Papers by Laura Breen
Contemporary Art in Heritage Spaces, 2020
Journal of Art Historiography, 2014
Since the 1960s the field of ceramic practice that developed in the wake of studio pottery has ex... more Since the 1960s the field of ceramic practice that developed in the wake of studio pottery has expanded to incorporate diverse uses of clay. In the same period public museums and galleries in Britain have begun to engage with contemporary ceramic works on a more sustained basis. This paper examines how they have attempted to reconcile art-oriented practice, in particular, with existing modes of categorisation through temporary exhibitions. It argues that these ventures also reconstituted the ceramic field, which, like the field of art, became increasingly dependent on context as a means of delineation. It focuses on the period from 1970, when Ceramic Review was founded, to the 2009 exhibition Possibilities and Losses, which craft theorist Glenn Adamson suggested, marks a paradigm shift in ceramics. Extrapolating from Miwon Kwon's writing on site-specificity it contends that although museums and galleries acted as the functional sites for these exhibitions the discourse around ce...
Ceramics and the Museum interrogates the relationship between art-oriented ceramic practice and m... more Ceramics and the Museum interrogates the relationship between art-oriented ceramic practice and museum practice in Britain since 1970. Laura Breen examines the identity of ceramics as an art form, drawing on examples of work by artist-makers such as Edmund de Waal and Grayson Perry; addresses the impact of policy making on ceramic practice; traces the shift from object to project in ceramic practice and in the evolution of ceramic sculpture; explores how museums facilitated multisensory engagement with ceramic material and process, and analyses the exhibition as a text in itself. Proposing the notion that 'gestures of showing,' such as exhibitions and installation art, can be read as statements, she examines what they tell us about the identity of ceramics at particular moments in time. Highlighting the ways in which these gestures have constructed ceramics as a category of artistic practice, Breen argues that they reveal gaps between narrative and practice, which in turn can be used to deconstruct it too.
The Journal of Modern Craft, 2017
The Journal of Art Historiography, 2014
When the Craftsmen Potters' Association launched its magazine Ceramic Review in 1970 it selec... more When the Craftsmen Potters' Association launched its magazine Ceramic Review in 1970 it selected a title that accommodated forms of practice that stood outside of the studio pottery tradition as well as within it. The magazine's content was focused on hand making, perpetuating craft values, which, as Glenn Adamson has argued, were constructed in tandem with and in opposition to industry.1 Philip Rawson's book Ceramics, published a year later, proffered a different take on the term, addressing the symbolic, tactile and associative values of ceramic objects and the symbiosis of aesthetics and function.2 However, this paper explores how the designation 'ceramics' has provided a key means of accommodating art-oriented studio practice, delineating a field that has since been reconfigured in relation to changing conceptions of craft and industry as well as work in clay produced by fine artists.3 As these additive and unhinging processes encompassed sculpture, ready- ma...
Alchemy and Metamorphosis, 2021
Journal of Art Historiography (revised version, May 2015), Dec 2014
Since the 1960s the field of ceramic practice that developed in the wake of studio pottery has ex... more Since the 1960s the field of ceramic practice that developed in the wake of studio pottery has expanded to incorporate diverse uses of clay. In the same period public museums and galleries in Britain have begun to engage with contemporary ceramic works on a more sustained basis. This paper examines how they have attempted to reconcile art-oriented practice, in particular, with existing modes of categorisation through temporary exhibitions. It argues that these ventures also reconstituted the ceramic field, which, like the field of art, became increasingly dependent on context as a means of delineation. It focuses on the period from 1970, when Ceramic Review was founded, to the 2009 exhibition Possibilities and Losses, which craft theorist Glenn Adamson suggested marks a paradigm shift in ceramics. Extrapolating from Miwon Kwon’s writing on site-specificity it contends that although museums and galleries acted as the functional sites for these exhibitions the discourse around ceramics was a key site of effect.
Journal of the Society of Decorative Arts Curators (SODAC)., Mar 2011
Conference Presentations by Laura Breen
Restating Clay, Centre of Ceramic Art (CoCA), York Art Gallery, 20 March, 2018., 2018
Addressing classification, Edmund De Waal suggested we
make space for the ‘perhaps’ – for multip... more Addressing classification, Edmund De Waal suggested we
make space for the ‘perhaps’ – for multiple descriptions
and indeterminacy. However, when we frame clay
works by those with a ceramics education in ceramics
publications and exhibit them in ceramics galleries, the
designation ‘ceramics’ can obscure other readings.
Drawing on Mieke Bal’s theory of exposition, this
paper looks at how ceramics has featured in ‘gestures
of showing’ in Britain since the 1970s. Probing the
gaps that open up between dominant narratives
and interpretation, it submits that if we are led by
possibilities, rather than adopting a ceramics-first
approach, we create space for more fruitful dialogues.
Ceramic Values Congress, Stoke-on-Trent, 2017
Over the past fifteen years, traditional centres of ceramics such as Incheon, Korea, Albisola in ... more Over the past fifteen years, traditional centres of ceramics such as Incheon, Korea, Albisola in Italy and Stoke-on-Trent in the UK and have launched biennials that use contemporary practice to rebrand both host city and local production. Mobilising the past to shape the future, they bring numerous applications of clay together under the overarching theme of ceramics.
Surveying the evolution of the British Ceramics Biennial, this paper contends that ceramics biennials constitute a dispersed site of debate. Oscillating between the global and the local, they provide a means of sharing resources, skills and experience. Yet, they also highlight the pluralism of ceramic practice, challenging its distinction as an artistic category. I argue that this can offer an opportunity for critical debate and innovation. However, I caution that it might provide a safe haven for medium-specific practice at a time when disciplinary infrastructures are disappearing: one that is premised on a tenuous shared heritage and which permits continued self-ghettoisation.
Fragile?
"Exposition is always also an argument. Therefore, in publicising these views the subject objecti... more "Exposition is always also an argument. Therefore, in publicising these views the subject objectifies himself as much as the object: this makes the exposition an exposure of the self. Such exposure is an act of producing meaning, a performance." (Mieke Bal, Double Exposures, 1996)
This paper explore the issues those trying to construct a narrative around ceramics as a category have faced since 1970. It interrogates the ways in which artists and curators in the UK have used gestures of showing to work through those issues. It also addresses my own experience of working on the National Museum's exhibition, Fragile? and how that exhibition fits into this trajectory. I illustrate how the ceramic field's frequent discussions of expansion have, historically, been accompanied by efforts to maintain separation from fine art, in particular. Arguing that, as Alison Britton commented when reviewing the Ceramics in the Expanded Field conference in 2014, it is the "what next?" that matters, I compel the attendees to consider their role in forging that future.
Over the past twenty-five years a number of high-profile practitioners have engaged the museum as... more Over the past twenty-five years a number of high-profile practitioners have engaged the museum as medium whilst maintaining a concern with ceramic specificity. Publications by De Waal (2003), Cooper (2009) and Buszek (2011) have addressed these works as part of the ceramic field whilst scholars from Buchloh (1990) and Putnam (2001) to Robins (2013) have mapped and interrogated the multifarious historical relationship between broader artistic practice and the museum. However, existing literature fails to examine the intersection of these divergent areas of study. This paper explores how the museum and the ceramic field have reconstituted themselves in relation to each other since 1970 through the lens of production. Exploring shifting attitudes towards making, meaning and site I argue that both museums and the ceramic field have incorporated forms of practice that test their limits in order to stay relevant. I propose that although they can combine to emphasise continuity in the face of change, efforts to re-negotiate the terms of their engagement can also create a productive friction. In conclusion I suggest that these interactions can highlight the inadequacies of existing frameworks, demonstrating that just as museums can facilitate practice outside of their walls, ceramics may act as a departure point for artistic practice but it need not be the sole frame through which it is read.
Since the 1960s the field of ceramic practice that developed in the wake of studio pottery has ex... more Since the 1960s the field of ceramic practice that developed in the wake of studio pottery has expanded to incorporate diverse uses of clay. In the same period public museums and galleries in Britain have begun to engage with contemporary ceramic works on a more sustained basis. This paper examines how they have attempted to reconcile art-oriented practice, in particular, with existing modes of categorisation through temporary exhibitions. It argues that these ventures also reconstituted the ceramic field, which, like the field of art, became increasingly dependent on context as a means of delineation. It focuses on the period from 1970, when Ceramic Review was founded, to the 2009 exhibition Possibilities and Losses, which craft theorist Glenn Adamson suggested marks a paradigm shift in ceramics. Extrapolating from Miwon Kwon’s writing on site-specificity it contends that although museums and galleries acted as the functional sites for these exhibitions the discourse around ceramics was a key site of effect.
The past forty years have seen the emergence of what Putnam (2001) calls a ‘museological tendency... more The past forty years have seen the emergence of what Putnam (2001) calls a ‘museological tendency’ within the field of ceramic practice. Makers such as Anders Ruhwald, Linda Sormin, Rob Kesseler and Clare Twomey have produced works that use museums’ space, collections and strategies to transform the meaning and discourse around ceramics. As Paul Greenhalgh (2002) has asserted, museological techniques can concretize the taxonomic divisions at the center of debate about disciplinary status; they can also be used to unsettle them. Despite this, academic investigation into the relationship between contemporary ceramic practice, curatorial approach and critical and public reception has been limited. This paper presents the results of intensive archival research into historical and contemporary manifestations of this tendency. Focusing on the period from 1970 to the present day, with reference to earlier precedents, it asks:
• How have artists working within the ceramic field engaged with museological strategies within their work and what were their intentions?
• How has their work challenged museological conventions and altered public and critical perception of ceramics?
• How can we contextualize the use of ceramic practice in museums within the larger area of art practice within museums?
It argues that shifting artistic and museological priorities have fostered a more dialogic relationship between curator, practitioner and audience and yielded more expansive interpretations of ceramics.
Putnam, J. (2001) Art and Artifact: the Museum as Medium. London: Thames & Hudson.
Greenhalgh, P., (2002). The Persistence of Craft. London: A & C Black.
Critical analysis of the curation of ceramics is usually confined to broader discussions about th... more Critical analysis of the curation of ceramics is usually confined to broader discussions about the decorative arts. Carol Duncan (1995) has traced the impact that the Louvre’s separation of the fine and decorative arts in the 1700s had on the latter’s place in the hierarchy of the arts. Minihan (1977), Samaurez Smith (1989) and Burton (1999) have also examined how the South Kensington (now the V&A) Museum’s founding mission to improve national standards of design and public taste has shaped the curation of decorative arts. Whilst Christopher Wilk (1997) has touched upon the emergence of contemporary collecting within the V&A’s circulation department and Watson (1990) has researched the development of the V&A’s studio pottery collection in the early twentieth century, the more specific position of contemporary ceramics is rarely broached. Theoretical inquiry is largely confined to exhibition catalogues or more generalised debates about craft (Groom, 2004; Buszek, 2011). Drawing on archival research into collections policies and interpretative techniques, my paper explores historic curatorial approaches to contemporary ceramics in Britain. I argue that changing conceptions of the museum’s role and shifts in both curatorial and artistic practice have shaped contemporary ceramics’ place within the museum. This paper sheds new light on the neglected history of contemporary ceramics curation. It also delineates a heritage for recent attempts to accommodate an expanded field of ceramics that includes performance and installation.
Buszek, M.E. (2011). Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art. Durham, N.C. Duke University Press.
Duncan, C. (1995). From the Princely Gallery to the Public Art Museum: The Louvre Museum and the National Gallery, London. In Duncan, C. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge. pp21-46.
Groom, S., (ed.). (2004). A Secret History of Clay from Gauguin to Gormley. Liverpool: Tate Publishing.
Minihan, J., (1977). The Nationalization of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Samaurez-Smith, C., (1998). Museums, Artefacts and Meanings. In: Vergo, P. (ed.) The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. pp.6-21.
Watson, O. (1990). Justification and Means: The Early Acquisition of Studio Pots in the Victoria and Albert Museum. In The Burlington Magazine, 132, 1046 (May, 1990), pp. 358-360.
Wilk, C. (1999). Collecting the Twentieth Century. In Baker, M., & Richardson, B., (eds.) A Grand Design: The Art of the Victoria & Albert Museum. New York and Baltimore: V & A Publications with the Baltimore Museum of Art. pp.345-353.
Book Reviews by Laura Breen
Decorative Arts Society Journal, 2017
Combining sumptuous photography with scholarly essays, Things of Beauty Growing: British Studio P... more Combining sumptuous photography with scholarly essays, Things of Beauty Growing: British Studio Pottery is a heavyweight in more than one sense...
Journal of Modern Craft, 2017
Uploads
Papers by Laura Breen
Conference Presentations by Laura Breen
make space for the ‘perhaps’ – for multiple descriptions
and indeterminacy. However, when we frame clay
works by those with a ceramics education in ceramics
publications and exhibit them in ceramics galleries, the
designation ‘ceramics’ can obscure other readings.
Drawing on Mieke Bal’s theory of exposition, this
paper looks at how ceramics has featured in ‘gestures
of showing’ in Britain since the 1970s. Probing the
gaps that open up between dominant narratives
and interpretation, it submits that if we are led by
possibilities, rather than adopting a ceramics-first
approach, we create space for more fruitful dialogues.
Surveying the evolution of the British Ceramics Biennial, this paper contends that ceramics biennials constitute a dispersed site of debate. Oscillating between the global and the local, they provide a means of sharing resources, skills and experience. Yet, they also highlight the pluralism of ceramic practice, challenging its distinction as an artistic category. I argue that this can offer an opportunity for critical debate and innovation. However, I caution that it might provide a safe haven for medium-specific practice at a time when disciplinary infrastructures are disappearing: one that is premised on a tenuous shared heritage and which permits continued self-ghettoisation.
This paper explore the issues those trying to construct a narrative around ceramics as a category have faced since 1970. It interrogates the ways in which artists and curators in the UK have used gestures of showing to work through those issues. It also addresses my own experience of working on the National Museum's exhibition, Fragile? and how that exhibition fits into this trajectory. I illustrate how the ceramic field's frequent discussions of expansion have, historically, been accompanied by efforts to maintain separation from fine art, in particular. Arguing that, as Alison Britton commented when reviewing the Ceramics in the Expanded Field conference in 2014, it is the "what next?" that matters, I compel the attendees to consider their role in forging that future.
• How have artists working within the ceramic field engaged with museological strategies within their work and what were their intentions?
• How has their work challenged museological conventions and altered public and critical perception of ceramics?
• How can we contextualize the use of ceramic practice in museums within the larger area of art practice within museums?
It argues that shifting artistic and museological priorities have fostered a more dialogic relationship between curator, practitioner and audience and yielded more expansive interpretations of ceramics.
Putnam, J. (2001) Art and Artifact: the Museum as Medium. London: Thames & Hudson.
Greenhalgh, P., (2002). The Persistence of Craft. London: A & C Black.
Buszek, M.E. (2011). Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art. Durham, N.C. Duke University Press.
Duncan, C. (1995). From the Princely Gallery to the Public Art Museum: The Louvre Museum and the National Gallery, London. In Duncan, C. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge. pp21-46.
Groom, S., (ed.). (2004). A Secret History of Clay from Gauguin to Gormley. Liverpool: Tate Publishing.
Minihan, J., (1977). The Nationalization of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Samaurez-Smith, C., (1998). Museums, Artefacts and Meanings. In: Vergo, P. (ed.) The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. pp.6-21.
Watson, O. (1990). Justification and Means: The Early Acquisition of Studio Pots in the Victoria and Albert Museum. In The Burlington Magazine, 132, 1046 (May, 1990), pp. 358-360.
Wilk, C. (1999). Collecting the Twentieth Century. In Baker, M., & Richardson, B., (eds.) A Grand Design: The Art of the Victoria & Albert Museum. New York and Baltimore: V & A Publications with the Baltimore Museum of Art. pp.345-353.
Book Reviews by Laura Breen
make space for the ‘perhaps’ – for multiple descriptions
and indeterminacy. However, when we frame clay
works by those with a ceramics education in ceramics
publications and exhibit them in ceramics galleries, the
designation ‘ceramics’ can obscure other readings.
Drawing on Mieke Bal’s theory of exposition, this
paper looks at how ceramics has featured in ‘gestures
of showing’ in Britain since the 1970s. Probing the
gaps that open up between dominant narratives
and interpretation, it submits that if we are led by
possibilities, rather than adopting a ceramics-first
approach, we create space for more fruitful dialogues.
Surveying the evolution of the British Ceramics Biennial, this paper contends that ceramics biennials constitute a dispersed site of debate. Oscillating between the global and the local, they provide a means of sharing resources, skills and experience. Yet, they also highlight the pluralism of ceramic practice, challenging its distinction as an artistic category. I argue that this can offer an opportunity for critical debate and innovation. However, I caution that it might provide a safe haven for medium-specific practice at a time when disciplinary infrastructures are disappearing: one that is premised on a tenuous shared heritage and which permits continued self-ghettoisation.
This paper explore the issues those trying to construct a narrative around ceramics as a category have faced since 1970. It interrogates the ways in which artists and curators in the UK have used gestures of showing to work through those issues. It also addresses my own experience of working on the National Museum's exhibition, Fragile? and how that exhibition fits into this trajectory. I illustrate how the ceramic field's frequent discussions of expansion have, historically, been accompanied by efforts to maintain separation from fine art, in particular. Arguing that, as Alison Britton commented when reviewing the Ceramics in the Expanded Field conference in 2014, it is the "what next?" that matters, I compel the attendees to consider their role in forging that future.
• How have artists working within the ceramic field engaged with museological strategies within their work and what were their intentions?
• How has their work challenged museological conventions and altered public and critical perception of ceramics?
• How can we contextualize the use of ceramic practice in museums within the larger area of art practice within museums?
It argues that shifting artistic and museological priorities have fostered a more dialogic relationship between curator, practitioner and audience and yielded more expansive interpretations of ceramics.
Putnam, J. (2001) Art and Artifact: the Museum as Medium. London: Thames & Hudson.
Greenhalgh, P., (2002). The Persistence of Craft. London: A & C Black.
Buszek, M.E. (2011). Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art. Durham, N.C. Duke University Press.
Duncan, C. (1995). From the Princely Gallery to the Public Art Museum: The Louvre Museum and the National Gallery, London. In Duncan, C. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge. pp21-46.
Groom, S., (ed.). (2004). A Secret History of Clay from Gauguin to Gormley. Liverpool: Tate Publishing.
Minihan, J., (1977). The Nationalization of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Samaurez-Smith, C., (1998). Museums, Artefacts and Meanings. In: Vergo, P. (ed.) The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. pp.6-21.
Watson, O. (1990). Justification and Means: The Early Acquisition of Studio Pots in the Victoria and Albert Museum. In The Burlington Magazine, 132, 1046 (May, 1990), pp. 358-360.
Wilk, C. (1999). Collecting the Twentieth Century. In Baker, M., & Richardson, B., (eds.) A Grand Design: The Art of the Victoria & Albert Museum. New York and Baltimore: V & A Publications with the Baltimore Museum of Art. pp.345-353.
Laura Breen examines the identity of ceramics as an art form, drawing on examples of work by artist-makers such as Edmund de Waal and Grayson Perry; addresses the impact of policy making on ceramic practice; traces the shift from object to project in ceramic practice and in the evolution of ceramic sculpture; explores how museums facilitated multisensory engagement with ceramic material and process, and analyses the exhibition as a text in itself.
Proposing the notion that 'gestures of showing,' such as exhibitions and installation art, can be read as statements, she examines what they tell us about the identity of ceramics at particular moments in time. Highlighting the ways in which these gestures have constructed ceramics as a category of artistic practice, Breen argues that they reveal gaps between narrative and practice, which in turn can be used to deconstruct it too.