ECC2014 Prizewinners. Jury Statement

On behalf of the jury, we’d like to start by thanking each of the participating artists. Working through ceramics requires significant investment of time, materials, careful thinking and dedication. It has been a pleasure to see your work – particularly rewarding for me as the costs of transporting ceramics to the United States often limits our experience to photographs. And I think we would all agree, particularly standing here in this exhibition, that artwork is best experienced in person.

Established ArtistMaking a selection from group exhibitions is always a challenge, and this jury experience was true to form. Collectively, we were impressed by the diversity of themes, ideas, and subjects. The work you see here is highly individualistic. The breadth of work is compelling: despite the proliferation of images in magazines and on the internet, artists continue to create work which pushes past the cacophony to reveal singular voices. As you walk through the exhibition you will see humor, a spectrum of scale from miniature to monumental, exploration of multiples, animals as metaphors, figurative work and more. As a jury, we are intrigued also at what we did not see: attention to climate change, politics and the tensions of the day or work which focuses on social engagement or social practice. Additionally, there is little functional work, a noticeable absence of ornament and pattern, and what Anne Wilson termed “sloppy craft” in an article by Glenn Adamson from Crafts magazine, published in 2008 in the UK.

For the first award to an established artist, the jury responded strongly to two works which exposes the structure and process of ceramic construction. These sculptures reveal strong technical skills, clear evidence of understanding of the hidden activities of the kiln and potential of effects of fire and glaze. These affects are built into the artist’s process, demonstrating how the hazards, happenstance and accidental nature of the medium can be used to turn the affective possibilities of process into powerful, haunting effect. Taking the traditional form of the bust - in this case the monumental bust of powerful figures connected to charged moments in history - Anne Wenzel opens ceramics to possibilities. She expands narrative to question politics, history, ornamental forms, monumentality and power – and, importantly for this context, her work is unquestionably that of a ceramist. The two figures, which may have started equally complete, now reveal the mark of her hands in the removal of clay, pulled and gouged to leave a skeletal structure which maintains its posture despite structural distress. The dissolution of surface and structure is exquisite: the bubbling glaze coating the surface of a deposed despot with a thick, viscous liquid that seems just barely hardened and preserved. Equally beautiful and disturbing, Anne Wenzel uses ceramics traditions – the figure, multiples, and materials – but gives us a fresh vision of how the process of construction merges with social commentary.

New Talent

Making a selection from the new talent was challenging as well. Here, too, as with the established artists, individual expression clearly prevails, resulting in works in a range of scale, along the spectrum from functional to sculptural, and a comparable interest in figurative forms, both human and animal. Collectively, we agreed that the artists included in this year’s selections unquestionably understand the technical challenges of working with clay. Specifically, however, the group reveals a strong and, frankly, surprising focus on porcelain as compared to other types of clay on a material level, and ways of working with clay on a conceptual level. We cannot help but wonder: are we seeing the impact of Jingdezhen in this fascination with porcelain? What are younger artists exploring in terms of experimental processes such as digital and 3-D forms, performance and time-based work, film and animation? How can we support risk-taking and experimentation in younger artists? And if this is not possible, what does it mean for ceramics in contemporary culture?

Many of you who visit the exhibition may miss the work we selected for the prize. It does not sit where it is supposed to be. Nestled into the architecture, the work is hard to spot. Once seen, however, the forms raise a number of questions. What is the purpose of these pieces? Is it a forgotten functional object, a water tank or cover for a circuit box?

James Rigler’s work led to a marvelous cross cultural discussion of how to describe the humor in the piece. Depending on where you sit in the world, in might be cheeky, pince-sans-rire, or result in a twisted smile. Regardless of where you are from, the humor is evident.

The placement of the forms up high calls our attention to architectural history and the traditions of ornament, a reductive interpretation of Victorian architectural and decorative history, in particular. At the same time, the work evokes – but is carefully not derivative of Memphis Design in its surface treatment, palette, and geometric shapes. Drawing on two moments of heavy ornament, surface, color and form in the history of the decorative arts, we appreciated Rigler’s own experimentation and ability to make his own statement and play on space and structure. All of us agree that we are curious to see his work develop, and appreciated the captivating freshness of his work.

On behalf of the jury, it was a pleasure to participate in this important exhibition project, and to spend time looking at, thinking about, and discussing this work. The mixture of an international exhibition, conference, and workshop coupled with the local school, museums, and galleries is outstanding. Our conversations with people over the past few days revealed a depth and commitment to all forms of ceramics practices, to education and sharing of knowledge and expertise, and to working together as a community which are impressive and rare regardless of where one might live. This is a unique and special environment with a long history and bright future in ceramics. Thank you for the opportunity to experience the vitality of this important and critical endeavor.

Namita Gupta Wiggers, Lars Kærulf Møller, Clemence van Lunen