AND ANSWERS)

 

Answers by Dr. Eric McLuhan, Marshall’'s eldest son

 

Why is the title of the book “The medium is the massage†and not “The medium is the message�

Actually, the title was a mistake. When the book came back from the typesetter’s, it had on the cover “Massage†as it still does. The title was supposed to have read “The Medium is the Message†but the typesetter had made an error. When Marshall saw the typo he exclaimed, “Leave it alone! It’s great, and right on target!â€

 

Now there are four possible readings for the last word of the title, all of them accurate: “Message†and “Mess Age,†“Massage†and “Mass Age.â€

 

Apologies for reacting without performing my due diligence, and thank you for the correction. I should know not to give "snap" commentary.

 

Thank you for your correction, Marcia.

 

Respectfully and humbled re-submitted,

Fred

[Marcia Selsor]

Fred,

I must have had a first edition because my class was in '68 and the book came out in '67. Maybe the type setting happened on a later edition as the popularity of the book expanded. My cover was simple black and white , not the orange and black with the error.

[Magnolia Mud Research]

The book is not out of print.  Also the essay is available form:

 

From Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man by Marshall McLuhan ©1964

essay
CHAPTER 1       The Medium is the Message

http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/mcluhan.mediummessage.pdf 

 

book:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/understanding-media
Paperback | $33.95 Trade | £27.95 | 389 pp. | 6 x 9 in | October 1994 | ISBN: 9780262631594

[LeeU]

I always thought it was The Media is the Message! (Still do LOL) 

[Marcia Selsor]

It was until a type setter misspelled message and made it massage. McLuhan liked it and kept it!

 

 

https://www.amazon.c...ine_cont_book_1

https://www.alibris....7129?matches=19

[Mark C.]

Ceramics is a thing like a process-its not art until you use it to make art.

[Ceallach]

On 6/30/2017 at 9:12 AM, Guest said:

If it doesn't hold water its art

Function does not negate form.  It's the argument that does not hold water.  :-D

I took Art Theory in college and it killed me because the philosophical examination led me to the conclusion that making art was nothing more than creative masturbation.  Obviously not a productive vein for consideration, as it's also a very effective assassin of the creative impulse.  Death by crisis of meaning.

When I was a kid, there were a few things that my dad pounded into me, one was the form vs. function or form vs. content dichotomy.   After examining that for decades, I have come to the point where I cannot ignore either one, and both are crucial. 

Not for nothing, even art has a function....which makes everything functional work.

[BlackDogPottery]

34 minutes ago, Ceallach said:

Function does not negate form.  It's the argument that does not hold water.  :-D

I took Art Theory in college and it killed me because the philosophical examination led me to the conclusion that making art was nothing more than creative masturbation.  Obviously not a productive vein for consideration, as it's also a very effective assassin of the creative impulse.  Death by crisis of meaning.

When I was a kid, there were a few things that my dad pounded into me, one was the form vs. function or form vs. content dichotomy.   After examining that for decades, I have come to the point where I cannot ignore either one, and both are crucial. 

Not for nothing, even art has a function....which makes everything functional work.

Totally off topic but its funny you bring up creative masturbation. My friends and I would always joke around with what we called "artsy masturbation".  Majority of art can be self absorbed and full of ego when you get down to the core.

[Gabby]

I think an artifact or creative production, regardless of its medium, can have attributes of design, art, and craft. To me thinking in terms of attributes works better than placing objects into categories, particularly when categories tend to overlap.

Design I think of as the orchestration of an experience for a user, the setting of a stage.

Art conveys an idea, a feeling, or a vision, a novel interpretation of a subject. The audience may be exclusive (for example sometimes a dialogue among artists, excluding a broader audience), universal, or completely insignificant to the creator of the work.

Craft makes available a use.

A work of craft may also be a work of art.  A work of art may suggest a use or experience.

[Ceallach]

On 7/1/2017 at 10:51 AM, Guest said:

But it would be art if Picasso made it.

The exception that prove the point

But Picasso did not make the pots, potters did, and then he altered and did the surface design.  

You know.  To split the hairs, albeit, he did not have many. 

[Sputty]

.

[Benzine]

On 3/11/2018 at 4:12 AM, Sputty said:

There's a splendid piece of film of Picasso doing his ceramics thing at Vallauris. You'll note the fine tradition of smoking in the workshop, whilst blowing clouds of dust everywhere. Still managed to get to 92, though...

 

And my students laugh, when I point out the instructions on the glaze bottles, about no eating, drinking or smoking, while glazing...  They ask, "Who would do that?"

[Viking Potter]

I often wonder (usually when some pretentious "artist" is trying to explain why his work is noteworthy and valuable above comparable pieces) why art is defined so narrowly.  I come from a long line of creative ancestors.  They were carpenters and engineers and contractors and painters and bushiness owners and  homemakers and just about everything else imaginable.   And they had one thing in common, they found ways to express themselves in multiple forms that were in addition to the written word.  And it didn't matter if anyone else understood the expression, what mattered was the need, the drive, compulsion, whatever to create.  And by my way of thinking, every creation, utility or non, that creation should be considered art.  because that way, every person is capable of and does create art.  And no one need buy it, collect it, or even like it, so long as there is recognition that the creation is art and can be appreciated as an expression.  And this then leads to the catch 22, when an expression is repugnant, is it art?  Yes, art can be vile and repugnant and still be called art.

[LeeU]

My dad was a fairly creative person with a deep affinity for excellent craftsmanship. "Lee," he would say, "learn how to do it & do it right." Working in his shop that mantra was often accompanied by "A place for everything and everything in its place." And, "Finish what you start." He could draw, play music, sing, design, make, build and fix all kinds of things, make radios, survive in the woods,  enjoy the best museums, discuss most anything (not the Vietnam war, though---stay away from that one) and yet ..... one of the worst arguments we ever had was when I was on break from the School of the Arts at VCU, having just enjoyed presentations by Cristo, hearing the music of Stephen Glass, seeing a dance performed by Twila Tharp, and hearing a talk from Andy the A-hole (who, at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, said to the crowd, in all seriousness, "Where am I?"  Anyway, I posited to my dad that the paintings he admired that were done on black velvet were not art.  They were tacky kitsch and an appalling excuse for "art" and should not ever be called art, because "that is not art."

That started WW III.  I pulled out the big guns from my excellent Art History classes and some NYC critics, but he pulled out the big bazooka of creative expression...saying essentially the very  same things as Viking Potter (" it didn't matter if anyone else understood the expression, what mattered was the need, the drive, compulsion, whatever to create.  And by my way of thinking, every creation, utility or non, that creation should be considered art. "

Ever since then I have worked to temper the intellectual approach to "is it art-what is art" with the the spiritual approach (for want of a better term) to self expression/creativity-as-art.   But if anyone asks me "What is art?", or "Is it art?" all I can say is "Who the heck knows?"