In Defense of Ceramic Art

Why is Ceramics less valued than other art forms?
Is it too useful to be art? Devalued as a craft or because it is made of dirt?

I am attracted to what I call the Bastard Arts.  I enjoy High Brow Arts too, especially paintings and literature, but Bastard Arts have a unique unpretentious appeal for me.

You might never have heard of the Bastard Arts because that is my personal nickname for the type of Arts I enjoy that have hybrid origins and are usually looked down on by the tenants of the Well-Born Arts.  It’s not “pure”.  In a world where diversity is finally getting its due, the Art World is like Voldemort and his Death Eaters who want their art to be pure blood and can’t adapt to a changing world. 

What do I mean by Bastard Arts?  Graphic Novels for Example. A mix of drawing and story-telling, not really fine arts or literature but a little bit of both. Songs are another one, a mix of music and poetry. Somehow mixing two genres together seems to devalue the art that is created.

Not opera however, which is a mix of music and words too and yet is usually highly regarded.  I don’t know why.  I don’t like opera.  I like to root for the underdogs.  Like Ceramics.

The most expensive ceramic piece ever sold is this Chinese vase

Ceramics is especially close to my heart because I don’t create songs or graphic novels but I make ceramics.   Ceramics is a weird case because it is bastard in several different ways. 

First of all, some things made out of ceramics and called “sculptures” are highly regarded, but sculptures made out of bronze or marble are worth ten times more, not matter what they represent, so even when aiming high, ceramics is the poor parent of this specific type of art. Somehow the fact that ceramics is made with dirt makes it seem cheap, no matter what object it is turned into. Metal is harder and more expensive to make, so I can understand that the same statue made of bronze will be more valuable. But if we’re looking at material, why is a canvas with pigments splattered over it is also more valued?

Besides, you can also use a ceramic piece, for example a vase, as a canvas in which case it is both a painting and a functional piece.  Hybrid.   A useful piece of art.  And apparently, that’s a problem.  Art, real art, should be useless.  Anything that is not “pure art” is disparaged.  If your art pieces can be used for something else than just looking at them, you’re compromising.  I find this ridiculous, and in view of that bias, I call that we rename Fine Arts the “useless arts”.  I’d love to see signs in libraries or museums pointing the way to the “Useless Arts” section. 

Ceramics is too protean for its own good.  It can be sculptural or functional, its surface can be canvas or  plain, textured or carved,  its purpose purely decorative or purely utilitarian with a wide range of “both” between one and the other.  That’s what I love about ceramics of course.  Its variety.  You could be more attracted by shaping it, decorating it, applying texture, carving, experimenting with glaze or different firing techniques (raku, wood firing, soda firing, saggar, low fire, high fire…).  It never ends.

Is it because of its multifaceted possibilities that ceramics is not considered on par with painting or classical music?  Too hybrid, too bastard?  Not pure enough.  It's hard to be even called and artist when your medium is ceramics. One way to escape this is to call yourself a sculptor, but if you make functional sculptures or beautifully decorated plates, it becomes harder. A potter who wants to be called an artist sounds arrogant.

I’m not sure why there is such a bias against ceramics and all crafts in general.  The most expensive painting ever sold, by Leonardo Da Vinci, cost 450 millions of dollars in 2016.   The most expensive ceramics ever sold is an ancient Chinese vase that cost 41.6 millions of dollars in 2021.  It’s more than a 10 fold difference.  Another example:   In 2013 a vase by Pablo Picasso has sold at auction in London for almost £1m. It is a world record price for a ceramic piece by Picasso but his paintings sell for much higher prices.  Why the difference?  Because ceramic is considered a lower art form as well as wood, glass or even fabric?  If so, why?   Because it’s useful? 

Most expensive Picasso vase ever sold

Art is art, no matter what medium you are using to express yourself. It’s time for a reevaluation of the crafty arts!

Note: this post was the first draft of an article that was eventually published in Oregon ArtsWatch. If you want to see how differently it turned out (very!) check the article here