RosettaStone: CRAFT A primary, secondary, and annotated source reader for functional craft. By: Randi O'Brien

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, Professionalism and Perspective. by Glen R. Brown
Glen R. Brown, “Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, professionalism and Perspective”  Ceramics: Art and Perception, No. 75 2009, 107-110.

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

A profound article on fundamental short-sighting’s within the contemporary ceramics field, Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, professionalism and Perspective written by critic and Art History Professor at Kansas State University; Glen R. Brown, engages new perspectives on the demand for a change in ceramic criticism. Brown presents a rationale for critics and studio ceramicists to engage a sophisticated approach of critical writing and critical theory. He argues that stereotypes and assumptions of criticism create barricades the make for naiveté within writing and the dialogue of critical ceramic evaluation which Brown believes is pivotal when addressing the outcome and lament of critical discourse within ceramics. Brown is particular to point out new methodologies for contextualizing and the cannon’s for art historians to deconstruct specialized fields and further connects these practices to the promotion of critical ceramic evaluation. My overall impression is that Brown has prescribed his contention in an authentic and dedicated way while invoking a pertinent and appropriate authority.

Ceramicists would find this article useful for developing a holistic perspective on the pitfalls of their grievance’s with the quality of critical evaluations on ceramic work as well as a new insightful perspective on the continuing dialogue within ceramic evaluation. Brown has been able to call attention to the downfall of criticism within ceramics and further suggest an in-depth understanding of both ceramics and criticism (history, tradition, process, practice, etc.) which gives support to his key claim that; “it seems to me terribly naïve to suppose that an increased emphasis on criticism will automatically exert a positive and prestigious effect on contemporary studio ceramics. Such an outcome can only be truly realized if criticism is itself approached critically- which is to say if criticism is not promoted blindly but rather with an adequate understanding of its history, the vocabulary that has developed around it, the variations it currently assumes, the problems that confront it in various fields in the humanities and the potential benefits and negative consequences that it may entail when applied to contemporary ceramics”