I hope you all get this and will use it actively. See you Tuesday at 2:30 pm in FC 102. By the time we meet you should have read and be ready to comment on the articles I have in your mail box and to come with at least one article/chapter to consider for a future reading.
See you Tuesday, Anna
In response to the Glen Brown article "Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, Professionalism and Perspective" I will have to say for the most part that I agree that in order to be able to effectively engage in a criticism of contemporary it is important to have an understanding of it's history as well as an understanding of theory. It is a combination of the two that makes it possible to look at ceramics critically. Where I disagree with him is the manner in which he chooses to do this. If his only audience is academic theorist and critics then his writing is well suited for them. I'm assuming that this essay is intended for ceramic artists as well. Although I wouldn't go as far as to call it gobbledygook as Owen Rye did, I will say that he is alienating a great deal of his audience in the manner in which he writes. I think that there is something to be said for being able to articulate an idea or concept in a clear concise manner. After reading his essay I got the feeling that he was a peacock preening his own feathers that trying to communicate an idea. there are other critics that I have read that were equally as insightful but without talking down to his audience.
ReplyDeleteIn Michael Freid's article 'Art and Object hood" deals with scale alone. He documents the shift in scale of his pieces in relation to themselves. He notes that with the larger pieces needed the ground as an element of the piece, the horizon is as much of the work as the steel. With his table pieces it is no different. The table is just as important to these pieces. Here the table gives the sculpture the freedom to be grounded yet traverse beyond that horizon. I believe the scale shift makes the work more personal and intimate. The scale of these in relation to the body of the viewer requires a more intimate encounter with the work than the larger works. In doing so he is seducing the viewer it interact with the work in a different way.
ReplyDelete