Ceramic Sculpture: Craft or Fine Art?

I know many of you feel like we've run this topic into the dirt but the times just may be achangin'. If you are a sculptor who happens to work in clay and have chosen to leave it in that medium as a finished product, I'd like to know what the response has been when you have entered shows or approached fine art galleries. Were the pieces readily accepted or turned down because of the medium? what surface treatments received the most positive response? What fine art galleries do you know of that include ceramic sculpture in their collection? (I'm making a distinction here between 'fine art' galleries and 'fine craft'galleries, but I'm ready to hear about both. Please distinguish.) The bottom line question is whether or not you think that ceramic sculpture (not pottery) has made the leap from being a craft material,as it has long been considered, to being accepted as fine art? I'm writing an article for Art Calendar Magazine on this subject and would like to hear as many responses as possible. In case you aren't familiar with this publication you just might want to check it out. It is a magazine geared toward the working artist with articles designed to cover topics such as marketing your art, starting co-ops,legalities of doing business in the art world and, in the April issue, one article will cover the current state of corporate art collections. Inquiries- Art Calendar-(800)597-5988 It was good even before I started writing for them. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from anyone who would like to respond to this subject. Thanks. Jeanne

[I studied with the artist who, more than anyone, got ceramics (and not just sculpture, but wheel-thrown work as well) recognized as a fine art medium. Peter Voulkos, starting in the 1950s, made art with an Abstract Expressionist sensibility and such a sense of exuberence that the art world found it hard to ignore. His medium was ceramics, but instead of sticking with the Japanese- inspired craft pottery fashionable at the time, he used the medium, and the techniques associated with it, in new ways, stacking thrown forms to make assemblages, and piercing the walls with intrusions of different colored clays, (which he calls 'pass- throughs'). He made rough but vigorous sculpture in clay, which brought ab-ex into 3d like nobody before him had done. Following his lead, other sculptors started getting noticed for their work in ceramics; people like Ken Price ( who is still going strong), Robert Arneson (now deceased), Richard Shaw (known for his delicate trompe l'oeil assemblages), Steven DeStaebler (who mostly works in bronze now) and Clayton Bailey (check out his amazing website at www.claytonbailey.com). I'd say that at this point, ceramic sculpture is considered a classic form; right up there with bronze, which Mr. Voulkos also rediscovered as a medium which the artist can use directly. By working out simplified lost-wax investment casting techniques that enable artists to control the aspects of this medium hitherto out of reach and relegated to specialists, he became not only the man who got ceramics recognized as art, but the one who made bronze-working accessible as a craft.

As for the galleries, it should be understood that most of them don't handle sculpture of any kind. For the majority, art begins and ends with oil on canvas. Paintings are easier to store, easier to show, and easier to sell. So sculpture is something of a specialty item to start with. Then you have to realize that each gallery tends to champion a certain aesthetic stance, which may- but usually doesn't- include ceramic sculpture as a permissible vehicle. In these days, when major fine art galleries have devoted their spaces to installations of dirt, dung, and insects, it seems rather naive to wonder if ceramics, with all its ancient and modern history, is capable of being considered 'fine art'. Its marketablity is another issue.]

UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff http://unitedartworks.com http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools

[Andrew, so good to hear your response. I was hoping you'd be out there and ready. Your insights into the history of ceramic arts making their move into the fine art world were most insightful. However most of the artists you named made their entry in the 60's and early seventies. And I'm more than aware of the strange things that have been included of late in some pieces of art such as dung, dirt and insects and one wonders about these. I guess what I wanted was more anecdotal, stories from emerging sculptors who are using clay and what the response of the market place has been for them. After all, most of us aren't Peter Voulkos and Ken Price. Recent trends have indicated that more and more sculpture is being shown in galleries and has met with an equal interest by the public. Also many people(clients) are choosing to put their sculptures out in the garden which opens up yet another range of possiblities for ceramic sculptors. So, in fact, the issue I am asking about is the marketability and the qualities of the ceramic sculpture that is being purchased. Meet you on the flip flop. Jeanne.]

Hi Jean, I see you made it back to the news table via deja sorry i couldn't have been of more help, be that as it may regarding your interrogative: it seems a two part: One , esthetically is ceramics art or craft ? Well according to Websters and a comparison thereof they cover their dereares but suggest that craft lacks that creative hierarchy . In the second part concerning galleries, unless its an independently wealthy gallery, salibility is the bottom line not weither a commodity is craddled in a particular hierachy of definition. It's not necessary to force the pieces into the puzzle matrix .....for me stonecarving by hand is a craft nothing more nothing less and like the ole Chinese proverb: I'm a potter i make pots and every now and then I make a great pot.

The definition of art/craft is evolving as evidenced by art history...and as insinuated by Art Calendar (and several other art rags) fish wrap can be art . Unfortunately your interrogatives come back to theoritical dynamics....if you want to make art choose something that is already accepted as 'art' say Picasso ceramics, and make copies of it and vuala you have your art and in the gallery door......the dynamic is, can a robot make art? and, to what degree do we delinate the boundries and finally is the King dancing without his clothes on ? William Crain

I work with iron mostly, and don't work with clay, but you can see the parallels. A lot of it has to do with the artist's intent and belief and as a consequence, how the artist presents the work. Years ago I read a funny excerpt from a ceramics conference. Someone in the audience asked 'what's the difference between a bowl and a vessel?' and someone on the panel answered 'about $500.' It took me another ten years or so to decide I really wanted that extra $500. Now I do, so I call myself a sculptor and call my works 'vessel forms' rather than 'openwork bowls.' (This also saves a few steps in describing the work to someone who hasn't seen any of it, but who has seen lots of bowls.) Also, I think of my work differently - making one body of work at a time, that explores a definite question or theme. I no longer require that a piece function as a fruit bowl. I do see myself working on the border between 'craft' and 'art' although the distinction doesn't make much difference to me. This may have disadvantages (not as clearly perceived maybe) but it's fun. I think it was Wendell Berry who pointed out in The Unsettling of America that a lot of wildlife flourishes in the margins - where forest meets field, for example. I think a lot of artists can flourish right where 'the craft movement' and 'the art world' meet.

- - - > > > SNIP < < < - - -

One of the problems, IMHO, is the use of the term 'ceramics' in many areas 'doing ceramics' has come to mean buying greenware and decorating it. Having worked on a number of show committees this type of work does not qualify for exhibit and sale. Many of the shows that I have done and work with specifically weed out the 'doing ceramics artists.'

Hmm, good question for artists who work with clay - 'what's the difference between a piece in ceramics, and a piece in clay?' $X? On the other hand - there are some fine journals with 'ceramics' in the title.

Both Cathy and Fred seem to have hit the nail on the head for quite a few people. During an interview with renowned sculptor, Peter Shire, he pointed out that the language itself can be a problem. Why should we use the term 'Ceramic Sculptor'? We don't say 'Bronze sculptor', we just say sculptor. All of us who work in clay have got to drop the 'ceramic' part in any of our written material that we might hand out or how we describe outselves. We have so many other rules for being politically correct, what's one more? I'm still waiting for people to tell me about their marketing experiences. How are we moving ahead with our sculpture that happens to be made of clay? Details,

There is an established and discerning market for ceramics in the UK. For these people buying contemporary ceramics is less intimidating that buying contemporary 'art'.

For marketing purposes there is a real benefit in catagorising yourself as a ceramic sculptor - to appeal identify yourself to those people who buy and collect ceramics.

I find it useful to label myself 'marine sculptor' Because there are people who look for marine art. It helps us find each other. Also it helps me keep a handle on my identity. My CV, statement and images are all focused around this identity.

Other sculptors do label themselves - stone-carvers, installation artists, land artists, wood sculptor, portrait sculptor. In most cases these help market and artist come together.

Steve

(marine artist and arts marketing consultant)

Steve, Thanks for your reply. I'm sure your observation is correct in certain situations. If you are approaching a gallery, collector or venue that is looking for 'marine art', it's a good idea to label yourself as such if that is, in fact, what you are doing. However, the larger market place might be more willing to admit you if you didn't label yourself in any particular way, simply saying that you are a sculptor would perhaps be more open ended. A few more doors just might open up. If the content of all of your work comes under one heading then I suppose hanging on to the focused label is most appropriate. In your response you mentioned that people in the U.K. are more willing to buy 'Contemporary ceramics' than they would be to buying 'ceramic art'. I don't understand that unless the contemproary ceramics consists of pottery. Could you explain please? Is it the price tag or are they not willing to accept sculptue created in clay as fine art?