Ceramics and the position of authenticity
It is JorunnVeiteberg who stands out for me as the writer who most makes the best links
between the situation of the ceramic artist of today and their positioning within today’s
globalised worldi. She strongly suggests that ceramics within contemporary art practice
operates within structures that are not, perhaps, considered as original discourse. This
significantly raises questions towards the notion of authenticity, and as a consequence,
the relevance of the authentic within contemporary ceramics. As ceramic practice and the
development of related theory continue to expand, dialogue is constructed with practical
and theoretical languages that have perhaps not originated from within ceramic discourse.
It is this that, in turn, introduces extended possibilities and raises questions around the
authenticity of clay especially when positioned within contemporary ceramic practice.
The notion of ceramic authenticity can certainly be acknowledged as being challenged
where, particularly, conceptual elements are evident and, more significantly, where nonceramic media become employed. In this case the ceramic artist becomes prominent as
instigator most specifically when the familiarity of ceramic discourse is repositioned
within contemporary practice.ii
To consider a ceramic work as authentic within ceramic discourse is to suggest that
predominantly an artwork should reference the origin for that authenticity. This would
notably be directed towards the identification of the material clay in the pursuit of this
notion. Significantly association with the ceramic discipline would obviously indicate
that the material clay was central to this remit, and whilst clay as a material is central,
other signifiers exist that contribute to the arena where authenticity can be acknowledged.
The considerable history of ceramic art and its ubiquitous occupation within global
culture, where the material transverses through function and the aesthetic, contributes to
numerous signifiers with which to associate authenticity, is though, the issue of
authenticity so critical to the development of contemporary ceramic discourse?
The discipline of ceramics can be fiercely protective towards its members, by which there
is the notion that some kind of agreement exists that to a certain degree delivers
membership upon those who subscribe to the constructed discourse. This also seems to
indicate that an element exists within the discourse that allows for the authenticity to be
validated. Most visibly this can be linked to an informed knowledge of practice and
theory which might usually be as a result of formal training, but almost definitely as a
consequence of education at the tertiary level. Whilst authenticity can be acknowledged
to the material clay, not all artists that use clay derive from an informed knowledge or
comprehensive training of ceramics. Artists that fit into this category are considered to be
outside of ceramic membership and are labelled visitors by a number of contemporary
ceramic practitioners and theorists.iii This notion or labelling of visitors is further
expanded upon by Garth Clark in respect of a number of contemporary artists including
the work of Jeff Koons. Koons shows this most significantly in his 1998 series of works
entitled ‘Banality’. In reference to this type of artist, which would include, for example,
Tony Cragg, Anthony Gormley and Arman, Clark tries to differentiate the ‘visitor’ from
the ‘day-tripper’, as he defines them, but clearly acknowledges the view that such
assertions are eyed warily by the ceramics community especially when considering their
exclusion from the fine art market for such a considerable length of time.iv
The expression ‘visitors’ as remarked upon by Clark seems to establish a distance
between artists attached to the discipline and those who are not. The notion is, however,
sometimes broken down where collectively ceramic art is shown or discussed across the
broad spectrum of art. With many borders becoming blurred within the current climate of
Postmodernism this pluralistic display of clay can be evidenced in emergent texts and
exhibitionsv. In reference to this notion and as a result of the actual viewing of the
exhibition A Secret History of Clay, with its collective focus on the display of artists from
across the spectrum of art practice, it becomes quite impossible to distinguish or associate
discipline specifics with the art works of the individuals. An informed knowledge of the
individual and collective artists’ history and practical background would certainly be
needed in order to establish a foregrounding which would specifically authenticate the
artist with ceramic discourse.
With this in mind any redefinition of authenticity, in respect of ceramic discipline
discourse, needs to be expanded as a result of the engagement by artists of a wider
discourse that dissolves many of the boundaries that are currently accepted as being
historically established. In support of this notion Martha Buskirk argues a similar point in
reference to fine art discourse and more specifically in respect of the engagement of
multi-media and the numerous materials employed by contemporary artists whilst also
hinting at the ongoing problems of categorisation according to medium.vi
Such general observations put forward by Buskirk can certainly be transposed more
specifically to the ceramic arena, and are particularly relevant where multi-media forms
part of the artworks construction. This might also be extended to artworks that engage
with installation, the conceptual and time-based activity. It is here where, increasingly,
the notion of being authentic to existing ceramic discourse becomes blurred. This
dissolving of boundaries pointedly within contemporary practice can in fact be traced to
the encouragement of tutors within tertiary level education to explore areas outside of
discipline specifics. It is this exploration that is ultimately sanctioned by courses and
course originators, that supports a more pluralistic approach to course structure. Buskirk
makes reference to this concept not specifically in respect of the education of the artist
but more notably as consequence of the structures of contemporary art.vii
The choices and avenues being explored by some ceramic artists are continually being
investigated and developed through the extension of traditional practice, perhaps most
significantly as a consequence of redefinition, and ultimately in pursuit of avant-garde
display. The space of contemporary art has, for a considerable period, been occupied with
the area of installation,viii and its ubiquitous and commanding presence within gallery and
exhibition spaces, and because of this theoretical application most certainly has enhanced
ceramic practice. Does, or even should this matter however to the contemporary ceramic
artist?
To establish authenticity there needs to be some element within the said discourse that
can support and confirm authenticity. This element can be quite a simple observation, for
instance where the materiality of a work can be confirmed. So, we might say, who is
responsible for constructing authenticity with regards to a discipline discourse? The
previous observation by Krauss suggests that the maker, historian and the museum are all
complicit in this, and, for the most part, this can be acknowledged to the arena of
ceramics. When the construction of works ultimately results in display and, as a
consequence, some level of theoretical criticism, this progression is both informed and
located by those involved, the authenticity therefore is acknowledged to the constructed
definitions. This would suggest that authenticity is constructed from the body of
discipline specific discourse, and would, in the case of ceramics, be significantly
constructed from empirical activity that engage artist, gallery and theoretical critique. The
influence of contributors to discipline discourse therefore is paramount, and this
substantially emanates from the prominent outputs of those who contribute. It is this that
provides a context and location for authenticity, and this observation is argued and built
upon strongly by Baugh in respect of authenticating a work of art in relation to its own
positioning when he talks in detail about ‘possibilising’.ix
Baugh seems to be suggesting that works of art have the capacity to construct a world of
their own by exposing that world as a singular presence linking this possibly to the
essence of an artist’s authenticity. Ceramics has this ability specifically when
authentication can be located within constructed discourse. This, however, becomes more
difficult when elements are not located within the constructed discourse, that is to say,
when the work extends beyond the singularity of discipline authenticity. Such an
indication of this might, for example, be where a selected ceramic exhibition, display or
competition may refuse entry to individual works that have in the views of the selection
panel, insufficient clay content or possibly no clay content at all. This speculates that
considered values are in place, which confirm works as being acceptable to the discourse
of authentication, a discourse that is probably unique to constructed criteria. It may be
suggested therefore, that a challenge to the expansion of authenticity is now in the hands
of those who seek to challenge the origination and content of the elements of discourse
authentication. This challenge can be seen as an ongoing activity where ultimately the
individual artist, gallery and theorist work toward avant-garde display and, more often
than not, the exploration into expanded arenas most certainly fuelled by the postmodern
climate. The notion of authenticity to the discipline of ceramics, within postmodern
structures, can be considered as an infinitive notion where re-interpretation and reappropriation of its past provide considerable contributory elements to contemporary
developments. In a similar vein, an idea is being propounded by Bruce Baugh in relation
to a wider art context, in which he seeks to highlight the relationship between authentic
artwork and its history.x
The relation between a work and its history suggests that this authentic connection
contributes to the projection of singularity and, specifically when in this case, that
identifying authenticity within ceramics.xi Baugh’s observations can be both
acknowledged and positioned in relation to some of those who contribute to discipline
authenticity, most notably as previously indicated, the artist, gallery and theorist. The
indication in this scenario is that the contributors are instrumental in constructing and
contributing to definitions that position contained elements accordingly. One of the
significant results of this positioning is the classification of ceramics as a distinct
discipline, the notion of which is well supported by writers such as Glen R. Brown.xii
Brown’s vision of the term ‘ceramic art’ being reduced to purely ‘art’ links to the
observation as to whether the structure of a singular discipline is significant to those
involved, and by extension what relevance, particularly, does it have within
contemporary ceramic practice? The spectrum of ceramics, encompassing as it does a
broad range of practice and theory, usually distinguishes elements within its own
discourse by the use of additional descriptive terminology, for example, ‘sculptural’ or
‘installation’. Whilst this seems to function, a number of artists that have emerged from
ceramic training have opted out of association to ceramics as a field, this group prefers
instead, to locate and operate within fine art.xiii This standpoint is true of a number of
artists, and directly links to a further and emerging number of ceramic artists who seem to
work in an area that they feel uncomfortable in terms of standard or accepted definition to
define, they opt instead for a definition that is hard to locate and suggests that an element
of total freedom is secured by incongruous and as a consequence blurred definition. Both
Clare Twomey and David Cushway put forward descriptions that define their practice as
either an engagement with material or an interest of the language of material or both.
Whilst this proves encouraging and exciting for the development of contemporary
ceramic practice, the location of the work can prove problematic, but does that matter?
Both Twomey and Cushway have secured high profile shows in non-ceramic galleries
and are included in emerging texts that discuss their work within a conceptual
framework. With this in mind such artists could be acknowledged as members of the fine
art establishment, but, they choose to remain predominantly with the investigation of
clay; most notably expanding upon its authenticated boundaries. This positioning
suggests a connection to clay, and this, in turn, constructs a connection to the ceramic
field by way of association. It is this association that points towards considerations that
are placed before the individual artist, and which address the notion of authenticity linked
to the position ceramics occupies within the wider art spectrum. In respect of this
perception a number of observations are put forward by Glen R. Brown, most pertinently
where he comments upon ceramics positioning in relation to fine art and specifically
when he comments about the possibility of either inclusion or as he sees it, loss of
identity.xiv
Brown’s observations are obviously positioned from a ceramic standpoint where the
emphasis is placed upon the artist that has a connection to the field of ceramics. He
suggests a conflict between inclusion and loss of identity maybe as a consequence of the
recurring debate surrounding the issue of craft and fine art. This seemingly never ending
debate might be pivotal to the emerging artists declaration that favours non-descriptive
alignment to either camp and, instead, a positioning that on a primary level seems
somewhat ambiguous. Projected ambiguity by some ceramic artists, however, maintains
the ability to be authenticated to ceramic. This is, perhaps, as a consequence of the artists
own dialogue with the discourse of ceramic and, almost definitely, as a result of
association. In this latter case, therefore, what can be constructed with regard to artists
that use clay but are not associated to the discipline of ceramics?
The familiarity of ceramic and consequentially authentic properties are, however, not
simply exclusive to the field of ceramics and continue to be evidenced widely within fine
art practice. Clay has historically been a material of artists including perhaps the most
obvious, Pablo Picasso. Whilst Picasso engaged a creditably broad spectrum of practice
including painting, printmaking, sculpture and ceramics, his connection to the field of
ceramic might be described, in terms of the previously indicated terminology, assuredly
as a visitor. Ultimately, Picasso’s engagement with ceramic produced works that made
reference to two of the most authentic signifiers, most notably in this case the vessel and
the plate. It is the vessel too that is located centrally within Grayson Perry’s work and his
work, is perhaps, most suitable to contemporary analysis as a consequence of its current
positioning within contemporary art. Perry’s work can be substantially authenticated with
familiar elements of ceramic history and practice. Direct observations can be made with
numerous elements including the vessel form and decorative applications and, although
these elements are instantly apparent, his use of familiarity is intentional.xv Marjan Boot
make good reference to this referring to a major exhibition of his works at the Stedelijk
Museum in Amsterdam where she pointedly focuses on the way in which Perry has in the
view of some journalists turned assumptions in fine and applied arts upside down.xvi
Marjan Boot’s observation makes reference to the term ‘pottery’ in relation to Perry’s
outputs. This is a term with which many contemporary ceramic artists, including
Twomey, Harrison and Cushway seek to disassociate themselves, due, in part, to the
connotations that it holds within ceramic discourse. Pottery invites association to craft
practice and by inference suggests wheel-thrown objects, coiled vessels and decorative
glazes, some of the very things that Perry presents within the fine art arena. Perry makes
reference to his forms suggesting the projection of invisibility due to the familiarity with
form and, as a result, the visual narrative becomes prominent. In referencing this
observation could the same thing occur within ceramic practice? The answer is probably
no. Ceramic discourse has developed fundamentally from the vessel and the structures
and practices that have been constructed from this development have become entrenched
within the practice and language of ceramics. The investigation into form, glaze surface,
kiln firing and methods of building are fundamental areas of taught ceramic education
even when ceramic artists extend practice into other non-formal ceramic areas, for
example, video, the exploration can be endorsed as having derived from the initial
grounding. It seems, therefore, quite ironic that Perry himself acknowledges his own
ceramic training within the context of his work, a notion discussed and this is something
more than adequately exposed by Boot.xvii
The distinction between ceramics and fine art especially in a UK context, as suggested by
Boot with regards to ceramics, is in all truths a fact that, on one level, has much to do
with the authentication of the artist and their work to the constructed separate fields. It
can, therefore, be acknowledged that Perry has never associated or authenticated himself
or his work to the ceramic field, and his dialogue is, therefore, with fine art, where his
work is referenced accordingly. The contribution to distinction, as also indicated by Boot,
can be referenced to art education and particularly within the context of this analysis,
higher and tertiary education within the United Kingdom. Numerous texts within
ceramic discipline books contained within art institution libraries will, from experience,
contain a section that discusses the notion of the distinction between applied art and fine
art ceramics. The reality of the discussion suggests that the distinction is in place, no
matter what the content of the argument might be. One such book by the prominent writer
on ceramic and applied arts Peter Dormer, titled The New Ceramics, can be sited as
evidence as contributory to the ceramic students discourse over the last twenty years. In
many a limited budget art education library, the book can seem somewhat refreshing
when discovered amongst the usual collection of practical ceramic literature where
emphasis is placed ultimately with skills based activity. The book contains a chapter
entitled, Bridging Disciplines, it consists, of sixty-three pages, of which two, are given
over to text. In reference to the distinction of ceramic between the definitions of applied
art and fine art, Dormer suggests a way through the confusion whereby he highlights the
strength of his own views against the arguments of the eminent critic Rose Slivka and he
clearly seeks to maintain a strong division between applied and fine art.xviii
Dormer’s observations, constructed at the time of writing, seem somewhat simplistic
given the fact that such a critically short dialogue is given to such fundamental argument.
This also perhaps, reflects upon the paucity of ceramic critical theory at the time, and
particularly that which existed outside of journal and seminar outputs where a more
focussed critique can be explored and disseminated on a more frequent and detailed basis.
In Dormer’s view there is a clear distinction between fine art and applied art where,
fundamentally, the position of the artist and their outputs seems to be instrumental in the
debate. As discussed previously the artists location within the differing fields indicates
that the artists dialogue is with the said discourse and this notion can be placed with Ken
Price and Andrew Lord who both actively sought to engage with, and operate within, the
structures of fine art. With the dissolving of boundaries, and the burgeoning number of
galleries and museums showing work from a ceramic positioning, which are, on the
whole, considered fine art spaces, the observation could indicate that the debate has
become somewhat diluted within the contemporary sphere. This notion can ostensibly be
supported by an increase in expanded practice, critique and theory that creates dialogue
with ceramic discourse, where issues, that at one time were central to the ceramic artists
questioning over the applied art – fine art debate, are now to some extent addressed. A
contribution to this observation has been evidenced by the increased opportunities that
have become available to the ceramic artist, and particularly those who’s work pushes the
boundaries of authentic ceramic practice, the very work, at the time of Dormers text and
to some extent now, that creates tension with regards to the artists positioning.
In reality have the opportunities increased for the contemporary ceramic artist? The
division between applied art and fine art is still a contemporary issue and to what extent it
exists will be continually contested in such a never-ending debate.
The outcome of this, without doubt, is the creation of a hybrid arena. An area where
artists and theorists operate within a space that, in some respect, moves the dialogue
forward without becoming continually engaged with the applied art – fine art debate. This
is an arena which, in some respects, has no formulation but exists between the boundaries
of applied art and fine art where the ceramic artist is able to engage with the materiality
of clay and the discourse of ceramics whilst simultaneously expanding upon and creating
distance from authentic notions. Three artists Twomey, Cushway and Harrison, display
elements which could place them within this arena.xixIt has emerged, perhaps as a result
of the distinction as indicated by Marjan Boot, and one that seems to be most prevalent
within the United Kingdom and Ireland, where higher education seems to have
contributed to its creation significantlyxx.
The influence of ceramic art education is significant as it can be contended that almost all
prominent ceramic practitioners, within contemporary practice, have derived from a
university or art institution programme or course. The contribution to the individual
artists education can be attributed to their perspective positioning within the boundaries
that can be constructed stretching from applied art to fine art. The positioning of the
university or art institution course within the structure and style of the institution, the
style background and resultant influence of practical tutors, the background work
undertaken by the individual student, and the influence of selective critical theory all
make contribution to the students’ development.
Ceramic courses within the United Kingdom and Ireland will display both similarities
and uniqueness towards each other when observed as a whole and the options for the
prospective student consist of a presentation of courses, which span the art spectrum.xxi
Some of the titles for obtainable ceramic undergraduate degrees are, BA Ceramics, BA
Fine and Applied Arts, BA Arts and Design and BA Three-Dimensional Design:
Ceramics, they indicate the somewhat broad spectrum that ceramics can occupy. Such a
broad spectrum indicates the diversity of the material clay and, in some respect, perhaps
contributes to the observation about the distinctions between applied art and fine art, that
is, in Marjan Boot’s terms, encouraged by art education within the United Kingdom.
In turn this may suggest that the student, and hence the potential artist, who studies
ceramics within the Fine and Applied Art degree, will be positioned differently to those
others who study within design or crafts. From personal experience this is not always the
case. Having studied ceramics at Camberwell College of Arts, the UCAS heading of
Crafts is somewhat misleading and, in my view probably too prescriptive. This will be
the case for most courses where extended exploration of clay is encouraged and this is
whether the work relates to wheel thrown objects, or those defined as installation pieces.
The language used to describe courses and the structures in which they are taught
certainly position the practice of ceramics accordingly, but these descriptors, are in some
way slowly being removed or blurred, perhaps in relation to wider art practice.xxii This
notion contributes to the observation surrounding the positioning of the ceramic artist
within ceramic discourse and, to some extent, unearths the challenge to authenticity being
constructed within ceramics, whether consciously or unconsciously, by those involved.
A projected suggestion in relation to the development of ceramic education is put forward
by Andrea Gill, where she acknowledges the element of tradition, an element where
ultimately authentication lies.
She thoughtfully observes that the future of clay is ‘unimaginable’ but wisely asserts’ in
my view, that the challenge brought about by the change of today is likely to be the
tradition of tomorrow and this will be the case not just with ceramic education, but with
practice and theory, in that tradition to some extent has become pivotal.xxiii This is
especially true when it is challenged and re-presented and ultimately this will contribute
to the expansion of discourse, a discourse which, in turn, may contribute to an increase of
extended authentic properties.
The extension of authentic ceramic properties may seem irrelevant to some practitioners
who sit quite comfortably with the authentic properties that are already in place. That is
to say where theory, market place and exhibition opportunities are suffice to the
individual. For those who could be acknowledged as operating beyond the traditional and
considered authentic discourse of ceramics, however, it is clear that their position is
somewhat more fluid, they are simultaneously uncomfortable with traditional authenticity
whilst excluded from the arena of fine art. This points towards the pushing of the
boundary by artists in pursuit of what ceramics might be, and the immediate reaction as
to what this might develop into, and what might ceramics become? The expansion of
authenticity does not merely lie with the artist, however, as the distinctions and
boundaries that exist, continue to be formulated by the museum, gallery and theorist both
individually and collectively. The pursuit of what ceramics might be, or might become, is
therefore the shared discursive practice of all those who make a contribution. With this in
mind the notion of authenticity, with regard to ceramic practice, seems to be a continually
developing one where, whether consciously or unconsciously, ceramics artists are
challenging authentic assumptions. It may, therefore, be considered that the inadequacies
of current discourse will be acknowledged in the future leading ultimately to an arena
where extended authenticity can be confirmed.
i
Jorunn Veiteberg Objects in Transition The Ceramic Art of Kjell Rylander Ceramics: Art and Perception
No. 61 2005.
ii
Rosalind Krauss The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths The MIT Press 1985, p.
162, ‘The theme of originality, encompassing as it does the notions of authenticity, originals and origins, is
the shared discursive practice of the museum, the historian, and the makers of art.’
iii
Paul Scott Painted Clay Graphic Arts and the Ceramic Surface A&C Black Ltd 2000, see chapter 4,
Clay Visitors: Chagall, Cocteau, Cubism, CoBrA, and Co.- and Duchamp, pp. 64-84, and chapter 5, More
Visitors, the Emergence of Studio Pottery, pp. 85-100.
iv
Garth Clark Introduction p.22 Mark Del Vecchio Postmodern Ceramics Thames and Hudson 2001.
Tate Publications 2004, see publication for exhibition of works at Tate Liverpool. Prominent
contemporary UK artists Clare Twomey and Edmund de Waal are included in the exhibition which almost
exclusively contains works by fine artists who use clay and who are notably referenced to, as ‘visitors’ to
the discipline of ceramics in the highlighted texts.
vi
Martha Buskirk The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art MIT Press 2003, Introduction, p.14.
vii
Ibid., p.11.
viii
Nicolas De Oliveira, Nicola Oxley, Michael Petry Installation Art in the New Millennium Thames &
Hudson 2003, Introduction ‘Over the past decade the position of Installation art has shifted from a
relatively marginal practice to achieving mainstream status within contemporary visual culture. Its
hegemonic presence has given rise to new terms which redefine the art form and impact on a range of other
disciplines.’, p.4.
ix
Bruce Baugh Authenticity revisited The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism v. 46 Summer 1998 p.
479.
x
Ibid., p.484.
xi
Glen R. Brown Multiplicity, Ambivalence & Ceramic Installation Art Ceramics: Art and Perception No.
54 2003, p.4. “I do want to forward the argument that contemporary art exists as a field because to some
degree its self-definition – its particular mode of representing itself to itself – involves the deliberate
externalisation of the kind of theory that has provided ceramics with its particular sense of being.
Contemporary art defines itself partly against ceramics, and ceramics, in turn, has sustained its sense of self
partly by externalising the central tenets of contemporary art.”
xii
Ibid., p.5.
xiii
Simon Groom Terra Incognita, A Secret History of Clay: from Gaugin to Gormley Tate Publications
2004, p.18. ‘Other artists, such as Ken Price, rejected any association with the crafts community from the
very beginning, insisting that their work be shown in fine art galleries. Rejecting the principle of function,
Price saw himself a sculptor wholly occupied with form and colour.’
Garth Clark Homer, Ceramics and Marketplace Anxieties, The Eighties, Shards CAF: Ceramic Arts
Foundation and DAP: Distributed Art Publications 2003, p.466. ‘It was a British artist who made one of the
most dynamic entries into New York’s art market, a playing field traditionally resistant, if not out-right
hostile, to ceramics. Andrew Lord’s first exhibition in 1981 at the Blum Helman Gallery, one of New
York’s most influential galleries, was a sellout success. Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg and other artists
were among those who acquired pieces.’
xiv
Glen R. Brown Multiplicity, Ambivalence & Ceramic Installation Art Ceramics: Art and Perception No.
54 2003, p.8.
xv
Garth Clark The Queen of Decoupage: Grayson Perry’s Guerilla Ceramics, Shards CAF: Ceramic Arts
Foundation and DAP: Distributed Art Publications 2003, p.37. “The shape of Perry’s pots is mostly what
he calls “classical invisible,” familiar shapes from the history of the medium such as baluster vases and
Chinese ginger jars. As they are ubiquitous we accept their presence without thinking about them and
instead divert all of our attention to their crowded surfaces.”
xvi
Marjan Boot ‘Simple Ceramic Pots’, Guerrilla Tactics Grayson Perry Exhibition Catalogue Stedelijk
Museum Amsterdam, Nai Publishers Rotterdam 2002, p.69.
xvii
Ibid., p.69.
xviii
Peter Dormer The New Ceramics Trends+ Traditions Thames and Hudson 1986, pp.47-8.
xix
Andrea Gill The Influence of Educational Institutions on Contemporary Ceramics Studio Potter Vol 26
No 2 June 1998 pp.12-19. Twomey, Cushway and Harrison, all derive from ceramic discipline education
and their enquiry and engagement with ceramics remains with the discipline whilst rejecting some of the
authentic associations that can be constructed with the discourse. Gill comments in the following extract
from her text regarding the artist Jim Melchert, “Melchert questioned the basic assumptions of ceramics.
His intentions were not to eliminate the vessel from serious consideration, but to expand the questions
artists could address in clay, using traditional materials in innovative ways. Melchert, without giving us a
v
singular, specific visual model to emulate, gave examples of how to ask radical, probing questions of the
ceramic and gave permission for a new vision for ceramics, one that incorporates ideas from other media.”
xx
Ibid., p.19. “Ceramic educators now face a real dilemma: should ceramic traditions, laden with a
confusing array of conflicting meanings, be part of contemporary ceramic art education, or is clay just
another material?” In reference to this question, Twomey, Cushway and Harrison, have all confirmed an
engagement with the material, in the pursuit of practice that explores installation, performance, video and
the conceptual.
xxi
Art & Design Courses 2005 Publishers UCAS and Trotman & Company Ltd, Ceramic courses can be
referenced to almost all of the subject headings included in the UCAS directory. The following are
examples taken from subject headings. Crafts heading, University of the Arts London – Camberwell
College of Arts, BA Ceramics - This course interprets ceramics in the broadest sense, encouraging
innovation and experimentation while retaining its specialist studio philosophy. Centred on practice-based
study, it encourages students to explore the widest possibilities of this expressive medium, producing
versatile makers and artists. Fine Art heading, University of Ulster, BA Fine and Applied Arts – This
course provides a range of options, comprising: painting, ceramics, sculpture, metalsmithing and jewellery,
textile art, lens-based media, history and theory and printmaking. Students can choose their own pathways,
either a single discipline or a combined route. Multidisciplinary heading, University of Sunderland, BA
Arts and Design - Multidisciplinary. Combines elements from the following programmes. BA Fine Art,
BA Glass, Architectural Glass and Ceramics, BA Performance Arts Studies, BA Electronic Media Design,
BA Illustration Design, BA Model-making and Design, BA Photography, Video and Digital Imaging, the
drawing programme and the history of art & design programme. Students negotiate a programme
embracing at least two subject areas. Three-Dimensional Design heading, The Surrey Institute of Art and
Design, University College – BA Three-Dimensional Design: Ceramics – The main emphasis of the
programme in all areas lies in your development as a designer and maker, through modules that introduce a
range of related design practices such as studio, production and architectural practice.
xxii
Jean-François Lyotard The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge Theory and History of
Literature, Vol 10, Manchester University Press 1984, Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?,
“A postmodern artist or writer is in the position of a philosopher: the text he writes, the work he produces
are not in principle governed by pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a
determining judgement, by applying familiar categories to the text or to the work.”, p.81.
xxiii
Andrea Gill The Influence of Educational Institutions on Contemporary Ceramics Studio Potter Vol 26
No 2 June 1998, pp.12-19.