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).