Is Ceramics The NEW Art ?

Do you think the humble ,but brilliant pots of today and the recent past are overtaking all other forms of expression in the art world ? paintings are ten a penny (Relatively Speaking ) I think in about 20 yrs time ( ok 80-120 ) , pots will be the main art theme in museums etc , the current layouts in galleries are crap with painting after effin' painting lined up to be viewed by people seeking shelter from the rain , a mixture of sculptures , pots , paintings exhibited ( and exhibit is the key word ) correctly can only enhance the product we all appear to like /want , the lighting for example in these places are never thought about , art has to be in the right place at the right time imo .

first will come critics plus experts in art d'ceramic and as soon as enough rich fools buy in to it Voilà

Critique is always going to be there I think , that's for tossers who know eff all , if they were that good they would produce , but they can't so they snipe , it's par for the course we all do it to an extent , I seriously think art has to be presented in a more open way , not in some clever only allowed places that are currently going ,public places need the pots and art shown , kelvin in glasgow is a great example btw , cafes art the whole lot , that's why it's the most visited place in GB

ok , .............weeeeeeellll , then do you think celtic will win the scottish premier again ?

Ed you knows that the man on the Clapham tube in Landan don't even consider pots "Art", they wants paintings.

95% of the general public have never even seen a decent bit of ceramics and probably only 1% held one. You might as well ask if textiles will ever be popular...the answer to that one is no also.

You might as well ask if textiles will ever be popular...the answer to that one is no also.[/quote]

Oh, there goes my pension fund!

Trechikoff's green lady, was it the most popular print ever?

Just think, every pot from a boot/charity shop/auction/or whereever, was bought
and paid for by someone in the past, because they liked or wanted it.

at every car boot, you see those brown leathertte and chrome horsehoe ice buckets
Whoever sold them way back then must be a millionaire!

NaomiM wrote:...Bernard Leach pots taken out of context of being made by Bernard Leach would be overlooked by the vast majority of the public. Where as few would overlook a Constable or a Turner even if they didn't know who the painter was.

Yes we are in awe of the potter's skill, rather than them being necessarily aesthetically beautiful things.

yes, but so much studio pottery is not particularly beautiful to look at.
Colourless boring brown pots, one much like another, irrespective of the potter.

NaomiM wrote:However much one might dress it up with fancy words, at the end of the day the value of a Bernard Leach pot is in the name, not the pot itself. It's like getting a pretty card from Princess Diana v's the same one from your Great Aunt Edna. The card from Diana is going to be sold on whereas Great Aunt Edna will eventually be consigned to the bin.

 
That's what I've been trying to tell my friend, Rod Everage, for years. Why bother to keep all those cards from your Great Aunt Edna, who lives in Moonee Ponds, Australia. The stamps are never going to be valuable.

I think thing will change more to ceramics than paintings , in Japan pots are revered every bit as much as paintings are in the west , by pots I mean , Voulkos , Henderson , Baldwin that sort of pot , pot just being a generic name obviously i'm not talking about blimmin' standard ware , thay are made to be seen as art works , other textile things mentioned have just been adopted by designers as art but that was never the intention for goods like that .

big ed wrote:I think thing will change more to ceramics than paintings , in Japan pots are revered every bit as much as paintings are in the west , by pots I mean , Voulkos , Henderson , Baldwin that sort of pot , pot just being a generic name obviously i'm not talking about blimmin' standard ware , thay are made to be seen as art works , other textile things mentioned  have just been adopted by designers as art but that was never the intention for goods like that .

Lots well-known artists designed textiles, particularly post-war: Nicholson, Vaserelry, Moore, Hepworth, Piper et al.
They were made into furnishings, curtains, covers, and meant to be seen.

I think it's changing people's perception of what is art that is required.

In the west we have what we call fine artists and, if they make pots (or have them made for them like Picasso) they become valuable and collected. Likewise some textiles have become valuable because the design was from the work of a fine artist.

In the "just pots" world Lucie Rie's pots have gained a kudos over time through the media and being collected by art collectors, many of whom want a pot by Rie but have no interest in any other pots.

Then there is of course Edmund de Waal, who has turned himself from a sixth rate potter to a tenth rate fine artist yet his work sells for big bucks. That despite it lacking any quality or even a modicum of originality, largely by having a PR machine behind him and being well connected.

So basically if big money and influential people got behind pots in the West, prices would rise significantly but I can't see that happening for all good pots and potters just the well connected ones.

denbydump wrote:

big ed wrote:I think thing will change more to ceramics than paintings , in Japan pots are revered every bit as much as paintings are in the west , by pots I mean , Voulkos , Henderson , Baldwin that sort of pot , pot just being a generic name obviously i'm not talking about blimmin' standard ware , thay are made to be seen as art works , other textile things mentioned  have just been adopted by designers as art but that was never the intention for goods like that .

Lots well-known artists designed textiles, particularly post-war: Nicholson, Vaserelry, Moore, Hepworth, Piper et al.
They were made into furnishings, curtains, covers, and meant to be seen.

my point is these things were designed for use not as an art display , yes famous artists have been commissioned to that work , don't make it art though , if picasso made a door for his garden shed it don't make it art , the names you mention are certainly not known for the furnishing prowess .

My large Langley vase dated 1888, decorated by George Leighton-Parkinson,
a well known Victorian water-colourist.

NaomiM wrote:...Bernard Leach pots taken out of context of being made by Bernard Leach would be overlooked by the vast majority of the public. Where as few would overlook a Constable or a Turner even if they didn't know who the painter was.

A bit like van Goghs were overlooked for years by the vast majority of the public.

I think Bernard Leachs are (frequently) beautiful and original and historically important artworks. That's were their value is, not just in the name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_van_Gogh-Bonger

Vincent's sister in law promoted his work after his death ( so glad she did )and that is the case to this day , publicity done well can make the most useless person famous , internationally known even , Picasso self promoted to a great extent ( again thankfully) George Ohr hardly sold a pot at markets , yet today ££££££££ , when the day comes when ceramics are seen alongside other mediums other than other ceramics then an increase in desirability will happen , pots & paintings , yes that happens but pots in different settings could also work , furniture & pots etc , just a thought