Monday, November 12, 2012

Codi Rennke



I appreciate Grayson’s honesty in how he sees himself not as a potter or ceramicist, but instead as an artist who happens to work with clay.  His pieces are very design-based and focus more so on the surface treatments and the intricate drawings/paintings than on them being a product of someone who is absolutely intrigued by clay and who experiments with the medium.  His reasoning for using clay has more to do with the concept of clay works being presented as fine art more and more recently whereas in the past they were considered functional craft.  I think this plays into his whole identity- this constant questioning of boundaries and social norms and roles.  I think to him the acceptance of this craft-medium as fine art is symbolic of the progress of society, perhaps in the hopes that other boundaries will become less and less apparent such as the gender boundary.  He talks about when he cross dresses that it is not that he has an alter ego or anything of the like, it is that that is simply his expression; he is still Grayson- just Grayson in a dress.
I agree with Grayson’s distinction between seeing yourself as a potter or simply an artist who happens to use clay.  I have trouble putting myself into a specific category as an artist, especially when first coming to college.  Art school is almost always divided up based on which medium you work in, but what about the artists who like to use different media for different ideas?  I think it would be beneficial for the art community to become more comfortable with Grayson’s distinction because it would allow artists more freedom if they weren’t put into these tiny niches.
Another point that Grayson made that interested me was when he was asked if the audience needs to know about the artist in order to more completely understand a work.  He made the point that it is not necessary to understand a work for it to be effective art.  Art can be appreciated for being aesthetically pleasing and for the craftsmanship behind it too.  I really liked when he described art as visual poetry as well.

No comments: