Posting Instructions

For this post you are going to watch a video interview with Grayson Perry, and then write a blog response to it.  But before you watch the video, I want you to want you to look up some more of Grayson's work, get a better sense of it, and read what people say it is about.  This is not necessary if you were already familiar with the work, but if you are not, then you need to do that -- otherwise the video will not make as much sense, and it will be hard for you to respond to what Grayson says about it.

One of the things Grayson talks about in the interview is that he does not see himself as a potter, or a ceramicist.  So how can he be making what are clearly clay vases -- handmade and decorated directly by him -- and yet not consider himself a potter or ceramicist?  Do you think he is wrong in making that distinction?  Explain what you think the logic of that assertion is.  It is okay if you disagree, but even then, try to play devils advocate and say why you think it makes sense to him.

This is an important thing to get clear for yourself if you want to work with ceramics in the future.  Since this field is somewhat unique in the way it is so thoroughly embedded both in the realm of functionality and craft, as well as realm of fine arts, the line between the two can seem completely arbitrary.  In one sense it IS arbitrary, in that the distinction is an idea invented by humans, but then art or design could be described the same way.  Getting clearer about where the line is drawn between art on one side, and craft/functionality/design on the other, will serve you well in the future.

So respond to that issue and explain it as you see it, and then find at least one other idea you found interesting and worth discussing, and write about that too.  If you want to give examples of images, go ahead, but don't just make it into show and tell -- use them to make a point.  I want you to put a priority on ideas and not just interesting facts.  Can you see anything in the way Grayson works that could affect how you think about your own working process?  Are there ideas in this interview that you find too strange or unpleasant or dumb to see why they are meaningful to anyone?  This does not have to be specifically positive or negative, just well-explained.

Write 200-350 words.