Kristina Smith

I enjoyed Grayson’s frankness in his distinguishing himself not as a potter, or ceramicist, but as an artist, and acknowledging the vanity of this small difference. In this sense, the medium becomes secondary to the practice of art, and as such, becomes a tool for the artist. I view ceramics and photography this way. I do not call myself a photographer or a ceramicist, just because a tool I happen to use encompasses that said medium. I prefer the term artist, because like Grayson, I feel that it is more honest and true to the nature of creativity. It does not necessarily need to be contained or constrained within one specific type of medium, but allowed to encompass and flourish it whatever way necessary.

I found it especially poignant when Grayson spoke about the cycle of creativity and religion. How an idea when it first comes into your consciousness is easy to dismiss as being trivial, or not good enough, but eventually begins to gain hold of some roots. Also, I enjoyed his statement on how the ritual and practice of religion, which can be somewhat akin or synonymous with art making. I also liked his reference to John Berger’s point in “Ways of Seeing,” his view of the only thing that an artwork has, now in the age of reproduction, is it’s originality. As someone whose main artwork encompass notions of duplicity, both with mold making and print, I have found it especially significant to have something special to set the work apart from itself and others just like it. To show that it was still indeed made by hand, and as such, is one of a kind.