This year’s annual National Council on Education for the Ceramic Arts (NCECA) conference brought 4,823 clay enthusiasts to charming, intimate Providence, Rhode Island. The event, currently the largest art conference in the world held in the field of ceramic arts, celebrated its 49th year with more than 100 gallery exhibitions and more than 100 lectures and events celebrating the theme Lively Experiments.
When I told people that I was writing a review of the 2015 conference I was repeatedly encouraged to “be nice.” This surprising sympathy for NCECA revealed the public’s awareness of the organization’s vulnerability to criticism and also that there is a deeply-rooted fondness toward it felt by its patrons. The seasoned NCECA goer has witnessed the evolution, the successes, the failures, the risks, and the impending challenges of running such a unique event. NCECA has had a major impact on the lives of ceramic artists by providing a platform for fostering a physical community, learning new techniques, providing exhibitions, scholarship opportunities, networking opportunities, and much more.
Jim Melchert, ISB Gallery, Rhode Island School of Design
NCECA attracts three main audiences: students, professional artists, and hobbyists. Their task of satisfying each group with diverse interests is not an easy one, often facing criticism by one or more of the demographics for the organization’s choices in programming. Each group, though, is essential to the anatomy of the broader clay community.
There exists a beautiful symbiotic relationship between the three groups. The professional artists provide an academic framework for art education and professionalism. The students (the future of ceramic art) learn from the professionals, define new trends in the field, and maintain enough interest to keep public studios open. The hobbyists fund the students continued education through buying art and attending workshops that often allot a portion of tuition to student scholarships.
The ceramic medium is historically rooted in community, first for is production roots, and now for artists use of community studios to offset expensive equipment costs. And from an education standpoint, the unexpected professional/student/hobbyist relationship is fragile and essential. NCECA has a complicated job.
The conference talks kicked off with a Keynote titled Earthenware: A History of Table Traditions and Related Recipes by Dr. Frederick Douglas Opie. It was the equivalent of an art history lesson, a good one, but the content was only interesting to a small portion of the audience, many of the others walked out before the end. This was the fault of NCECA for their choice in speaker, not Opie.
David Katz, Arch Contemporary. Click to see a larger image.
Following his lesson, NCECA announced its 2015 Multicultural Fellowships, a response to the 2014 keynote speaker Theaster Gates’ challenge to cultivate greater diversity in the field. This was a progressive gesture by NCECA, a good first step, but the presentation felt insensitive: a list of six names on a big screen for ten seconds. It was impersonal, similar to hitting the “like” button on Facebook without further action, failing to humanize the awardees by shaking their hands, showing their work, or even listing their names on the website; simple gestures I am sure each of them were deserving of. According to the program, these fellowships were more formally announced at Saturday’s Members’ Business Meeting.
The rest of the week featured 100+ more presentations from demos to gallery talks to lectures. Two of the demonstrators, Kristen Morgin and Matt Wedel, were particularly interesting as ceramic artists who have broken into the wider contemporary art scene. They have managed to transcend this vague ceramic-world/art-world line, a breed rarely seen in NCECA’s programming except in a possibly sarcastic lecture by Marc Leuthold.
Leuthold’s talk titled Ceramic Art Leaving the Ghetto consisted of 200+ slides in 30 minutes, showing on onslaught of successful contemporary artists who use clay. The speed of the lecture was humorous and seemed to subtly mock NCECA for completely ignoring some of the most successful, progressive, and educational artists in the field. After the staff had to pressure Leuthold off the stage for going over his time I was left with a one-page list of incredible contemporary artists, none of which were featured at NCECA or at it’s gallery/museum affiliates.
Chris Gustin, Dedee Shattuck Gallery installation. Click to see a larger image.
Amanda Barr, Leslie Ferrin, Brian Harper, and Justin Rothshank held a panel discussion titled The Social (Media) Experiment and even though this topic is hashed out every year, it continues to be fascinating because the popularity of social media in the ceramic community is just getting stronger. The discussion brought up topical questions of identity, sales, self-promotion, and questioned the need for an actual gallery space. NCECA experienced the popularity of ceramicists on social media first-hand when paying conference goers were turned away from talks due to the fire department enforcing maximum capacity and they turned to NCECA’s Facebook page to express their frustration.
Many of the exhibitions were visually jumbled with no solid conceptual framework other than superficial premises like “artist-invite-artist,” or “juried exhibitions.” Many of these shows featured good work like New Bedford Museum of Art, the UMass Dartmouth University Art Gallery, and the Pouring Arts Invitational 2015, but I could not help but think I was just scrolling through my Pinteretst feed of Doug Pelztman’s, Kristen Keiffer’s, and Chris Gustin’s, all the pottery porn stars we are used to pleasuring ourselves to.
David Katz had a powerful site-specific installation at Arch Contemporary that appeared to elevate the oldest farmhouse on the Sakonnet Peninsula, magically supported by an unfired clay pedestal. His basic addition had a huge visual and conceptual impact on the permanent structure, lifting it up, but also conjuring images of an inflated raft, relating to the surrounding water. It was so convincing that my first question to Katz was “Did you move this structure here or build your work around it?”
Jane Shellenbarger, Teapot, 2015, Pouring Arts Invitational 2015, Narrows Center for the Arts
RISD’s ISB Gallery also featured meditative, process-focused work in a solo exhibit of Jim Melchert’s cracked ceramic tiles curated by Paul Kotula, Incubator for Ideas. It was an informative exhibit showing his tiles paired with past articles and images of the artist’s iconic works like Leg Pot and his recorded 1972 performance Changes: A Performance with Drying Slip. On Friday morning Melchert gave an intimate gallery talk; one that you hang on every profound word and the 30 chairs in the room were never empty. Following the inspirational talk I witnessed multiple people commenting, “This is what NCECA used to be.”
The NCECA Biennial at Brown University’s Bell Gallery was juried by Linda Christianson, Jo-Ann Conklin, and Anders Ruhwald. The trio selected 50 outstanding ceramic pieces including work by Zimra Beiner, Matt Repsher, Ned Day, Peter Pincus, and Janet MacPherson. Vlad Basarab showed a fantastic clay sculpture paired with a video titled The Archaeology of Memory- Large Book in which water was dripped onto a rapidly deteriorating unfired clay book. The video showed the process and the displayed object was the collected artifact, rich with detail and fabricated history.
Vlad Basarab, The Archaeology of Memory- Large Book. NCECA Biennial, Brown University’s Bell Gallery.
Cade Tomkins Projects hosted one of the most talked about shows at this year’s conference titled Human Moments, a group exhibition including work by Ann Agee, Sana Musasama, Annabeth Rosen, Sally Saul, Arlene Shechet, Andrew Molleur, Kevin Snipes, and Arnie Zimmerman. This show stood out for its uninterrupted quality and professionalism, something many of the other exhibitions and spaces in Providence lacked.
There were, of course, many other shows including the NCECA Student exhibition, the Kirk Mangus exhibit Good Things (previously covered here), Variance a show of current Alfred University grads, the Pouring Arts Invitational 2015 at Narrows Center for the Arts, a Chris Gustin solo exhibition at Dedee Shattuck Gallery, some beautiful shows at the Pawtucket Armory Arts Center, and so many more.
David Katz, The Uncommon Object Exhibition at U Mass Dartmouth University Art Gallery
To satisfy the complex professional/student/hobbyist audience in Providence, NCECA tightly packed its schedule resulting in an overwhelming feeling of three separate conferences stuffed into one. This isn’t necessarily a bad strategy for their scenario, but the quality seemed diluted. Overall, the talks were underwhelming with a trend (not new to NCECA) of seeing semi-professional presenters with subtle ulterior motives like self-promotion or gallery promotion. You can’t blame them for seeking more value, they only receive $200 for an hour lecture that could take weeks of preparation time.
Most of the lectures and the NCECA sponsored exhibitions are organized on a submission basis which is the cause for the semi-professional quality in both instances. As on organization with the goal of education it would be valuable to hire both curators (not jurors), and speakers to create expert exhibitions and presentations. Although their current formula does satisfy their mission to “foster global education,” the quality of that education is often compromised by the process.
NCECA is a radically successful social practice organization, its conference is the largest annual “art” event in the world, in that brings together a community of makers who share their lives to obtain a clearer understanding of the medium, lifestyle, and opportunities. This community transparency brilliantly progresses the field within the field (teaching history, sustainability, techniques, etc.) but currently lacks the ability to transcend the medium’s microcosm community. This microcosm loyalty is simultaneously a massive advantage to the makers and the very phenomenon that has worked against the ceramic arts being accepted on to the contemporary art stage.
Ned Day, Loopapalooza, 2014, NCECA Biennial, Brown University’s Bell Gallery. Photo: Bell Gallery
NCECA attendees have developed many affectionate pet names for the annual conference, my favorites being Pottery Drinking Party, Ceramic Love Fest, and my personal variation, the National Pottery Jerk Circle. All of these, of course, said with a smile by the very people who attend the conference year after year. NCECA is a cornerstone of ceramic social life, bringing together thousands of enthusiasts to “inspire advancement of the field.” It is an event that faces perpetual challenges, but continues to progress and be a successful, maybe essential, social practice piece of the ceramic field.
Next year is NCECA’s 50th Anniversary meeting in Kansas City. It promises to be the largest gathering yet and book your hotels early. This year there was not a single bed available in Providence by opening day.
What did you think of this year’s NCECA conference? Tell us in the comments or join the conversation on Facebook.
Justin Crowe is Writer-at-Large for CFile.
Kari Radasch, Pierced Bowl, New Bedford Museum of Art
NCECA Opening Ceremonies.
Kelly O’Briant, Ernest Resolution, 2015 NCECA Emerging Artist
Jim Melchert, As Seated, 2012, ISB Gallery, Rhode Island School of Design
Arlene Shechet and Andrew Molleur, Human Moments at Cade Tompkins Projects, Photo: Cade Tompkins Projects. Click to see a larger image.
Kevin Snipes, Human Moments at Cade Tompkins Projects, Photo: Cade Tompkins Projects
Ann Agee, Human Moments at Cade Tompkins Projects, Photo: Cade Tompkins Projects.
I agree with what you write here. Being my first time at NCECA, I planned what to hear but still found myself running around to find the right place. I did catch the end of Chris Staley on teaching and part of Paul Mathieu’s talk which gave me much to think about.
IF I MAY, YES, sure, Lugo’s talk was inspiring. his work reminded me of Perry, sure. of vipoo srilivasa too. or gerry wedd too. its good that nceca is opening up the “exclusively american” ceramic scene to become more inclusive to those outside the north american subcontinent. theres a whole world out there to be discovered guys!;-) Look at whats going on in europe and asia!
I concur with your overview of the opening presentation this year. However, Jack Troy’s close was one of the best I’ve heard.
Did you attend all the lectures? I find it difficult to believe that there were no presentations of quality and a high level by persons not curators or professional speakers.
As for the groups, students, professional artists, hobbyists, you neglect educators who may not be professional exhibiting artists. All told it is a diverse group. There is probably far to much programming to address this varied constituiency, as well as too many exhibitions. Unfortunately, it seems that not a wide variety of artists are encompassed into the NCECA fold, or invited to participate in gallery venues. Who told you to “be nice?” Is that your job as a reviewer? We all work hard, best be honest so as to help develop future conferences.
I really enjoyed your candidness Justin. I feel there a lot of people pushing the boundaries in ceramics that were and are not included in the ceramics conversation. I honestly feel it’s because they would rather be part of the larger art world. I personally feel that we as artists can have dual citizenship in both worlds if we so choose and medium is no longer an important issue. I feel as a community we give too much attention to hype and are not looking at the work critically.
Thanks Joanna. I agree. There is nothing “wrong” with NCECA. It has the potential to be more inviting or less inviting to different types of artists. And ultimately, it is the artists who choose to include themselves in it, or not. I like this idea of dual citizenship!
I think there is a fourth group – collectors!
Yes! Judy, you are right. The collectors are very important to the clay community.
Thanks for the article. Wish I could have gone. Maybe next year in KC (where I spent the first 12 years of life and haven’t seen since).
Opie’s talk was disappointing because he did not talk about what he knows– the cultural history of food. Instead, because he was invited to speak to ceramists, he learned a bit about ceramics and presented a lightweight ceramics talk to a ceramics heavyweight ring. NCECA should make clear to the keynote speaker that (s) he is invited to speak for the expertise that they bring from outside the field.
Mo – I could not agree with you more it was a miss use of his expertise and an uncomfortable, repetitive and empty due to his having little to add on the subject- lacking any specific connection of the ware to the food, the culture or practice of the things- the pots we all so adore and know deeply inside and out. I felt sorry for him and the audience.
Not to change the subject too radically, but in regards to Robert Lugo, while I did find his presentation moving, it made me wonder how to separate his artwork from the activism. Again, I found the talk impressively candid and brave, but I though the work was laughably similar to Grayson Perry, and not very distinctive or strong in its own right. I guess I am ruminating on how understand this situation where the politics and personality are so strong that it becomes difficult to actually critique the work.
Thank you, sums up my thoughts exactly
Hello,
I appreciate your criticism and opinion on the matter of my work and presentation. Since C File did not include my work or presentation within this article I found it curious as to why someone would comment on my work being “Non-Distinctive” and “Laughably Similar to Grayson Perry.” I would like to politely clarify that my activism and community based work is part of my studio practice and, therefore, my work. There is no need to separate them unless someone wishes to focus on one part of my practice that they find less successful than another. I do understand how you might feel my work has some visual qualities found in Perry’s work, however, I’ve only made a handful of ginger jars, whereas most of my work comes in the form of figurative sculpture, teapots, and community based art–none of which are the nucleus of Perry’s work. In terms of how my work being non-distinctive, I appreciate this comment and am curious as to how many Puerto Rican Graffiti potters that illustrate under-represented people of color there are? This would help me understand how my work instigates notions of visual mediocrity that is expressed through a comment such as “Non-Distinctive.” It is important to me to understand these distinctions in order to become a better artist and educator.
Lastly, I was curious as to your question of “how understand this situation where politics and personality are so strong that it becomes difficult to actually critique the work.” From what I know of Perry’s work Politics and personality are at the forefront (See. 33 Artists in 3 acts by Sarah Thornton). With you acclaim of Perry and my suggested replication of his work, I wonder why you would suggest that my work would need to be separate from my personality or politics?
This presentation seemed to have been meaningful to the audience, as NCECA released it days later; I’m uncertain why it couldn’t be left at that. Or if this article mentioned me and how it thought my work was not Perryesque or how it stood on its own and WAS distinctive then I could really understand your critique, because it would be constructive and visit another view but I am at a lost in considering where I can put my heart, career, family, and job on the line in order to give an honest presentation that would counter-balance the presentations that WERE mentioned. I do not prescribe to any methodology in order to consider how someone else’s work is unique, so I wonder if you could please share yours. I find that technical virtuosity is often heavily weighted over concepts within my experience in the ceramics community, however, I do not find this set of criteria for ceramic objects is prevalent in the larger visual arts community.
Please understand I may not respond immediately as I have lost a close family member this week but I will respond as soon as I can. Thank you kindly to C File for your content as it is appreciated by the community.
Best to you,
Roberto Lugo
Also, I want to clarify that I’m not suggested the presenters at NCECA were not heartfelt. As a matter of fact I found the Dangerous Ceramics lecture with Shalene Velenzuela and Malcolm Mobutu Smith to be the best I’ve ever seen at NCECA. Jack Troys closing was exceptional as well.
I agree Roberto, Perry him/herself is a integral part of the ceramic work. In isolation the work itself is less. Perry crosses that boundary between performance activism and ceramic art.
It is irrelevant if someone’s work has visual similarities, a bowl is a bowl and why do people keep making visually similar tea bowls (they can’t be all used domestically). It can be the subtle differences as well as the uniqueness that are important in the work. From your talk we know that Roberto is integral to his pieces and those pieces are a part of him, UNIQUELY.
I would like to recant my 04.02.15 statement that R. Lugo’s work is overly reminiscent of G. Perry’s and without its own distinctive qualities. This statement was made in regards to the work of R.L.’s that was shown in the exhibition hall, within the Emerging Artists exhibition at the Providence, RI convention center. Upon further study of the work that R.L. has presented on his website I find that my statement was wrong, and uneducated. While I do stand by my original reading of the work presented at the Emerging Artists exhibition, I have found, especially with regards to the work R.L. has titled ‘sculpture’ on his website an array of creative, distinctive visual methods that undoubtedly separate his work into its own category, in this I agree with Barry’s 04.09.15 comments that the work is both different and distinctive.
While I also still stand by my initial difficulty in knowing how to precisely examine work that is both personally and politically charged, I hope R. Lugo that you can excuse my overarching criticism of your work, which I admit to being incorrect.
First off I just want to say how glad I am of this Cfile discussion board and the hard work that goes into all of these stories – so nice to have a little niche like this to have wider conversations that might otherwise not be addressed.
RL.
Let me start by saying the word laughable was tactless – please excuse that, I was not trying to be so dismissive, and will be more careful in the future. That being said I imagine that word did light a preverbal fire in your rejoinder, and so I will not take it back completely. I have read and considered your response, and the others pertaining to it, and will do my best to clarify my position.
My mention of your work was regarding Justin Crowe’s (04.01.15) post mentioning your moving presence at the conference, which jogged the thoughts I had had during your presentation in relation to the difficulty I was having in evaluating your work.
When I view your work I do not see the engagement inherent in activism or vandalism attributed to graffiti that you speak of, and instead I see studio-based pottery. From your speech I understand your intentions, but in an exhibition setting I see work that reminds me quite heavily of Grayson Perry. I understand that you are attempting to discuss dissimilar issues, but my comment was based on the notion that you are using a similar vehicle (references to traditional value through craft and formal ceramic ware), which leads to a similar method of delivery (i.e. the juxtaposition of familiarity/safety against difficult/shocking), a similar style of iconography, and even in regards to the conceptual underpinnings, I would argue that you are using a similar method of engagement, where like Perry, you put yourself into different roles of identity. These are the readings of your work which lead to my comment of the similarity between your work and his.
In regards to Barry’s comment (04.09.15) I agree that it is probably not possible to make work that does not in some way reference what has come before it. I would also then go on to add that I see tea bowls as distinctly different than contemporary art in many cases. Firstly, my understanding of the field from which tea bowls arise is that difference is not, and was not always the goal, where instead the lineage of tea bowls is connected to notions of anonymity, community, and use. Contrast that with the state of contemporary art, which is very much interested in notions of innovation, difference, and identity. I think that for those interested in and familiar with the tea bowl culture, of course there is a vast amount of difference between them, but for the less initiated I doubt they see or understand the differences to the same degree. With that in mind if we are to look at R. Lugo’s work from the perspective contemporary art, which is where I believe he aims it to be presented, and is the location of Grayson Perry’s, its distinctness as a contribution to the field, is not as apparent.
Further, R.L. of course I could have not attempted to have this conversation, or made my initial comment, because you are right “the presentation was meaningful, and NCECA did released it days later”, and I apologize for being overly critical, but there is some part of me that finds it fun to discuss and argue about art and ceramics. Also, I do not think you need to separate your worldview from your work, I respect the topics you address, and I felt fortunate to be present at your NCECA presentation, which was informative and moving. My question on the other hand was intended to question how to separate what I saw as speech and delivery that was so powerful that it overshadowed the artwork, which is what is of interest to me.
Okay, so lets put technical virtuosity and innovation aside and just judge the concepts. Is the “illustration of under-represented people of color” a distinctive artistic topic within the U.S. field of ceramics…to the best of my knowledge – yes, but does that make it good art? And I am not trying to place judgment either way here, but if there needs to be criterion beyond technique and aesthetics, there must also be criteria beyond concept. You will not always be present to explain your work, and while the work is embedded with your intentions, it must be able to stand on its own as an object that will sometimes be viewed without reference to those intentions. My original question was how can your work and work like it be talked about outside of very powerful speeches and personalities? I asked the question originally, using your work as a springboard to include the further field. In no way did I want to discredit your background, ideas, or even your work. I asked the question because I was curious as to the thoughts of others. I think you answered the question very well by saying, “There is no need to separate them unless someone wishes to focus on one part of my practice that they find less successful than another”. In short, I appreciate your comments, and those of others I found it quite stimulating.
Hello,
I appreciate your criticism and opinion on the matter of my work and presentation. Since C File did not include my work or presentation within this article I found it curious as to why someone would comment on my work being “Non-Distinctive” and “Laughably Similar to Grayson Perry.” I would like to politely clarify that my activism and community based work is part of my studio practice and, therefore, my work. There is no need to separate them unless someone wishes to focus on one part of my practice that they find less successful than another. I do understand how you might feel my work has some visual qualities found in Perry’s work, however, I’ve only made a handful of ginger jars, whereas most of my work comes in the form of figurative sculpture, teapots, and community based art–none of which are the nucleus of Perry’s work. In terms of how my work being non-distinctive, I appreciate this comment and am curious as to how many Puerto Rican Graffiti potters that illustrate under-represented people of color there are? This would help me understand how my work instigates notions of visual mediocrity that are expressed through a comment such as “Non-Distinctive.” It is important to me to understand these distinctions..
Lastly, I was curious as to your question of “how understand this situation where politics and personality are so strong that it becomes difficult to actually critique the work.” From what I know of Perry’s work Politics and personality are at the forefront (See. 33 Artists in 3 acts by Sarah Thornton). With your acclaim of Perry, and my suggested replication of his work, I wonder why you would suggest that my work would need to be separate from my personality or politics? This presentation seemed to have been meaningful to the audience, as NCECA released it days later; I’m uncertain why it couldn’t be left at that. Or if this article DID mentioned me and how it thought my work was Not Perryesque or how it stood on its own and WAS distinctive then I could really understand your critique, because it would be constructive and visit another view but I am at a lost in considering where I can put my heart, career, family, and job on the line in order to give an honest presentation that would offer a supplement to the presentations that WERE mentioned. I do not prescribe to any methodology in order to consider how someone else’s work is unique, so I wonder if you could please share yours. I find that technical virtuosity is often heavily weighted over concepts within my experience in the ceramics community, however, I do not find this set of criteria for ceramic objects is prevalent in the larger visual arts community.
Please understand I may not respond immediately as I have lost a close family member this week but I will respond as soon as I can. Thank you kindly to C File for your content as it is appreciated by the community. Best to you, Roberto Lugo
“This community transparency brilliantly progresses the field within the field (teaching history, sustainability, techniques, etc.) but currently lacks the ability to transcend the medium’s microcosm community.” —- NCECA has already transcended its community of ceramics educators to include ceramics makers. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the conference.
LB,
I think what is being commented upon here is that the communal aspect of NCECA is pervading, where it harbors a certain inbreeding. While the American ceramic field aims to be included within larger artistic dialogues it is actually an exclusive system in and of itself, as it seems to exclude those artists not considered ‘ceramic enough’. I believe this is the reason for Crowe’s inclusion of, and comments upon Marc Leuthold, Kristin Morgin, and Matt Wedeln’s presentations, with regard to the idea that NCECA and the wider field has a difficulty in escaping the ‘microcosm community’. In this sense then I think the idea of ceramic educators are included alongside ceramic makers as a part of this included community at large.
Correction: Kelly O’ Briant is actually a 2015 emerging artist,
Not 2005. Sad
That you didn’t write about Roberto Lugo. A missed opportunity in my eyes.
Bogus
Hey David. Thanks for the correction. Roberto Lugo was indeed a moving presence at this year’s conference.