KANSAS CITY — NCECA’s 50th conference in Kansas City yielded almost too many exhibitions to count, let alone see. As the world’s largest event for contemporary ceramic art, NCECA seeks to highlight the best and brightest in our field, while promoting accessibility and diversity within ceramics.
We notice trends at NCECA, as students imitate teachers, as artists influence one another, and as we all witness and participate within our unique cultural moment. These trends range from imagery (cough, “clouds”) to content (irreverent, swearing pottery), to technical (some years, woodfire, others, electric) and they can reveal much about the cultural consciousness of ceramics, and greater cultural production.
Molly Allen, The In-Between, 2015, ceramic, metal and plaster, 5 x 3.5 x 2 feet. Click to see a larger image.
This year I witnessed the same reaction to a specific type of work at nearly every opening and exhibition I attended. The viewer would gasp, “Oh!”, then laugh or tug their viewing partner, and then click, a camera shutter would close or a smartphone would flash.
The works in question? Animal-based sculpture. Figurative sculpture. Cute sculpture.
And yes, it’s not all kewpie-doll-cute, but these works are leveraging the aesthetics of cute (wide eyes, small scale, personification, infantilization) to reach something greater, or more subversive. The use of cute as an affective tactic is prolific in cultural production, but the extent to which the ceramic community has recently embraced cute and has developed trends surrounding the aesthetics of cute, demands examination.
Ariel Bowman, The Colossal Collapse, 2015; porcelain, low-fire glaze, stains, cast resin, 32 x 13 x 5 inches. Photograph by Christopher Kemler. Click to see a larger image.
Beth Cavener, Kept (variation in smoke and shadow), 2016; resin infused refactory material, paint, rope and wooden base, 24 x 28 x 12 inches
There is a long history of figurative, animalistic sculpture, from bison sculptures found 15,000 years ago to the Meissen animal figurines. There are those who do it exceptionally well: like Beth Cavener’s Kept at the Belger Crane Yard Gallery, Patti Warashina’s Whisper at the Belger Arts Center, or even Beth Katleman’s Hostile Nature at the Nelson Atkin’s Museum of Art in the Unconventional Clay exhibition.
These gems of the studio ceramic world emerge (and are recognized) for their notable complexity, for a rigorous departure from cuteness that signals complex emotional states and a depth to the human condition. These works engage with historical art norms and tropes, redefining the discipline beyond content, as Cavener elevates figurative sculpture through gesture and multi-media, Warashina’s use of subversive humor and feminism, Katleman’s deft assemblage of various cultural signs, but none of them rely on cute.
Beth Katleman, Hostile Nature, 2014, porcelain and wire, 96 x 70 x 5 inches. Photograph by Tod Merrill.
Ariel Bowman, Big Bingo: The Biggest Brute that Breathes, 2014; porcelain, low-fire glaze, stains and wax encaustic, 20 x 20 x10 inches. Photograph by Ariel Bowman. Click to see a larger image.
Elliott Kayser, Severance, 2015; terracotta, glaze, and rope, 14 x 33 x 16 inches. Photograph by Peter Bugg. Click to see a larger image.
Cute might be a brief attribute of some of these works, but even the most surface readings of their work bely more than a twee aesthetic.
Cute has connotations of pity and possession. When we consider something cute, it’s because it is somehow less than equal, often of diminutive size, age, and complexity. Cuteness is something we assign to others, it is rarely self-assigned or appreciated by the subject. We pity a cute thing, because it’s not beautiful, it’s not complex. It is simply adorable and the subject of our well-meaning, possessive, and nurturing intentions.
More than any of this, cute sells. Cute is the aesthetic of kitsch, of mainstream, commodified culture that exists to placate and pleasure. It typically provokes little thought or introspection.
Cute invokes commodity, it leverages itself on the pleasurable grounds of kitsch, on baby animals in the pet store, adorable children’s toys, and syrupy sweet figurines.
This current use of cute, however, has a dark undertone, as Marta Finkelstein’s bunny weeps beneath a chastity belt in Guilt, and Molly Allen’s deer threatens to crumble off of it’s too-long legs in The In-Between. The influence of irony is felt, as cute is subverted, made monstrous, sexualized, or otherwise twisted.
Here, cute is an aesthetic Trojan horse, a hook to intrigue viewers, beneath which lies humor, disgust, or critique.
This subversion, however, doesn’t undermine the commercial viability of this work, or its adherence to the cutesy trend. Given the proliferation of “hipster” culture, irony sells pretty well these days, too.
We’re not strangers to it, certainly, and neither is our cultural production, as irony is as equally commodified as cute, particularly in kitsch markets.
To be fair, there are those who purchase and consume kitsch objects sincerely, but I don’t think the ceramics community is among them. As makers who are hyper aware of objects, the ironic nature of kitsch is clear here, as mass-produced objects meant to evoke pleasurable emotions, used by a field dedicated to the craft of the hand.
Marta Finkelstein, Guilt, 2012; porcelain, acrylic, twine and hand-fabricated copper, 4.5 x 4.5 x 8 inches. Photographs by the artist.
Kristen Cliffel, Mother, 2014; low-fire clay, glaze, lustre
Merrie Wright, Commerce Rabbit, 2014; earthenware clay, stains, slips and engobes, 26 x 15 x 19 inches. Photograph courtesy of the artist.
To invoke kitsch, via cuteness and irony, is to invoke the antithesis of contemporary ceramic practice, and this is where the punchline is.
This trend, of cute, subversive animal sculptures borders on kitsch, playfully. These works appropriate kitsch aesthetics, turning cute to ironically so, in an effort to comment on cultural production and social attitudes.
Without a marked departure from either the aesthetics or implications of kitsch (like our aforementioned works), I worry that works like these can be trinketized and contained, reduced to small conversation pieces that require little engagement or depth. In relying too heavily on the Trojan horse of cute, the viewer might not hang around long enough for the subversive warriors of engaging content to emerge.
Kristen Cliffel, Welcome Friends, 2012; low-fire clay, glaze and steel
Patti Warashina, Whisper, 2011; low-fire clay, underglaze, glaze and mixed media, 16.5 x 30 x 13 inches
If NCECA’s (and its exhibition’s) goals are to showcase some of the best work in our field, might we depart from ceramic’s consumerist and kitsch past? Or, perhaps, by referring to and playing with our expectations, are these works making ceramics more accessible, more friendly, more… cute? When it comes to the best of the best, are we seeking salt or saccharine?
Do you love or loathe these works of contemporary ceramics? Let us know in the comments.
A well balanced article. Thank you for pointing out how the aesthetics of cute can be used subversively. I find artists like this to be quite witty and aware that it is a powerful tactic –to appeal to the softer side of visual aesthetics, all the while portraying a strong message. The current collector market has been submerged in the Disney-ification of our cultural aesthetics, and these artists are simultaneously appealing to that, yet helping chip away at that facade.
Thanks for the comment, Lisa!
Personally, I think any account of cute has to acknowledge both recent Japanese Pop (Murakami, Nara, etc.) and Jeff Koons. Without them, I don’t think we’d have the work seen here. I also think cute is a device to generate ceramic culpture that does not encroach too much on the territory of sculpture that emerges from the art world. There is a strong element of anti-art here.
Hi Bruce, I think you’re absolutely right! Those are spot-on cultural influences, and were certainly noticed at the Belger Crane Yard studios in particular. Your point about “anti-art” is so interesting, especially given that the scale of many of these sculptures is approximately “tabletop” size and points most strongly to a history of “decorative” art rather than “fine” art.
Thanks for your thoughts, it’s appreciated!
I will immediately take hold of your rss as I can’t in finding your email
subscription link or newsletter service. Do you’ve any?
Kindly let me recognize so that I may subscribe. Thanks.
Hello Mary,
Loved your article, thank you.
I have recently taken an interest in form and content in connection with ceramics and I have been looking at various sources and makers, mostly online, loosely classifying makers as people who produce:
– Forms (closer to sculpture or traditional forms of pottery, where matter and form are predominant)
– Images (dependent on narrative)
– Systems (loss of individuality to collective arrangements of form)
Since there is nothing pure in nature, all works depicted in the article have a bit of everything. I was intrigued by the word ‘cute’ and agree with your observations in that the word has “connotations of piety and possession” that it involves a sense of the diminutive (may I add “harmlessness” to the description?). Also in that “cute is a Trojan horse, a hook to intrigue viewers beneath it lies humor, disgust or critique.” There have always been hooks in art, intellectual, social, religious. What is really interesting is for how long you are interested. Time. You cannot laugh forever. In the end, a joke always wears thin. Some remain funny more than others and as someone pointed out people tend to form longer attachments with “warm and fuzzy” than with “dark and edgy.”( I would argue that it is because everyone wants to be happy). Looking at this kind of works the word “clever” eventually comes to mind.
The most interesting ceramicists I have come across are those that are closer to form and design with an emphasis on restraint . They are for the most part very concerned with matter (clay) and form (how you give form). Recently I have been observing more closely potters who are are more “primitive” both in their work methods and in the objects that they produce and I find there is in them a honesty that is important. Not that the others aren’t honest or important, it is just that the ones I refer to seem to have roots that go back to early mankind (and usually come across as very nice, generous people) There is in their work a “patina” that somehow gives their simple wares a spiritual presence beyond the object and this I believe comes from form and matter. In connection with imagery or narrative, if you look at a Peruvian or Mexican pre-Columbian artifact, for example, you will find similar imagery to that which is depicted in your article (without the rawness) and yet I could spend hours looking at some of those pots. Why is that you think? Contemporary makers who achieve this “patina” have somehow tapped into this “area” of truthfulness, of being real. Finally just to mention in passing the difference there most likely is between these works as photos and media objects and their appreciation “in the flesh” because as creators of images most of these makers are producing for the web, to generate a “story” about the work.
So, thank you once again. From your article I take with me the problem of the duration of our interest in cute.
By the way, I visited your blog and downloaded your reading list. Amazing, many thanks! I collect books and it is difficult to find books on ceramics and crafts that are not merely a compilation of beautiful pictures bound together in the form of a book.
Thought you might be interested in these titles (might be in your list actually, didn’t read it through. Will do now.)
Humor and Laughter Theory Research and Applications, Antony J. Chapman / Hugh C. Foot (eds.) With an Introduction by Peter Derks, Originally Published in London; New York, 1976 ISBN: 1-56000-837-7
Laughter An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic, Bergson, Henri, IndyPublish, McLean, Virginia, ISBN: 1-4043-1241-2 (paperback)
Paul, thanks for your thoughts, I love how you contextualize cute on a more historic, global scale. I’ll check out those books, thank you!
I wrote a comment on the facebook page, but I also wanted to include a thought here. While some men work within subversive kitsch, I feel that women artists are more prone to it. The word “cute” does recall commodification, shallow pleasure, possessiveness, pity, etc., but I feel that there are some mighty parallels there with how women and their bodies have been interpreted and treated both historically and today through the media, by politicians, and in the personal realm. In addition, kitsch tends to fall into the category of domesticity. With this in mind, I believe that “cute” and “kitsch” can become incredible formal modes from which to push a deep concept involving the female experience. I’m, of course, not saying that men can’t also work in these modes, but I think that there are some especially strong reasons why female artists move in this direction.
In addition, all of us struggle to keep the viewer’s attention. It’s likely that most viewers will spend less than 30 seconds with any piece of art that you make, no matter the style. It is our duty, as artists, to educate the public, but the viewer also bears responsibility to take the time to actually become aware of the work and to create a perception of it. We can’t always be blamed for a shallow interpretation, no matter what we make.
Interesting read. It certainly has my mind going on this first day of summer break.
Brianne, thanks for your thoughts here and on the fb post! I have also been thinking about gender and its implication in “cuteness.” I wish I had the time and the space to explore it more fully! I think there are a bunch of wonderful artists who (as you say) use ““cute” and “kitsch” [as] incredible formal modes from which to push a deep concept involving the female experience,” like Jessica Harrison, Shary Boyle, Shalene Valenzuela, and many more. And you’re totally right about “attention scarcity,” especially at places like NCECA, when there’s work and people everywhere! Thanks again 🙂
Great article and an interesting perspective!
I have often thought about the mentality within the art world that for a work of art to be considered great, it must be thought provoking, and that this can only happen when the “cute” factor is removed from the equation.
I don’t think it is unsound or undesirable to create art that uses positive messaging such as love, tenderness, and cuteness to connect with the viewer, while still maintaining strong aesthetic values and not falling in the kitsch category. Focusing on positive emotions is also a way to explore the human condition and perhaps a refreshing take from the darker yet considered more meaningful art.
Perhaps, there’s a trend because subconsciously there’s a need for artwork that has positive content and elevates and uplifts the viewer. In my opinion, it also helps bridge the gap to bring more art lovers into the field because it is much easier for the common folk to relate and connect with a piece that brings out a positive meaningful conversation. What I have observed is that people tend to gather and admire a piece with a level of “cuteness” for a longer period of time, than a piece with a much darker and subversive messaging. I do believe that these contemporary ceramic works are making ceramics more accessible and relatable while questioning the more recent rules of aesthetics that define greatness without cuteness.
Again, great work Mary Baumstark! Thanks for writing about this topic and for allowing us to comment.
Edrian, I agree that artworks that solicit a “positive” response are an excellent way to draw in viewers from outside of the ceramic bubble! I also think that we shouldn’t lean too heavily on these aesthetics, as artists and audiences are both capable of dazzling complexity, in content and form. There’s a line, I think, between works that explore positive emotions in a sincere and intricate way, and works that leverage cute aesthetics for the purposes of commercialism or “instagramability.” Thanks for your thoughts about viewership, it’s appreciated!
I love this article! I am an artist who uses a subversive cute message however I never really noticed it as a trend (Australian ceramic scene I believe is quite different to American). I love the way in which people approach objects which hold a degree of “cuteness” and I think its a great tool to grab peoples attentions while you try to engage them in a meaningful conversation through the work. I personally love cute things which show a darker side to them. To me these objects speak a lot about peoples nostalgia and memories of children’s books they have read as well as Disney cartoons they have watched but at the same time remind them of their current situations, moods and complexities.
HUGE fan of the article and to answer the question posed at the end. I am a lover of these works, I am sure many of the people who create works in this manner are terrified of falling into the “kitsch” category which always seems to have a negative black cloud hanging over the term but they are so much more complex that to label them as kitsch would be ignorant of their true meanings.
also sorry for rambling. 🙂 Great work Mary Baumstark!
I hadn’t considered nostalgia as a driving force for this work, what an interesting idea! Nostalgia, like cute, is often a bright and shiny layer over something much more complex and dark. Thanks for your comment, Thomas!
Great article Mary!
hey, thanks, Aaron!
Very nice article. I’m always reminded of a former professor who had a “strict no C rule” when it came to art/pottery. I appreciate you pointing out that artists are using this tool as a way of drawing viewers in, but then exposing them to a darker theme underneath this cheery facade. This is a Cute that I can live with.
I had a professor who had a “no kitsch” rule! Thanks for your comment, April!
Have you read Sianne Ngai’s work about Cute; in particular her book–“Our Aesthetic Categories: Zany, Cute, Interesting”? If not and are interested there is a review of it at the following link: http://aaww.org/our-aesthetic-categories-zany-cute-interesting/
I had my graduate seminar read her article “Merely Interesting” (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/592544), it really initiated some good discussion.
Haha sorry Mary, I wrote ‘Molly’ at the beginning of my last post. Blame it on anything you want – it was just me making a mistake. (Or unconsciously thinking of your sister?) I know who you are!
Molly, this is really powerful. Excellent writing that has forever changed how I think of ‘cute’. God job!!!
Thanks, Joan!