The Development of Ceramics in Australia

Critical Discourse

Art/Craft Debate
Starting from the sixties, at the point where Grace Cochrane notes, ...the crafts... sought to be treated like painting and sculpture and...adopted the values of the art world....⁷⁵ Coincidentally, at the same time we saw the art world's move away from the 'purchasable object' and into installation, performance and body art. What further complicated the notion of craft positioning itself in the world of fine art was Conceptual Art. The artists' idea or intent was valued, rather than the making, and the concept of lack of skill, naivety, irreverence for materials and processes being associated with expressive emotional sincerity and intellectual content was in direct opposition to the concerns of the crafts practice - an interest in material, care and attention to finish, fine finish and technical achievement.⁷⁶ Susan Cohn, in 1993 argues that ...if historical and critical methods underpinning a discourse were borrowed from 'fine arts' then these methods would need 'to be adapted - even distorted - to fit the very different parameters that define craft both as medium and as practice.⁷⁷

Rose Slivka, editor of Craft Horizons in America, encouraged the notion of 'craft object as art'. Being closely associated with the New York art world, one of her concerns was to ...identify craft objects as independent artworks with an equal status to the fine arts.⁷⁸ Slivka identified the ways in which makers draw on both their own history and the history of their media to make contemporary meaning. She also identified the changing role of craftspeople in new social and cultural contexts - arguments still used today. Slivka made her conclusions in the critical language of the NewYork art world and what became popular belief and part of critical writing since was that the craftsperson is ...less directly designing for function as he is obsessed by the nature of his materials, the interaction of the material and himself, and the degree to which he can reach objectness.⁷⁹ These notions of 'my works speaks for itself' and 'I only make for myself' have influenced craftspeople since.

New-speak of the seventies started to appear - words and identifications such as non-functional, one-off, artist-craftsman and artist-potter. Distinctions were being made between bread and butter lines, conceptual pieces and exhibition work. In Australia ceramics was on a high. Notions of 'craft object as art' and Conceptual, Performance and Body art had filtered through. McGrath, speaking at the 8th National Ceramics Conference in Canberra, argues of a lack of critique during this period. He put forward that the Asian traditions and its dominant aesthetic, which continued to inform the next generation, and the younger ceramic artists questioning 'what ceramics could be', turning clay into a vehicle, was never critiqued. The new wave coming from America was exciting and McGrath argues that the ongoing lack of critique was due to emotions being satisfied, ...after all who wants to dissect, unravel, analyse and critique satisfying emotions.⁸⁰. He concluded it was potters who wrote about potters, seeking little or no input from other discourses, with rare analyses from academic writers - the result being a 'movement that cocooned itself as a monolithic structure.'⁸¹

Defining language is essential. John Teschendorff argues that one of the greatest difficulties ceramic practice has faced is that of an appropriate language of description.⁸² Cochrane states that when the craft world adopted the aspirations and language of the art world they set in motion a denial of their own social and technological histories and values.⁸³ Looking to the art world in an effort to validate craft practice has caused contemporary theory to create its own audience, seducing many artists by the need to fit the theoretical construct to access the audience (1-p102)

By the beginning of the eighties artists were becoming increasingly involved in complex theoretical discussion about their work.⁸⁴ Teschendorff believes this to be potentially dangerous to artist, audience and critic as everyone is likely to become confused and loose sight of what they were doing in the first place. Sandy Nairne goes further saying the post-modern world has little remaining difference between high and low culture, little argument between fine art and kitsch or between the avant-garde and the academic.⁸⁵ She argues that the artist is displaced and critical discourse (and curatorship) employs private obscure code that increasingly distances the public. She further argues art and craft had its own language and it should be re-instated.

Keighery, at the 8th National Ceramics Conference also raised the issues of inferiority and the inability for the ceramics field to set it own agenda. He agues, given ceramics has a long history of practice, can it not detail what issues are most relevant to discuss to it's own identity and future? Susan Cohn takes this further in The Crafts: on their own terms and argues if there is to be any competing with fine arts, it must be done on 'our' (craft) terms.⁸⁶ If artists explore technique and the medium of their art, the typology of the art object and the culture in which they live, so to does the craftsperson. The craftsperson brings a further dimension into play as 'craft objects possess specific cultural significance by the virtue of the fact they are made to be used.'⁸⁷

Sculpture
Teschendorff's bold statement ...pottery is never going to be sculpture.⁸⁸ is bound to cause a few reactions. As recent as a few months ago this very subject was being debated in the ceramics department at the ANU between students and Jeff Shapiro, visiting ceramic artists from America. What struck me most was how 'feelings' and 'beliefs' were being espoused with very little analytical thought or process. I believe it is, therefore, it must be. No matter how much one believes a Holden is a Ford a Holden will always be a Holden! I was beginning to realise which side of the fence I was sitting.

What I am, of course, referring to is ceramic sculpture. Teschendorff argues that the name 'ceramic sculpture' has been used to isolate work for market purposes and to grant the status of 'art' upon a whole body of mediocre work. He further argues that there is 'a confusion of sculptural intent with the figurative tradition of decorative arts' and there is an urgent need to 'put our house' in order by establishing the primacy of language to recognize that sculpture will be sculpture regardless of it's materials or methodologies.⁸⁹ As he strongly advocates if 'ceramic sculpture' wants to be taken seriously it has to make its 'own particular case' based on its own historical language.⁹⁰

Sue Rowley also questions the legitimacy of the language in ceramic sculpture. For a practitioner to come out of a period of ceramic training and say they are a ceramic sculptor, with no visible discipline base in sculpture, is unacceptable. She argues, If a person lays claim to being a ceramic sculptor then it is reasonable to say that they should display an understanding, not only of ceramics, but also of sculpture.⁹¹ For her, a sculptor working in the ceramics medium or a ceramicsts who has a sculptural form, reflects the need to define the language used in critical discussion.

We are left with more questions than answers. Do institutions need to be open to clay as a medium within their sculpture departments? Is an amalgamation (back) into the sculpture department, as Susan Ostling suggests,⁹² the answer? If we are to accept ceramic sculpture as a contemporary term what is the language that defines it?

The Place of the Handcrafted Object
There are a number of varying views on the place of the handcrafted object and the relevance of its function in today's society. Phillip Garner believed that craft practitioners had become a symbol of another age and, although there would always be a role for the handcrafted object, it would be as a romantic symbol for the rich rather than a viable possibility for everyday use.⁹³ John Smith held similar views in 1973 saying that the ideals of the traditionalist craftsperson - bringing the creative experience to all men -will not be realised until there is a more lucrative benefit than cultural.

In the nineties, Susan Cohn sees things quite differently, arguing that craftspeople can offer both a cultural critique and the exploration of cultural values through the work itself. She believes the craftsperson can work on both planes - conceptually and functionally, reinforcing social values, social ritual and connectedness. Cohn sees the potential of the craftsperson and the handcrafted object in today's society. By ...wholeheartedly embracing the many popular cultures that exist in Australia... and having ...the capacity to help build a new attitude to Australian popular culture...⁹⁴ Cohen believes the craftsperson can continue to have an impact on people's lives.

With declining interest in ceramics and the recent closure of the Victorian College of the Arts undergraduate course where does this leave the handcrafted object in 2002? Janet DeBoos, Head of Workshop at the National Insitute of the Arts, Australian National University, in response to the article A Fragile Craft, believes the declining student numbers does not signal the death of the art form. She believes the current students, although fewer, are much more focused and committed and that there remains an appeal for the handcrafted object.