PREFACE

PREFACE

Originally, I planned to carry out the research for this dissertation using primary sources, for example object handling sessions at museums, such as the V&A, through which I hoped to gain material and historical knowledge. I planned to use these tactile accounts to look at the unique qualities of clay and ceramic objects, with specific attention to those that are collected either by institutions or by individuals.

Drawing influence from my own experience of clay as a material, I also want to investigate Philip Rawson’s approach in his book ‘Ceramics’, in which he describes the ‘aim to supply a basis for aesthetic judgement and appreciation both of the work the potter makes himself, and of work from the great ceramic traditions of the past.’ He goes on to say that the book ‘deals with what can be read from pots, not with what can be read in books.’1 It is this idea of reading pots that really interests me. I am a maker and, although I occasionally write, my chosen mode of communication is through the physical outcomes of my craft with clay. Consequently, it comes naturally for me to read the material language of pots, the processes involved in making them, and the journeys they have been on throughout the years since their creation.

However, due to the situation we currently find ourselves in, in isolation, detached from our usual resources and tools for practicing as writers and artists, I have decided to approach this piece of writing in a different way; using my memory of the ceramic object as a source, the internet archive of objects at the V&A and finally a small collection of objects, to which I do have physical access during lock down. I aim to explore these ceramic objects through the varying realms of memory, physical and virtual space. Memory is especially significant in the writing that follows, as I will be imagining the life of the object prior to its current place in the world.

The text brings together my poetic accounts of these objects, that are in some cases written from the object’s point of view, which I describe as the “embodied object”. The embodied object’s voice is a somewhat romanticised and poetic account of the lifecycle of the ceramic object. The object’s voice is juxtaposed with a second voice, my own, through which I talk about my discovery of the objects and their significance in a more analytical and factual way.

1 Philip Rawson, Ceramics (London: Oxford University Press, 1971) p. 1.

I speak from my position as an artist and maker, whilst also considering the systems and practices around objects through the lenses of curation, archaeology, and conservation.

It is worth acknowledging that through the process of selecting the artefacts that I will be looking at, I am in fact returning to ideas around collections and the act of collecting, categorizing and grouping. The process of choosing and grouping the artefacts can be seen as an act of curation in written form.