Today has been a delightfully springy day. I went for a walk with Amanda, and we had lunch on the deck. The lilacs in the front yard are in full regalia, so I decided to clip some, to show off my new pottery. Yesterday, Jake and I went to see our friend, Patrick, who is a potter. He just finished up his MFA at Eastern, and we wanted to purchase a few of his pieces before he moves. We got the light vase (with an ancient Chinese glaze named "Chen") and darker mug (with an American glaze from the 1960's) you see here, plus coffee mug and Chinese-style tea cup. It was fascinating to talk to Patrick about his work. He is very knowledgeable about, not just his craft, but also history and philosophy and chemistry. I learned so much about sodium bicarbonate's role in glaze-coloring, how to salt-fire a piece, and why some German beer steins have faces. Patrick's philosophy regarding his work is intriguing as well. I am posting it below.
"I am unconcerned with whether ceramics is considered art. What does concern me is how we related to these functional, utilitarian objects in an artistic way. We should not expect to understand a painting in the dark, nor a sculpture in two dimensions. Why then should we expect to understand pots without considering their function?
It is that relationship that I find interesting because it asks so little from the viewer. It cares not for age, education, gender, nationality, or personal belief structures. It allows anyone to come to some understanding of the work, if by no other means than by its function. It allows for a direct connection between the viewer and the work, and then by extension the potter." -Patrick Andrew Green
2 comments:
so often people seem to discount the importance of the relationship between viewer and art. as your MFA friend said, you can't understand a painting in the dark, more so, you can't understand art unless you interact with it.
does a pot/cup/vase have a function on it's own? perhaps. but it certainly can not fulfill the function without a relationship with a person (someone to fill/use/interact with the vessel). and how does this translate into other art forms?
thinking about utility and pragmatism makes me wonder what the function of art in general is . . . and even going back to the idea of ceramics-what about a more ornate piece? once the viewer understands the function of the vessel how do they then interact with the decorative aspect of it . . .
i am intrigued by his comment about the universality of the experiance one can have with ceramics and thus (i interpret) they are not pretentious or elitist art.
hmm, i've never thought of applying my (dance & therapy) aesthetic values to more functional disciplines . . . but what could be more authentic than a pitcher used for it's intended purpose . . .i'm gonna have to ponder that a little more
I so enjoy your ponderance. Especially intriguing to me is the added dimension of a person/viewer to both execute the function of a piece and understand it. Hmmm....it brings one into wondering about the divine~never apart from creation, both creating its purpose and interacting with the purpose as it is being fulfilled (or not). Brings new meaning to "Thou art the potter," no?
Post a Comment