Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Before I respond to this article I will have to say that it is the best one yet. The writing reads well, is articulate and insightful without the verbal masturbation that plague other writers we have addressed. I hate to be a "yes man" for this author but I pretty much agree everything that he had to say. In ceramics so often opinion and popularity take the place of critical analysis. Yes I believe that Voulkos' reputation is firmly rooted in ceramics, but what of the greater art world? Does it diminish his legacy that he rode the coat tails of abstract expressionist painters, by doing the same with clay? Deconstruction of form was not a new concept when he did it to a pot, it simply hadn't been done in clay. Acknowledging this does set a different standard for the field of ceramics. Which leads me to question, is that what we're looking for?