COLUMBIA

Relating to Relational Ceramics
By Keith Rice-Jones

One of the interesting things about Amy Gogarty’s Northwest
Ceramic Foundation Lecture in June was that it generated a lot of
discussion for us. (See BC Potters newsletter, May 2008, p. 10)

Based on some ideas of French curator Bourriaud, Amy was talking
about a different way of looking at functional ceramics that allows
it to be considered with similar parameters to some other aspects of
art activity that are recognized to be within the fine art canon. The
underpinning of this effort to reposition functional ceramics, is that
ceramics are considered an unimportant part of museum collecting or
educational programming, if considered at all. Relational Art is about
activity, usage and involvement and can take many forms. Amy’s point
was that if we consider functional ceramics within that paradigm of
how we use the pieces, rather than fundamental considerations of how
they are made or what they look like, the work can be considered
within the same framework as other Relational Art.

Being married and sharing a studio, my wife and I are involved in
an ongoing intersection of our lives and our work. Our work is very
different—mine being predominately sculptural and Celia’s fitting
definitely into the functional. Celia’s primary concern is wrapping
clay around food and the daily rituals associated with eating while
my work, although I consider it connected to the vessel tradition, is
concerned with abstract notions of form. We have done several tag
team demonstration workshops where we work side by side in our
different ways, trying to alternate the interesting bits so there is always
something to watch. What is interesting about the ongoing dialogue
that we generate is that the language is the same for both approaches to

Discovery
Art Travel |

2008-2010
CERAMICS EXCURSIONS

Turkey
Morocco
Burma

Oaxaca, Mesica
ACLS

Potters Guild of BC Newsletter - September 2008

the work—entirely sculptural considerations and aspects of the func-
tional forms being made. It is the same sharing the studio, when we seek
advice or feedback from each other as work shifts in new directions.

What is clear to me as a maker of sculpture is that what Celia does
is also sculpture—pots are very subtle and abstract pieces of sculpture.
By way of illustration, four of us were at supper with Hiro Urakami
(Hiro was the first Gallery of BC Ceramics manager after running his
own gallery) and the coffee went cold as we passionately discussed the
various aspects of the different (humble...) mugs that were out on the
table. As a maker of functional objects, Celia is faced with a whole
range of considerations, difficulties and limitations that are less of an
issue for me. As a sculptor, I can get away with all sorts of things that
would put a functional object onto the shard pile.

I know that Amy is suggesting that we consider the functional
objects within the paradigm of usage but all the things that are of
concern for me asa sculptor are there in Celia’s pieces with the addition
of all the restrictions around function.

In one sense, Celia considers her pieces incomplete if they are not
used—she talks about them “sitting quietly waiting to be picked up and
used.” When we help with food at gallery openings, we often gravitate
to Gunda Stewart's quiet but strong salt glazed work—food looks so
good in it. This is less of a consideration with Laura McKibbon's plates
from a recent exhibition. Certainly they are coolly functional, but
with the city skyline transfers, they don’t invite food in the same way.
‘They are more about an idea, speaking about souvenirs of places we
visit, which is part of what Amy was talking about—their usage. In
this case, it's not about food. Does this make them sculpture or is the

Continued on Page 10 / Relational Ceramics