All art is subversive.
Pablo
Picasso
Picasso
knew all about subversion and employed subversive tactics when he first began
working in ceramics in 1947. He worked at the Madoura pottery in Vallauris
decorating and producing over 2,000 ceramic objects including utilitarian and
sculptural objects. While much of the work referenced historical, classical
ceramics his approach subverted those idioms. He decorated plates and urns but
also kiln furniture and bricks.
For
Picasso the choice of ceramics as part of his art practise was a subversive
one. Although many twentieth century artists produced some ceramic works, none
at that stage had embraced the medium with such vigour. Clay was a material
that fit uneasily with the mores of Modernism in the visual arts; it was
largely the stuff of kitsch, maquettes and mass-production.
Ceramics
is always rubbing up against or intersecting the visual arts and design. Clay
(ceramic) subversion seems to come from outside of ceramics practise rather
than within. Notable subversive works such as Duchamp’s urinal, Lucio Fontana’s
pierced forms, and more recently the urns of Grayson Perry are clearly
positioned outside of crafts practise. Even pivotal clay works such as Peter
Voulkous ‘Rocking Pot’ were clearly informed by movements in the visual arts.
Subversive works within ceramics practise have tended to be subtle (see Garth
Clark’s essay on Betty Woodman: Storm in a teacup in Shards) or have been produced by
iconoclasts: think George Ohr. In the 1970’s in Adelaide there was a bunch of
‘ratbags’ subverting the ideologies of studio ceramics, producing work that
referenced china cabinet ceramics rather than the prevailing wabi-sabi ethos. Interestingly most of
these artists moved away from clay apart from Bruce Nuske and Christopher
Headley.
The theme
(or at least title) of the Australian Ceramics Triennial is Subversive Clay.
Whilst the true meaning of that title may be ambiguous its implication is
fairly obvious, referring to works or activity that challenge current
assumptions about ceramic (clay) practise. A subversive clay wouldn’t be clay
at all or would at least not act in the desired clay manner during making or
firing. The closest clay related subversive activity I can think of in current
practise is that of wood firers. The very act of digging, making with and
firing (in wood ash at frightening temperatures) a clay body that hasn’t gone
through the filtering and adjusting of commercial bodies is tantamount to
subversion in challenging the prevailing commodified approach to much studio
ceramic production.
The
choice of wood firing is a kind of act of subversion. It could be seen as a
political act akin to the counter culture of the 1960’s and 70’s, the current
occupy movement and the various ‘slow’ activities growing by the day. If the
choice to step outside of established models of social order can be seen as an
act of subversion there may be a case that the choice to practise ceramics is
inadvertently socially- subversive. A livelihood which may entail spending
weeks making and developing work, perhaps decorating, experimenting with glazes
and then putting to the trial of extreme heat with a strong potential for
disaster is one that is out of step with cultural social norms which would
suggest either subversion or a kind of madness.
No comments:
Post a Comment