One of the things that I think gives ceramics potency – as a contemporary medium– is the complexity of its associations, or the slightly uncomfortable position it sits in either between, or maby more accurately, in reference to, a wide variety of different areas and ideas. I’m thinking about the sheer variety of forms and formal qualities of all of the ceramic objects that have been produced throughout history and the incredible breadth of geological conditions, cultural conditions, functional problems, and manufacturing processes that have generated this breadth! These objects are made through 1.industrial production (ie. sanitary ware like sinks and toilets, or high tech ceramics like piezoelectrics etc.) 2. pre-industrial production (individual or cottage industry production, by hand, of ceramic objects) and 3.non-industrial production (contemporary studio artists producing ceramics using pre-industrial technology). In using ceramics we connect the objects we’re making to, and create spheres of implication between all of these areas and sets of ideas! (On the other hand, or at the same time, we may choose to regard qualities of form and surface made possible with this incredibly plastic material as pure phenomena.)
All that said it seems that most of the time we’re confronted with ceramic objects today, any message embodied specifically in their materiality seems to me to be deeply buried in a kind of cultural subliminal unconscious – either in very specific historical knowledge of industrial processes and material culture, and/or in a sort of conissiour appreciation of the technique involved in their production. While the porcelain surface of an indoor toilet may have once been appreciated as a sign of wealth and class status that time has passed and today we’re rarely conscious of what the object we’re sitting on or eating off of is made of – and if we are it seems a plainly and simply utilitarian choice.
This weeks readings continue to examine this net of related ideas but in two different ways. The first is from the anthology, “The Culture of Craft” edited by Peter Dormer. The particular essay we’re reading is by Helen Rees, who at the time of this writing was a doctoral student at the University of Manchester. The essay is titled “Patterns of making: Thinking and Making in industrial design” and it approaches the idea that we’ve now discussed a bit in class of the relationship between the activity of the “Craftsperson” and the activity of the “Industrial Designer” – and how their products relate and respond to the consumer and material culture.
The second reading is from a collection of writings by Theodor Adorno titled “The Culture Industry”. Adorno’s writing can be a bit dense so I’ve chosen a really short section titled “Presumptuousness” from the essay/chapter titled “How to Look at Television”. The relationship between this reading and the topic at hand may seem oblique at first, but the core idea that seems really pertinent – and which Adorno articulates really well – has to do with the way the categories we form for classifying “Art” (in this case television) within genre’s affects both our expectations of the experience of the form, and the meaning that we can ultimately receive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Presumptuousness
I found several stimulating ideas presented in this article. I thought sourcing the issue of presumption around television was surprisingly accurate. Talking about the formulas and pre-established ways spectators approach television and how they perceive the information presented relates completely to art-making. These prescriptions apply to every material, form, image, and idea in “art”, thus tunneling the minds of the maker and the viewer with forced connotations and often flat interpretations. Like a smart play, there are subtle and not so subtle devices provided by the creator; which makes me think so called “good art” is able to mix and match, surprise, and attempt to invent new devices, while of course, referencing or even playing with the already established.
These connotations are a product of social conditioning, which produces stereotypes, breeds discrimination, and of course, presumption. Fortunately for the artist, we are able to engage with these conditions, comment, deny, or find inspiration and a voice. We can develop a vocabulary around these constructs, create a language specifically rooted in presumption, or totally against it.
I wonder how the portrayal and representation of emotions and real-life have actually changed the way we react, fell and think in our daily lives. For example, do our relationships become episodes, which like soap operas, begin where the last episode ended? Do we treat others the way we naturally feel, or the way we have seen represented in sitcoms, movies, and plays? Is our lives’ frame of reference subconsciously formulated through the way we have watched others imitate life on a television screen?
In the first reading, Rees says “designers” can be distinguished from “craftsperson” simply by their engagement with consumers and the idea or drive to improve performance. But, in regards to critiques or self-evaluation, aren’t “craftspeople” driven by the same factors? I feel as though these two titles are so closely related, and the only way one could really differentiate the two would be the manner in which their products are put to use. My understanding is that the designer’s work is for the daily consumer, while the craftsperson’s work is more idolized and not used. Rees refers to this concept as the functional and non-functional worth. Furthermore, I think the value of streamlining is greater for the role of a designer than it is for a craftsperson. Indeed a craftsperson needs to consider the factors or value of various materials, technology and the media, but they are not strictly bound to the desires of the consumer population, like a designer.
I think the concept behind the Adorno reading is incredibly fascinating to relate to the art world. We are all guilty for using our personal experiences and the media for a source of understanding and grounds of stereotyping. Furthermore, I strongly believe that these categories or genres play a very prominent role in our outlook on something as complex as “art”. We all correlate the experiences of particular characters in a film or series to the experiences or events that take place in our lives. Therefore, how could we possibly remove this involuntary thought process when viewing or critiquing a piece of artwork?
Both of the articles were very interesting and brought up very good points and facts. The first reading however caught my attention more so than the second. The craftsperson vs. artist argument has always fascinated me. I feel that you need to be successful at a craft to be an artist. No matter what the medium and the intent of the finished product the skills and crafts you hold will make the art. I see myself as a student trying to learn and perfect my craft to some day be addressed as an artist. I consider craft a basis of artistry instead of a category of mediums. Sculptors need various crafts like metal, stone, ceramic, and etc. to complete just one piece sometimes. Even designers, which were another part of the argument, need crafts, clothing designers at some point need to master the craft of sewing or at least know something about it. I believe that art would be no where without crafts in stead of art and craft being separate things.
The part about designers being separate because of the consumer interaction is one opinion but what do craftspeople and artist strive for. Craftspeople and artist live on consumer interaction whether the product is used on a daily basis, I don’t think makes a difference. A piece of art hanging of the wall or sitting on a shelf day after day seems like daily use to me though. You could argue that it does not get physically used everyday but either does the same piece of clothing. If anything a designer has a smaller creative bubble because they have to cater to a certain kind of person where artists make their art and bring in interested people rather then putting out what they think the people will want.
In regards to the Presumptuousness reading, I was especially amused by the final quote “Thus, people may not only lose true insight into reality, but ultimately their very capacity for life experience may be dulled by the constant wearing of blue and pink spectacles.” As dire and dramatic as this statement sounds, I think there is a certain amount of truth to it. I am speaking from a perspective, as we so often do, that excludes myself from that category of “people”. I grew up without television and still have never lived in a house that had a functional television. Of course, I have been exposed to plenty of TV in other contexts, but never on a regular enough basis to develop any kind of desensitization to it. I simply cannot tune out television, no matter what it is: advertisements, soap operas, educational shows or clever comedy. Other people can easily pay attention or disregard a blaring television, but perhaps they have “dulled their very capacity for life” in order to be able to tune out something so bright, colorful, and psychologically geared towards grabbing our attention.
In the other reading, I was particularly interested in the discussion about how the style of products developed by industrial designers reflects the current values of society on an aesthetic level, and how that has changed over the decades. For example, as consumer culture is critiqued, products are created that don’t necessarily use fewer resources, but look like they are not as wasteful. I also enjoyed the example of “streamlining” in the 1930’s, where in the context of the emerging science of aerodynamics products took on a stylistically streamlined look that spoke of “smooth progress through modern technological society” regardless of weather or not the products ever actually moved (such as pencil sharpeners and the like, in which being aerodynamic serves no functional purpose whatsoever.)
PRESUMPTUOUSNESS
"The decisive thing is that this atmosphere of the normality of crime, its presentation in terms of an average expectation based on life situations, is never expressed in so many words but is established by the overwhelming wealth of material." --I find that in this passage, crime can be replaced with art. As artists, our job is most often to establish ourselves and our work through the wealth of material. We create work based on life situations and use expectation to resolve technical and conceptual issues. While I realize sometimes artists do not want to admit that they expect or anticipate a certain response from viewers, I also think that it is a part of our job as artists to value the expected. So as to no be misunderstood, let me explain also that I am all for art changing during process, happy accidents, and the ability to make work that can be redirected even after its completion...but, without taking into account possible interpretations (much like tv does) I think it is difficult to make relatable work.
in regards to the fist reading, i agree with some of the comments about craftpersons and designers. the fact that all artists must have a craft and must design works either to be viewed or physically used seems to be a good argument, but i still feel a big difference which i can personally relate too. i tend to look at the process and the craft itself and really engage in the making of a piece rather than the meanings of the artists' hidden references. craftspeople and designers are first both artists, but a craftsperson as an artist is more interested in the non functional aspect of art, which i really respect but have difficulties connecting with. designers are more interested in the physical product and its uses. so in general, the article argues that these two titles given to artists create two very different sides to the art world.
as to the other article that relates art to television, the ways that art engages people, whether physically or emotionally, still has influence on people just as television has major influences on society. but to me, television and film itself is a form of art, just presented in a different way. contemporary art seems to be endless in its possibilities, so i consider television as a major part of the art world and don't differentiate the two. but i agree that television and other forms of art engage the audience to relate to the piece.
Patterns of Making: Thinking and Making in Industrial Design
One of the statements in the article that stuck out to me was… “Designers do not ultimately design for producers, but for consumers.” Designers for mass produced items have a extra specific goal in mind as opposed the a small production “craftsperson”; to sell as much of the product they are creating as they can. In this industry I feel the success of the product is also measured with how marketable it is, and if it is being bought by consumers. Regardless of how innovative or beautiful the design is. The product is designed with the consumer in mind and not just a handful of them, in order for this product/ this design to be a good industrial design it has to appeal the large group of consumers, otherwise what is the point of producing large amounts of this item. This is a difference between an “industrial designer” and a “craftsperson”. I don’t want to downplay the “craftsperson” by saying that they have less to consider than the “industrial designer”, which is something people might think. The industrial designer I believe is more limited than the “craftsperson” when creating a new design. It is true they have different things they have to think about, but the “craftsperson” has more creative freedom because they don’t have the immense pressure of creating an object that MUST sell large and wide. Making an object that is appealing to a large amount of people can be challenging to create, because every single consumer has a different set of tastes and criteria that would be challenging to accommodate at the same time, with the exact same product.
good art, bad art, designer, craftsperson, design, function - there are so many terms and ideas that combat against each other in these articles that my head is spinning. i agree with whatever the first article says about art and design. i think it is interesting to think about functionalist design theories when creating anything functional in the ceramic arts. the bauhasian approach to design is interesting, but i don't think it would pan out in a simpler, functional application, especially in pottery.
as far as the presumptuousness article goes, i can see how we have been conditioned into seeing things in a certain light. i think this goes the same for artists and the art world as a whole, especially now more than ever. the exclusivity can be seen as some kind of good for some, where as others can see it as an inherent evil. i see this as a sort of conditioning, similar to what the article talked about in relation to television. whatever the case, i think that both articles brought up interesting points that keep artists, designers and couch potatoes connected in their failures and successes, and ultimately by brainwashing.
Helen Rees examines a variety of interesting incidences throught history in the design and production od utilitarian objects. She expressed the goal of designers is to create objects for consumers before the consumers themselves even comprehend a need for these objects. I find this quite disheartening when looking at my personal career outlook. I find the things i make are not needed for the public, so the market seems quite daunting. In further reading she express a difference between design and craft. From start to finish i apply both to my pieces, yet socially these words take on new meanings. As the British council distinguished, with improved manufacturing, and appreciation of culture. As a "crafts person" i do feel im learning to take design elements of the manufacturing process ( eg. this mold making class) and incorporating them into my artwork. The history of design and function explained by Hess had me chuckel a bit. As in 1933 with stream lining. With this class i felt i have been made to look more conceptually at things, and reading Pugins take on streamlining functional objects, stating it as dishonest. This led me to think what he would think of some of the abstract ideas and functional pieces made by our class, and what really is "dishonest" in creating something functional. I do appreciate the consideration behind using manufactured ware, compared to hand crafted ware. I feel this appreciation is what im counting on to survive in this field and its scary. She further reassures this scary fact, as she predicts the few true genius's that will succeed. All in all this article evoked more of an appreciation in conception of a piece. I truly feel i need to sped more time in my planning process. Like dell and i had discussed earlier this year. I might have an idea how i want people to feel when viewing a piece in my head yet it is truly different when constructed, and that needs to me an entirely different factor when approaching a project. This article made me really thing od society value on hand made object, and the future market.
The Presumptuous article i feel coordinated to the atmospheric values article. I feel that everything we come across has an predetermined connotation, and through that you can achieve a certain feeling. I dont believe these presuppositions are a bad thing. people judge everything, its genetically programmed into us. I feel this is a tool that is used and manipulated my artists to convey what they want. As in the atmospheric article tuque wood can have a mimicking affect and feel, just as a movie can mimic political or social drama. I feel that is what most art is. Mimicking, replicating, or a reaction to the world around us, and in doing so we rely on the stereotypes and ideologies placed on materials, and visual effects.
THere have been some intriguing things mentioned about the articles and it helps to to see the opinions of others. To me it is ultimately the process and intent that separate craft and art. Craft is used to create an object to be looked upon/used, while art is very much about the idea that formed the piece, much more so then the end piece itself. In this case I would at least have to disagree with Emily's comparison of art objects being like craft in their ultimate resting positions, as there is always an interior dialogue in the piece no matter how it ends, that will be lacking in a designed or craft object. Going to the second reading, this separation ties very closely to what is expected/stereotyped. Even so, artwork has much more fluidity of categories that craft-work does not. Art can be very ambiguous and vague in what is or isn't, while craft tends to be rather straight on.
In closing I guess I want to say that craft is about the execution of the final product, while art centers on the process of the idea that sparks the work.
I find the ideas between these two articles and there relationships to one another very fascinating. To critique the idea of craft and the relationship it has with the consumer and also the idea of television shows being easily read by the audience is great. By just changing the music to the intro of a show gives the viewer the ability to relate and understand what will happen over the course of the show. This also has to do with the article by Helen who is assuming that the designers design products that are easily related to by the consumer.
I found also that the ideas of medium and how the audience is able to perceive the piece by their own experience to be an interesting idea. For the consumer to have empathy with a work they must have prior experience with it. The idea that designers are creating work to allow their consumers to feel more unique by owning a hand made piece is great. By creating this individuality in the consumer they are more able to create a market for art. Also the relation of what is selling out as an artist is interesting to me as there is a fine line between selling out and making money to keep doing what you love.
Post a Comment