The Margins: A Theory of Resistance in Contemporary Ceramics.

THE MARGINS WAS AN ENORMOUS FOUR DAY SURVEY exhibition of 39 artists at NCECA Phoenix 2009, curated by participating artists Nate Betschart and Brian Gillis. It is a precipice, an equivocal moment, and like so many historical moments in the field, nearly went by without notice. With an exciting lineup of works, it showcased some of the best of the newer ceramists, the mouthpieces for the creative use of material and technical facility. The exhibition space was wonderfully sufficient to house the amassed collection of art. The show was exciting and won popular acclaim but it was not what marked the exhibition as an equivocal moment. Rather it set a standard in exhibition practice, a standard that hereafter will likely be mostly untenable or ignored. Although the exhibition achieved a fever pitch, its critical achievement--unwittingly--was to question the rigor of the field's anti-establishmentism and the depth of the field's criticality, not the curators' philosophical and theoretical intent.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Betschart and Gillis have problematized a shortcoming of the discipline that within the ceramics sphere there is an intellectualism that lacks a rigorous examination of its epistemology. The show is an expression of the ultimate subsumption of irony with no popular conversation or expression of concern within its general reception. The Margins' explicit claim was art status, though implicitly it claimed to be ceramics' otherness--alterative--its outsider and alienated other. Marginality suggests the works are neither art nor ceramics, unintentionally reaffirming the dialectical ceramic/art, craft/art debate that they purport to circumvent. Included in the 92-page full-colour catalogue accompanying the exhibition, two of the three essays written by the foremost scholars in the field, discuss the contradictions inherent in such a claim. An examination of the curatorial statement will ascertain the intention and criterion so one can better understand its paradox.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The curators write "Ceramic art is simultaneously asserting why it has a vibrant tradition and dynamic living pulse, while the nature of its very versatility declares the necessity for it to no longer be referred to as Ceramic Art, but rather just Art." It is not certain that contemporary practice is as versatile, by way of material manipulation, as it used to be; secondly, 'versatility' is not a critical framework to qualify art. The curators go on to affirm that this work is "an approach to art practice that promotes unbiased consideration of the work". Translated, this work is art because it demands consideration of ideas inherent to the work and not its materiality. Ironically the exhibition took place at and only lasted for the duration of the largest ceramics conference in the country. In fact, the material is the glue holding the show together, which is a rather strong argument against claims of superiority and a contextual transcendence. The statement then asserts, "Artists who use ceramic materials are less and less background specific and disciplinarily self-conscious and more interested in using material for a specific reason." This too is a weak argument, as potters do not choose clay for some arbitrary reason. Case in point includes the use of stone for arrowheads, wood for fire, or a video camera for video art. Tradition has proven which materials are best suited for each purpose. The adjective is a referent to contextualize the work just as it is used to characterize performance art, video art, digital art and so forth. However, the 'specific reason' the curators refer to is in actuality the history of the material, the 'background specificity' against which they rail. The real question is whether the ceramic components represent the best material for conceptual import.

The curators allude to a day when there will be "a field where there are no margins, there is no disciplinary allegiance, work is not categorized by a material or process and tradition is not the principal benchmark", which is ironically a criticism of the exhibition. If this statement were the filter for critical analysis, the exhibition would fall decidedly flat. The curators ask, "when do we stop using the term 'nontraditional' or getting together to discuss boarders, boundaries, limits or margins?" A perplexing question, as their statement, title and premise seek to divide and separate this work from more 'traditional' counterparts reiterating and reifying the necessity and use for these terms and concepts.

The curators are careful to not specifically state, but imply, that ceramics is unimportant or at least inconsequential in the artist's pursuit of content. With the exception of a few pieces, such a claim creates a critical vulnerability in the exhibition. Any of these pieces could have been constructed from another material, offering far different conceptual implications. What this show emphasizes, above all else, is a determination to give ceramic new meaning, new relevance and ultimately aesthetic import. The cohesiveness is the works ceramicness. Without that single common denominator, this exhibition is meaningless. The 39 artists' willingness to participate further emphasizes the depth of the confusion. The general welcome reception of the exhibition poses its own problems. Unable to attain what it sought, how could the show have been viewed favourably? How can a consensus within a discipline willingly accept contradictions to its self-understanding? How can the self-defeating and self-alienation manifest in a discipline-wide psychosis within younger practitioners attain the self-transcendence that it desperately seeks?

The show was a great representation of one facet of contemporary ceramic concern. Yet, the title represents all the lackluster of 'otherness' that attained its radical progressive usefulness in art-world discourse that surrounded Okwui Enwezor and Documenta 11 in Kassel, Germany in 2002. It trails behind philosophical and psychological discourses of the 'Other' rooted in German philosophy, from which French psychoanalysts appropriated it and coined its contemporary understanding. Although its frequency in French theory and post-colonial criticism suggests mainstream import, it has historical precedence. Nevertheless, contemporary concern is toward decentralization, which better suits this collection of works. Alternatively, judged by its dialectical other, The Margins is an ingenious stratagem, resulting from that theoretical contradiction. Without reaffirming and reinvigorating the dialectic of marginality that was prevalent in modernity prior to a levelling of genre distinctions that dominated Postmodern discourse the importance of this work as the newer ceramics would be impotent. That is, the critique of the show brings about its greatest achievement--it excels exactly where it fails.

By countering the theoretical infrastructure that supports and embeds this work in our contemporaneity, the theme of marginality reinvests the work as oppositional art--oppositional to the administrated. There must be a perpetual coup, a symbolic rebellion against society's normative structures, which becomes more difficult as the margins move toward the centre or vise versa. This is not unique; the cultural industry quickly absorbs dissonance into the fold, assimilating its fresh vision of reality. This system of displacement is as old as history, playing itself out in this perfectly succinct expression of contemporaneity. This revolution, pitting the new combatants against the older establishment, reinvigorates both of these otherwise exhausted identities.

Of the 39 artists in the exhibition, 30 (77 percent) represent the centre, employed by universities or colleges. They are the by-product of the administered life, transitioning from high school to university to graduate school to finally teaching high school, undergraduate and/or graduate school. This is the first generation to completely fulfil that destiny. One of the artists is still in graduate school, while two others are in residencies--a position usually taken in-between or directly following degrees. This participation in academia re-emphasizes the problematic claim to marginality, however supporting claims of decentralization.

This work and the artists making it are teaching the next generation, further embedding a culture of institutionalization. Institutions absorb the revolutionary and turn it into the norm aestheticizing it and levelling its revolutionary potential. The Margins moves closer toward the mainstream; nearly all of the artists, in addition to being professors, have exhibited in ceramic specific exhibitions and had their art published in its publications. Except for a few pieces, this collection is material-centric, where technical facility is paramount against claims of interdisciplinarity. Despite this ambiguity, The Margins is an important exhibition. The greatest hits of contemporary ceramics concern and these pieces represent a movement within the discipline that attempts to evaluate itself against its own understanding.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

While a phenomenal collection of objects and ideas, if one was to undertake an all-encompassing critique of each work and hold it accountable to the claims the exhibition makes, we would see the thinly veiled contemporary leitmotif of The Margins does not add up. Alternatively, and more to the problematic point, it denies the art its idiosyncratic identity. In an attempt to classify a broad spectrum with a single term, the work gets isolated and homogenized. A more appropriate title considering the differentiation between the works might have been, Ceramics' Idiosyncratic Sculptural Tendencies. This, however, would have denied the revolutionary potential found in the dialectical alternative. In an attempt to radicalise a supposed intellectual practice, it becomes what it implicitly wanted to avoid--manifesto art in a manifesto-less world. Its own theory approaches a system similar to its own mechanisms. The exclusion of traditional forms seals its fate, its exclusivity negating its own critical validity.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The term 'artist/curator' has recently come into prominence out of necessity, as there are not many curators specialising in contemporary ceramics. Artist/curators exhibiting in their own exhibitions, though standard practice in ceramics is not commonplace outside of the field. Without critical distance, perspective narrows and ego becomes self-defeating. In this case, the curators are on opposite sides of their ultimate ideological agenda, with Gillis engaged in contemporary notions of art while Betschart continues within traditional ceramic practice. As a result, the exhibition is split between this binary polemic. One side showcases works that embody contemporary art theoretical discovery as the other invests in materiality.

Working within the proximity of contemporary art and art theory, these artists utilize those devices with magnificent curiosity, if not a tenuous material guilt from the quixotic ceramic elements. Some of these works are avant-garde art, that is, art that is off-centre, offsetting, making it difficult to render some clear, not to say inarticulate, identity. The ambiguity of this work, an apparent Gordian Knot, tends to be over-determined, commonplace in contemporary art practice. Interdisciplinarity does not make it more likely to be art or give it an excuse to include every artefact possible in hopes of generating some significance. When effective, like these works, it offers contemplation and signs of the psychological disconnect of contemporary existence. Its unintpretability often demands over-interpretation, wherein its randomness appears to be devoid of reason. There is no cohesive way to explain its meaning, except as the negation of meaning, due to its refusal to represent lifeworld reality.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Many utilize traditional ceramic practice, offering meaning grounded within the historiography of the field. If the ceramic components were removed from these pieces they would lack urgency. Substituting the ceramic with another material would create different implications, nevertheless these reside within some historical material impulse. It is the material that gives them meaning. From this dichotomy, the work essentially falls into one of two groups, those that fall within tradition practice and those where intention hides its ceramicness or rather, as the curators state, use it for a "specific reason". Alternatively, I would argue that it is the other way around, Gillis does not use ceramic for a specific reason in the same way that Betschart does. Upon reviewing the work, one can identify the distinction between those that use ceramic for a specific reason and those that apparently utilize it as merely another substance to add to the collection of substances.

Elissa Armstrong's Table/Floor, is a seemingly arbitrary collection of detritus, having the look of a cabinet of curiosities, whose focus is a bone-like artefact. Because of this foci, she maintains a semblance of reality negating its truly chaotic potential. Its lack of homogeneity is hegemonic. The tendency toward over interpretation is curious in that its randomness is predictable. Brian Benfer's Untitled (Documentation) offers limitless possibilities, yet comes across as ineffective. The stack of slides assembled within the modernist grid is too predictable, lacking the wit necessary for a one-liner. Had the slides captured the same piece and they were presented for distribution/dissemination it would have functioned as a clever critique of originality and reproducibility more to the conceptual point. Marc DeBernardis' Oh. ... The Places We'll Go is a clever diorama as both a painting and sculpture simultaneously. It is a succinct miniature scene of our dailyness, capturing it in a peculiarly silent mundaneness. Brian Gillis' You Deserve More ... uses the object itself, manipulating the system within which these objects function. The ATM machine addresses mundane repetition, critiquing capitalism and its devices while encouraging it. It is relational aesthetic experience that critiques the aura of the original while producing original works of art. Hoon Lee's De: Functionized DIS: Functionalized was performative, leaving the audience with the stench of rotting milk, a pervasive pornography and an effective manipulation of conceptual space. Michael Jones McKean's Blue and sky and Oprah and ground includes a large rectangular blue cloth that confers a sense of limitless power and an infinite horizon. Oprah, with arms raised, offers the populous religious salvation through the church of escapism, though we are grounded to reality with what appears like the smear of feces just below her likeness.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Daniel Bare's "Green Movement, Reclaim" creates new objects by recycling and recontextualizing the old. These re-fired collections are intriguing formal sculptures and a tongue-in-cheek reference to the current 'green' tendency. Nathan Betschart's 1915 reconfigures old items, replacing elements with ceramic components and choosing porcelain over stainless steel. The interest stems from the juxtaposition of contradictory material, substituting one seemingly resilient material representing strength and durability with porcelain, which curiously has similar associations. Rebecca Catterall's Vines are geometric abstractions, uncertain of their place between handmade and manufactured, giving them an elegant tension. Chad Curtis' randomSeed (Orange Conifers) are worldings, collapsing the autonomy of the ceramic object, which usually has lived a happy autonomous existence. This collection of mechanical processes, however simplistic, gives the work a sadness and helplessness, which is reinforced by the groan of the motor and the pointlessness of the systems action. They are synthetic creations mocking supposed human ingenuity. Erin Furimsky's Traverse is an expression of possibility, pushing the limits of ceramic processes. The object is pure ornamentation, but not necessarily for the sake of ornamentation, rather as an expression of facility, her facility. Her forms are hermetic abstractions, though not to say significant form. Jeremy Hatch's Rope Work is a compelling installation. Its inherently malformed material substitution, of porcelain for rope, is delightfully inappropriate, offering a delicate emotive tension. Jeannie Hulen's War Babies with Terracotta Toy Soldier? infantilizes what it critiques due to her utilization of toy-like kitsch aeroplanes. Do they exhibit the criticality of war, or do they only serve to further enable its accessibility? Are they significantly different from the plastic guns children play with today? Moral meaning herein is subsumed by the aesthetical, which is its source of tension, keeping it from being effective as art or political critique. Tyler Lotz' Cultured Clearing dispassionately articulates the manipulation of our environment as an expression of contemporaneity. The cloud-like object is constructed of flowing tubers connected by shiny bolts to flattened organic shapes. The juxtaposition is reminiscent of the Beijing Olympics where the Chinese government, spending nearly $100 million annually on weather manipulation, shot silver iodine into the clouds to force rainfall, turning science fiction into reality. Brian Rochefort's The_Over-Sexed_Fantasy_Fulffiller_2025 is a mash-up of Lynda Benglis and Ken Price. A slick reproduction, it is wonderfully colourful, ambivalently appropriating what has already been administered. Carlo Sammarco's Picacho 1 of 2 is presumably named for the dramatic landscape of its namesake, an Arizona State Park. The hard-edge abstraction with dramatic line and shadow is quite an accomplishment of the handmade, attaining near machine-like perfectionism--hyperrealism--culminating in a beautiful dichotomy. Joanie Turbek's The Good Friend Project is a thought-experiment of entrepreneurial capitalism and the dissemination of work. The clever marketing creates a factory, shop and performance all in one.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

More fruitful than a critique of the work under the rubric of The Margins is to see it as a limit value, which is its criterion. Seeking to remove itself from materiality and to be considered for its artness, The Margins reveals how much it is defrauded by its own self. These artists find reassurance in their anti-functionalism and intellectual radicalism, however problematic, which their willing participation in this exhibition makes plain. If the belief in artness is rationalized only through the transcendence from material import, then they have overestimated their ability. They are merely a finger on the hand of tradition. How is this art differentiated from other art? Does The Margins win its fight against its nonexistent foe? This is a serious exhibition that makes profound claims with lasting consequences. Aside from assembling a diverse collection of contemporary practitioners utilizing the same material with idiosyncratic sculptural tendency, the curators did accomplish one important thing, though it must always be perpetually forgotten, there is no need for discussions of marginality.

An Independent Review by Adam Welchclaim

Adam Welch is an artist living in Hightstown, New Jersey and is the Assistant Director of Greenwich House Pottery in New York City.