Chicagoist: Made in Chicago: Circa Ceramics

Jess D'Amico

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:22:38 -0600

@artgal Wow. Thanks for your insightful comment. That's what I was trying to say but failing to put eloquently :)

artgal15

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:00:32 -0600

As far as "craft" vs. art is concerned i think that historically many artists have taken many "craft" mediums and turned then into fantastic fine art. I would love to hear Spav tell art historians that Faith Ringold who makes quilts into the equivalent of narrative paintings that it is not art. Or Richard Notkin's ceramic tiles that touch a pone todays social and political state of our current society is not art. As someone who is going to be getting her MFA in ceramics, and a MA in Art History, i think that some people are missing the point! historically paintings were functional pieces of art only meant to be hanging on a wall somewhere for social agendas. Painters and sculptures for a long time through out Greek, Roman, and early Christianity all were considered "craftsmen", so for you to think that ceramics, metal, fibers, an other "craft" elements to not be considered fine art is just silly. The earliest "artwork" that we study was always meant to be functional within which ever society created the "artwork". i think that someone needs to brush up on their art history, or even i don't know expand there artistic knowledge. You can agree or disagree with me...it is all subjective, and isnt that what make the art world so fantastic anyway!

georgia222

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:33:44 -0600

It may be craft, it may be art, but how is a teacup going to save a space for my car?

Prescott Carlson

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:13:24 -0600

Sorry. If it is usable, not technically "art". Spav, I think the general lexicon disagrees with you.

Mary_Sunshine

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:56:20 -0600

What about the mug I made my mom in art class in third grade?! That wasn't art?! So depressing.

Spav1

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:49:24 -0600

I am just saying, if I had done the itnerview, I would have referred to as a craft, or "their dishes". Cute and contemporary? Yes. Worth $30? Depends on your income. Art? No.

Mo

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:34:33 -0600

But what's the misnomer you are referring to? I think I missed it. Are you referencing Chicagoist's question: "C: Where do you want to go with your art? Where do you see yourself in five years?" I'm pretty sure the questions are all the same everytime, same wording everytime, whether regarding art or craft. I think it's usually safer to call it all art than all craft.

Spav1

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:27:21 -0600

It isn't a "problem" per se, I just think it is a bit of a misnomer...but they seem to get it.

Mo

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:05:43 -0600

Spav1, I don't fully agree with your definition, but regardless, Nancy states: "N: What we make isn't considered art in the usual sense of the word - We're artisans due to the functional nature of our work." So I don't think there's a problem here. Isn't the only requirement that it be made in Chicago?

Jess D'Amico

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:20:40 -0600

@spav1: That's quite an antiquated and narrow-minded view of art. I like to have "art" in my house that does serve a purpose.

Mary_Sunshine

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:15:35 -0600

The space saver mugs are cute, but it looks like everything runs about $30. Little too 'spensive for me.

Spav1

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:05:09 -0600

Pottery is a craft, not an art. So is quilting. Photography flirts with the line. Sorry. If it is usable, not technically "art".