Hello Moldmakers,
So this week we're Francophiles - up for discussion we've got the opening scene from Francois Truffaut's "Day for Night" c.1973, Baudrillard's "The System of Objects" c.1968, and a contemporary French book on Industrial Design. So, let's light up a Gitane, pour a glass of Champagne and travel back to Paris in the early 70's.
I've posted he first 2 readings - as discussed in class please take some time to comment and respond here.
As we discussed on Tuesday, the first is from a book called "Industrial Design Techniques and Materials" by Jean Baptiste Toulard. This book describes a wide range of manufacturing processes from the point of view of the Industrial Designer. The section that we're reading focuses specifically on ceramics, and gives a nice synopsis of most forming techniques currently in use and in development for the manufacture of ceramics (all the way from teapots and sinks to isostatic pressing of Knives and Scissors that stay sharp almost forever, to ceramic piezoelectrics) . To take a step back here I'm really interested in looking at the way forming processes are described from the point of view of industrial design - is often quite different from the way they're discussed within the field of "ceramic art". Do you agree? If so what conditions do you see contributing to these different points of view? How can our practice as artists be informed by Industry and Design? Is our practice distinct from these fields? If so in what ways?
The second reading is from "The Sytem of Objects", by Jean Baudrillard. In this book Baudrillard creates a kind of Taxonomy of objects within contemporary culture (or the culture of 1968 when the book was first published): abstracting objects from 1.their functional properties (what Marx would call "use value") 2.Their material properties, and 3.their formal properties. In this particular section titled "Natural Wood, Cultural Wood" he talks about the ways that materials themselves have symbolic meaning within a culture (see also Marx on "Commodity Fetish" http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1656 ). I always think here about luxury auto interiors - wood and leather - or, of course Formica laminate printed with a photograph of wood, or vinyl siding imprinted with wood grain texture. Certainly ceramics (specifically porcelain) was deeply embedded with symbolic meaning in Europe in the 15th and 16th century, when the demand for Chinese export porcelain as a luxury commodity contributed to a huge trade deficit (www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/GEHN/GEHNPDF/TREILLESBlaszczykPaper.pdf) . Do you think that ceramics, as a material, carries symbolic meaning today? What kinds of associations or meanings do you see ceramics carrying?
(an aside - perhaps there is something here in the shared etymological history of Commode and Commodity)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The forming processes described for industrial design is quite different from the way they are formed in “ceramic art”. I believe the biggest contributing factor to this issue correlates with the artist’s creative interests, values, decision-making, and individual methods – versus forming a process in which generates a larger number of pieces to rapidly please a mass of consumers. I believe that our practices as artists can be informed by industry and design in regards to efficiency and meticulous protocol. Our practice is not too far off from these fields because their goals very closely resemble ours, in regards to the desire of manufacturing a final product. Although, for several obvious reasons our intentions greatly differ. For example, we often use their products as a source of ideas, innovations, or guidance for our future projects.
I do not think ceramics, as a material, carries as great of symbolic meaning today. I think this is mainly due to the mass production of everyday products generated with little to no unique value - unless you have the money to buy the good stuff. I often view ceramics as a form of art that tends to be towards the bottom of the artistic hierarchy. This statement is solely based off of my assumption of ceramics only being used for commercial art purposes. It doesn’t help that everywhere I turn, I see products that are from a ceramic mold of some sort or ceramic-based process. Furthermore, it’s not everyday that you come across a village or small down where a local ceramicist is hand making everything for everyone there. We are very far from the days where such occurrences took place.
The Toulard article was tailored around the industrial, or more functional processes designed for producing ceramic objects. These typically useful objects (plates, bricks, fixtures) and modes of rapid reproduction have been increasingly examined, and utilized by the art-making community. This has allowed artists to initiate interesting dialogues rooted not only in the ancient material of clay, but also tied to the more modern processes which man has continued to investigate and advance throughout time.
The Baudrillard article examined material weight, reference, and how these meanings function in space. It explained how materials funtion in society, hinting at prescriptions for material value, often seated in a type of systematic morality. I found it particularly interesting how we have transformed materials, specifically natural, into signs which then are reproduced through imitation in order to further their cultural importance and supply their popular demand.
I'm not sure if I would see the process vary from industrial to artistic uses of ceramics, but the desired means would of course vary. The main issue is the concert of functionality in industrial uses while it becomes irrelevant in issues of art. The process it self in general I do not see ass varying except that industrially things are always mass produced, while it is not a necessity in art, and at times more favorable to have an individual piece.
In reference to ceramic's symbolic meaning, I'm not quite sure about the whole of ceramics, but there's still definitely something about porcelain that holds a sophisticated upper-class vibe. I feel like really high grade porcelain or china is still associate with things as tea parties and general aristocratic activities and/or attitudes. Then again since ceramics is one of the most ancient materials in some form and still highly functional I would think that it would hold some value, especially due to its near mystic properties of metamorphosing during its various stages.
I think that ceramics as a material has lost a lot of its symbolic meaning. Ceramics used to be known as an everyday material made daily or weekly for all kinds of uses. Most of our dishes are still made of ceramics but, how many people recognize the material or the work involved in creating the product or the ceramic material itself? Ceramics are used in many more different aspects now a days, so why is it less known? Ceramics is probably most likely associated with pottery because people without an art back ground are most likely to recognize this one aspect of ceramics.
The different kinds of molds talked about in the first reading are really interesting. Even though most ceramic pieces are masses produced, I really think the general knowledge is missing. The general public has no idea what goes into making the materials, the molds, and product it self. The other ceramic process mentioned in the reading are just as intensive as molds but still the art and meaning is lost on most. I personally think that every aspect of ceramics is interesting that how could you not look at a dish or a cup or even a pipe and admire the process behind it.
In the article about Industrial Design Techniques, it states that “the most commonly used ceramic shaping processes are casting and jiggering.” This got me to musing because, I would guess that they mean within the contemporary context that is true, but if you took into consideration the whole ceramic history that was briefly covered in this, hand building and throwing would dominate. That got me to thinking, and I wonder if, item for item, including all of history, the mass production of industrial ceramic ware has already taken over and outnumbered the billions of handmade pots from prehistory until today. It seems possible!
I mentioned in class in response to the Baudrillard article that while I find his article and his point about our preference for materials like wood to be based on nostalgia and fashion when an equivalent synthetic material can be more durable, cost effective, and (if you don’t look too close) can look the same, he is missing out on the other main reason why many people prefer “natural” materials. That is, simply, because they are natural they are probably healthier for human use and for the environment. That being said, I think it is often just as bad to use “natural” materials… like the classic grocery store question: paper or plastic? Either one is wasteful, disposable, and uses processes and materials in manufacturing that are not good for the environment… do I cut down a tree or use even more petroleum? I certainly don’t know enough about it to say which is the more efficient choice, and in this case a reusable grocery bag made out of recycled plastic bags is a clearly better solution than either. An example that proves my argument useless, I suppose, but I could have just as easily said a reusable organic raw cotton bag.
Even though I know that my preference for natural materials came about culturally, I still don’t think that it is a psychological phenomena that determines my preference for a natural fabric against my skin, even if the synthetic one is technically softer. Besides, is a preference for wood, even in terms of strictly nostalgia, necessarily a bad thing? My father is a woodworker and I grew up in beautiful wooden houses. To be in one of these houses feels good; it is personal, individual, and beautiful, it has a good smell, and a good energy… there is no feng shui in linoleum flooring. You can’t argue with the ancients. ;)
I think Industrial designers have to be quite different from ceramic artists when developing ideas and production. We know that the process of production differs greatly between industrial production and the ceramic artist. But the ideas for that piece could be generated in the same way, of course if they are both developing functional pieces. But because their end result is so different (one wants a very large quantity) the forming process is going to be thought of differently and practiced differently that perhaps an artist who wanted to make a few pieces. I think artists usually look at mass produced objects as a slap in the face because it seems more informal or easy when comparing it to developing something by hand in the studio. I also think that when many artists see other artists in this mass-produced industry, and think of them as “sellouts.” I think artists should not think this way. If something is created well, I don’t see any harm in developing it on a larger scale, of course it is not how the original pieces was developed but an artist did design it and they usually design it quite well.
I think that the symbolic meaning of ceramics has decreased with the large availability of ceramic material to all. Now days you can buy your dishes at Wal- Mart, and then wont even break when you drop them! They are possibly not as highly treasured among the public as items of great value. Having said that I think that is not the case with say antique ceramics. Doesn’t every grandmother seem to pass on her “good china” to one of her kin? I know my parents own two sets, that are only used for special occasions. Great care is always taken with them too)No dishwashers allowed, the gold luster will come off). I do think that porcelain seems to be the most respected of all the ceramic clay bodies, and that could be for a number of reasons. But a lot of ceramic respect seems to, like I said come from older ceramics. This could be because they also carry with them family nostalgia but it could be because ceramics used to be highly coveted in the past.
i feel in response to both readings that art and the industry and design business has become two very separate areas. in ancient times, art was functional, usually for religious purposes. what we consider art, like beautiful plates, teapots and porcelain items that are not mass produced were probably not considered art, but a type of industry in which the goods and products were to make life easier and efficient. so in general, the ceramic world started as a basic industry and not art, but has evolved with new ideas and new people to become part of the art world.
but the material itself i feel has been kind of left in the dust with the production of synthetic materials. i know ceramic materials are used everywhere for things i probably have no idea even exist. but the uses compared to ancient times are very different. since this is my fist ceramics course, i am beginning to see how involved the process is to create even the most simplest object. this world wants everything made better and quicker. so ceramics i feel is being pushed more towards the art side since the process itself is really a craft that takes times to perfect. the industries that mass produce ceramics goods do not show the qualities of the materials the process which is what ceramic artist strive for.
For the first article I agree that there is a difference in the way this article and the ceramic community as a whole talks/ thinks about the process. The article talks about the techniques over the finished product, while we as a community typically think about the work first and then the techniques needed to make them. In industrial design their main goal is to make as many pieces as quickly and efficiently as possible. This goes against many things we are taught as students to do. We are taught to create an idea and find out a way to make that idea, while the article sounds to be thinking of a technique first and the work second. I also find similarities with this article and the way our class has worked over the semester. This is particularly due to the fact that it was a technique and process based class.
I think that the field of industrial design is vital to the future of ceramic artists, for the engineering involved in the process can teach artists how to better and more efficiently create their visions. We as artists can learn and study the techniques used to mass produce objects and become our own production lines. While using the same techniques we will be similar to the industry, but the personal emotions that each artist would put into each piece that was produced by the molds and techniques would set us apart from the mass-produced art created in factories. My image of these factories is that of many workers mindlessly creating some designers image, which is vastly different from our community of ceramic artists who try and have their own touch on everything they create.
Ceramics as a material today holds many symbolic meanings. Just like wood our culture is surrounded by ceramic objects from; toilets, bowls, tile floors, to space ships. Ceramics doesn’t hold just one meaning, but many meanings. Anything from antique figures to the comforting feel of a warm cup of hot chocolate mixed with jack have hold emotions and good memories for people. The meaning of the material is infinite for the possibilities to mask the material and changes is visual content is infinite. To give one or even just a handful of meanings to the idea of ceramics is impossible. For its inherent idea of its ability to be forever can easily be extinguished by dropping the object.
In the article, the forming process and materiel description i feel is very different then that would be explained form a ceramic artist. The article focused more in the industrial aspects, and uses for the materials, where as ceramic artists describe materials as components to create i specific feel. The difference between industrial, and artistic design is its purpose and and aesthetic feel. I felt in reading the article that the ultimate goal was manufacturing, and mass production. I feel there is much to take away as artists from industrial methods, yet i feel the concept of mass production is different than that of the mass production of an artistic. Artistic design has a specific "feel" and concept, where industrial is more of concept and use. In history ceramics were used as both industrial and artistic. I feel that the knowledge gained in the industrial realm will continue to change and advance the ways in which art can be created, yet i feel thy are separate, and will never merge.
Ceramics has carried symbolic meaning through out history. It has carried the wealth of countries, and has composed many houses. The symoblogy of stoneware and porcelain is very different, yet i feel there is a sameness in nostalgia when used. Society has put certain idologys and conotations on materials, and i feel ceramics is one of history and craftsmanship. I feel that everyday use has devalued if you will porcelain as a material because of daily use, yet when glorified in a gallery eg. duchamp one takes more the meaning of the material and what it signifies. I feel ceramics will always carry its history to convey its certain feeling, yet its use is changing its meaning every day.
to say that the forming processes described for industrial design are different in comparison to the ceramic arts seems almost silly to me at this point. i feel especially now more than ever that we thought about our forming processes in the same manner that industrial designers do. i think that the only main difference is taking notice to the inherent functional uses and aesthetic qualities that our pieces need to hold any relevance to ourselves and our audience. our moldmaking techniques are basically an industrial process, just on a far smaller scale. also, i feel that in most cases, the artistic concepts that we create have a greater influence on the piece and its construction more than a sink would, for example. i could be very wrong, but from my short amount of experience in the field and my experience as an artist brings me to this simple conclusion.
i think that our society as a whole has a very vague view on ceramic materials. i think that we take for granted the preciousness of most ceramic pieces - like toilets, tubs or sinks - simply because we use them daily. i think that the view on ceramic materials changes with the form and function. we hold porcelain tea services in much higher regards than a porcelain toilet - simply because of the history and everyday uses(ahem, the porcelain goddess, if you will) of these objects.
Post a Comment