CRITICISM: A DISCOVERY OF MEANING
By Jim Romberg
The International Academy of Ceramics
Paris 2010
“Expression is ephemeral, changing as the seasons, often lost in the passage of time. It is the critical eye that evaluates its importance in culture in order to establish and record its significance for history.” J.M.R.
The fact that until recently, contemporary studio ceramics has had relatively few critical stirrings, is now understood as a serious deficiency. In fifty years, the look-back will hopefully note that the critical underpinnings of ceramics which began in 2010 will be in solid practice. The title “Shifting Territories” is accurate socially and artistically. How do we measure the significance of this shift, its opportunities and its consequences? What has changed?
Types of work, written material, the decline of university ceramic programs, sales, acquisition by museums, all shed light on the depth and breath of this shift. The digital world further confirms the extent of change. How do we navigate these changes and what effect will they have on the future of our discipline? Do they capture the sum total of contemporary expression or are there other practices that should be noted.
There has been an explosion in contemporary ceramics. Traditional pieces have new forms, surfaces and firings, pushing clay into states previously unimagined. AiWeiwei engages questions of history, legacy, fragility, and destruction to create poignant questions of the socio/political world. Claire Twomey accumulates the detritus of extinct factories, a decayed ready-made, the idea of “distributed authorship.” And Beverly Semmes discounts any notion of refined craftsmanship with an “in-your-face” distain for ability and subtlety of surface.
This has once again flung open the doors of possibility just as the USA’s Clay Revolution did in the 1950’s. Only this time the shift has incorporated methods and meaning that stretch far beyond the usual understanding of ceramics. Opportunity or setback? How do we assess the quality of its accomplishment? Is this a time of significance or new invention, affirming aesthetic content solely by the measure of variation from the past? Revered qualities of skill, refinement, truth to materials and clarity of message have been shuffled aside in the quest for different frames of reference, creating a void of understanding and assessment.
Writing about ceramics has increased, much of it about process and personality, culminating in “interpretive description” that proclaims the importance of the creators and their work without the necessary underpinning of interpretation and judgment. The momentum of description and promotion needs to be interrupted if we are to truly comprehend the qualities of current ceramics and move their importance beyond commodity and into a relevant place in culture.
The tools to accomplish this new level of perception are the insights and language of criticism .
Look to the world of painting, sculpture, literature, music and theater. Criticism has been in existence since before the Greeks. Can’t ceramics adapt existing practices from closely related fields? Ah, there is the rub! Contemporary criticism of painting and sculpture is in a quandary of monumental proportions. To our advantage, lessons are to be learned from this “Critical Mess”. To mimic would risk infection of the same malaise: the commoditization of the object, the deterioration of significant aesthetic engagement, and the lack of an active and operative criticism. So how can a viable and valid practice of ceramics criticism emerge?
First we must recognize that criticism in contemporary ceramics currently does not exist. There are some significant informed singular efforts. But, they have not coalesced into a body of inquiry that presents insight and analysis including debate and discussion. Consequently, the luxuriously small number of critics that do exist strive for individual intellectual dominance, without challenge, rather than developing critical awareness across the field. A recent example, a lecture at the NCECA 2010 Conference, suggested that large scale collaborative projects of “distributed authorship” are the significance of the future, to the exclusion of individual creation. The implication is that the studio, for all it has to offer, is no longer viable not just economically, but theoretically as well.
If criticism is to become more than the fanning of peacock feathers from an assumed heightened sensitivity, then the critic should lay out the conditions and responsibilities of criticism and its importance to the field. The result: a broadening objectivity vs. the singular focus on the accomplishments of a few.
The vacuum of critical voices is the fault of the critic and the field. The audience needs to demand more - a means of evaluation, tendencies in the field without the myopic citings of new developments exclusively by a select few. Criticism, to be operative, effective and truthful, requires many voices arising from debate, a discussion of principles, larger than the individual or singular theory. A larger critical consciousness is needed. Venturi, an historian of art criticism wrote, “The true course of the lack of progress is precisely this defect of consciousness, because the first condition to obtain an advance is to wish for it.” (p.17)
Ceramics’ vocabulary is unique: plasticity, movement, time, surface and firing and sometimes function, are all meaningful and profound components of its content. Criticism is an intense investigation, first letting the piece do the talking, proclaiming it’s raison d’être by the evidence of its making, followed by interpretation, the “pathfinder”, which leads us to understanding and appreciation beyond analysis and categorical theories.
After investigation and interpretation, judgment should follow to determine if the piece has fulfilled its proclaimed intention. The writer must also have the integrity to state how a piece is not successful in its intent. This judgment is not rendered often enough, sometimes for fear of retribution or loss of friendship.
For the maker, embracing a critical stance as part of the process of creation, establishes a confidence that the work is not just a product of skill and practice, of convenience or habit, or difference for its own sake. Criticism provides a means of stepping back to hear other voices and viewpoints and bring other resources into play. The influences of trend and style are questioned, and courage is gained for those who see their form of expression as different from the current practice.
The final question centers around the significance of the engagement. To what audience does the work speak and what discussion does it promote? Is its frame of reference banal or does it aspire to lofty and profound ideals? This does not mean that every piece needs immensely complex content. Simplicity and everyday function are profound contributions of ceramics. The audience gains from an expanded spectrum of expression responding to the diversity of taste and creation. The obligation is not just to reinforce what is currently “hot”, but rather to seek quality and significance above all.
A newly created critical practice will ensure the diversity and richness of this heritage, the intensity of current expression, and its future will be expanded and supported. Without an expanded critical practice this medium will only expand and contract according to popular taste and the market, following the destiny of commodity, instead of continuing to fulfill its centuries old potential as a medium responsive to, and expressive of, the essential imperatives of a culture.
-------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Romberg
The International Academy of Ceramics
Paris 2010
“Expression is ephemeral, changing as the seasons, often lost in the passage of time. It is the critical eye that evaluates its importance in culture in order to establish and record its significance for history.” J.M.R.
The fact that until recently, contemporary studio ceramics has had relatively few critical stirrings, is now understood as a serious deficiency. In fifty years, the look-back will hopefully note that the critical underpinnings of ceramics which began in 2010 will be in solid practice. The title “Shifting Territories” is accurate socially and artistically. How do we measure the significance of this shift, its opportunities and its consequences? What has changed?
Types of work, written material, the decline of university ceramic programs, sales, acquisition by museums, all shed light on the depth and breath of this shift. The digital world further confirms the extent of change. How do we navigate these changes and what effect will they have on the future of our discipline? Do they capture the sum total of contemporary expression or are there other practices that should be noted.
There has been an explosion in contemporary ceramics. Traditional pieces have new forms, surfaces and firings, pushing clay into states previously unimagined. AiWeiwei engages questions of history, legacy, fragility, and destruction to create poignant questions of the socio/political world. Claire Twomey accumulates the detritus of extinct factories, a decayed ready-made, the idea of “distributed authorship.” And Beverly Semmes discounts any notion of refined craftsmanship with an “in-your-face” distain for ability and subtlety of surface.
This has once again flung open the doors of possibility just as the USA’s Clay Revolution did in the 1950’s. Only this time the shift has incorporated methods and meaning that stretch far beyond the usual understanding of ceramics. Opportunity or setback? How do we assess the quality of its accomplishment? Is this a time of significance or new invention, affirming aesthetic content solely by the measure of variation from the past? Revered qualities of skill, refinement, truth to materials and clarity of message have been shuffled aside in the quest for different frames of reference, creating a void of understanding and assessment.
Writing about ceramics has increased, much of it about process and personality, culminating in “interpretive description” that proclaims the importance of the creators and their work without the necessary underpinning of interpretation and judgment. The momentum of description and promotion needs to be interrupted if we are to truly comprehend the qualities of current ceramics and move their importance beyond commodity and into a relevant place in culture.
The tools to accomplish this new level of perception are the insights and language of criticism .
Look to the world of painting, sculpture, literature, music and theater. Criticism has been in existence since before the Greeks. Can’t ceramics adapt existing practices from closely related fields? Ah, there is the rub! Contemporary criticism of painting and sculpture is in a quandary of monumental proportions. To our advantage, lessons are to be learned from this “Critical Mess”. To mimic would risk infection of the same malaise: the commoditization of the object, the deterioration of significant aesthetic engagement, and the lack of an active and operative criticism. So how can a viable and valid practice of ceramics criticism emerge?
First we must recognize that criticism in contemporary ceramics currently does not exist. There are some significant informed singular efforts. But, they have not coalesced into a body of inquiry that presents insight and analysis including debate and discussion. Consequently, the luxuriously small number of critics that do exist strive for individual intellectual dominance, without challenge, rather than developing critical awareness across the field. A recent example, a lecture at the NCECA 2010 Conference, suggested that large scale collaborative projects of “distributed authorship” are the significance of the future, to the exclusion of individual creation. The implication is that the studio, for all it has to offer, is no longer viable not just economically, but theoretically as well.
If criticism is to become more than the fanning of peacock feathers from an assumed heightened sensitivity, then the critic should lay out the conditions and responsibilities of criticism and its importance to the field. The result: a broadening objectivity vs. the singular focus on the accomplishments of a few.
The vacuum of critical voices is the fault of the critic and the field. The audience needs to demand more - a means of evaluation, tendencies in the field without the myopic citings of new developments exclusively by a select few. Criticism, to be operative, effective and truthful, requires many voices arising from debate, a discussion of principles, larger than the individual or singular theory. A larger critical consciousness is needed. Venturi, an historian of art criticism wrote, “The true course of the lack of progress is precisely this defect of consciousness, because the first condition to obtain an advance is to wish for it.” (p.17)
Ceramics’ vocabulary is unique: plasticity, movement, time, surface and firing and sometimes function, are all meaningful and profound components of its content. Criticism is an intense investigation, first letting the piece do the talking, proclaiming it’s raison d’être by the evidence of its making, followed by interpretation, the “pathfinder”, which leads us to understanding and appreciation beyond analysis and categorical theories.
After investigation and interpretation, judgment should follow to determine if the piece has fulfilled its proclaimed intention. The writer must also have the integrity to state how a piece is not successful in its intent. This judgment is not rendered often enough, sometimes for fear of retribution or loss of friendship.
For the maker, embracing a critical stance as part of the process of creation, establishes a confidence that the work is not just a product of skill and practice, of convenience or habit, or difference for its own sake. Criticism provides a means of stepping back to hear other voices and viewpoints and bring other resources into play. The influences of trend and style are questioned, and courage is gained for those who see their form of expression as different from the current practice.
The final question centers around the significance of the engagement. To what audience does the work speak and what discussion does it promote? Is its frame of reference banal or does it aspire to lofty and profound ideals? This does not mean that every piece needs immensely complex content. Simplicity and everyday function are profound contributions of ceramics. The audience gains from an expanded spectrum of expression responding to the diversity of taste and creation. The obligation is not just to reinforce what is currently “hot”, but rather to seek quality and significance above all.
A newly created critical practice will ensure the diversity and richness of this heritage, the intensity of current expression, and its future will be expanded and supported. Without an expanded critical practice this medium will only expand and contract according to popular taste and the market, following the destiny of commodity, instead of continuing to fulfill its centuries old potential as a medium responsive to, and expressive of, the essential imperatives of a culture.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Discovery of Meaning
A Presentation by
JIM ROMBERG at the
International Academy of Ceramics ,Paris, 2010
Introduction
I first want to express my sincere appreciation and admiration for the job the French Committee has done this year for the IAC Conference. It is obvious that a great deal of planning and execution was necessary to present such a broad expanse of very high quality ceramics in so many venues across Paris and France.
I. WHY CRITICISM ? WHY NOW ?
At this time in the development of contemporary studio ceramics, the question must be asked why has the practice of criticism become such widespread topic of conversation and why at this point in the history of ceramics is it being suggested that this practice become more a part of the field ?
Many seem to ascribe almost mythical powers to the evocation of a critical presence: a cure for all the ailments of the field, a vehicle to secure a higher level of promotion and profit, a viewpoint and understanding once evoked and present that will spin clay into aesthetic gold thereby achieving parity with all other forms of visual expression .
We must ask if this is indeed a true perception of the place and power of criticism and do we in fact wish to invite into a field that from all evidence is doing well, expanding rapidly and achieving significant recognition , a practice of somewhat questionable character with rather unpredictable and unknown goals.
II. Why not before ?
Criticism has certainly been around for some time. Many date the advent of this practice to the 18th century French Philosopher Diderot , although some would insist Aristotle’s Poetics in the 4th century BCE are a more likely candidate for an attitude of analysis and questioning artistic expression .
Whatever the case it is clear that criticism in the visual arts has a long a distinguished history noting among its practioners Baudelaire, Appolalinaire, Goethe, Roger Fry, Oscar Wilde , and all the major philosophers have puzzled over the nature of the aesthetic object.
Ceramics has an even longer history.
So why have the two not come together before ?
The historical response to this question is important but I would like to deal with two recent conditions that have prevented criticism from taking root in contemporary ceramics as a preface to defining the necessity of criticism in ceramics and suggesting what form this practice can take.
III. Separation of idea from material
The first obstacle is in fact seven years from being a century old , lost and then revived in 1950 and which I saw in the Beauborg Centre Pompidou just three days ago. This is Duchamps Fontaine.
Sometimes claimed by the ceramics community as evidence of the artistic nature of ceramics it is ceramic only in the material from which it is made. Its consequences and the consequences of Duchamp’s ready mades have been a bitter sweet revelation . At once important for the questioning of the nature of the art object its legacy of separation of idea from material has been devastating.
An early corner stone for the establishment of the cultural hierarchy of the intellectual over the sensual meaning, content, and significance took on a singular intention whose seeds are just now bearing somewhat sterile fruit in the world of contemporary ceramics.
So as we consider what critical practices will be of benefit to contemporary ceramics we must overcome the Duchampian legacy of the separation of mind and matter insisting that this separation is essential to significant expression .
IV. Greenberg monotheism
Another stumbling block in our appreciation and adoption of significant critical practices in the field of ceramics is the practice and legacy of Clement Greenberg, starting with his publication of the now infamous article ,”Avant-Garde and Kitsch “ in the Partisan Review of 1939 and extending until 1984. Greenberg’s almost total dominance of the criticism in painting and sculpture spawned a singular theory of art , Modernism, and the idea that it was a single critic who should navigate the significance of the art expression of any era. I suspect that the so-called Greenberg complex is yet to be found alive and well in many of our so-called critics of today.
But the essential point is, like Suzi Gabli’s book, Is Mondernism Dead? and Donald Kuspit’s book on the philosophy and practice of Clement Greenberg, as much as he gave us in intelligent and passionate comment and insight into art, Clement Greenberg has left us with an idea and practice of criticism that in fact has stunted the growth of visual expression in our culture.
The idea that theoretical dominance is the goal of any critic’s career is now seen as detrimental to the growth and vitality of any; expressive field. And the Greenbergian idea that only one aesthetic experience is relevant at any one point in history and that this form expression renders all other expressive efforts insignificant is clearly seen to be aesthetic dictatorship relevant only to the promotion of power and dominance. A vital culture requires nurture from many sources .
IV. Towards a new awareness
So how is it possible to overcome the record of history ?
Ceramics has been saddled with various classifications in the attempt to define its essential nature. I would suggest that the current practice of ceramics is now so far beyond any definition or any classifications that a new suppleness of mind and analysis is an absolute necessity . How can this be achieved ?
V. Overcoming previous history . Seeing Criticism in a new light.
I am going to show a set of images of work from some already established in the ceramics field.
From these images I would imagine that there are many in the audience who could identity many of the images , state the name of the maker, perhaps the time of the piece and its place in the ceramic spectrum . This is all important information and its presence is important. But let us look at some other images.
VI. Unknow images/New Investigations
I would dare anyone in the audience to identify the images just show. Certainly elements of each could be identified. But the totality of the image, its historical and cultural context are probably not identifiable by many here.
The mind has worked in a different way and approached these images with a very different intention from those previously shown .
I would like to suggest that the experience of the second set of images is closer to the perception and practice of criticism in contemporary ceramics that is needed.
VII. Further stripping of prejudice and previous practice.
The practice of criticism in it best manifestation also requires the separation of the critic from criticism . As mentioned earlier Greenberg sought to equate himself with criticism . And for a while he succeeded. But recent re-evaluations and the benefits of historical distance have show that criticism is in fact much much larger that any one or any school of critics. No one critic can in fact embody the whole of criticism . An aspect of criticism yes, but in no way does the work of any one critic exhaust the potential and importance of critical practices .
VIII. Few critics, more commentators in contemporary ceramics.
In fact it can be said that in contemporary ceramics we have only a few critics and far more commentators on the practices of ceramics.
Certainly there are those who wish for the accolade of critic. And yet so many of these have in fact been guilty of Greenbergian Hubris that those seeking the genuine authentic practice of criticism are now few in number.
Two recent examples of those who would in all likehood ascribe the role of critic to their writings and lectures have in fact show themselves to be victim of the desire for monthestic pronouncement .
Somewhere it is written that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Certainly I would find it difficult to turn lose of such if ever it were in my hands. Yet that is what is demanded of criticism and critics. The benefit is not to establish the grounds for true belief but rather to put forth the means for a more significant analysis and understanding that leads almost always to positions of doubt and questioning. Few of the contemporary commentators on ceramics have demonstrated such humility, choosing rather to promote their view point as the radically new understanding of where the entire field is and should go if significance is to be found.
One of these commentators announced recently the end of individual studio activity Suggesting the relevance of a”appropriated aesthetics” was the wave of the future. The fact that singular path would be announced by itself is enough to dismiss the commentary but the audacity of one individual to suggest that their comprehension of the relevance of the field of ceramics should dominate is an act of cultural dictatorship whose consequence can only be bad for the field.
VIII. The Opportunity of Criticism
We stand in fact at the gates of opportunity . The practice of ceramics now encompasses expressions unimaginable only a few years ago. Artists from other field are realizing the potential of this plastic material most of us have grown up with . Many in the field are pushing clay to places and into situations of significance that are essential to place and growth of the imagination , the sensual and the intellectual in cultures around the world.
We are present. We are making a difference. And the time is now.
How in fact it this to be realized ? Each of us whether publisher, creator or educator has the opportunity to speak out, question and probe more deeply. Demanding more than the record of personality, description and process ceramic creations, functional and otherwise, have a context, a history and occupy a unique place in the expressive field. This needs to be proclaimed .
Laudatory promotion is rampant and often visibility in print and on the web is equated with significance. Criticism, used appropriately, steps aside from this and assesses the quality and value of work in larger historic and contextual terms. Unafraid to announce deficiencies, criticism provides needed judgments and announces criterion of evaluation that can be discussed . Criticism can open dialogue and investigation rendering the experience of expressive work even richer that first imagined.