Comparative inscriptions upon contemporary ceramics
The title of this article is by way of an admission regarding, until quite recently, my own reaction to ceramics. "mmm ... nice bowl" is the phrase I would mutter while walking very quickly away-in the direction of the interesting things-the flat things that hang on the wall-the art. But if I accuse myself of falling unquestioningly into that tired and out-dated art historical framework that cites craft as art's poor relation, if I accuse myself of failing to give ceramics the same critical attention I would expect for other areas of the visual arts, then equally, I accuse the institutionalized context of ceramics, many of those who write about ceramics and, in some cases, the practitioners themselves of consistently reinforcing that attitude. Thus it is not without a certain trepidation that one jumps into the quagmire of debate surrounding the critical parameters relevant to the practice of contemporary ceramics. After all, one can be so easily indicted for making yet another colonizing gesture, of seeking to impose yet one more set of empty references on a practice that has, over a number of years, struggled to find a place within contemporary discourse. But surely silence upon this matter is equally as damning for it ensures that all critical references to ceramics occur only within that field of practice, thereby reinforcing and reifying its position as art's "other"- as a discreet and distinct practice outside of, and separate from, other modes of cultural production. In this essay I want to explore the way we understand and identify the subject of ceramics through a comparison of two very different treatments of that topic. This is not to suggest that there are... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline