Click on the title to see the full article

The hottest ceramic show in town at the Institute of Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania :
“Dirt on Delight: Impulses That Form Clay” 


Cone Ten and descending… welcomes comments and contribution.
Submissions for any of these can be anonymous for the publication if preferred – your secret is safe with me.


Please send any submissions/ideas to…email –







2 responses to “Articles

  1. Mike Dee

    This is really good stuff – congratulations – looking forward to more analytical critiques, so many of which elsewhere do little more than ‘describe’. May I pose a question? In the contemporary visual arts environment is a new idea more important than a good idea?

    • Moyra Elliott

      Well, thanks Mike, for the kind words. Much appreciated. In attempting to answer to your question… (and apologies for the delay – been away in USA and Oz) the ‘new’ in ceramics is pretty difficult given our long histories. However I guess some of what incorporates new technologies is actually new, while some is really an old idea only re-cycled via the new technology. But other than that I don’t think I have seen ‘new’ for quite a while.
      ‘Good’ ideas are probably easier because already trodden pathways can be followed, only incorporating some aspect not yet introduced…here I am thinking about the uses of industrially made ceramics but re-presented in a way not yet considered. There is more and more of this appearing all the time and mainly, although I recognise the idea at basis, I still enjoy the various permutations on offer although my delight is perhaps reducing as the idea is mined further and further by more and more. Back when the idea was ‘new’ (with perhaps Scott’s and Dawson’s and Cecula’s and Barford’s various interventions of the industrial – not sure who was first and it does not really matter) it was startling, then cause for delight and that is something we rarely experience.
      Even earlier was the use of slip-casting to reproduce the ‘found’ object, often to make a point in another sphere – like the political or social – and begun, as far as I know, by Richard Shaw. This was also an initially pleasurable experience but as the idea was re-cycled more and more the variations got thinner and in the end it came largely to a natural end as the idea has been pretty-much mined to its depths. It was a ‘new’ idea in the first place and took a while for acceptance by many trained in the ‘do-it-all-yourself school. And then a variety of ‘good’ ideas grew from its genesis until in the end the ideas became ever thinner and not so interesting, as a glance could comprehend rather than the detailed examination required for the ‘new’, followed by a turning over in the mind.
      So, I guess I have worked my way to saying, in response to your question, that it’s not an either/or but a continuum. Not that there isn’t space for something fresh being introduced – new or good – we are always looking for it!
      But perhaps there are those out there who see it differently?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s