Monday, May 24, 2010
Identiy Crisis
"Edmund DeWall highlights the ironic and unsettling Postmodern ceramics of the 1980's and 90's" is correct, and by that I mean highlights. DeWall skims over this topic so quickly that I still am not sure of the point of this article. What he does is simply describe what Postmodernism is, without reference to how that is significant to ceramics, or if it's a good or bad thing. The article is way to short for a topic of this depth. Without photos, it is just over a page long. He jumps around briefly describing each work, makes one point and moves on to the next. He raises many points by fails to come to any conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"If you read a critic who uses the word postmodernism in the first sentence of an essay and you buy it, you'll buy anything after that."
ReplyDeletePeter Schjeldahl
Yeah, I have to say that he is a bad writer. At least to say that he lost me in the first paragraph. I had to read it several times to figure out his agenda if I even manged to do that. I guess what this writer, De Waal, is saying is that craft arts began throwing away everything they thought of as good art. (It seems the whole art world did that.) The ceramicist began working patronage into the equation and so on. He then continues w/ many examples but fails to conclude his ideas at the end. The article could be titled, "Ceramics in the 80's & 90's." Identity Crisis is weakly argued in these writings. Boooo!
ReplyDelete