Architecture....{Mike}

The New York skyline is one of the most beautiful sights in the world, as I would know for I am originally from New York. Even though I lived in the area and have been around all of the buildings every minute of everyday I did not have the slightest clue that more than one half of the architecture is terra cotta. I knew that the famous architectural design of the opera house in Sydney, Australia was composed of small ceramic tiles, which in my opinion is one of the most visually pleasing architecture I have ever seen. But I thought ceramic was mainly used just for the art world, pottery, sculptures, etc. so to find out that it is used on some of the skyscrapers in the city surprises me.

Building Animals.......{Mike}

The point brought up in the reading about humans learning from birds, bees, and beavers is very interesting. The fact that it was said that humans learned building from animals in general is interesting. Humans have built buildings, statues, monuments, bridges, and many more things, but the concept of how to do such a thing had to be learned first. Even then humans still have the possibility of making a slight mistake ruining whatever is being built, whereas animals build on instinct. Building in way which they think is correct and years after years, animal after animal everything that they have constructed has been close to flawless servicing its purpose in every way its supposed to. For example a birds nest successfully holds the weight of the birds and its eggs a couple feet from the ground consisting of just sticks and mud.

Jonathan's Blog on TERRA COTTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Terra Cotta is one of this century's most magnificent discovery for it's use throughout the architecture in the major cities of the world. It is what creates a new facade to the typical steel and cement buildings. it creates art and a new style in today's cities. Terra cotta can be used to manipulate different styles and designs of the architectural world. Ceramics used on buildings creates such a beauty that plain old cement is becoming a thing of the past. It is through ceramics on buildings that the facade at the opera house in Sydney Australia is created. The tiles are weak in larger sizes but when the tiles are small and close together to create an even more beautiful site the strength of the structure increases. Ceramics has become the architectures eighth wonder of the world.

terra-cotta

It seems strangely appropriate to me that terra cotta is so overlooked, and is often used to imitate other materials. Clay comes from humble origins, and acts humbly, not taking the credit for how much it really does. Clay very often seems to be underestimated or understated. People use it everyday and rarely pay any attention to what it is. For having such wide spread use, and versatility, you would think that clay would receive more attention, more consideration. Not only can clay look like clay, it can look like a million other surfaces, materials, and textures. Further more, in many situations, like architecture, it is more functional than say, marble, or granite. Covering a building with terra cotta tiles is infinitely easier, and cheaper, than using marble. Maybe, where the appreciation of clay is lost on the general public however, is in its efforts to look like other things. Maybe it does this too well, and the knowledge of what the material actually is, is lost. Also I think that the effort involved in making ceramics is not really understood by those who have never tried it. To make a piece to exact specifications is hard, and to make thousands of pieces to decorate a building seems crazy, but obviously worth the effort in the end.

Amandas Blog

When I tell people that I am taking a ceramic class, they always comment or make reference to creating dinnerware or pottery. I admit that I myself always just thought of terra cotta in that context. Not until we were assigned to this next project did I think about the true possibilities you can achieve with terra cotta . Even after knowing that it’s so durable, I honestly never thought of it being a popular material to use for architectural purposes. Just like everyone in the class has been commenting, when you think of the city of New York, large shinny metal skyscrapers come to mind. However from what I have learned from this article is that terra cotta can almost mimic any material in an architectural world. In frequent cases, there must be a profound examination to be able to correctly detect terra cotta; that’s amazing to me. It shows the endless possibilities and gets me excited enough to think outside the box for our final project. It will also be interesting to see what other people in the class will come up with. I even have noticed myself taking a second look at the walls that surround me and appreciate what many don’t. It’s fascinating to read that architects are moving toward wider ranges of material after several years of using steel and glass. Terra cotta, with all its benefits,has riled more companies in to gain newer, more original ideas in ornament, color and surface patterns. After gaining this knowledge, I look forward to noticing the change (even in the slightest detail) over the next years; how will companies begin to use terra cotta next?

Terra Cotta

I too was surprised after reading this article. I’ve been to New York City once before, and having grown up in a city myself always assumed it was a hustling and bustling concrete jungle. I suppose I’ve always associated the greyscale colors of the city with concrete and asphalt, and anything that made its way to the color wheel was simply painted or made of brick or what have you. Though, after this article I find architecture of previous times far more relatable to our current day and age. Size and mass disregarded, we still build in familiar geometric systems, so why shouldn’t we use familiar materials? That is the irony really. It’s even sort of comical. Now we have all of these towering skyscrapers and colossal structures, we figure our present architectural technology is unrivaled by those of our ancestors. Yet, even history teaches us of the wonders man built hundreds of years ago. It really is reasonable that we would harvest that knowledge and continue to foster it for the growth of our homes today. I have to wonder how many more materials with an extensive history are used in the millennium era and why they aren’t more commonly mentioned.

Sierra Palochak

The reading for this week was very intriguing. I enjoyed learning about the decorative purposes of terracotta. Before examining this reading, I had no idea about how much terracotta is used to surface buildings. I was amazed to find out that New York City is absolutely covered with ceramic artworks that were painstaking created by different craftsmen. The reading explained the various processes that were used to create these ornaments. I am learning more as I go along in this class that the production of ceramics is a time consuming process that takes unbelievable skill. I also enjoyed the part of the reading that speaks about the unique qualities of terracotta of which I was previously unaware. However, after being informed about terracotta's unique abilities, it seems to be a perfect material to adorn architecture. I was intrigued by the fact that clay has the capability to mimic other materials, an ability which lends itself to being used for various projects. The last portion of the article that was very meaningful to me was the use of color in these pieces. As a painter, color is everything to me. I believe that it completely changes how an individual perceives an artwork. I enjoy the fact that the ceramic pieces were coloful, because it allows the audience to have a full aestetic appreciation for the piece and also draws more attention from the public.

Terra Cotta

I live an hour north of New York City so I have visited there numerous times. I never realized how much really is made of terra cotta like the reading claims. I supposed a part of that is because when most people think about the architecture of NYC, they think about the new skyscrapers and the metal and lights. They buildings for teneants (which i would assume are the ones to have terra cotta) are overlooked as buildings in the city. They are a lot of people living in the Manhattan and the surrounding burrows, yet that is not the primary thought of architecture to a tourist. However, I am still not comfortable calling it the "terra cotta jungle."
Terra Cotta dos seem to make sense for NYC though. The fact that it is "unaffected by acid rain and pollution" is extremely helpful in industiralized cities. Also, terra cotta is able to look like many different materials. It has a distinct diversity, similar to the many diverse people and cultures in New York City. On a more random note, it is interesting that the author chose NYC when she writes in European English. (color vs colour).

Terra Cotta

I found this article interesting. I didn’t know that terra cotta was used so much in architecture, especially in New York City. I like how Tunick referred to New York as a “clay jungle” even though most people just assume it’s a “concrete jungle.” Tunick made a good point when she talked about ceramics seeming second best to painting and sculpture. This thought leads people astray when looking at buildings made out of terra cotta. They just assume that something made out clay wouldn’t be able to last, or they just don’t even think about terra cotta being a possible option as a building tool. The fact that terra cotta is used in skyscrapers and other buildings is also hidden because the architects used the clay abilities to mimic other materials. Terra cotta was often used and made to imitate various stones like granite or marble and even wood or iron in some cases.
Tunick then went into explaining the manufacturing process of the terra cotta. Terra cotta was hand-tailored to each project, with special attention paid to all of the requirements. Before any of the manufacturing could begin the architect and manufacturer went through multiple steps. From shop drawings to models to mold productions and preparations of clay and glazes had to first be completed. Once drawings were accepted by the architect full size models could begin being constructed. The employees who constructed these plaster models were one of the most high paid workers in the factory.

Terra Cotta

After reading this article I am interested in the use of ceramics in our everyday world. I think that we as a society take for granted the use of ceramics due to living such a fast paced life. I think it is really interesting how we go in and out of buildings and things that we occupy and don't take time to think about how they are made. I never really was interested in ceramics and clay, never really understood the dynamic and innovative aspect that one puts into making things that are clay related. But now after this class I have a total new respect for clay and those that work with it. After reading this article I think it is very interesting that clay is so manipulative and easily able to "mimic" other materials; therefore, it goes unnoticed all around us especially in major forms of architecture. For example for people to have to look closely at Terra Cotta and not be able to identify the material for what it is mind blowing. I think this article has made me stop and really look and appreciate the detail in architecture and try to understand what the artist is trying to convey.

Terra Cotta

I was quite surprised while reading this article. The first bit that jumped out to me, was a statement by Tunick, "I find the idea tantalizing that New York is a 'clay jungle' rather than the more familiar image of a 'concrete jungle." This has never occured to me. While viewing the New York City skyline, I have always been enamored by the sheer greatness of the buidlings. I would never have thought they were mostly terra cotta. This just seems amazing; a clay city. I was so interested to read about the construction process of the molded terra cotta pieces. I can't even imagine how much work actually went in to the creation of all the individual castings. I found myself in wonder when thinking about a 48 feet high by 24 ft in diameter. Walking inside these kilns would be incredible, but probably a bit overwhelming. Compared to the kilns we use in class, I cant imagine how much effort and precision it took to fire these kilns perfectly. It seems incredible to me that such a common material can hold up the most amazing structures. When looking at these buidlings, its not terra cotta that jumps right out at you. Its great to know that I material I love to use has helped to change the face of architecture as it was known in the 1920s. It really makes me think that the sky is the limit when it comes to techniques and ideas involving all types of clay.

Architectual Terra Cotta: Response

One of the characteristics of clay that I continue to find fascinating is its ability to mimic other materials. Either it be metal, stone, brick, fabric, or just about anything there is always some new way to explore the versatility of clay. In this article, the author talks about the specific way architects have capitalized on clay's versatility to make their buildings. I found the statistic claiming almost half of the New York skyline is made of architectural terra cotta very intriguing and surprising. I'm sure it is not a very popular that people visiting New York would be on the look out for the terra cotta; rather, their thoughts might be distracted by all of the shiny glass and metal walls that tower over the city. However, the fact that the terra cotta is not as obvious certainly proves the versatility of this fascinating material.

I also think that the oversight of terra cotta's prevalence in New York's skyline is the fact that we mostly think of clay in the "pottery" function. The other two categories, maybe less obvious functions of ceramics, are architectural and fixtures. Many people are very familiar with the common dinner plate or vase that are quintessential ceramic objects of the everyday. When we are required to make the switch to thinking and recognizing ceramics as a construction material, our associations might not be as clear.

Ceramics are Architecture

After reading this article I never realized how much terra cotta is in the buildings in New York. The article did a good job of explaining the process that the terra cotta goes through to be a in a building, but I would like to learn more about other places and structures besides New York or skyscrapers.

To me using terra cotta in buildings seems like an old tradition but after reading this article I feel like I know more about contemporary building. Even though some of the buildings were built in the 19^th century the terra cotta on the building is in an old style. The building process has probably changed dramatically but you would never know by just looking at it. I like the process because it is all done by hand which gives it a personality. Especially since it is on a building of such great scale it gives it a sense of amazement and fascination.

If everyone knew that most of the skyscrapers in New York mad some terra cotta in them then I think people would have a greater understanding and respect for architectural ceramics.

Now after reading this I will try and find ceramics in everyday buildings and pay closer attention to the structure of the building.

Beavers and Bees

After reading this article I realized how animals were born with the instinct of surviving. We are the more dominant species but if we were put into the wilderness right now we would die off fast.

Beavers have a great sense of building that no other animal ever has and after reading this article I realized how smart and efficient they are. I am kind of jealous in a sense because I feel that humans do not have an instinct to build something this great that is so unique to our species. Yes, we have buildings and furniture but those are designed and built by people with a talent not an instinct.

Humans rely on machines to do everything now and not our intuition and instinct. In a sense we would be digressing but we would be able to start over and create everything for ourselves again. We would be going by what our brain says and not what the computer or Internet says.

Bees to have a great sense of instinctual building. I feel that humans take for granted how smart they are. Bees have a great sense of memory and can remember flowers they have traveled to and where to put everything they collect.

Humans do have a bigger brain but we could not build anything as great a beaver dam or a bee hive.

...

Reading this article makes me think a lot about my own pets, and whether they could be considered smart or not. I would say that animals are definitely intelligent. Maybe they do not reflect upon the purpose of their actions like humans do, but there must be thoughts and reason they do things. For example, once my parrot made a break for it from my house in New Jersey. We searched for a couple of hours before finding her a couple streets away, on the porch of a house that was the same model as ours. My dad would let Click (that's the birds name) sit out on the porch when her wings were trimmed. I think that Click flew off, and then saw a house with a porch like ours and decided to land there, says something. She must have recognized it, and decided to go there.

Beaver Madness

I found that this piece was very informative with the cycle that animals have gone through history. I believe that it is instinct that drives every animal to make there homes or nest. I believe that this instinct was formed through natural selection and evolution. Like humans I animals go through trial and era and through the years it has created a natural instinct for animal and insects. The beaver I found to be the most interesting out of all the insects and animals mentioned. The beaver has mastered the art of dam building. I believe that through trial and era the perfect dam building is created. the beaver today now knows where to put every piece of log twig and amount of dirt to put in a certain area so that the dam will not collapse. I am intrigued by the effort that they go through and how they developed short cuts through streams and escape patterns from predators. they know how much pressure the stream creates through even the roughest time and the dam they created still holds strong. that is magnificent to me. This article informed me of so much knowledge that I never knew. It was a great read.

Animal Building

After reading this analysis based on animal building, I found myself getting extra excited about our upcoming assignment. I find it fascinating that all animals, including humans, have a certain instinct inside that supports their survival skills. In particular the beaver’s dam is an interesting structure that is primarily discussed. The animals’ creation does make you question whether or not it is purely beaver instinct or if they actually plan out each dam, stepping back to look at their creation from a design point. As explained in the article, Lewis Morgan observed European beavers living in burrows dug into river banks. Their North-American cousins who build dams, in Morgan’s opinion, are purposely created to promote happiness and are not necessary made for survival. I personally feel that evolution has contributed mainly to this occurrence. If you think about it, beavers spend their life time fixing their dam every time it is damaged; making it bigger and better each time around, it’s like trial and error. Over the years beavers learn to perfect the “art” of dam making. Bees were also observed and talked about in the reading. I found it shocking and intriguing that people actually studied the bee hive for architectural purposes and discovered that it has a precise mathematical framework. How and why does nature do what it does? In my opinion I feel that just like humans, animals too adjust to their habitats in order to make their existence more efficient.

Beaver Homes

I found this article very interesting. In the beginning of the article Rudofsky is introduced along with his thoughts on animal architecture. It states that Rudofsky most envied creatures instincts. He thought that modern men had lost touch with our intuitions and are no longer able to shape a tool or build a house without previous experience, while the animals have an innate sense of construction. While Rudofsky thinks humans have more to learn from animals, Vitruvius thinks we have completely surpassed animal architecture. On one hand I agree with Rudofsky. I think that we have learned a lot if not most things form observing animals, and also the fast that without previous experience or exposure, humans cannot easily make their own building or even tools. So how do animals do it? Is it just instinctual to them? Do they learn through observation? Morgan speculated that "the beaver's ability to adjust its designs to varying circumstances rather than blindly following an unchanging model." This is after Morgan looked at different dams and realized that the beavers began changing their designs to adjust and protect the dam to the changing ways. The beaver’s make their decisions consciously in order to make their housing and do not rely solely on instinct. With this fact you can see a small similarity between beavers and humans; we both make conscience decisions about design and effect when creating an object.

Beavers and the Bees

I think this article is very interesting due to the author discussing our fascination with the architecture that animals have created. Learning that we observed animals building habits to make our own building is very interesting. In this article I stumbled upon a quote that is very much true which states that, we as humans have lost touch with our intuition due to being overly civilized. I think that that statement is very true in the sense that we don’t go with our gut feelings about certain things as often as we should. In our generation we either have someone else to think for us or some mathematical and logical way of solving things, but with that we are losing our own instinct as to how to go about doing things as humans. It is interesting to me the outlook of Vitruvius’ opinion that we have surpassed the architecture of animals in comparison to Rudofsky’s opinion that we haven’t. As I read more about Rudofsky’s opinion I agree with him in the idea that we as humans have not surpassed animals and their architecture due to not having the same instinct as animals and not being able to adjust to the circumstances that surround it.

I also have to agree with Jorrie on her ideas that we don’t build our architecture from instincts but from intelligence. Animals build things and change or alter them to fit the needs of their habitat, in a way we do too but with more advanced and intelligent ways. We build things to be useful and purposeful in multiple ways that best fit our environment. The idea that animals instinctually build such structures is not a reason for philosophers to say that animals are surpassing the human architecture but just proves that we use our intelligence to make an efficient and safe structure for mankind.

On homes

This article raised several interesting questions in regards to animal and human architecture. I do not believe that mankind’s architecture is entirely instinctual. I also don’t think it’s entirely based on our race’s intelligence, and as far as animals are concerned, I don’t believe they fall into only one of the two proposed categories. Animal’s homes are indeed aesthetic. I’m sure that’s relative to some extent, not everyone will be moved by the contours of a beehive. But they are at the very least, intriguing. The appeal an animal’s home is able to convey I attribute not to the creature’s instinct, as the creature is not likely able to consider aesthetics in the ways we do. The efficiency of the home perhaps exists at a far more instinctual level. This is all my best attempt at speculation, mind. Humankind on the other hand, works in a far different caliber. Yes, animal homes are generally effective for their given purpose, but human architecture is often designed to serve multiple purposes. Animal homes are not as plural in their purposes. Humans also consider how this structure can be designed not only for ultimate efficiency, but for ultimate aesthetics. Now, of course there is sometimes a compromise. Sometimes we must be loose with aesthetics for sake of efficiency. Or perhaps we disregard efficiency as its role is not as eminent as aesthetics. In all this though, I am reminded that both mankind and the animal kingdom alike dress this world in such wonderful and ornate objects, with such finesse and accuracy, that I must consider the wonder of their brilliant Maker.

Beavers

Considering all the buildings and cities and massive skyscrapers humans have constructed, it’s fascinating to consider that people may have learned how to construct structures by watching birds create their nests. I always assumed most of an animal’s knowledge is instinctual and most our knowledge is learned. Even in creating a primitive hut, our ancestors may have needed inspiration from other creatures. An architect spends years in school learning how to construct; every building is carefully designed and mathematically planned out beforehand. A beaver creates its dam with just as much brilliance, but is its knowledge passed down through generations or instinctual? I’ve seem beaver dams before but I had no idea how precisely they are created. Their dams are flanked by 2 smaller barriers and are curved at the center where highest water pressure is, so that the dam can withstand change in water flow. Did it take many lost beaver homes from one beaver to engineer an ideal design to prevent dam destruction? Or do beaver just know out of common sense that they should construct two smaller dams so that their home will not be washed away during a flood? Sometimes I think humans just over think things. For example we naturally know what a good composition is and what colors look nice together, but once one is asked to be become consciously aware of it, something that was once so natural becomes confusing for a while. Perhaps much of our knowledge is instinctual, we just over think too much.

Beavers and the Bees Response

I found that this article was interesting in that it was not only about the architecture of animals, but the controversies regarding animal psychology. It was interesting birds nests, termite hills and beehives were more structured and intelligent than human architecture. I find this hard to fully believe. Birds are more of collectors and termites dig holes. I do think that beehives are very structured and thought out and very symmetrical. Spider webs are another engineering structure from animals that i feel may still be more advanced than some of our natural architecture. Their webs are extremely structured and organized. Also, they remake their webs frequently from destruction due to people and other animals and weather.
The author states that for beavers, form followed anatomy. This makes me wonder: what form humans would instinctively make? Is it an instinct that we create tools to help us build more complex forms? I feel that we have many more opportunities since we have opposable thumbs and a greater sense of common agreement on our imagination.

Beavers and Bees

I felt this was an interesting article comparing the architectural designs of both beavers and bees. I was interested in learning that Vitruvius believed we have surpassed animals in architecture, while Rudofsky believes that we still have something to learn from animals. At first I thought we have wildly surpassed the architecture of animals but after reading more of the article, I found out something interested. Morgan speculated that "the beaver's ability to adjust its designs to varying circumstances rather than blindly following un unchanging model." This is after Morgan looked at different dams and realized that the beavers began changing their designs to adjust and protect the dam to the changing ways.
I also found interesting the argument between architectural appearance and designs between beaver dams and bee hives. Darwin greatly admired bees for their artisty and the intricacy of their hives while beavers built in a haphazard fashion and only was considered artistic in appearance over time. I really do think that beehives are beautiful but I feel the intricate designs are simply for pure purpose and necessity. This is exactly Cheng talked about, "the animal's intelligence was seen as directing the activity of building; architecture therefore was an expression of consciousness." It turned into something the animals did while surviving. They have to build, and it just happens to be what they create can be considered beautiful architecture.

Reading Response 4

One of the common threads throughout this article that helped to unify the author's ideas is the discussion between animal instinct and intelligence. This makes sense because it addresses the thought processes of these animals as they construct their dwellings. They are thinking something when they construct them, but as to how they come about those thoughts is up for debate. The author gives a rather balanced selection of what each perspective has to say which kept me interested in the rest of the article's information.

A discussion point that also caught my eye was the issue of animal as designer or builder. The author brings up this discussion at the beginning of the article when he quotes Morgan as believing that the beaver dams were not absolutely necessary to the beaver's existence, that there is an aesthetic component attached to its functionality. In other words, the "animal has a fundamental awareness of its own creation." I had never really thought of this possibility of an animal having the intelligence and practices of an artist critiquing his work. I am aware of how some animal dwellings can be so intricate and fantastical in comparison to human constructions, but it came as a surprise to think of the animal actually evaluating the structure for something more than functionality. Maybe this is not quite the extent of what Morgan was referring to, but it is still a good point to ponder: the creativity of an animal and from where the creativity comes.

Bees and Beavers

Many points in the article for this week were fascinating. I liked the discussion pertaining to beavers and bees and how they design their dwelling places. The research regarding beavers was extraordinarily intriguing. The fact that they make active decisions in creating their complex housing is quite amazing. I enjoyed viewing the beaver as a creator and artist. They make their decisions consciously is order to make their housing and do not rely solely on instinct. I enjoyed this fact because it helps create a link between human artists and beavers. We both make active decision making when creating objects. I also found the difference between the creation methods used by bees and humans fascinating as well. The concept that bees only rely on instinct to create such complex structures is almost unfathomable to me. Bees hives are complex structures that are made without hesitation or thought. Imagining that something so detailed could be done without thought or active decision making is very hard to fully comprehend. The part of the article I enjoyed the most was the last few paragraphs that stated how much more superior human creations should be because of our complex minds. Humans are extremely complex creatures and I liked that the author acknowledges human intricacies while discussing creations and artwork. This view is very hopeful and I love to think of the items that humans can create because we are complex beings. That our creations rely not only on instincts but the complex ideas and values is a very powerful concept.

Color blog

I have always been infatuated with color ever since I was a child. Color gives life, love, anger and many more emotions to a painting or a piece of art that an artist created. Without color life would be dual and plain, like a poor acted black and white film with no real plot. I found it real interesting how Huxley talked about Hallucinations and how true a color can be and his take on life. How Dorothy’s life in Kansas is like the world around us, Grey. I would have to say that colors can be overwhelming sometimes but so can everything in large doses.
I must say that I feel very strongly with the quote stated by John Gage, “The Feeling that verbal language is incapable of defining the experience of color.” I agree with the quote because sure you can write about a sunset on the flat ocean while on a cruise, but to experience it and to see the blends of red, fuchsia, blue and orange and then that quick flash when the sun goes down cannot be written. It can only be seen or expressed with color to get the full beauty.

"Color and its meaning in our World"

While reading through this chapter, I thought it was interesting to read how deep some people look into the meaning of color. I have my own spin on colors however some of the ideas that are written obviously are on a whole other level then mine. First of all, I have never been on LSD and I don’t plain to try it. Yes colors are fascinating but having to take a drug to understand them is insane in my opinion. I agree with John Gage when he says in a brief quote, “the feeling that verbal language is incapable of defining the experience of colour”. For example, you know the certain feeling you get every time someone you know walks into the room? Every person gives you a different sense of feeling which describes them to you personally. In my opinion that’s what I feel happens with color too; everyone has a different aura. Our society tends to separate most common colors and match them with meaning. Red means love, yellow expresses the feeling of a mellow emotion. On the other hand, these colors have different shades which can express different emotions. We use these common meanings of color to teach young children concepts while consuming our life with making sure particular colors are purposely around us; color matters to most everyone. Notice how most newborn, baby rooms are engulfed with pastel colors. Blue stands for a baby boy and pink for a girl. If you don’t know what gender you are having, it is accustomed to incorporate them all. Most people don’t know this but it doesn’t even matter to the child at birth because they are born color blind. In actuality the best colors to have surrounding them is red, black and white. Over several months the child begins to see the color red first. Having these three colors combined in mixed patterns, helps babies cognitive thinking at the earliest age possible. Point being, there are so many different ways to look into the meaning of colors. There is no true answer and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We see it every day with the choices in colors people make concerning their attire. Color has always been a part of us and it will continue to be express in multiple ways throughout the world, forever.

Blog

In this reading they state how color and language have a close relationship. People always state when someones clothing or anything that has bright colors is "loud". But in the reading given they say how silence is something color may provoke with its power and autonomy. Also how we use color to speak with silence, in which we try to say something that moves us beyond language. Also how color is connected to the body in two ways which is when its applied to the body as make up and the body in its resistance to verbalization. I think its interesting how the reading goes on to say how color interacts with people not only physically but also mentally.

"Hanunoo"

I think this article invokes some rather curious ideas in using the words “chromophobia” and “chromophillic” to describe man’s relation to color. They also serve to give the idea of color, as a whole a certain weight, something we should be tentative of because it is something we are so profusely involved with, that it suggests a relationship which exceeds that of an obsession. Color is indeed a very intricate and complex part of ourselves and the world around us and the article references that intimacy in a number of ways. Color has the ability to make us feel, change our ideals or opinions. In any given situation, color can dictate a number of reactions or cause the circumstance to pivot to a decline or an incline. Conversely, we can use color to do all of these things, and create our own narratives. Regarding color being a living and breathing thing, I could not agree more. Color in and of itself is indeed full of living things and is capable of expressing an exponential number of concepts. Furthermore, it lives on life itself. If color did not posses the ability to convey, it would still ornament all things that do actively and tangibly convey (Humans, Animals, plants, etc.).

Ceramics

My painting teacher last year had an entirely different view of color. Rather than the poetic praises of color written in Hanunoo, he used to tell us the whole world was just different shades of gray, but some grays contained more pigment of a certain color. In some ways my teacher and the article are similar, both emphasizing the fact that there is a much wider spectrum of color than blues, reds and yellows.
I don’t agree with the statement that color loses its “intrinsic appeal (79)” as we grow older, our taste in color changes. We may no longer be surrounded by the obvious primary and secondary, saturated hues of color; instead we begin to appreciate the “grays”. Color plays a large role in the clothes we buy, the paint we cover our walls with, and the items we use to decorate our apartments and so on. Perhaps we lose the lose the childhood fascination and obsession one once had, feeling the need to proclaim ones love of a certain color, claiming it is one’s favorite and it is the only color one is willing to wear, but our love of color never truly diminishes.

Reading Response 3

I remember reading the "Hanunoo" chapter before and the slight confusion I had for the book title's name Chromophobia. The fact of being afraid of color seemed a little odd to me. Who is afraid of color? It is harmless, right? Well after reading the "Hanunoo" chapter for a second time, I was intriqued by the answers I found to these questions. The author makes some very important and poetic conclusions about color that can be applicable not only to artists but to people's everyday lives. For one, I agree with the author's statement that colour is alive and active. It can have a mind of its own and pull you into another world, another realm of being by just interacting with the color. This kind of "otherly" expereince is further explained when the author that colour has the power to make us silent because there are no words, only body language, to express our reaction to colour. For example, in my intereactions with colour, I think of my facial expressions that I make. I smile, or frown, or stare, or even turn my head at the sight of some colours. At those moments the power of the colour has forced me to describe it only through the means of my body.
This intereaction of body language and colour leads to what I think is the most poignant theme discussed in this chapter in that "to attend to colour is to attend to the limits of language." I think colour has the power to "take our breath away" or move us in such a way that the word, "blue" does not suffice for the nuance, beauty and poise that the colour presents to us. Colour is alive so it should be able to be described as such instead of being shoved into a dull and unfullfilling word.

Chromophobic Response

I personally found the article to be very interesting due to being a painting and drawing BFA and always being the one scared and confused about color. Although there were some points that I couldn’t wrap my head around there were just as many good points. I thought it was very interesting with Huxley’s idea that color is “entirely natural” in regards to being untouched by language, they are fresh to us as they are presented due to color not being able to be verbally taught. I also think that Klein is right about color being “enslaved” by line and becoming writing. I thought that quote as a pun as I found myself reading a book on how to use and make color which uses language and line to convey ideas about color which contradicts Klein’s statement. Faber Birren brings up an interesting statement that “youngsters are more responsive to color that to form and will delight in it with sheer pleasure.” I think that the idea that children are more open to color, without judging, analyzing, and appreciative to art and color is so true due to doing a speech on a teacher, philosopher, and writer Ken Robinson. Ken speaks about how schools are squashing children’s personal expression and the arts by teaching analytical things where things are right and wrong, yeas or no. Therefore as children grow up they lose the love and appreciating for art and color due to growing up in a world of disciplines where we are told to question and think into the meaning of things. I think that it is also so true that color does not correlate with language and is not capable of defining itself verbally. My art teacher last year Helen O’Leary was trying to teach us color (which is very difficult already) but especially when in elementary school we are taught that basic definition of colors for example: that a tree stump is brown. Helen would scream that tree stumps are not just brown they can range from either ends of the spectrum of multiple browns. One thing I would like to bring up when discussing the idea of color is a question that I constantly ask myself. It may be out there but… how do we know that we see the same colors? We can describe and make gestures all we want but how do we as individuals and as a part of society know that the blue I see is the same version of blue others see? Especially with the idea of people who are color blind. Another point that is interesting is that it is believed that Newton divided his color spectrum up into 7 colors to correspond with the 7 notes that make up the musical scale. I agree with the article that color is alive, fluid, independent, dependent and use for different jobs depending on what we are trying to convey. And hopefully one day it won’t be another language and we will understand it rather then fear it.

CERAMICS, oh yea!

The reading for this week entitled, Hanunoo was very interesting to me. I was very fascinated with the in depth discussion about color from various scholars. Previously I had not given much thought to the intricacy of color; however, after reading this article I became aware of the unimaginable complexities involved in the debate of color. The beginning of the article which discusses color as abstract and formless was a very enchanting concept. I enjoyed that color is regarded by some as a remote or original state of being as well as part of the unconscious mind. Another part of the article that I found to be beautifully descriptive was the portion involving speechlessness. The article describes color as being one of the few things that can move someone to the point beyond language, an idea I found to be quite truthful. I enjoyed also the debate regarding whether colors exist at all. It was interesting to find out that there are so few names for the basic colors in different cultures. I also enjoyed that different cultures divide the colors into different basic categories. Overall, I found that this article gave me a different perspective on the concept of colors. I found the theories to be well supported and very informational.

Ceramics response.

After reading this article I realized how relative color really is. I also realized how color is essential to everything around us. Color makes something what it is, without color we would be nothing. Color has a big impact on our lives because color is everywhere. Without color in our lives I feel that there would be no meaning because color is in everything. Color is what everything is made from.

This article helped me to realize that when someone writes about color it seems to lose meaning. Color must be d because it is a visual experienced. Someone cannot just write what they see because that might not be what the other person pictures in their head. For example, if I made a glaze and told someone about it, that person would not know what exactly I was talking about until they actually saw it. Even after telling someone I cannot even be sure that this person really sees what I see. The experience of color is a very personal feeling.

When we are learning about color we first learn what color is because color is all around us. Then later we learn what color is in words and writing. We find that the words are just symbols of what color actually is.

The idea of making color is a great experience because we actually are working with it. It seems more like an object than an idea.

Response3 - Chromophobia

Hanunoo is an interesting article. Firstly, it was unusual to me to make so many religious and biblical references in an article about color. It was more of a digression than making a valid proof. I also found their terms for color to be unusual. I took Abnormal psych last semester and we learned about phobias and fetishes. With that background, the term "chromophobic" implies an immense fear, rather than the general dis-favor the article seems to sugest for hte term. Also, "chromophilic" implies a sexual connotation along with an obsession. I do not believe these are the true meanings. I personally see how color can be an obsession. In Batchelor's terms, I would classify myself as a chromophilic. It was interesting to see that to Des Esseintes, color was more important than price. The author also states that "colour is active; it is alive." I like this description a lot. It brought me a new way to observe color. It is true that color can being "life" into an object. Color also can catch our interest from the corner of our view. Another ponderance of mine is that the say language and color are opposites. Why can't they be joined? I have such a positive attitude with color; yet "colorful language" is negative word. The last ponderance i will leave with is: if your soul were to be one single color, what would it be? The author mentions that souls have color and we may be subconsciously attracted to a color. What would our color say about us?

Blogtizle twizzzzle

I feel that Ceramics made centuries ago is overlooked as art work. I believe that people look at pots and ceramic pieces as just bowls or pots; used to carry water or for other forms of containing things. I feel that instead of looking at the piece as a tool, people should look at it as more of a form of art; people would appreciate ceramics more. The detail that goes into some pots is unbelievable. To think how tedious that work was for the creator is un-real. I have to admit that I really didn’t understand what the author of the article was trying to say until I read what other people wrote. I found that the article was a run-on of what could be a paragraph long. What I did get from the article though is that the grave detail people put into a piece they create whether it is a reproduction or an original piece that looks the same as another is its own individual fingerprint in the ceramic world.

DISCOURSE AND DECORATION

While carefully and thoroughly reading this article, I was initially confused and dumfounded as to why this theory was so important to the author. Honestly, a part of me (with the outmost respect) questioned in my mind, why the author would care so much about this topic? Not until the end of the article did I truly understand and think to myself, wow I have never thought of ceramics in this context before. I realize that I have only begun to get wrapped into the art of ceramics. Even so, after reading the article, I have formed an opinion in which I feel is important to remember. No two objects are ever exactly alike. Vases from the past for example may look identical with the average human eye, but in reality, there is always something different that subsides in each piece. For instance, it may have a different maker, a slight defect one cannot see, or even something as tiny as the slightest change in the molecular structure each vase contains; this makes them different. Albeit much historical pottery has no artists name attached, each piece has its own unique story from the moment and time it was made; even if we do not know that exact story. On that note, I don’t believe in getting all wrapped up with what may sound like a hard concept to grasp. It is actually in retrospect, an easy idea to understand. Though the object may seem to be repetitive and unoriginal, it is still an individual piece of art. It’s just easier for people to say that it’s not because it’s what they are used to seeing. The creation of pottery from the past is traditional art; art made for the sole purpose to be used as a tool in society. I feel that it is important to know the past, but even more important to continue to make ceramic art in any form you desire. Even if the form is not original, it will always have only your own solitary touch. Enough with the deep stuff, I hope you understand what I am getting at. When a human being creates a piece never done before, I believe that it is rightfully their own creative idea. People may recreate the same idea; however it is proper to give credit where credit is due.

response to ceramics 2

After reading Paul Greenhalgh’s article I find it very interesting that we base our history and art history off many of our early ceramic pieces which reflect the time period they were made in as well as the heritage of the maker and the culture. The fact that these pieces are made and can outlast their makers is very fascinating due to having one meaning in the maker’s generation and function in a different way in the next generation. For example what could be used as a water container or to store food could also be an antique decoration in a modern home. I think that it is so interesting that we as society can observe a “vessel” or a ceramic piece and learn about the artists and their personality due to the size, color, texture, shape, form, and subject matter. Greenhalgh brings up another interesting point of the “intimacy” that is shared by touch between the producer and the consumer which is something that a lot of us over look. Due to living in such a quick, fast paced, and mass producing society where all these details are over looked we as consumers buy things that are aesthetically appealing or functioning and don’t take time to look at the effort and detail put into a simple coffee cup or a bowl. I know that there have been many times where in an art gallery I found myself walking right past the ceramics part of the exhibition and not really putting much thought into the work. But after taking this class I have a deeper appreciation for the time, the form, the art, and the attention to details.

2nd Blog

Throughout this whole essay Paul Greenhalgh, from my opinion, is stressing how art history doesn't do much good for the art of ceramics. He also goes on to say that found ceramic objects gives historians ideas to develop theories about the certain time that the objects were found. They also show the type of society and class of the people by the analysis of the medium of the ceramics used to compose the pieces.
He also went on to say that ceramics apparently is not "avant-garde". Which I'm guessing is the courage to go try something new and different that no one else has seen before, from the military sense definition he has given in the essay. Even though he says in a cultural sense avant-garde movements "did not wish to change art, they wished to change the world". But cubism was a part of the movement and even though it wasn't used to change art, it did and made a huge impact in the art world.

Don't miss all the beautiful colors of the rainbow looking for that pot of gold.

Paul Greenhalgh’s article on the struggle for historic space was both intriguing and thought provoking. I certainly agree that there is not enough space carved out in the history of art for ceramics. I can honestly say that I know very little about the history of this art form. Of course I know that ceramics have been around for quite a long time, and that pots have been used in many different ways, from religious ceremonies to every day kitchen use, and in my eyes they are equally important. But none of this I learned in any classroom. So what does this say about our modern critics and historians?
Since Duchamp's fountain, that art world has been turned upside down and is still trying to recover. There has been a great change in the way to look and perceive art, and I think the way we view ceramic has been a part of that change. Though, as this article points out, there is still a long way to go, ceramics has come so far from how it has been viewed in the past.
Greenhalgh also discusses the affect that language has on a piece of art. By labeling things we can sometimes be distracted from what that object is and what it is trying to say.
My only critique is that the article is written with to mush attitude, and at sometimes it almost seems that he is whining which I found slightly unprofessional.

Ceramic Repsonse 2

Ceramics are stuck between the realm s of fine art and craft. It can be functional, but also decorative. I have never studied a famous potter in any of my art history classes. When studying ceramics we usually talk about pieces in a more historical sense. The artist is usually unknown, so we don’t spend time talking about the person who created the piece, trying to figure out their life, why the created a form in a certain shape or used a certain glaze the way we analyze paintings. In art history, the painter is just as important as their paintings. We analyze the artists, study the period they were from, their lifestyle and events that happened to better understand their work. Whereas with ceramics we use the artist’s piece to have a better sense of how the society lived. I had never considered the fact that ceramics generally do not go through art movements the way paintings do. Potters are sometimes influenced by certain movements, but not to the extent of other art forms. Ceramics generally focus much more on aesthetics than trying to push the limits of art.

Discourse and Decoration

While reading this essay, I caught myself thinking back to when I took art history 111 about ancient to medieval art history. I was trying to remember certain ceramic pieces that our class had gone over during the course. I remember certain Greek amphora shapes, but this is honestly all I could conjure up. Because of this, I found myself agreeing completely with Greenhalgh and his ideas. Ceramics as a history really don’t have a major or even minor presence. The art knowledge I acquired growing up really stuck with the famous artists of their media. Primarily, I could recognize famous paintings, painters by their works, sculptors, and even some drawings. The downfall is that I don’t have any knowledge of ceramic artists or famous ceramic pieces. Ceramics as a whole doesn’t fall under other media forms because of the many movements and important changes that have occurred.

I love Greenhaulgh’s reference to thread and beads, because this is the truth. The ceramics art needs to be brought out into mainstream teachings and histories, therefore beginning a historical content and knowledge to students and the public alike. At this point, ceramics is my chosen medium and I would feel so much more connected with my art if I knew the history behind the movements and pieces that I make on a daily basis. I want there to be a background for future ceramicists and a common appreciation of ceramics as a true art form.

Greenhalgh Response

In this article you can really see the love the author has for ceramics. He takes the fact that ceramics isn’t recognized very personal. At the beginning of the article Greenhalgh, explains how ceramics doesn’t fit into the traditional mold used by art historians to asses art. He then goes into a definition of avant-garde. To Greenhalgh, avant-garde should not be used to judge ceramics. He states that avant-garde was a movement that originated in Europe. Avant-garde was used by various groups to try and transform society through radical use of arts. Using this definition I completely agree with Greenhalgh. You can’t use avant-garde to judge ceramics. Like other art, ceramics should be judge using guild lines that strictly apply to how ceramics is made, and why it is made.
Since Greenhalgh doesn’t agree with using avant-garde to rate ceramics he doesn’t five distinct areas that could be used. Greenhalgh also talks about the “afterlife” of objects (ceramics in this instanst). He feels that this concept is important in seeing the form and the “language” of the piece without be distracted by who made the piece or why. I agree with Greenhalgh again. By not knowing the exact person or the exact reason behind the piece, you are allowed to see the piece only for what it is at that moment. You aren’t distracted by the name of the creator like you sometimes are in paintings.
By the end of the article Greenhalgh had me convinced about the lack of history in ceramics and his thoughts on changing that.

Reading Response 2

One of the points that I was drawn to in this chapter selection by Paul Greenhalgh is his comments and questions about one's response to ceramics. In connection with ceramic theory he points the reader to how ceramic objects are perceived rather than conceived. I find this idea of perception and response to be most interesting and how that generates a relationship between people and objects. Granted, this relationship can be built lots of different ways with many artworks, but I am more intrigued the relationship in regards to ceramics. As stated in the article, this art form has developed its language over thousands of years, but probably has had the most interaction with people over that time period than any other art form. The perseverance of ceramics is truly incredible and it has assimilated itself into the world instead of radically changing it in a few large productions.

Our responses to ceramic objects can be through the aesthetic or informative lenses which give us more perspective on what was going on in art, in society, in the lives of people when the object was created. I sort of enjoy the fact that ceramic history is not as developed within the art history profession because it allows me to see the works with open eyes. Sometimes I feel that there is so much information about the art and art forms studied in main stream art history classes that I find it hard to see the pieces with a fresh perspective. In particular, I enjoy the ability to have the response of looking at a ceramic piece just for the purpose of aesthetics and nothing else which is something that does not happen for me that often with other forms of art (i.e. painting, drawing, etc.) I feel that there is this expectation to put a concept or story behind the piece, but with ceramics, I feel more freedom to just appreciate the aesthetic qualities to be satisfied with stopping there in my response to the object(s).

post 2

It is pretty interesting to try and fit your own art into the historical scene. I had wondered a couple of times if ceramics artists felt pressured by the history of ceramics to stay within those traditions. For example our class is making vases. It is a form that has been made over and over again. Our project even involved research on the history of our vase. Some of the forms used are hundreds of years old. Do ceramic artist feel like it is harder to branch out and be avant garde? or like the reading says, is it really just not their thing. Then again there are artists like Beth Cavener Sticher who are not making traditional pot forms, but her art could be influenced by traditional ceramic animal figurines. She is making them quite different but they are animals, and ceramic figurines none the less. After thousands of years of pottery how can you make something truly unique? Perhaps this is a challenge that some ceramic artists look forward to and enjoy. If after so much time they succeed in doing something awesome it will mean that much more.

Ceramics Response 2

After reading this it made me appreciate and really notice how old and important the art of ceramics really is. The author makes ceramics feel like it is not an academic artistry but mostly an establishment in our history. He also explains how ceramics has changed over the decades and art movements and how ceramics is very multidimensional. He also brings up a very good point about how ceramics are totally different from what is going on in the art world at the same time.
I love how the author explains why ceramics look the way they do. The author went over why a certain piece was the way it was. The kiln dictated the size of the piece. The purpose of the piece dictates it structure and form. The color was always set by what glazes were available. This really made sense to me.
The build up to the end was really good because it concluded and brought everything together really well. After reading this I definitely do not feel the same way about ceramics. I see why ceramics have always been seen as decorations or pots because ceramicists were forced to make art that had a physical purpose. This essay really helped me to understand that ceramics should be considered more in art history.

On The Struggle for Historical Space

Though I would certainly consider myself an artist, I would not say that I am a cermasist. However, Paul Greenhalgh in his article provided me with a very specific lens. I was able to relate to a struggle that I believe every artist must undergo and I was able to see that struggle more specifically in the world of ceramics. Initially, I felt Greenhalgh’s way of writing was a bit disorganized, but his perspectives and deconstructions were no less valid. Cermaics shouldn’t be subjected to the processes of understanding and developing theories and histories for painting. For that matter, ceramics should not be tossed in a bucket with anything but ceramics. And that being said, the same standard should be followed for all art. You can’t expect a piece of ceramics or sculpture to occupy the same purpose a drawing or a painting would, and it very well may, but it shouldn’t be expected. Though, I do believe the history of each individual artistic practice can hold relevance to its comrades (those being the other arts). So while all art may fall on one large grid, no two sorts art should be measured, quantified, or assessed on the same spectrum.

Response2 - Greenhalgh

In Discourse and Decoration, Greenhalgh states that ceramics is a victim of art history. I believe that this is somewhat true because there is not many ceramic pieces that are taught since the ancients. Greenhalgh claims that ceramics can not be avant-garde which I completely disagree with. Avant-garde to me is about being modern and with or slightly ahead of the present styles and trends. Ceramics as an art can certainly be avante-garde. Many of the example we were shown for the contemporary surface portion of our assignment are very avant-garde and modern. It is unfortunate that they are not taught more often in art history; however, these pieces are trying to change the way ceramics can be viewed. Greenhalgh also claims that the marker of ceramic art is not important. This is not true for Grayson Perry for example, who depicts elements of his personality and childhood into his vases. Lastly, Greenhalgh says that ceramics doesn't change the world but becomes assimilated into it. This could be said for any type of art. I believe that every type of art changes what is desired in the world. Everything thing we own is effected by art. From clothing to bottle designs and packaging of products. For example, plates during our childhood were all round. Now, we desire more modern and contemporary shapes. We see many square plates and numerous other shapes for plates in homes and restaurants. Even wine glasses are changing in that some are designed without stems. Overall, I feel that Greenhalgh has some good points but he is too judgemental and jumps to conclusions about ceramics without looking at the new ceramicists.

Sierra Palochak, response 2

Discourse and Decoration was a very intriguing article involving the art of ceramics and how it is judged by the art world. I enjoyed the author, Paul Greenhalgh’s, interpretation of past judgments against ceramics as being poorly constructed. In particular, I found his view, which argues that ceramics is a different art form entirely and, as such, should be judged differently than other artistic movements to be very intriguing. The author made numerous arguments as to why ceramics are a different art entirely from other mediums such as painting and sculpting. However, the author then moved on to describe the art of ceramics which I found to be much more enjoyable. The point in the article which I found most fascinating was Greenhalgh’s description of the ceramic heritage and how long standing it is in history. The author seemed particularly passionate while he discusses the artist and their ties to the ceramic past. The way he describes ceramics as being a movement far beyond the artist is an interesting theory. In part, I do agree with the author that ceramics is an extensive field and that it is a collective form of art; however, I do not believe that the objects keep a distance from their maker’s personality. I believe that the artist can be viewed in the pieces they create and that ceramics can have a voice. Overall the article gave an interesting insight into the world of ceramics and was fascinating to read.

Jon's Response

I Thought that the reading was very interesting and full of information. I found it amazing how the tribe's people climbed all the way up the mountains for there clay as it was scarce where they lived and how it became their main form of trading latter on. that truly is fascinating. I also thought the reading was inspiring to me and I'm sure for the rest of the class seeing how we are all beginners in this new medium of ceramics. I never knew how far back clay and ceramics went until i read the reading.

Ceramics

I love the idea that somewhere in the world at this very moment some is working with clay. With the billions of people that inhabit the Earth this could be said about nearly anything, but the fact that clay has been continuously been being shaped since before recorded history is remarkable. There is something extraordinary about clay, how simple and primitive it is and yet so vital even in today’s industrialized society. Occupying three quarters of the surface of the Earth, it is no wonder nearly every culture adapted this material into their daily use. It is strange to think that people traveled great lengths to acquire clay, whereas most of us encounter the substance everyday without considering the all the possibilities it provides. It has outlasted many societies and remains one of the few artifacts that prove that certain cultures once existed. The items people made not only remains proof that they once existed, but allows us to piece together what their values and lifestyle may have been like.