04 . August 2008 09 . 19 . 41 . 57 . Clay Economies Richard Fahey David Craig Moyra Elliott Christopher Thompson 1 . Clay Economies 2 . Contents 04 . Foreword 09 . Richard Fahey Travels to the muddied provinces. 19 . David Craig Setting a table in the provinces: domestic economies of ceramics in New Zealand. 41 . Moyra Elliott The mutable handmade. 57 . Christopher Thompson A brief genealogy of government policy and ceramic production & consumption in New Zealand. ©2008 — This publication is copyright. Except for resonable purposes of fair review, no part my be stored or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including recording or storage in any information retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publishers. No reproductions may be made, whether by photocopying or other means unless a license has been obtained from the publishers or their agent. ISBN 978-0-9582811-1-9 This publication has been produced on the occasion of the exhibition Clay Economies curated by Richard Fahey at Objectspace (1-30 August 2008). This publication stands to one side of the exhibition, it is not an ex- hibition catalogue, and has been conceived as an anthology of critical and discursiv e writing addressing an ‘expanded fi eld’ of contemporary ceramic production in New Foreword Zealand. Our intention has been to produce a contemporary, multi-authored analysis of this historically signifi cant form of local cultural production with the aim of open- ing up an inclusive defi nition of ceramic practice that goes beyond the narrow con- fi nes of ‘studio pottery’. In this way, what we term ‘ceramic production’, and the ways in which we may consider this production, are up for debate. The territory for these essays is the consump- tion and reception of ceramic production rather than, “the theory and practice of celebrated individuals, with an emphasis on the celebration of aesthetic excellence.” As Jonathan Woodham has noted, “With the comparatively recent emergence of an 05 . interest in social anthropology and studies in material culture a signifi cant number of scholars have sought to address the issues raised by wider patterns of design consump- 1. See Woodham’s “Modernism and the history of Design” in Design and Modernism tion and use”. 1 Oxford University Press, 1997. The editors would like to thank contribu- 6 . 7 . tors; Dr David Craig, Moyra Elliott and Dr Christopher Thompson for their enthu- siasm for such a project – one which we don’t believe has been attempted before In New Zealand – and for their essays which marshal deep and specifi c knowledges, polemical points of view and a range of frameworks for considering ceramic pro- Essays duction in New Zealand. The editors also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Alan Deare and Arch MacDonnell of Inhous e Design, Mary Kisler, Louis Le Vaillan t, Matt Blomeley, Anna Miles and Haru Sameshima in the preparation of this publication. The publication of Clay Economies would not have been possible without the generous fi nancial support of a number of organisa- tions and the editors wish to thank the followin g for their assistance; Creative NZ, Unitec and Objectspace. Richard Fahey, Editor, Philip Clarke, Associate Editor 8 . Travels to the Richard Fahey muddied provinces 09 . I 10 . 11 . because these objects offer expedient differentiation between The fashioning of wet clay and its subse- cultures. Domestic ceramics, which are largely consistent in terms of form and function across many cultures, do not serve quent hardening through heat is a story this story so well. Mortuary wares exemplify cultural differ- synonymous with the notion of domestic ences, and in addition, by virtue of use within burial sites, are civilisation. Less often noted are the more readily excavated intact than domestic ceramics, which historically contingent, partial and arbitrary are often recovered as shards. histories that have fl ourished under the Ceramic material and process have tended not to be valued rubric of this universal story. The terrain of for themselves, so much as for the effectiveness with which they may emulate more esteemed materials and refi ned ceramic production has proved capable of modes of manufacture. The majority of pre-seventeenth carrying any number of accounts. The story century Chinese ceramics for example, copied the forms of of the rise of the New Zealand studio bronze-cast and jade-carved objects. Indeed, Chinese celadon glazes were primarily developed to imitate the subtle colour- pottery movement is but one example. ing of jade. Many of the design attributes of these ceramic objects, such as feet and handles, are indebted to the form By taking a long view of the social life of clay commodities, and construction of much earlier cast bronze objects. The Clay Economies intends to open up different considerations reifi ed ceramics that we have become most familiar with via of con temporary ceramic production. Implicit in this under- the museum context are ironically, those that look least like taking is the assumption that the potentiality for future they are made from clay. ceramic production becomes apparent when we recognise the complex but specifi c mechanisms that reg ulate taste, trade The cultural delineations called forth by the museum, are and desire. This approach calls for considering the bespoke rendered somewhat shaky when the complex history of ceramic ceramic alongside the industrially mass-produced, as well trade and exchange is examined in detail. From the 14th century, as eschewing discussion of the relative status and merit of and arguably from a great deal earlier, China actively sought different ceramic practices. Traditionally judgements of 1. For discussion of contact and trade with the outside world.1 incipient Chinese globalism long before quality based on material or technical considerations have the 14th century, see, James C. Y. Watt, Principle exports were tea, silk and porcelain. ‘Porcelain’ is in privileged the role of the producer, while obscuring the role China: Dawn of a Golden Age 200-750AD, itself a product of cultural contact. The origin of the term has Metropolitan Museum, New York and th of the consumer in negotiating the value of objects. The Yale University Press, New Haven and been credited to the 13 Century Venetian explorer, Marco meanings we attribute to objects necessarily derive from London, 2004 Polo, who coined it to describe the blue and white ware of the human transactions and motivations, which is to say how Yuan Dynasty 1279-1368. From then on this ware was known those objects are used and circulated. throughout the world as porcelain, aside from China, where it 2. John Carswell, Blue & White: is still referred to as ‘Ci’.2 Chinese Porcelain Around The World, The ceramic tradition that the consumer has negotiated most The British Museum, London, 2000, p. 53 extensively — utilitarian, domestic ware — is that which has Early trade in domestic goods, whether ceramic or textile, has been accorded the least attention in the telling of ceramic occasioned many stories that defy the type of cultural classifi - history. Due to prolifi c use in everyday preparation and cations that have historically been promulgated by the museum. consumption of food, domestic ceramic wares have never Today these classifi cations are subject to much revisionist scholar- been accorded the same cultural value as ceremonial objects. ship, often premised on closer examinations of quotidia n life and Ceramics deemed to have ritual value have been endowed trade. Hugh Honour’s account of the origination of the conglo- with greater signifi cance within traditional museum displays merative design of a textile destined to lie on many European beds, offers a parallel narrative to the emergence of Chinese 12 . 13 . were consequence s of the manufacture of such workaday porcelain as a global commodity. Honour writes, “Chinoiserie 4. Gail Henry provides objects as water pipes, bricks and ‘lavies’.4 extensive documentation of this in of this even more hybrid kind had become so far removed from New Zealand Pottery: Commercial and Ceramic production is dependent on the incorporation of genuine Chinese tradition that it was exported from India to Collectible, Reed, Auckland, 1985 many skill sets and involves a range of expertises. Len Castle, China as a novelty to the Chinese themselves. In the 18th century, whose position within the canon of studio pottery has been therefore, Chinese weavers were producing fabrics adorned with well enshrined, gained his early experience and knowledge the now famous ‘Tree of Life’ design based on Indian patterns of fi ring from expert industrial workers at Crum Brick, derived from English originals, which were an expression of the Tile and Pipe Works in New Lynn, Auckland. He reports European vision of the Orient. There can have been few more that in the mid-1940s, his pots were fi red alongside sewer bizarre incidents in the whole History of Taste.”3 3. Hugh Honour, Chinoiserie: 5. Len Castle, Len Castle Potter, pipes and gully traps.5 The Vision of Cathay, John Murray, London, Sang Architects & Company, 2002, p. 11 1961, quoted in Howard Davis, Chinoiserie: More recently, Peter Lange has made this traffi c between The distinctive cobalt blue, emblematic of Chinese porcelain to Polychrome Decoration on Staffordshire the industrial and artisanal explicit in his series of works that Porcelain 1790-1850, The Rubicon Press, a European eye, is the result of Sunima ore imported to China London, 1991, p. 23 utilise commercially manufactured bricks. from Persia for the express purpose of creating export ware. The Ottoman court valued most highly domestic porcelains The application of an art-historically derived model to a that emanated from the Chinese export market, however these tradition that was predominantly utilitarian and domestic is particular designs bore little resemblance to the wares that were problematic.