what makes pottery art?

Student name: Ashley Hamilton
Museum: Philadelphia Museum of art
Web address: http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/46274.html
artwork: early 19th century Japanese dish with design of chrysanthemums

I was having a conversation with my professor today about exactly what makes pottery “art”. I guess this goes back to the age old question “what is art?” I found this piece of Japanese pottery and I thought it upheld my side of the argument. I tend to feel as though pieces thrown simply for mass production which (in my opinion)is a craft, and involves far less thoughtfulness is less ‘artistic’ than, for instance, this Japanese dish. I have read many articles on where the line can be drawn between useable dishes and ones which seem more like art that would be displayed only in a gallery and never meant for practical use. At first glance, this dish seems very un-useable. I would be terrified to ever scratch a fork on the gorgeous ornamental glazes that cover the inside of the dish. I have also considered the fact that maybe my training as a painter has made me think this way. I automatically think of detailed paintings as something which should never be touched and only admired from afar in a gallery or museum setting. I admire this dish as a work of art and also for the attention paid to something as simple as a dish in making it so ornate. It is obvious that someone put a great deal of thought into creating this work, even though the artist is unknown. This is another point which I think is odd, because in my opinion someone who made something this beautiful should have claimed it as their art work! While this dish was probably functional at the time it was made, I would still certainly consider it to be art because of the amount of detailed work and thought which seems to have gone into making it.

One of the articles I read about pottery to broaden my knowledge and expand my way of thinking about art is called “Golden Clay” by Jill Conner. Basically the article is a review of “Great Pots: Contemporary Ceramics from Function to Fantasy” at the Newark Museum. The article references artists such as Edwin and Mary Scheier, who add Picasso-like designs to simple bowls, instantly making them look like high art. This is an example of function meeting artistic statement and proves that both can be achieved in a single pot. On the other hand, the review showcases works by Tashiko Takaezu who created a large closed vessel. This questions the functionality of a pot. I was actually very interested in this kind of pottery simply because I have always had the notion that pottery is meant to be used for storage, cooking, or eating/drinking from. This piece completely questions and changes my old views. I think it is beautiful in its own right and is actually one of the most interesting pieces I think I’ve ever seen because it has such a simple basis, yet makes a huge statement and impact on viewers. Another artist reviewed was Raymon Elozua who made what LOOKED like a functional pot in terms of form, yet could never be actually functional because it is made of wires with large gaps between them. Again, this questions exactly what a vessel should be. It embodies exactly what a tea pot should look like aesthetically, yet takes away any chance of it ever being used for its ‘age old function.’ Also, this work made me think about glazes in a new way. Elozua dangles small pieces of fired glaze from the edges of the wire, not actually serving any function other than visual interest. This made me rethink glazes as well, considering I only ever viewed them as a way of adding to the visual appeal of an already functional piece of pottery. Reading this article will most definitely make me think twice before I sit down to throw my next pot. I now see that ornately decorated works can be used for function, and vice versa as the least beautiful pots sometimes end up in museums for simply questioning the viewer’s original notion of what a ‘pot’ should be. Everyone should read this review!! It actually makes you think differently about pottery- especially if you only ever before saw it as something functional and not as art.

Article link: http://www.artnet.com/magazine/reviews/conner/conner4-29-03.asp