Ceramic and Assimilated Fine Art Mechanisms
Ceramic and Installation
The exact nature of Installation Art is devoid of a general consensus with a wide variance
of views. For an intelligent and thorough background view the writings of Keith
Broadfoot. 1
More specifically term “Ceramic Installation” has emerged as commonplace vocabulary
within the applied art arena. Artists, educators and writers as well as gallery owners
engage and display the phrase to determine and categorise work that references the term
“Installation”2.
Contemporary ceramic artists for the most part approach installation from the route and
perspectives of the Applied Arts, where foundations have been laid to the existence of the
ceramic object and its placement within traditional constructs. In the context of ceramic
installation in the Twenty First Century the ceramicist ultimately displays commitment
and association to the material clay, working within a constructed language that functions
within an applied art ceramic discourse. This commitment to clay has obvious
connections to the artist’s academic grounding where material, process and history of the
discipline act as a platform for exploration within this arena.
1
Keith Broadfoot The End of the Line: Installation Art Today, What Is Installation? Editors Adam Geczy
and Benjamin Genocchio, Power Publications Sydney 2001, p.69.
2
Nicolas De Oliveira, Nicola Oxley and Michael Petry On Installation The term ‘installation’ has
established itself firmly as part of the vocabulary of the visual arts. Many artists and critics have refered to
the activity as an expression of the concept of Gesammtkunstwerk, a total work of art, as it appears to
borrow from a vast spectrum of disciplines. Its history, while often ill-defined, grows out of the individual
narratives presented by architecture, painting, sculpture, theatre and performance. Art & Design Vol 8 5/6
May-June 1993, p.7.
The arena of installation within ceramics has, and still does, portray works that are
predominantly in the medium of clay. Developments however within applied art ceramic
installation have seen the emergence of the juxtaposition of clay with other materials
including video and new digital technologies. Installation works engage clay in numerous
formats utilising the material in both un-fired and post-fired representations. The use of
clay and in particular its use by the ceramic artist has encouraged and developed
installation within the constructs of the applied art discipline. To what extent however
has this development been influenced by the assimilation of fine art language and
mechanisms, and as a consequence, has a unique ceramic area been constructed that
differs from the constructs of generic installation3 patterns.
In establishing a definition of ceramic installation the terminology needs clarification as
to what it constitutes both visually and theoretically.
Installation Art
The emergence of our current understanding and reference to installation art has its
origins in the middle of the Twentieth Century, particularly since the 1950’s according to
many commentators. Writers such as Ronald J Onorato link fundamental aspects such as
habitation of a physical site, connection to real conditions and the bridging of traditional
fine art boundaries4. The formulation and execution of works typically includes both the
use of constructed elements and the use of readymade, found and recycled objects.
Ceramic, due to its physical nature and ubiquity, manifests itself as a material that alludes
3
For definition of installation see Kristine Stiles I/Eye/Oculus: performance, installation and video,
Themes in Contemporary Art Edited by Gill Perry and Paul Wood, p.186.
4
Blurring the Boundaries: Installation Art 1969-1996 Ronald J. Onorato, p.13.
to the properties of the constructs of installation, where its role can play out several
functions. Due to an extensive familiarisation with the material clay and the numerous
applications it occupies within society and culture, the use of ceramic, especially within
the field of installation, has not been as an exclusive medium of the trained ceramic artist
but has been utilised without the necessity for formalised specialist training. The fluidity
of the natural material and its capability to be transformed into numerous applications
displays ceramic as a material that constitutes multiple functions within the structure,
function and fabric of society, hence the utilisation of the ceramic ready-made within the
field of installation art. The use of the ready-made ceramic object invites informed
interpretation, as clay transformed from a non-characteristic form in its original state,
assumes the form of another, thus adopting new interpretation as a consequence. The
layering of meaning or multiple reading becomes extended as additional contexts are laid
upon the ceramic ready-made object when it forms part of the constructs of the
installation framework. This context for multiple reading provides significance for the
analysis of ceramic when it is used within the arena of installation art.
The use of ceramic within the historical context of fine art installation is displayed both
as a ready-made, where objects have already been formed from the material clay, and as a
constructive material where the artist works with clay beginning from its noncharacteristic format.
An iconic artwork within the early development of installation art utilising ceramic is
Equivalent VIII by Carl Andre5. The work consists of one hundred and twenty firebricks
arranged on the floor in two layers of sixty to form a rectangle. The artwork has not only
become iconic in the context of the development of installation art but also in the
provocation of front-page media coverage, which entails the introduction of
contemporary art into the wider cultural domain, albeit within a negative context6. Within
the work the material ceramic constitutes the ready-made object, in this case the brick,
which is used in multiples to construct the installation work. Andre’s professed aim with
regard to materials was to ‘impose’ properties on materials but to ‘reveal’ those
properties7
In revealing the properties of the materials and specifically clay what are we able to
assess and construct from analysing the installation. Martin Ries work on Carl Andre and
Equivalent VIII offers extensive critique upon the artist and his work. 8
The use of brick, a transformation and creation of another, derived from the substance
clay, are referenced as humble materials, basic to building, construction and manufacture.
5
Martin Ries, Carl Andre (1935 - ) Equivalent VIII, Carl Andre was one of the founders of the art
movement known as Minimalism, Systemic, or ABC Art. It is an art that seeks to eliminate everything
decorative, extraneous and additive, reducing all components to art’s purest elements; it is precise, cerebral
and austere rather than accessible. www.martinries.com/article1991CA.htm.
6
“Normally the cultural divide between the popular press and avant-garde art circle is so wide that neither
pays attention to the other. However, in 1976 a significant exception to this rule occurred. A recession in
the British economy alerted the Daily Mirror to the news-value of stories exposing wasteful public
expenditure. (The purchase of Andre’s ‘bricks’ by the Tate Gallery some years before was first reported in
the Business Section of the Sunday Times on 15 February 1976). By condemning the Andre sculpture the
paper was able to pander to the presumed philistinism of its readers in respect of Modern Art, while
simultaneously gaining kudos as the watchdog of the public purse. The British art establishment, used to a
condition of autonomy and superiority, was disturbed to find itself subjected to public ridicule from such an
unexpected quarter.”John A. Walker 1976: Bricks and Brickbats, Art and Outrage: Provocation,
Controversy And The Visual Arts, p.76.
7
Ibid.
8
Martin Ries Carl Andre (1935 - ) Equivalent VIII. www.martinries.com/article1991CA.htm.
Andre makes reference to the bricks and other materials in his works as particles9 where
multiples of the object or material are used to construct artworks. The multiplication of
the ceramic object has a certain resonance for the applied art ceramist within the
construction of ceramic installation works, where this formula resides centrally within
contemporary ceramic practice.
Repetition: Installation and the multiple ceramic object
The notion of ceramic installation, one that is associated to the constructs of applied art
discourse, has generated momentum within contemporary ceramic practice and has
become embedded within the language and terminology of both the practitioner and
theorist. What distinctions or similarities though lie between ceramic installation, and
installation associated within the fine art arena? The distinction needs to be investigated
within the context of the use of ceramic familiarity and how this is managed within an
applied art discourse. In reference to distinctions, Glen R. Brown constructs a number of
critical statements about the aims of the Postmodern artist who gets involved as a maker
of installations as against the work and aims of the contemporary craftsperson. 10
Brown comments on the approach by the applied artist differing somewhat from the fine
artist and references the application of an attachment to tradition within an applied art
9
My particles are all more or less standards of the economy because I believe in using the materials or the
society in the form the society does not use them; whereas works like Pop Art use the forms of society but
make them from different materials. Carl Andre excerpt taken from symposium; Carl Andre, Robert Barry,
Lawrence Weiner, Windham College, Putney, Vt., April 30-May31by Dan graham – Six Years: The
dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972 Lucy Lippard.
10
Glen R. Brown Memory Serves: Time, Space and the Ceramic Installation – Critical Ceramics 2001.
construct. Operating within this framework the ceramist therefore has obvious
connections to both traditions and an obvious attachment to the material clay. The
construction and development of ceramic installation places this attachment centrally
where work is constructed within the applied art taxonomy. The creation of ceramic
installation within the field of ceramics displays the presentation of the ceramic object
and most generally its multiplication and repetition. This format and the occupation with
the multiple form asks the question as to whether the multiplication of the object
constitutes and confirms the administration of the term installation, and to what extent
the term is reliant on the power of repetition.
The application of repetition and particularly the use of the multiple object by ceramic
artists has developed as a visual ceramic device that associates with the language that
constitutes the developed terminology of ceramic installation. It is terminology that is
used frequently and also administered quite widely within applied art discourse. The
associations made between both the term and the visual connection often display routes
of observation where the applied artist draws on meaning within tradition and object
function.
The use of multiplication within contemporary ceramic installation is widely evident and
can be referenced in the United Kingdom through the work of Claire Twomey. This
artists’ work has been exhibited widely to both applied art and fine art audiences,
operating within varying structures and spaces. The development of Twomey’s work
introduces several issues that offer considerable content for the much needed debate and
critique around this theme within contemporary ceramic.
Twomey’s work operates within the public space and makes central reference to the
developed ideology of the white cube11 and the association and connection that
installation has with the gallery concept and site-specific setting. The work Shoal consists
of multiple cast porcelain toy submarines, which are suspended with fishing line in an
arrangement that references the movement of fish through water. The work operates on a
number of levels placing the element of repetition at its centre. The power of repetition,
particularly within the context of ceramic installation, demonstrates strength within this
work. The scale of the work and its impact upon the space relies heavily on the area
occupied by the multiplication of the object and thus the impact of the space12 that
surrounds the work. When analysing more closely the ceramists’ occupation with the
multiple object and the association to large areas of space, a direct observation can be
made with process and technical elements, where the artist is often directed by constraints
of the material properties of clay and the scale of the kiln, which can place limits on the
size of fired ceramic pieces.
11
Brian O’Doherty Inside the White Cube The Ideology of the Gallery Space O’Doherty describes the
modern gallery space as “constructed along laws as rigorous as those for building a medieval church.” The
basic principal behind these laws, he notes, is that “The outside world must not come in, so windows are
usually sealed off. Walls are painted white. The ceiling becomes the source of light….The art is free, as the
saying used to go, ‘to take on its own life’, p.7.
12
Jean Baudrillard The System of Objects An objet d’art may seem more precious when it is surrounded by
empty space. ‘Atmosphere’ is thus very often created merely by a formal arrangement which ‘personalizes’
particular objects through the disposition of empty space. In the case of serially produced objects,
conversely, a shortage of space destroys atmosphere by depriving objects of the luxury of ‘breathing’, p.61.
Limitative constructs have a bearing on the capabilities of ceramic and it is possible that
this is central to approach, forming an integral part of the construction of installation
works within ceramic practice. This demonstrates that limitations also encourage
alternative solutions and enquiry, something that is evident within the work Shoal where
repetition on a primary level addresses the notion of scale.
The element of repetition and in particular the format used within the work Shoal
constitutes multiple readings. On a primary level, as mentioned above, there is an
attachment to the physical constraints of the capabilities of clay and the technicalities of
process. Referencing the work further, the repeated porcelain object has been made by
the construction of a plaster mould that produces a representation13 of the original toy,
which in turn is also a representation of the considerably larger original. The use of
mimesis is central within Twomey’s work where the process of the production of
multiples, imitates the original ready-made through a direct substitution of the material
clay. The process used is a technique called slip-casting14 which is used universally
within the ceramic industry to produce multiple objects, which are fundamentally
functional or decorative. This imitation or replication of an object in the material clay
makes direct reference to the mass production of domestic objects and occupies a core
13
Brian Dillon On the philosophy of Repetition- Repetition undoes representation with the twin weapons
of theft and the gift: it’s only by stealing, or giving unconditionally, that we enter into the realm of true
repetition, where the same and the different overlap without asking anything of each other. Frieze magazine
number 77 September 2003, pp.76-79.
14
“A clay body which will cast well must be designed with the physical nature of casting slips taken into
account. The process of casting requires a fluid suspension of clay in water, which will flow readily but
which will not settle in the moulds. The clay slip must pour smoothly from the mould, leaving a surface
which is free from lumps or roughness. Furthermore, pieces which are cast must not wet the mould unduly,
must release themselves from the mould upon drying, and must not have an excessive shrinkage or
warpage.” See Casting Clays, pp.39-43. Daniel Rhodes Clays and Glazes for the Potter Pitman House
Limited 1973.
area within Twomey’s subsequent works. Heirloom consists of multiple cast ceramic
domestic objects that have been halved and subsequently placed around the walls of the
white gallery space. The cast pieces are too white, and seem to emerge directly from the
wall. For a critique of this piece see the original catalogue for the Mission House Gallery
Exhibition 2004 written by Nicolas Rena. 15
The projection of mimesis within Heirloom leads Rena to observe that the objects are no
longer real things and have become a poor cousin of the original. Whilst this can have a
certain remit with regards to removing historical trace elements and functionality, the
original forms are on the whole mass-produced and made from relatively cheap materials.
The choice of Twomey to cast the pieces in porcelain commits them to an elevated status
when evaluated within ceramic practice, where the material resides at the higher end of
the clay hierarchy.
The familiarity of the objects and the connection to the material make obvious links to
the field of ceramic where associations and connections can be made. The familiarities
placed with the familiar objects are altered through the distortion of the object and its
unconventional placement within the white space16. The unconventional arrangement
disrupts the notion of the function of the ceramic objects, which constitute the work
Heirloom, where physical placement and function become altered in a new reading
15
Nicholas Rena 2004 Exhibition catalogue Heirloom Clare Twomey A Mission Gallery exhibition with
support from the Arts Council of Wales – Heirloom is a project supported by The Surrey Institute of Art &
Design.
16
Brian O’Doherty Inside the White Cube The Ideology of the Gallery Space Conversely, things become
art in a space where powerful ideas about art focus on them. Indeed, the object frequently becomes the
medium through which these ideas are manifested and proffered for discussion – a popular form of late
modernist academicism (“ideas are more interesting than art”). p.14.
framed within the gallery setting. Space within the modern gallery redefines conventional
associations to the object and plays a central role within Twomey’s work. In observing
Brian O’Doherty’s analysis of the white cube where he states that art becomes free as a
consequence of the ‘laws of construction’ of the modern gallery, then Heirloom and other
ceramic works possess the ability to be exhibited free from previous connections. This
possibly, has more resonance where the gallery space is not connected to an applied art
discourse, where terminology has the capability to introduce predetermined possibilities
for observation and evaluation. The nomenclature of the gallery retains the capabilities to
inform constructed space17 and instruct the spectator accordingly. In his analysis of the
gallery space O’Doherty questions the idea of threats and hierarchies and conceptualises
the view that ‘space now is not just where things happen; things make space happen’. 18
This observation with regards to the gallery space fits the constructs of the fine art space
but can the same be applied to the applied art gallery where increasingly installation work
constitutes a considerable part of the exhibition program? The work Heirloom was
exhibited and conceived for the Mission Gallery sited in Swansea, Wales. The gallery has
a diverse exhibition program and thus constructs a relationship with the spectator and as a
consequence the spectator with the space. The audience, therefore, is encouraged to apply
interpretations to the work within the context of the gallery and the developments of art
discourse and culture that inform the reading of space as a consequence of installation
development. Developments within elements of contemporary fine art installation have
17
Brian O’Doherty Inside the White Cube The Ideology of the Gallery Space Modernist space redefines the
observer’s status, tinkers with his self-image. Modernism’s conception of space, not its subject matter, may
be what the public rightly conceives as threatening.
18
Ibid
introduced considerable change in the way space is read within the gallery space. This
has much to do with the advancement of digital technologies and its capabilities to alter
surroundings.19
This progression of the reading of space and, as a consequence, the works, contribute to
the development of the audience in relation to the reading of works. Within the white
cube space the interaction between installation artworks and the spectator has multiplied
over the last fifty years where installation now forms a considerable part of artistic
outputs, and gallery exhibition programs. The spectator has become familiarised with the
use of space over of the period of time and has developed an understanding of the
constructs of the white cube and its relationship to installation art20. Is it possible to
construct a similar analysis within applied art structures where ceramic installation works
have not received the same amount of gallery exposure and thereby have, an
underdeveloped element of critical debate and evaluation. The difference or similarity has
strong connections to the history and familiarity with display within the applied art
gallery space. In historically reading the applied art space with particular reference to
work in clay the audience has become familiarised with numerous applications and the
utilisation of the gallery.
19
Installation Art in the New Millennium Nicolas de Oliveira, Nicola Oxley and Michael Petry Escape The
artwork’s aim to elicit sensual pleasure through sensory manipulation is significant as it mirrors
developments in contemporary life: the theorist Frederic Jameson states that ‘We are submerged…to the
point where our postmodern bodies are bereft of spatial coordinates and practically incapable of
distantiation.’ p.49.
20
Ibid., Exchange and Interaction As Installation has moved into the centre of artistic practice and with it,
embraced its constant mobility, it has reached new types of audiences, resulting in different modes of
audience participation, p.107.
The singular object placed on the plinth surely delivers itself as the most ubiquitous
method of display and this has several formats where groupings or series of objects
occupy similar display elements. The gallery floor and walls have also become
commonplace territory within the ceramist’s visual language and form of expression.
This has connections to the development of sculptural ceramics, which in turn is
influenced by the language and structures of sculpture. The elements of display within
contemporary ceramics display reference to the dynamics of sculpture and the gallery
space and as a result the ceramic audience has become familiarised with the concept of
work displayed off the plinth.
In considering the symbiosis between the ceramic spectator and the gallery space, Mark
Rosenthal comments on the reading of the space from sculpture to installation. He is of
the view that sculpture is a singular object, whereas an installation can consist of many,
or in fact none, declaring that installation to an extent multiplies and magnifies the
medium of sculpture.21
Rosenthal references a reaction to the views of Rosalind Krauss, and remarks that the
development of installation is far greater than the suggestion of Krauss that sculpture had
merely seized a broader area within fine art discourse22. Rosenthal’s text discusses the
change in the expectations of the spectator where the individual art object and the plinth
have become absent, and a newer art that favours the multiple object, image or
experience, has become commonplace within both the gallery and the conscience of the
21
Mark Rosenthal Understanding Installation Art From Duchamp to Holzer Prestel 2003, p.25.
Rosalind Krauss Sculpture in the Expanded Field, in The Anti-Aesthetic: Post Modern Culture, ed. Hal
Foster, London and Sydney: Pluto Press, 1983, pp.31-42.
22
spectator. The absence of the plinth and the projection of the multiple object, also resides
within contemporary ceramics, both within installation works and sculptural ceramics. In
observing that a similar evolution has occurred and similarities can be made with the
transgression of the installation from sculpture, the applied arts display somewhat similar
constructs to ceramic installation, which impact upon the applied art gallery and the
audience of the space. The development of ceramic installation displays similarities with
that of the absence of the singular object and display away from the plinth in sculpture.
These developments within ceramic installation occurred somewhat after the
developments within fine art. Edmund de Waal has commented extensively on this issue
and his views carry a great deal of conviction when constructing a contemporary
historical narrative in the field of ceramics where post rationalisation is afforded the
luxury of constructing a history within the structures of Postmodernism23. The
construction and analysis of the development of ceramic within this arena and its
association to past relationships with art movements displays a number of elements that
are visible within contemporary ceramics and specifically installation ceramic works.
These visible elements are contained within the constructs of Postmodernism where its
structure and hegemony allow for considerable exploration. The developments of
ceramics within this period display numerous facets, which include both sculptural and
installation works. Garth Clark comments on the development of Postmodernism and
ceramics as being a ‘marriage made in artworld heaven’. 24
23
Charles Jencks What is Post-Modernism? Academy Editions/St. Martin’s Press 1986, p.56. “It’s the
realisation that we can return to a previous era and technology, at the price of finding it slightly different.
The Post-Modern situation allows its sensibility to be a compound of previous ones, a palimpsest, just as
the information world itself depends on technologies and energies quite different from its own.”
24
Garth Clark Meaning and memory: The Roots of Postmodern Ceramics 1960-1980 Postmodern
Ceramics Mark Del Vecchio Thames and Hudson 2001, p.8.
Garth Clark’s observations, centre around the liberation that has been afforded ceramics
by the Postmodern era and makes reference to the mining of every semiotic meaning
inherent in clay. This, as Clark asserts, includes borrowing and reinterpreting from
ceramics vast history, whilst also analysing the practical elements of the medium
including process and technique. It is these elements that are most commonly displayed
within ceramic installations, and in turn question the legitimacy of repetition when
considered in comparison to the constructs of fine art installation. Some of the
fundamental elements that reside within the term installation can be applied to both fine
art and applied art, as indicated by De Olivera, Oxley and Petry, in their book where they
offer their view on installation and conclude that, ‘installation art is its parts in relation to
each other but is experienced as a whole’. 25
It is possible when considering such an assertion to state that the mechanisms and
structures of fine art installation attain the ability to transcend into applied art discourse.
The dissemination of installation structures and particularly the elements of process and
multiplicity as mentioned in the text are parts that are central to contemporary ceramic
installation, where previous and emerging work is constructed and displayed referencing
these elements.
Several artists associated with applied art ceramics make direct reference to the elements
considered essential to installation art as cited in the previous quotation. Multiplicity of
25
Nicolas De Olivera, Nicola Oxley and Micheal Petry On Installation, Installation Art, Art & Design Vol
9 5/6 May-June 1993, p.11.
the ceramic form or object is referenced and displayed widely both within the gallery
space and site-specific locations. Observations of ceramic installation point to considered
routes of investigation where works display reference to abstracted forms, mimetic
objects and direct utilisation of the vessel.
Multiplicity and the Vessel
Multiplication or repetition, a fundamental element of installation art has been embedded
within ceramic practice since early man began to form clay, particularly with the
continued use of the wheel. The process of repeated forms can be referenced to both the
ceramic industry and the studio ceramist. The studio ceramist tends to work within a
serial context where multiple forms are created as a consequence of mastering process
and this has particular relevance to the act of throwing on the potters’ wheel. The
repeated form of the studio ceramist has also much to do with cost effectiveness and
production value. Major consideration is also the cost effective use of the kiln where it is
common practice to commence firing only when the kiln is full. Multiple forms and in
particular vessels produced on the wheel are usually produced for wider consumption
where an individual will create a range of work for his or her market. The process of slip
casting also fits into this category where plaster moulds are formed so that numerous
identical forms can be produced. This method is associated with industrial process
methods but is widely used by individual practitioners, where the technique can be
achieved without the need for industrial machinery. There is also evidence of
collaborative works as a result of the artists linking with industry.
Ceramists that work with the multiple vessel, include Piet Stockmans,26 whose
installation Urnen, features numerous repeated vessels placed within the site-specific
space of a Gothic abbey in Heino, the Netherlands. Stockman’s simple forms use only
two elements the white of the clay body and the application of blue slip. The installation
work at the abbey consists of thousands of replicated vessels, which are in turn displayed
in repetition, metonymically referencing the absent congregation. This formulae within
his work, transcends the notion of scale where systematic repetition of the vessel is also
evident in the piece Object 5 with 153 Vessels. Whilst this work is considerably smaller
in scale it contains the same elements of display, which centre around the placement of
objects. The placing and repetition of the vessel is also contained within the work of
Edmund de Waal, IBID 2004, which consists of 29 porcelain vessels of varying size.
The work is displayed upon a table setting where the vessels are arranged within the
permitted space. De Waal remarks upon the pleasure of experimentation of repetition, an
element that occupies a central space within ceramic practice. By endorsing this
commonplace ceramic element de Waal is administering confirmation of installation
status upon the work. Publication of the work by the British Council in Denmark actually
references the work as such. If we compare images of the exhibited work in the different
locations the work is displayed both times within the gallery setting. One image depicts
the work sited upon a contemporary wooden table within an environment reminiscent of
a domestic interior. The other image depicts the work on pristine white enclosed
26
Piet Stockmans B. Leopoldsburg, Belgium, 1940. See Biographies Postmodern Ceramics Mark Del
Vecchio Thames and Hudson 2001, p.216.
structures within the white cube space. The two very different settings have the ability to
project quite different readings of the work, and although both venues are galleries the
environments within are considerably different. If we return to Ronald Onorato’s
suggestion from earlier in the text, that fundamental aspects of installation include the
artworks habitation of a physical site, then both displays of the work conform to one of
the fundamental remits of installation.
The site and venue of exhibition may change considerably but the collective objects, in
the case of de Waal, repeated vessels, maintain their physical properties. The alignment
and juxtaposition of the twenty-nine vessels may also alter when the work is re-exhibited,
but the complete work still constitutes the individual ceramic elements. This realignment
and collective display is perhaps most visible within the work of Gwyn Hanssen Pigott.27
The work Still Life 2, 1995 consists of seven vessels displayed collectively within a
grouping as a single piece of work. The arrangement of her work was derived from the
realisation that the display of the individual vessels was being ignored in galleries and in
reaction to this Pigott began to group the elements to form works that contain multiple
vessels. The grouping of the repeated forms as a consequence gained recognition,
projecting and adherence to the constructs of ceramic installation. This format of display
and in particular the use of the multiple vessel has encouraged certain readings within
ceramic discourse.
27
Gwen Hanssen Pigott B. Ballarat, Australia, 1935. See Biographies, Postmodern Ceramics Mark Del
Vecchio Thames & Hudson 2003, p.211.
The grouping or repetition of the vessel has potential to remove the administration of
objectification of the singular form in favour of the admission of confirmation as
installation, a pattern that is repeated within contemporary ceramics. This grouping and
repetition of objects however, is not only confined to ceramics but ‘has become
ubiquitous in contemporary art’. Oliveira, Oxley and Petra go even further and declare
that ‘repetition has become an essential condition of production and reception’. 28
Identical comparisons can be constructed between applied art ceramics and fine art when
analysing this succinct part of installation. Whilst comparisons can be made, differences
also occur which connect to the reading of process within ceramic practice. Glen R.
Brown observes distinct differences between the ceramic artist and fine artist where he
states that the ceramic artist approaches installation from an informed accumulated
perspective contained within applied art discourse. 29 With this in mind when reading the
ceramic installation and mapping developments, process, the reading of objects and their
place within tradition become highly visible. These elements within ceramics have
bearing upon the notion of repetition, which occurs as a consequence of fundamental
process. That these are central components points to the questioning as to how the
developments within ceramic installation have been as a result of the influence and
consequence of the osmosis of fine art discourse. If what already existed within its
structures can attain validation as installation when presented within a different context,
28
Nicolas De Oliveira, Nicola Oxley, Michael Petry, Installation Art in the New Millennium Thames &
Hudson 2003, p.168.
29
Glen R. Brown Memory Serves: Time, Space and the Ceramic Installation Critical Ceramics article
NCECA Conference 2001.
then the hegemony of fine art installation has proved pivotal to ceramic developments,
especially within this context.
One observation that can be constructed from the ceramists discussed and also the
majority of all ceramists making installation is that works consist on the whole of
constructed elements that have been produced by the artist. This is to say that the use of
the ready-made, and, in particular, the ready-made ceramic object is almost absent from
the ceramist’s palette. If we compare this to the use of the ready-made object within the
constructs of fine art installation then we can observe a considerable disparity in
approach to the elements contained within the work. The unifying characteristics of the
artists contained within the text and ceramic artists generally, is their connection to the
material clay.
Material affinity
Connections between ceramic installation and the ceramic artists projection of the selfmanipulated material are synonymous with visual observations made within this area.
The artists discussed thus far, exhibit multiple repeated vessels that are a manifestation of
direct occupation with clay and the practice of ceramics. It is an element that seems
grounded within the artistic outputs contained by the terminology ceramic installation.
The work Field by Antony Gormley, is constructed around many of the elements that
have been discussed so far. The use of multiplication and repetition and the rejection of
the ready-made in favour of hand manipulated clay, indeed all can be offered as
comparison to the ceramists approach to installation. The one considerable difference is
that Gormley is a sculptor and not a ceramic artist. This also offers explanation as to why
the piece Field, although discussed frequently within ceramic discourse, avoids the
administration of the terminology ‘ceramic installation.’
As the critical discussion develops around this area within ceramics notably the
descriptors of work have begun to confirm work as solely installation, demonstrating the
removal of ‘ceramic’. As artists begin to display work outside of the craft/applied art
gallery, particularly as a result of a growing acceptance of ceramic in fine art spaces, then
perhaps clarity of terminology is in the process of becoming a defunct possibility.
Ceramic repetition and spectatorship
Repetition of ceramic objects and multiplication through the space seem to confirm
familiarity with installation, however the context and arrangement work to displace it.
Deleuze30 makes reference to the notion of repetition in Hume’s31 thesis in that,
‘Repetition changes nothing in the object repeated, but does change something in the
mind which contemplates it’.32
In addressing the constructs of installation with emphasis on the presentation of such
works within ceramic discourse, the position of the spectator becomes central to the
30
Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) was professor of philosophy at the University of Paris, Vincennes-St. Denis.
In 1968 Deleuze published his doctoral thesis Difference and Repetition.
31
David Hume (1711-1776), Scottish philosopher, historian and essayist.
32
Gilles Deleuze Difference & Repetition, Repetition for Itself, Translated by Paul Patton The Athlone
Press 2001, p.70.
mechanisms and formats of installation art. The associations made between the work and
the viewer, introduce multiple readings, which occur as a consequence of spectatorship.
When applying the notion of the reading of serial objects within ceramic installation
Deleuze seminal work remarks on the psychology of human interpretation in respect of
any consideration of repetition of an object’. 33
Pointing to an association between the object and the subject where analysis of these
elements introduces the notion of difference. In constructing comparisons with the use of
repetition within ceramic installation what are we able to construct from the association
between the element of difference and the spectator. When Deleuze states that repetition
changes nothing in the object repeated but changes something in the mind which
contemplates it, it is this change that offers expanded investigation within the area of
ceramic installation. The interaction between the repeated ceramic object and spectator
can be best illustrated and analysed through the work consciousness/conscience by Clare
Twomey.
The installation work consists of approximately seven thousand cast identical bone china
forms. The multiple constructions are laid in repetition on the floor within the space
totally occupying the pedestrian area. To step into the space requires the spectator to
actively become part of the installation work and, in doing so, the viewer destroys the
multiple objects beneath their feet. Mark Currah offers an excellent review of the piece
33
Ibid., p.71.
on Twomey’s own website and he is surely right to view the central importance of
focussing attention on, ‘the moment of the artworks reception’. 34
Twomey’s work offers perhaps the most extreme example of the interaction with
spectatorship where the viewer undertakes physical actions to activate the work, hence
becoming participant in the event, whilst simultaneously administering confirmation
upon the artwork. The action of consecutively destroying the forms is a repeated act and
this serves to magnify the element of repetition. This element is manifested through the
multiplication of forms and the repetition of those forms within the layout of the space.
The complex overlaying of repetitive associations within Twomey’s work can be
appropriately defined in Deleuze’s analysis where he states that difference inhabits
repetition, and is actively represented through the intermediary of passive synthesis.35
Seeking to uncover difference or the unfamiliar within repetitive formats has perhaps
become less problematic as the category of installation ceramics becomes more
malleable. Developments within the field and expansion of the area display connection to
familiarity and the exploration of difference. As a reference connections can be made
with Krauss’s text Sculpture in the Expanded Field, where she argues with conviction the
case of expansion within sculpture, especially in the context of post war American art. 36
As the ceramic spectator becomes familiar with developments within the field through
new works, alternative spaces and display, the spectator therefore possesses the ability to
34
Mark Currah critical review of consciousness/conscience 2003 www.claretwomey.com
Gilles Deleuze Difference & Repetition, see chapter Repetition for Itself, p.77.
36
Rosalind E. Krauss The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths see chapter
Sculpture in the Expanded Field, pp.277-290. The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 1985.
35
reference and make associations to the fundamental aspects of the discipline. Krauss
discusses sculpture, by asserting that the new is made comfortable by being made
familiar. This certainly has a resonance for ceramic installation and subsequent
implications for spectatorship. The history of ceramic is abundant with reference to
repetition and seriality, notably where it forms a fundamental element within numerous
aspects of process and practice. Repeated form and imagery have occupied a central
space within the area of studio pottery, industrial production and more recently with the
contemporary ceramic artist. A connection can be confirmed with Krauss’s statement
where new works have the capacity to become comfortable as a consequence of
familiarity. This, as highlighted through Twomey’s work, has perhaps developed as a
consequence of progression within the field of ceramics and the evolving display of
installation work.37
The spectator of contemporary ceramic has become familiar with clay and installation,
indeed probably supported by the fine artists use of the medium within this context.
Global exposure to the work Field by Gormley, and the use of clay within the gallery
space by Andy Goldsworthy, in his work Clay Wall 2000, can be cited as examples to
demonstrate how familiar the spectator has become with the use of clay within the wider
context of installation art. These two artists, although not connected with ceramic
practice, have presented clay within the white cube space, and, as a consequence
heightened the connection to familiarity and spectatorship. The ceramic spectator is felt
to be well informed of the possibilities for the use of clay within the context of
37
‘Clay has to value itself in the deliberation of how to communicate’. Clare Twomey, excerpt from a
fifty- two minute interview with the artist 03/03/05 London. Twomey discusses the area of ceramic
installation expanding upon practice and experience within this area.
installation, enhanced by fine artist utilisation and developments within ceramic practice.
This points to a familiarity but what position does the spectator occupy within the context
of an applied art discourse.
The spectator is in some way central to the definitions of installation art. Claire Bishop
has gone some way to create a model in her recent critical history of installation art. In
this she focuses in on the viewer as what she calls a ‘literal presence’ in that installation
art differs significantly from the viewers location aligned to more traditional media. 38
If we reference this model against the constructs of installation within applied art
discourse it is possible to offer definition within regards to the relationship between
spectator and work. Bishop comments further within her text on complications with
regards to commenting on installation works. She clearly puts the view that discussion on
any piece of installation art is most effective if the piece has been experienced first hand.
In her words, ‘you had to be there’, this point in particular certainly has a strong
resonance. 39
This has central significance and can best be discussed through the work by Twomey
consciousness/conscience where actual active spectatorship is acknowledged and the
experience commented upon. The work as illustrated and discussed in the text is a
temporal piece, which has existed in a number of art spaces globally. As the work has a
limited existence and is not on permanent display, references to the piece are made
38
39
Claire Bishop Installation Art A critical History Tate Publishing 2005, p.6.
Ibid., p.10.
through documental photographic and video evidence or just memory. As the spectator is
physically central to the activation of the work, these readings of the piece offer
substantially different interpretations. The definition of spectator merges into participant
within this work as experienced as an active spectator at the exhibition A Secret History
of Clay, Tate Liverpool, 2004. The work compromised a significantly smaller installation
than previously exhibited, where the components had completely covered the gallery
floor. Here the components occupied the space between the entrance from one gallery to
the next. The expanse was too wide to step over to continue viewing other works, the
only option, to walk on the brittle clay forms thus activating the work whilst undertaking
the motion. As the title suggests there is a moment of consciousness prior to breakage
when the viewer contemplates a number of elements that are placed in front of them.
These elements become relevant when the spectator is faced with the actual event, thus
the viewer becomes part of the installation. Similar emotion simply cannot be
experienced by photographic or video documentation as the moment of consciousness is
removed, as is the act of destruction and the post element of conscience. A number of
issues became apparent as a spectator at Tate Liverpool. The primary issue is the notion
of being the first to enter into the space and thus the first to become part of the work. The
work was untouched pristine in its layout. As a ceramic practitioner initial experience
addressed the notion of the conscious element of the vulnerability of the material but
more notably an awkward sense of self consciousness about the destruction of the work
in the gallery setting whilst surrounded by other spectators40.
40
Ibid., see paragraph Activation and decentring, p.11-12. Bishop comments: There is one more argument
that this book presents: that the history of installation art’s relationship to the viewer is underpinned by two
ideas. The first of these is the idea of ‘activating’ the viewing subject, and the second is that of
‘decentring’. Because viewers are addressed directly by every work of installation art – by sheer virtue of
The invitation to commit vandalism within the piece subjects the viewer to a heightened
awareness of themselves and each other and an almost self-alienation within the space.
This can be referenced to Bishop’s argument where she states that two fundamental ideas
within installation art are that of activation and decentring. Certainly with Twomey’s
piece the spectator both activates the artwork and also becomes decentred
simultaneously. If the spectator were not to break the components, and by doing so
physically activating the work, an element of activation would still reside in the work,
where the spectator would consciously makes the decision not to destroy the pieces, but
contemplates the event and makes a considered judgement.
This element of connection between installation and spectatorship brings into question
the nature of confirming status upon works from the ceramic arena when analysed within
the constructs discussed. The argument revolves around the terminology of installation
and questions the appropriate use of the term within applied art ceramic discipline. By
appropriate use that is to say a confirmation of clarity around the terminology within
ceramic constructs. The word installation is used widely within ceramic discourse
encompassing a broad expanse of practical output. However, this points to both the
encompassing of and the unification of work when contained by the terminology. The
distinction according to Bishop between the installation of art and installation art is
certainly relevant to ceramic language. It is Bishop that paradoxically gives a clear line of
the fact that these pieces are large enough for us to enter them – our experience is markedly different from
that of traditional painting and sculpture. Instead of representing texture, space, light and so on, installation
art presents these elements directly for us to experience. This introduces an emphasis on sensory
immediacy, on physical participation (the viewer must walk into and around the work), and on a heightened
awareness of other visitors who become part of the piece.
sight on the blurring of these distinctions with the progression of time within the fine art
arena, the argument can be extended to note that there exists the case for closer scrutiny
of the terms within a ceramic discourse. 41
Ceramic: Installation art versus Installation of art
The terminology ‘ceramic installation’ introduces the argument as to whether a said work
of art constitutes the confirmation as installation art or installation of art. This argument
has particular significance within contemporary ceramics as descriptors and utilisation of
the term encompass a broad disparity of practice. As discussed above a central function
to the didacticism of installation is the role of spectatorship42. The difference between
looking and spectating are particularly significant in the evaluation of a ceramic artwork
as fitting either of the constructs. The work of Twomey as previously highlighted
connects with the notion of spectating, where the viewer becomes actively involved
within the work. Her works are as stated earlier clearly defined and demonstrate a
connection with developed discourse around installation art. The analysis becomes more
difficult when the area becomes blurred, indicating confusion as to the application of
looking or spectating. The blurring of boundaries contained within installation ceramic
practice have been encouraged as a consequence of the diversity that the terminology
‘installation’ introduces into the canon. Installation art according to my interpretation of
Bishop again focuses on the physical entry into a work as being the appropriate way to
41
Ibid., see section What is installation art?, p.6-8.
The term ’looking’ is superceded in installation by the concept of ‘spectating’ which assumes a higher
involvement by the audience. See chapter On Installation Nicolas De Oliveira, Nicola Oxley, Michael
Petry, p.7. Installation Art, Art & Design Vol 8 5/6 May-June 1993.
42
experience it, as a consequence the categorisation of installation works is directly relative
to the experience of the viewer. 43
This indication certainly has relevance to ceramic within applied art discourse and offers
critical insight into the categorisation of installation contained within the constructs of the
discipline of ceramics. In the text Bishop points towards the artists structuring of the
work, which in turn possesses the ability for categorisation as a consequence of viewer
experience. This is certainly a fundamental observation that needs to be analysed
collectively with other criteria to uncover the differentiation in ceramic discourse
between installation art and installation of art. To question a difference, the notion of
familiarity, and in particular the ceramic familiar becomes significant within this
evaluation.
The central element within ceramic installation is clay and predominantly this is based
around the format of the object. The presentation of the material occurs in numerous
formats including physical and non-physical representations, by non-physical the
indication is towards photographic and video elements. The ceramic object, in its many
formats, becomes highly significant within the constructs of installation, particularly, as
indicated here within a ceramic discourse. The significance placed upon objects, is
discussed in an authoritative written piece by Ilya Kabakov where he discusses global
difference in artistic principles and comments on formulations of installation, especially
43
Claire Bishop Installation Art A Critical History Tate Publishing 2005 See chapter The viewer, pp.8-11.
the relative differences between the so called west (Western Europe and North America)
and the rest of the world. 44
The focus on the object according to Kabakov and others no doubt, displays similarities
with ceramic installation, which in turn, is supported through the positioning of a
familiarity with clay. In observing familiarity and analysing its application within
ceramic installation a number of issues materialise. Consideration has to be made towards
the referencing of familiarity in works that contain non-ceramic elements. This has
particular significance when ceramic is juxtaposed with another material, or when
ceramic operates through another medium. The argument, in this case, revolves around
the issue of the power of the non-ceramic medium and its relevance in assigning status to
a work when it steps outside the realm of familiarity.
In constructing an argument within ceramics for the difference between installation art
and installation of art, observations can be placed with objects or elements contained
within the work. As discussed earlier in the text a considerable number of ceramic
installations contain repeated identical forms whether hand formed or direct replications
of ready-made objects. Although the ready-made ceramic object is largely absent from
applied art ceramic installation the interplay between cast and the original creates an
extended field of exploration.45 The repeated objects are commonly dispersed through
allocated space occupying both traditional formats for display and more frequently
44
Ilya Kabakov In the Installations, The text as the Basis of Visual Expression edited by Zdenek Felix,
Cologne: Oktagon 2000, pp 359-61. Ideas of the Postmodern, The Condition of History, Art in Theory
1900-2000, edited by Charles Harrison & Paul Wood Blackwell publishing 2003, p.1175.
45
Dawn Ades, Neil Cox, David Hopkins, Marcel Duchamp, Thames and Hudson 1999 See Chapter 8:
Replicas, Casts and the Infra-thin, pp.172-189.
unconventional formats, which with continued development, assimilate within the
administration of familiarity.
The works by Magaretha Daepp, and Marek Cecula, consist of repeated identical forms,
which support the juxtaposition of both ceramic and other media. The two works make
reference to the element of display and utilise other elements accordingly. Daepp’s piece,
Archaeology of the Future 1993, explores the notion of museum display portraying
repeated ceramic forms within an archival context. The considered disparity between the
contemporary shelving and replicated industrial forms, in contrast to the use of unglazed
terracotta heightens the awareness of the position held by ceramic within the pantheon of
artistic media. As the work suggests, the familiarity with historical ceramic museum
display is offered for contemporary digestion and re-evaluation.
Cecula’s pieces, Hygiene Series-Untitled IV, 1995 and Hygiene Series-Untitled V, 1996,
also contain the notion of display and utilise non-ceramic elements within the installation.
The works consist of replicated ceramic forms, which resemble hospital sanitary ware,
they are displayed upon equally clinical constructed tables. For a detailed critique of the
piece see Gabi de Wald’s exhibition catalogue entry, a central theme of which is the lack
of intimacy in the piece and the implications of such. 46
The direct replication of mass-produced objects is contained within both of the artists
presented work and can be acknowledged with several other ceramic artists operating
within ceramic installation. Some work solely with clay, whilst others employ additional
46
Gabi deWald, excerpt from ‘Hygiene’ exhibition catalogue, Postmodern Ceramics, Mark Del Vecchio,
Thames and Hudson 2001, p.189.
materials. We can perhaps conclude that these works fit the constructs of installation art
within the remit of ceramic discourse. Both works identify with familiar forms that are
manifested as a consequence of direct mimetic replication.
Replication of forms also exists within the work of Søren Ubisch. Construction, 1998, the
piece consists of multiple ceramic elements that are pieced together to construct a
transparent wall, the complete work occupies the space between the gallery floor and
ceiling. The scale of the work requires the viewer to walk around the piece and
experience the scale of the fragile construction within the context of the architectural
setting.
The work by Ubisch and particularly the piece Breaking up of Ice, 1992 by Pekka Tapio
Paikkari both consist solely of the material clay which is presented in the absence of any
familiar object based connection. The works present an association with ceramic
installation art where the projection of process and the materiality of clay become the
determining factors. The indication of the works presented above, are that they
demonstrate the hegemony of installation art residing within a ceramic remit. The
boundaries of installation art and installation of art become more difficult when the
installed work consists of multiple objects, which do not employ the elements of
replication or operate through mimetic structures. The return to the notion of looking and
spectating also becomes heightened in this situation.
Where the object is formed as a one off piece and displayed collectively, the reading of
such works become more difficult, consequentially the grouping of such objects can be
administered with the definitions of installation of art. This difficulty with identifying
work within the blurred boundaries seems to be commonplace within ceramics. The word
installation is used so frequently as a descriptor, that the authentic foundation of the term
has become blurred as a consequence of assimilation. This in turn has introduced work
into the ceramic canon that operates within the authentic context of installation, but also
within constructs that exaggerate the terminology to produce an expanded field. Within
the expanded use of the terminology, perhaps as a consequence of continuous
employment, the definition has developed to encompass an array of work that operates
across the blurred boundaries. In support of this notion reference can be made to the
opening statement of the chapter where Broadfoot acknowledges that each example of
installation art requires its own descriptors. This administration also introduces the
acknowledgement of difference within expanded areas.
As the definitions within ceramic discourse expand and the application of assimilated
terminology becomes part of commonplace language and practice, the adoption and
development of installation is naturally aligned to descriptors within the field of
ceramics. This however, as indicated, introduces the argument as to whether a work
constitutes the administration of installation art or installation of art. The confident use of
the term ceramic installation as descriptor within contemporary applied art has perhaps
contributed to the blurred definition within ceramic discourse. This can also be aligned to
installation art generally, where considerable development and expansion has occurred
since the term began to be used in the middle of the Twentieth Century. Julie H. Reiss
correctly highlights the gradual insertion of the term installation in standard art
publications over the last twenty years with the effect that that, installation had become a
specific genre by the late 1980’s. 47
A central point indicated within Reiss’s selected definitions of installation is the
relationship and acknowledgement of the gallery space. It is this pivotal element of
installation art, which also contributes to the debate around installation art and
installation of art within a ceramic dialogue. In the context of the beginnings of
installation art spectators were encouraged to physically participate in the work. An artist
who initially encouraged the notion of audience involvement is Allan Kaprow. His work
of the late 1950s was shown in independent galleries in New York, including the work
Penny Arcade 1956 where the audience had to physically move canvas strips so that the
works hung on the wall could be viewed.48 This introduction to physical participation can
be closely associated with Twomey’s work consciouness/conscience, where the viewer
actively engages with material and object within the gallery space. The physical
engagement of the object or exhibited piece is however alien to gallery policy and
perhaps even more so within the field of ceramics given the fragile nature of the material.
The policy of non-physical engagement with artworks within galleries has been
47
Julie H.Reiss From Margin to Center The Spaces of Installation Art, The MIT Press 1999, see chapter
Introduction, pp.11-24.
48
Ibid., p.10-11. See chapter Environments.
challenged by numerous artists including Carl Andre. Reiss discusses Andre’s work 144
Lead Square 1969 demonstrating the juxtaposition between audience and gallery. 49
Although the audience physically interacted with the work in 1969 the scenario for
equivalent participation with Andre’s work in the Twenty First Century is removed. This
is perhaps as a consequence of both the status of the artist and the pricing of the work
within the contemporary art market. It is also notable that whilst the work can be viewed
as installation, it also crosses the boundary into sculpture, which historically within the
gallery setting adheres to the policy of non-physical interaction. This observation can be
applied to ceramics in the sense that on the most part ceramics are not physically
interacted with within the gallery environment. There are exceptions to the rule as in the
work by Twomey where the artist invites the audience to physically participate. On the
most part ceramic installation relies on visual interaction, which in turn may stimulate
other senses. With this in mind differentiation between installation art and installation of
art becomes difficult particularly when the audience has become familiar with
developments in ceramic that have moved away from the traditional plinth, to include
alternative methods of display. The complication with extended terminology is that it
becomes difficult to categorise work as the boundaries have expanded. The blurring of
boundaries is most significant when one off ceramic pieces are displayed collectively and
administered with the title installation. It becomes almost impossible not to objectify each
piece individually and collectively submit materiality as confirmation of installation. The
works by Sueharu Fukami Installation at Togakuda Gallery, Kyoto, Japan, 1995 fit with
49
Ibid., p.56.
this observation. Arguments for both installation art and installation of art can be applied
to the work thus supporting the complications that exist with defining developed
constructs for installation.
The considerable history of installation and the generic use of the term within
contemporary practice has established the artform if somewhat difficult to define, as an
integral part of gallery and museum exhibition and display. As the term installation
becomes more widely used and definitions continue to change there exists the notion that
it is impossible to differentiate between installation art and installation of art as the
characteristics of installation have become more flexible, and the term has evolved as all
encompassing.