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.