Skip to page content...

View Submissions

Please choose an option:


Title of Exhibit Proposal:

The Anatomy and Aesthetics of Use (Ref #171)

Date:
09-10-2006 16:02:35
Status:
Accepted with revisions
Rating:
6
Details:
My ceramic practice has recently involved the participation of end-users, with the scope of modifying the use and function of the objects I make. These stages of form-function alteration are recorded and analysed as part of my current research on the reciprocity of user-object adaptability. All observations on the user?s models or forms of use or performance subsequently produce changes on the physicality and anatomy of the resulted forms, and on the manners of use for these evolved objects.

The Exhibition Proposal aims to show a series of these utilitarian, archetypal forms and extend invitations to be handled, touched, and used. In this setting, the objects become active mediators - as opposed to passive artefacts enclosed/exposed in air-tight glass cabinets, forbidden to be touched (having a relic-like function). Apart from demonstrating the versatility of the casting clay and the aesthetisation of the applied transfers, these domestic objects propose a visualisation of their utility/functionality in use: they are exhibited so that the audience is involved in the experience (or act) of manipulating them. As such, the pieces represent a body of evidence for the activities that ensue at the time of interaction.
This display means to remove the common (physical) distancing from experiencing ceramics - on account of their precious fragility - and invite the audience to become viewers and users, thus re-storing physicality and tactility (as in Baudrillard?s (1) system of objects), so pertinent a quality for ceramics. It attempts to show the objects? value, function and meaning by focusing on the physical intimacy we have with everyday functional ware.

The objects presented are simple utilitarian forms, adapted to everyday domestic uses: in Cooper?s (2) words, they aim to be ?part of an act?, whether of ?pouring, drinking, serving?, etc. In this sense, craft objects are seen as collective tools of domestication. Being made in accord with the harmony of the body, they offer creative, adaptable ways of use, proposing various ways of manipulation / handling. The forms are mostly footless, prolonging haptic interaction; the rims irregular, the weight varies to imply awareness in holding. These qualities refer to the materiality of ceramics: their fragility versus resistance, their tactility reflected in surfaces, weight and form.
To accompany this active form of display, a video presentation will loop images of the objects during times of use, and thus observe the varied forms of involvement on the part of the user - a visual formatting prompting collective memory. This making practice involves the user?s performance in manipulating the objects and aims to illustrate that their aesthetic value increases by developing such practices of use (3).


1 Baudrillard, J. 1996/2005. The System of Objects. London: Verso.
2 Cooper, E. 2005. Table Manners. Crafts Council: Exhibition Catalogue.
3 Handling determines the meaning and function of the pieces: significance increases their value. See Michel de Certeau, 1984. The Practiceof Everyday Life. London: University of California Press.

Images: (Click on the image to view it full size in a new browser window)



Reviewer Comments:

Review #1 : Left on 18-10-2006 14:13:06 #
The theory is really interesting as craft objects do take on use which affects their form over years and to use this process as a priori, in the construction process should result in a more humanistic form. But will these forms morph again over time? The imagery submitted in which the bowl of the product demonstrates skill and thought in making, however the functioning aspect, i.e. 'handle' appears to be entirely derivative taken from pre-designed objects. This dichotomy of placing craft with pastiches of products is difficult in terms of aesthetics which perhaps need further deconstruction within the proposal.

6
Review #2 : Left on 23-11-2006 20:15:15 #
For years the debate over introducing haptic interactions in gallery spaces has been underway and this proposal seeks to more fully explore this idea. While this is laudable, and potentially exciting, I believe that the artist needs to more fully explain the pragmatics of the exhibition as it pertains to display, breakage, monitoring of participants. As well, it would be worthwhile exploring James Evans' jewellery explorations into the additive value of users post-production.
7

Public Comments:

Comment left by Adriana Ionascu on 07-12-2006 14:36:10 #
Many thanks to both reviewers for insightful comments.