What's the Difference between "Ceramics" and "Pottery" Anyway?
The Met's got a new show up of Betty Woodman, and according to the NY Times, you can't call her stuff "ceramics." (But you can call her a "potter"-- huh??) Um, okay. But I do call "bullshit"! I'm not one to second guess the Met-- that's a real museum, not one of them namby-pamby galleries-- but I just don't get it.
For example, here's a work called The Ming Sisters (2003), which the Times says is "painted all over with bright motifs from old Chinese vases, as well as more abstract markings ":
Okay, now here's an actual Ming vase:
Now, I'm not an expert, but I don't really see the similarities, do you?
According to the Times, "Ms. Woodman's work, with its brio and rough textures, has a dashed-off look, even though it is anything but. 'I'm not an artist who wants the viewer to wonder, "How did they ever do that?"' she said. 'It may be a huge amount of work to do, but I don't want it to look like a lot of work.'"
No problem, Betty, no problem.
Personally, I think these CERAMICS that I made in 2nd grade are better than Betty Woodman's:
For example, here's a work called The Ming Sisters (2003), which the Times says is "painted all over with bright motifs from old Chinese vases, as well as more abstract markings ":
Okay, now here's an actual Ming vase:
Now, I'm not an expert, but I don't really see the similarities, do you?
According to the Times, "Ms. Woodman's work, with its brio and rough textures, has a dashed-off look, even though it is anything but. 'I'm not an artist who wants the viewer to wonder, "How did they ever do that?"' she said. 'It may be a huge amount of work to do, but I don't want it to look like a lot of work.'"
No problem, Betty, no problem.
Personally, I think these CERAMICS that I made in 2nd grade are better than Betty Woodman's:
posted by Editor at 4/26/2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home