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.