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.