As early as the Neolithic Age, humans have utilized ceramics as utensils of daily life. As humanity evolved and developed, ceramics as an art-form has prevailed long before the first definition of art endowed by humankind. In a way, our sensibilities towards ceramics are deeply rooted in our genes as humans: it’s inseparable from our diet, and it corresponds to our status and our positions in society. Generally speaking, ceramics is associated with functionality and practicality as everyday utensils, while its artistic quality an additional attribute. As civilization continues to advance, the distinctiveness of ceramics beyond its functionality gradually separates and becomes a unique art form, a vessel to a never-ceasing obsession. 

How ceramics (or clay), as an art material and medium in artistic practices continue to evolve in contemporary art is an issue faced by every ceramic artist – how does an ancient art form generate new possibilities and necessities to contemporary social realities? In the same way as to how competitive sports evolved from life and death combat, the concept of “to play” has become a symbol of “civility” in human civilization. The two artists in this exhibition, Amy Chang Li-Chuan and Wei Cheng both attempt to break away from the ingrained concepts in ceramics differently, yet “to play” has become their shared strategy.

Amy Chang Li-Chuan’s work takes inspiration from Steampunk; a distinctive style and genre of the 1980s and 1990s North American subculture. From there, Chang develops her concept of imitation. Chang uses glaze to imitate metal textures, uses the hand-made quality of ceramics to mimic a lifeless industrialized production, and uses ceramics as functional utensils to mimic an impractical Steampunk assemblage. The three layers of imitation find peculiar connections between the practical and the useless, resemblance and non-resemblance, the seriousness and humorous, all of which makes up Chang’s art practice. 

Wei Cheng’s works, on the other hand, attempts to break apart from the shackles of ceramic’s inherent qualities in a more radical way. From an institutional criticism viewpoint, Cheng emphasizes her reflections on the indispensable constituents of ceramics: “clay” and “fire.” The production of ceramics is the integration of “clay” and “fire”: clay to take the physical form, while fire the intervenient force that transforms clay into pottery. The properties of “fire” and “clay” have always been the two directions pushing forward ceramics to ultimate craftsmanship. Cheng, in contrary, adapts a playfulness to release the primitive nature of “clay” and “fire,” and merges ready-made objects with “clay” and “fire” to create assemblages, differentiating her work from both the context of ready-mades and ceramics. 

In additions to the playfulness, the works from the two artists also speculate the subject of Anthropocene, a geological concept first introduced by Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, Dutch atmospherical chemist Paul Crutzen in 2000. Crutzen proposed that the earth has moved past the Holocene, a geological epoch that began 11,700 years ago. The rapid growth in population and economic development had tremendous impacts on the global environment. Human activities have caused enough change to earth to create a new geological age. The industrialization of ceramics is precisely the most evidential manifestation of Anthropocene. Heaps of ceramic wastes are gradually changing the soil compositions of the earth’s surface, a change due to the scrupulous attention for high-standard products. To be concise (and not going into a whole other discussion on the art of the Anthropocene age), here is a question worth contemplating: Framing the discussion around the topic of Anthropocene, are the works of the two artists expressions of the uselessness of art, or instead, are they anti-entropian re-creations?

​

Text / Steven Dragonn