Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, Professionalism and Perspective

By Brown, Glen R. | Ceramics Art & Perception, March-May 2009 | Go to article overview

Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, Professionalism and Perspective


Brown, Glen R., Ceramics Art & Perception


Among those deeming themselves ceramics progressives it has of late become customary, if not exactly mandatory, to cultivate a certain lament, namely that the field of contemporary ceramics lacks a serious and sustained critical disposition to complement that of the most challenging developments in current studio practice. Studio ceramics, so the argument goes, stands to liberate itself once and for all from the stunting influences of a depleted soil and all that remains is for criticism to rise to the responsibilities of an ally and an agent of progress. In this light, criticism appears to be nothing short of a miraculous fertilizer/herbicide capable simultaneously of promoting the growth and health of innovative developments and of weeding out noxious influences that hinder more exotic practices. This conception of criticism, formed out of frustration with the notoriously pluralistic and qualitatively uneven nature of contemporary ceramics, is perfectly understandable. In fact it is almost irresistible. Nevertheless, it is predicated on the unwarranted assumption that there is something progressive about criticism in itself. While it may be true that criticism can never be entirely disinterested, its partisanship does not inevitably assume a progressive cast.

The critical tenor of the modernist avant-garde, coupled with its implications of radical social transformation, did, of course, bestow on art criticism the general legacy of a progressive, even revolutionary, perspective, but embracing this perspective is hardly essential to the effective and influential practice of criticism today. Hilton Kramer, to cite an obvious example, has built a prominent career as the top conservative watchdog of the New York art world--and he is by no means on solitary vigil. Even critics who set forth on a rebel's path often adopt reactionary perspectives. (Consider the examples of John Ruskin and Harold Rosenberg.) Since its beginnings, art criticism has been as often rancourous toward the new as generous in support of the untried. Ceramics criticism likewise possesses its share of conservative voices, many of them quite eloquent in defence of tradition and every bit as insistent as those who clamour for change that criticism must assume a more rigorous role in contemporary discussions shaping the field. In the abstract, criticism cannot be said to owe a particular allegiance to either progressive or conservative perspectives.

When proponents of criticism argue for its progressive effects on studio ceramics one assumes that the reference is not to criticism in general but rather to a more narrowly defined practice that is, particularly within academia, commonly known as critical theory. Related in name only to earlier Frankfurt School strategies of radical social critique, this critical theory emerged in the 1960s in the context of literary criticism and specifically in reaction against the then-prevailing tenets of so-called New Criticism, which had sought to justify art in the modern age by adopting the objective orientation of the hard sciences. Rejecting the 'close reading' practices advocated by the New Critics, who confined their interpretations exclusively to what was actually present in a text, the proponents of critical theory began analysing literature in relation to social, historical, political and psychological contexts. This practice was made possible through adoption of theories developed in the soft sciences of anthropology, sociology, psychology and linguistics. The shift in literary criticism's inspiration from the hard to the soft sciences would involve not only experimentation with new methods but also and more consequentially, an increased scepticism toward the possibility of objectivity.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s a still fledgling critical theory relied heavily on semiological and structuralist concepts that emphasized the place of literature within the vastly larger system of signification known as language (a somewhat specialized term in this context because of the contention that it embraces signifiers far more diverse and complex than mere words). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, Professionalism and Perspective
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.