Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bciskepottery

10 Cool Trends In Contemporary Ceramics

Recommended Posts

Babs    386

I know this is a bit off hte topic but if a work needs someone in you ear proclaiming its worth to the viewer, what is going on?

I am fortunate to live on the very beautiful coast and now in the last 10 years there have sprung up  numerous "interpretive" signs telling me what I am looking at, or should be looking at.

Similar disease?

In Educational institutions, a different scenario.

The success of artists, from anothe rpost, much more than talent and talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Painting with a very broad brush there, Dr..  ;) -snip-

 

PS:  You are correct that SOME programs are (or already have been) headed in that direction.

I was theorizing, not trying to generalize, my pardon. If my theory is correct, does this explain the void between the skill displayed and the trendiness of the work? Why would an artist care to make the distinction that they are not ceramic artists, but artists working in clay? (To see this you need to drill down into a previous article at the top of this clip.) is clay so base that one needs to distinguish them selves as not "a part of" but still able to work without skill?

 

These questions baffle me. I do not have the answers. It seems like a fragile place to exist. Why would any institution foster this mindset in a student? Wouldn't it set them up for a world of hurt and/or disappointment when they leave to work as artists? I agree to some extent that everything yields what you put into it. However,I think there's something here that explains why such poor technical work represents hot trends. ?

 

Thank you for the compliment on my brush work, too. Here I thought I wasn't good at painting ;).

 

 

Are you suggesting undergrad art programs put a large percentage of their alumni into the art industry? I would rethink this. The number I've heard tossed around is 4-5%. This suggests the programs are doing something other than preparing students to become self-sufficient artists... Or also as likely that the success of the individual has very little to do with the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen    139

A popular blogger I read argues that intent is ill relevant, or maybe less relevant. I argued that our intent largely defines us and our work.

 

I think everyone's opinion of skill is so subjective that I almost believe that only the artist themselves truly knows if they are skilled.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs    386

Someone wrote that if a large percentage of artists became craftspeople, the art world would benefit as would the craftworld.

Intent..  goal? Feeling of the end piece, content of the artist/craftsperson?

Artists often do not create art or craft pieces; craftspeople sometimes create art??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been riding along this post for several days, thinking about various viewpoints. ...what makes a trend, who defines what, the role in art criticism that provides verbal skill as a stand in for pieces being able to speak by themselves without linguistic interpretation....

 

Then, I thought about how many art/ceramic students I've met over time, and how I am frequently amazed by their profound lack of technical skill, and simultaneously dumbfounded by their gift of opinionated description. To date, I have met three technically skilled individuals: two trained at Alfred, the other ignored all advice until given the degree that allowed them to go make and sell pottery. These thoughts are not unique.

 

Today it occurred to me: this stuff does represent a trend, perhaps. People who graduate from art schools are not learning solid technical skills. They are taught how to wax on verbally about "eh" work.

 

I understand the place for verbal skill. After all, the art critic of Artnews needs a job. But the abstraction of "pointed, political edge" from the work highlighted in the "anti ceramic mush" section seems to prove my point of b.s. making the art have a story that a nonverbal viewer would NEVER create themselves. I realize that story sells the art, but doesn't it seem reasonable that skilled artists strive to make technically proficient art that can stand without the artist or critic explaining it for the viewer?

 

Thus my proposed trend: language substitutes for skill in ceramic arts?

 

(Water buckets ready ;o)

 

drmyrtle, you make me smile.......studied my undergrad at my first college that was all about skills, materials, processes, experimentation etc by local and international practicing potters, the idea of 'learn to make a 'good' pot first before you go off with all your ideas'...

 

did not understand how grateful I would be for the solid foundational training I was given until I went to my first post grad in a college renowned for its contemporary approach..... standing at the photocopier in the post grad room I see a PhD student copying passages of a book on contemporary Chinese ceramics, so to start a conversation, I said hello and commented on the work she was studying and asked her about what kind of ceramics she liked to make.......the look on her face!...... you''d think I had just spat on the floor!!

 

"I don't MAKE ceramics,'she said 'I STUDY ceramics. If you want to make ceramics then you go to a technical college.' She picks up her bits and leaves the room!   I was stunned both by her rudeness and by the concept that you could 'study'ceramics to PhD level and seemingly not MAKE/MADE any!!??   It was my first close up experience with the truly ''all icing/no cake'' defensive nonsense some conceptual artists operate by....

 

the kicker to this story is that the head of ceramics department was retiring the year later and she, as the only graduating PhD student that yea,r secured the job!    

She has been head of ceramics for 8 years but to this day I still don't really know what her oeuver actually is!

 

drmyrtle, maybe I'm conservative and old fashioned with my 'skills first 'approach, but I'm with you on your 'trend ': language substitutes for skill in many quarters of the (ceramic) arts field statement!!

 

Irene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drmyrtle    51

 

Are you suggesting undergrad art programs put a large percentage of their alumni into the art industry? I would rethink this. The number I've heard tossed around is 4-5%. This suggests the programs are doing something other than preparing students to become self-sufficient artists... Or also as likely that the success of the individual has very little to do with the program.

Yes, yes. I think you are correct on this point. No study of interest produces artists, per se. I'm sure teachers hope for artistic development. Learning how to learn, and what skills to practice is a lifelong pursuit that some choose to forgo. Not much a teacher can do about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JBaymore    1,432

Someone wrote that if a large percentage of artists became craftspeople, the art world would benefit as would the craftworld.

Hamada Shoji.......

 

best,

 

...............john

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JBaymore    1,432

.......studied my undergrad at my first college that was all about skills, materials, processes, experimentation etc by local and international practicing potters, the idea of 'learn to make a 'good' pot first before you go off with all your ideas'...

 

You more or less just described our undergrad ceramics department at New Hampshire Institute of Art. :)

 

best,

 

.................john

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs    386

 

Someone wrote that if a large percentage of artists became craftspeople, the art world would benefit as would the craftworld.

Hamada Shoji.......

 

best,

 

...............john

 

Thanks,

And with no "weasel words"! Plain speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TwinRocks    17

I hadn't read all the replies, but the article was about what is trending, not what is aesthetically pleasing. Not all art is designed to please the eye. I am some what surprised by some of the close minded responses. I do agree that an artist should build a solid set of base skills prior to creating more abstract work, however for a lot of people art is about the journey and not the destination.

 

Without reading into the background of the artists and their body of work, I choose to reserve myself from passing harsh judgements. Ugliness can be quite narrative, and without further examination I think it's unfair to say something isn't artistic.

 

With that all said, many of these don't align with my personal tastes and style, but there where a few bright points. What is trending, what inspires us, what functions, what sells well and what we personally enjoy making are almost entirely unrelated perspectives: each individual aspect does not specifically relate, if they did all relate that would be a formula and we all know formulaic artwork tends to be lack-luster and boring. Something designed to please isn't always pleasing, nor is ugliness always a fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×