Craft’s Battle for Acceptance: Visual and Spatial Consequences

Many curators, art critics and collectors situate ceramic sculpture on the border between art and craft. Other media that could well be defined as forms of craft, such as photography, have been admitted to the art world. The same is true of banal, finished products, such as Duchamp’s urinal, welcomed to the realm of art after a complex philosophical argument supported its admission to the Holy of Holies, categorizing it as a ‘readymade’. In this postmodern age, however, in which everything appears possible, ceramic sculpture has yet to gain acceptance as an art form. Why is this medium still struggling to enter the Promised Land?

Several aspects of the complex response to this question will be discussed in detail below. I will also argue, in the final chapter of this article, that it’s time for a change in the art museum’s attitude toward ceramic sculpture as the winds of socio-cultural change are blowing strongly through the world of museums. It is sweeping away the modernistic themes of dichotomy between ‘high art’ and ‘crafts’ in general and ceramic sculpture, in particular. But first things first – the proof of the claim that such a dichotomy still exists and that it has substantial influence on ceramic sculpture.

Apparently, ceramic sculpture’s status as a medium dating back to the age of Classical Greek culture has adversely influenced its inclusion in the category of ‘fine art’. Photography, by contrast, crossed the border into the art world only a few decades after its invention (in 1826 or 1839, depending on which art historian you ask), following a brief period during which it served exclusively as a means of documentation or a scientific tool. Actually, photography’s lack of history or traditional function as a form of art or decoration paved the way towards its reception as art. There seems to be no problem acknowledging and accepting photography’s status as both an art and a craft, whereas historical and philosophical developments, to date, have not conferred such dual status on ceramic sculpture.

The principal argument of this paper originates primarily in the following two factors:

1. The development of differentiation during a highly significant and historically layered period in the annals of western art that may be further divided into two parts: one extending from the Renaissance to the late nineteenth century and the other from the turn of that century to the present.

2. The dichotomy between ‘craft’ and ‘high art’ is deeply embedded in the DNA of the art world. Effectively, this split is essential to what is called ‘high art’ because it establishes the boundary line defining it as an autonomous field.

The battle over the boundary between art and craft, that the contending parties seek to reinforce or obscure, has yielded some fascinating agitation over the past decade. Craft, including ceramic sculpture, exudes vitality thanks to a plethora of