Talk:History of ceramic art

Comment 1

• This article desperately needs to be either expanded or merged with Pottery. 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Kraken of the Depths

• The use of this stub for all ceramic articles is far too limiting. As ceramics covers many disciplines this should be reflected in the stub. Suggest amending it to better reflect this. (unsigned post 16:55, 17 December 2006 by User:82.2.53.37)

The STUB SCOPING discussion should be on the ceramic stub discussion page .... or on the stub renaming proposal page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion - no one will think to look here. Goldenrowley 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, something needs to be done, so...

• ..I've made a start on expanding - could be a good article eventually... HeartofaDog 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• I added a little based on my encyclopedia's definition of "ceramic art" ...By the way, the "Ceramics and pottery stub" uses this page to put topics about things made out of clay or porcelain so this page is important to the art world. Please do not merge with pottery, as there are ceramic figurines, small statuettes and works of art, that are not spun on the wheel like pottery is. Thank you in advance, Goldenrowley 03:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed: stub uses this page as place to explain the art part of "ceramic art and design" Goldenrowley 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Correcting, improving, expanding etc ...

User:Theriac

Hello HeartofaDog,

Thank you for your message. There is a need to improve the “ceramics-stub” as it is currently being used inappropriately and appears to have been casually attached to articles of little relevance. For example, two articles from which I removed the stub are:

• Engineering ceramics – the production of articles such as ballistic protection plates and the nose cones of rockets is nothing to do with art pottery or decorative arts
• J. & G. Meakin – this company produced tableware, and I struggle to see how plates, mugs, cruet sets etc. can be classed as decorative arts. However should there be a Wikipedia policy of classifying such as decorative, and however much this is illogical, it should be more clearly explaned

I can think of four ways of resolving the current misuse are: 1. Only use the stub for art related ceramic articles 2. Re-write the ceramics (art) 3. Direct the stub to a disambiguation page such as ceramic 4. Direct the stub to ceramics

A re-write of ceramics (art) is needed anyway as there are errors, including: 1. ‘Ceramic art can be either made by hand or manufactured’ Items made by hand are, by definition, manufactured 2. ‘in most cases, ceramics various types of clay - processed, shaped and heated that can be molded.’ It is far too much of a generalisation to state ‘most cases’ 3. ‘ancient word Karamos, meaning "potters clay."’ More specifically it’s Greek, and also the correctly spelling is keramos 4. ‘Ceramic materials take the form of either pottery (earthenware) or porcelain.’ is a grotesque simplification. Even for whiteware ceramics this ignores many different body types, and what about non-whiteware ceramics? 5. I personnally struggle to accept that ‘The oldest known ornamental ceramic in the world is the Venus of Dolní Věstonice’ as how is it possible to know the article was made to be ornamental. It may, for example, have been made for religious reasons; however it is not possible to know

Thanx,Theriac 13:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Goldenrowley

I welcome Theriac's point of view, examining ceramic ^ceramics^ it is a disambig page and equally unclear about what ceramics are, so I do not recommend it to be the stub's main article. The point of the stub is to put things into general baskets or topics, if you review the ceramic-stub nomination history and what it was nominated to do it is nominated for both fine and decorative art, mainly under decorative art, however pottery starts to branch into applied arts, but they share the stub because there were too few to have their own stub. If the "ceramic (art)" article is not the "best fit" we might find another article with a better fit to the stub, or else we can make this a better article...I vote make this a better article. See also applied arts as reference material. Goldenrowley 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:HeartofaDog

• I am glad that these things have come up for debate, as the ceramics-related articles etc are overdue for a systematic re-think.

• The ceramics-stub, as Goldenrowley says above, was made from the background of arts, but to be effective it seems to me also to need to cover ceramics as a material. That should be easy to achieve by adding the necessary over-categories to the stub itself.

Even if that is not possible however, the definition of "art(s)" needs to be as wide as possible. Since many top-grade ceramic artists worked for some or all of their careers in the major factories, I don't see the sense in asserting that a porcelain or pottery factory cannot be stubbed with an "arts"-related stub. And once that is conceded, it is simply POV to claim that some factories are "artistic" and others are not. Who is to say? Meakin's is an excellent illustration: I don't supppose anyone would ever claim that its products were "fine art": they are commercial pottery, but as such were designed to be attractive and useful, so what is the objection to counting them, and those like them, as applied arts?

• This article needs lots of improvement - there's no argument about that. What is here at the moment is only a preliminary attempt to widen it enough to make the stub workable. Individual points can easily be amended. We must however be clear about what the proper scope of the article needs to be. Especially if it is the defining article of the stub, I think it has to cover not only fine art ceramics, but ceramics under the umbrella of applied arts, in the wider household and tableware sense.

• I agree with Goldenrowley that the best course at the moment is to work on making this a better article - the other options may cause more problems than they solve. My only concern is to keep it as wide in scope as possible. HeartofaDog 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED: Rename this page "Ceramic art" and then scope it accordingly, I find the parenthesis very awkward in the page name. Also stubs are meant to be temporary, do not write it just because I said there is a stub category, ignore the stub, ...the article should stand on its own feet. Goldenrowley 19:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that might make the problem worse, not better - the more this page appeasr to lean towards "art ceramics", the more difficult it is to deal with everything "applied arts" in the middle that is neither industrial nor "fine art". I would rather see this page as a counterweight to Ceramic, which is about industrial and scientific uses, and have it deal with artistic AND domestic ceramics - I must admit, a concise title to cover that escapes me just at the moment. HeartofaDog 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley & HeartofaDog, I'm not sure about your proposal. Lumping bog-standard plates & cups with Art does not seem right. Would you consider the mug you may use in Starbucks to be Art? However if on Wikipedia tableware is considered to be decorative art (and personally I do not think they are) then surely tiles, toilets and wash basin should also be included as they are also decorative. I suggest renaming this page 'Whiteware Ceramics'. This is a recognised term for any ceramic article that was shaped from a body that contained a significant amount of clay. The page could include a quick description / summary with links to appropriate other articles which feature more detailTheriac 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Heartofadog, I've just had a look at Ceramic. I can not agree with your description of it being 'about industrial and scientific uses' Yes the article does have a lot of detail about Engineering uses but the whole page seems to be trying to define and explain all uses of ceramics as a group of materials; which of course is a very big subject. The early parts of this page are relevant to applied / fine art ceramics as it tells readers what ceramics areTheriac 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HI think we should keep this page's topic "ceramic art" not Whitewear Ceramics nor the clay composition, this would be as a complement to the other articles out there on ceramics. If (for this page only) I suggested table wear without any limitations that would be a mistake in overlapping with other articles. Goldenrowley 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Heartofdog, I do not see ceramic art as only fine art, "art" has a very broad application and meaning in the art world, and artists design flatware, tableware, etc. I wouldnt classify a Starbucks Mug as art because they did not use an artist to design it, but I might classify something I saw in a craft show made by a local potter ? Goldenrowley 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I take the point! and what I am thinking about is exactly that: something designed by a top range designer or painted by a first-rate decorator or modelled by a top-notch modeller, but produced by a good factory. I don't like Theriac's view that if something is made in a factory it cannot therefore be art, which seems to me far too narrow. Probably the answer is to have a separate but related article on Ceramics (commercial production) or similar. Something I have been meaning to do for ages is to start off some lists of porcelain factories and commercial potteris, and that might be a good starting point for such an article.HeartofaDog 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ceramics (art) / Ceramics art

Parentheses are the usual way to disambiguate articles on related subjects. If the name stays as Ceramics (art) then other articles on (e.g.) Ceramics (materials), Ceramics (industrial) and Ceramics (domestic) (or (whiteware) or whatever, perhaps tied together by an overall Ceramics article (or possibly the present Ceramic article expanded), can fall into line with it.

If this article is no longer tied to the ceramics-stub, then there is no reason why the stub has to remain limited to arts at all and it can be expanded to cover ceramic materials also - which makes it much more useful. But as you say, that is something for the appropriate Stub-related page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion

BTW, as for the article Ceramic, the discussion of it as a material is what I meant by "scientific".HeartofaDog 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Just to clarify the stub is classified under "art" on the stub table of contents & I did not plan to delink the stub... Goldenrowley 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to everyone's comments today: I am taking stub category to the stub committee right now to be renamed "ceramic art and pottery" Once I propose it there is a 7 day discussion period before the stub people will change the stub. You can join the discussion if you wish. It takes a consensus to pass.

When I read Theriac's comments again I see he/she does not disqualify factory pieces per se from this category and has many useful points for improvement I just wanted to have an article on ceramic art in here somewhere. I already addressed Starbucks coffee cup. I get it now, "manufactured" is the wrong word for "factory made". Regarding the ancient word for potter's clay, my encyclopedia says it is even older than the Greek word for potters clay, but I'll go back and add what culture I got it from and check the spelling once more. Goldenrowley 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley and HeartofaDog,

Art produced at a factory – I agree with HeartofaDog’s countering of my argument about ‘something is made in a factory it cannot therefore be art.’ (not quite the interpretation I meant but further elaboration isn’t necessary here) However I still argue that, with the greatest of respect to them, J & G Meakin’s output could not be considered as art.

(interlined) I'm not a huge Meakin's fan - but, art or not, they unquestionably produce ceramics (pottery is a form of ceramics unless I am totally mistaken) - and if that doesn't qualify them for the ceramics-stub because it is linked only to "art" then perhaps there is something wrong with the stub? (cart and horse...)HeartofaDog 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology – according to the OED, and I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find a more authoritative source, it is from the Greek for ‘Potter’s Earth.’ It also gives an alternative spelling of ceramic using a K at the start rather than a C. It is not much use to confirm the spelling of keramos as it quotes it in the Greek alphabet. However another dictionary, Chambers, confirms 1) it’s from the ancient Greek for ‘potter’s earth’, 2) the alternative K spelling of ceramics, 3) but also that the Greek spelling is ‘keramos

"ceramic art" not ‘whiteware ceramics’ – I’m happy for ‘whiteware ceramics’ not to be used. This was just a suggestion to try to improve on the current description

The renaming as "ceramic art and pottery" is a mistake. At best this could be considered tautology, but even worse is that it may confuse some that pottery is wholly distinct from ceramics, whilst it is of course a type of ceramic. Why not just use ‘ceramic (art)’? I would be grateful if Goldenrowley could advise me how to join the discussion with the stub committee

Disambiguation using parentheses seems sensible, and I suggest the following:

• ceramic (art)
• ceramic (domestic)
• ceramic (engineering)
• ceramic (commercial production)
• ceramic (materials)

The link with the Portland vase needs to be renamed as it’s currently described as ‘ceramic art and/or pottery-related article’

“something designed by a top range designer or painted by a first-rate decorator or modelled by a top-notch modeller, but produced by a good factory. “ Is going to be a little difficult, as what is the definition of a top range designer, first-rate decorator, top-notch modeller or good factory. And referring back to an earlier comment of mine about sanitaryware. Would you consider a toilet or basin to be art, and yet well respected designers, for example Philippe Starck, are employed by major producers to design their wares. Theriac 09:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(interlined) Wikipedia has a lot of experience, most of it useful, in defining who and what is "notable" and for first-rate, etc simply read "notable in the Wikipedia sense". Some example names that spring to mind are Kaendler, Bustelli, Billingsley, Quaker Pegg, Ulla Procope, Wiinblad (and going downmarket, Clarice Cliff etc) - and you will know many more than I do - all of whom work(ed) for factories.

Toilets? Philippe Starck is worth an article, and I imagine the factories he works for would be too. The question is whether they can have the "ceramics-stub": I say they should be able to, because they produce ceramics. The present system says they can't, because the ceramics they produce are not "art" (according to some). Let's just avoid the question - which is a non-question anyway - by slightly re-thinking the stub, and then let's move on to something more productive!HeartofaDog 18:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion on the stub rename process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion where I placed it, add comments there please thats where they are taking a consensus and suggestions Goldenrowley 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've cut & pasted my earlier comment on the page, and included another suggestion of ceramic (archaeological significance)

Theriac 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Next move?

Hi Goldenrowley & HeartofaDog, I've started with a new title as I begining to find it a little difficult to keep a track. I support HeartofaDog's suggestion to just have a "ceramics-stub"Theriac 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment - we'll see what happens re the stub over at the stub dissussion page. Meanwhile, as Goldenrowley quite correctly said earlier, this article is independent of the stub, and should stand on its own. Whatever its exact title, there is certainly a need for a good article on Ceramics as art / Art ceramics (however art is defined) and you seem well placed to make a major contribution. One of the more helpful Wikipedia catchphrases is "Be Bold" - so if you feel like it, have a stab at filling out the article. Presently we have a Talk page the size of a telephone directory for an article of three tiny paras! HeartofaDog 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree I have a "generalist" viewpoint I would reade to see the article once written, but beyond what little I added, I don't know what else to say so I look forward to more from others. I see you want us to take the "is a toilet art" challenge ... anything that an artist says or thinks is art, is art, anything they did not consider art, is not. At least thats how I learned itin school. I was going to hunt around and show you a ceramic toilet bowl by Robert Arneson, he's known to make art like that, but a factory toilet no, I draw the line... Goldenrowley 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And putting any joking aside, I thought Wedgwood, Jasper ware and hummel are art due to the artists involved, and I thought its better to stub the factories as a related matter. I am not qualified to judge all the factories but I would think these 3 factories qualify, much can be said on the factory artists creating that lovely Wedgwood blue and art that decorates them, for example? Goldenrowley 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, in fact, about Wedgwood etc at one end of the scale and about factory toilets at the other (I will go away presently and google Robert Arneson for the art toilets - new to me!). The problem I was having was with a lot of the stuff in the middle, which is sort of art but not high art, and where the people involved are excellent commercial artists but maybe not "fine artists", and I could see endless discussions ahead factory by factory about whether they were "art" or not (and perhaps in any case I am confusing art with design). I'm not sure I can add much myself here either - but I hope that Theriac might add to the article, as he/she is clearly very knowledgeable (hint to Theriac!). HeartofaDog 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussing and sorting art into categories is natural and healthy work. It is okay to have discussions about the different levels of art and what is art. I guess I am not so worried about it. Theraic, the only reason I have not given an opinion on that one ceramic company you mentioned is I do not know their qualities....but are we safe to say that if a factory employs artists they are attempting to ceramic art or ceramic "craft"? I am thinking of Delft Blau ^Delftware^ that is sort of factorized but also employs many artists. Goldenrowley 06:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that I write as an elder of the lost tribe of Onan. In my opinion if the Ceramic (art) page is to have any utility at all it will be as a listing all of the topics relating to the ceramic arts and crafts on Wikipedia, with links. If this is structured in a sensible way it might be useful, in a way that the Ceramics (Categories) pages are not (as currently constituted). Oh, and while I'm ranting, dump the word 'fictile', we shouldn't have to run to our dictionaries when reading an article. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've come to the right place then... You can edit as well as anyone, presumably, so please take a run at it - you seem to have a clear idea of what it should be, and a fresh eye is probably what's needed. (There's no argument that the present categories are pretty useless). HeartofaDog 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah HeartofaDog, you let me off lighter than I deserve. Just at present I'm doing what I can on Chinese porcelain and on a few other articles, so I don't think I can take up your suggestion. But for what it's worth, I still think that Ceramics (art) might have a role to play, in the way I outlined above. By the way, if I could just mention that the Category:Ceramics page has a note on it saying The main article for this category is Ceramics (art). The link of course points to Ceramics (art), which is still, umm, under development. Perhaps it might be a good idea to delete the link on the Category:Ceramics page for now, until something a little more substantial has been done with Ceramics (art)? Regards, Nick. Nick 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole area of ceramics / porcelain / pottery etc badly needs re-thinking - it's quite a mess at present. You're right that the category shouldn't point here, not just for the reason you give but because this isn't IMO the right article. The category should point to a master article Ceramics, and this one here - and a few others, perhaps as outlined by Theriac below - should slot in under that. But whether anyone with enough knowledge to do them properly is going to find the time... HeartofaDog 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello HeartofaDog, Thank you for the “he/she is clearly very knowledgeable “ but I fear you may be over estimating what I can bring (oh, and last time I looked I was definitely a boy:-)). I believe that my training and experience would allow me to make strong contributions on the science and production of ceramics, but, and although still having some, my familiarity with the art side is lesser. Also, although I am certainly happy to contribute, because of my newness to Wikipedia I would struggle with formats and procedures. I do take you point that “Presently we have a Talk page the size of a telephone directory for an article of three tiny paras!” but am pleased there seems to be agreement that something needs to be done. Hopefully a joint effort with yourself, Goldenrowley, Nick and others will lead to a solution. My suggestion to start off is to ensure that a search for "ceramics" leads to some form of disambiguation / index page. As per my earlier message this would include various subheadings, with short description of each and then appropriate internal links. Suggestions incude:

• ceramic (archaeological significance)
• ceramic (art)
• ceramic (commercial production)
• ceramic (domestic)
• ceramic (engineering)
• ceramic (materials)

Theriac 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Wikigender, I've left a note on your Talk page! Re the rest, it's clear that you have a good background in several aspects of ceramics. Anything you aren't personally familiar with, someone else can always add later - that's the whole point of Wikipedia articles. By all means suck it and see - Be Bold"! BTW, a search for "ceramics" already leads to a disambig page; and the existing article Ceramic is in effect the master article on ceramic materials. Why don't you cut your editing teeth on this one - there is not much here, so no-one is likely to be worried by your re-writing and expansion. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help or a second opinion. HeartofaDog 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Project?

Given the amount of discussion this article has engendered on quite wide ceramics issues, do people think there is scope here for a Ceramics project (or alternatively, is there perhaps a dormant Ceramics project that is worth reviving?) This talk page prob isn't the right place for any further general discussion, however. Please get in touch on my talk page if anyone think the project idea is worth a second look. HeartofaDog 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. In addition to the other overlaps discussed elsewhere on this page, I notice that Studio pottery also overlaps both with this article and with other ceramics topics. Klmarcus 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

This page has reached alarming proportions, and seems a prime candidate for refactoring, which I'll probably do in the next 48 hours unless anyone can think of a REALLY good reason not to.HeartofaDog 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you refactor (by that, I hope you mean archive?), I agree with Theriac's ideas on some of the category names and that we can "be bold" and select and make a few ceramic categories we want, then make them, it actually is more informal than making stubs there isno 7 day waiting period before you can make a category you just make one. I like categorizing ... if we pick some categorty names I'd be happy to go forward and give it my best shot. Goldenrowley

What I meant by "refactoring" was - effectively - tidying up, as at WP:REFACTOR, but of course the page can be archived as well a bit later. Thank you for your offer. What I think Theriac was proposing however (and in any case, what I think is necessary!) was a group of articles to cover systematically the different aspects of ceramics, rather than yet more categories. As you say, cats are easy to establish and can be made at any time by anybody, but the whole subject of ceramics is badly lacking in content, and those topics are the principle ones where articles are still to be written. HeartofaDog 09:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I understand thank you the difference. yes I agree with the above idea of making some systemic ceramic articles and then we could also do a "navigational menu" between the main topics. The only topic I did not understand was "engineering" - perhaps its just a field I am unfamiliar with. I would like to suggest also one one: "ceramics (manufacturers)" then we can cover the factories as well as brand names. Goldenrowley 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Hello Guys, just to mention that when developing an article it's sometimes helpful to do this using a sandbox. For example I have one running at the moment, see User:N.Hopton/Sandbox where I'm working on a fragment for inclusion in the Chinese porcelain article. It's just a way of testing how things will look and work, away from the gaze of the multitude, but it's also a place where one can invite friends and invite them to comment. Regards, Nick. Nick 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Largest talk page ever for a stub

this page does need a lot of expansion, but honestly it has to set a record for length of talk page for a stub. i propose that we need a LOT of material on ==Ancient history== another on ==Techniques== and another on ==Environmental issues== regards. Potthrow 04:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Potthrow welcome to the honestly long talk page. We were actually brainstorming the entire ceramic category with ideas for menus and stubs, but for the most part a writer hasn't come forward. Some thoughtful help will be appreciated. Goldenrowley 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley, Hi Potthrow. "set a record for length of talk page for a stub" Should we be proud or ashamed? :-)--Theriac 10:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Both :) Potthrow 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, User:Vyasa_Ozsvar has posted a very helpful response to my request for comments on the Pottery:talk page, see Talk:Pottery#Request_for_comment:_Wikipedia_article_on_Pottery. This might be of interest to the people here because one of the suggestion he makes is that the Pottery article should confine its scope to pottery vessels and that things like ceramic figurines should be hived-off to a ceramics article. Perhaps Ceramics (art) might fit the bill. On the whole, I'd prefer it if things like figurines could stay in the main Pottery article, but I'm easy on this point. Any ideas? Regards, Nick. Nick 11:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning that talk page is long and it seems there is a dispute being arbitrated. However I reviewed the matter and I suggest the Pottery page talk about figurines as a Pottery matter in a minor way with a pointer to this page where they would be discussed in a major way. Goldenrowley 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I very strongly disagree that the Venus figure be included here. We do not know it was an example of art. It may have been a religious artefact. I believe to class it as art is wrong, imposing modern sensibilities on an unknown culture, and original research. ThanxTheriac 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense, we can't say for sure it was supposed to be an art form. I had nt thought of it that. Thanks for setting me straight! Goldenrowley 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. No problem. It's nice that something about pottery can be debated without arbitration :-) You will have seen that Pottery; Talk is getting complicated, and I think unnecessarily so. I may be being naive but there seems more agreement than disagreement. Everyone agrees:

• There are differences in the useage of the word "pottery"
• That citations should be given
• That citations exist for the Jomon articles being the oldest pottery
• That citations exist for the Venus of Vestonice being older & pottery

The only debate seems to be what are legimmate citations

ThanxTheriac 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Venus figurines are widely considered to be art. Some citations follow-

• ‘Venus’ Figurines in Prehistoric Europe: The Emergence of Art and Belief, Cian M. Kerrisk [1]
• Venus figurines are the name given to a nearly universal type of art, appearing first in the Upper Paleolithic period between 30,000 and 15,000 years ago., K. Kris Hirst, [2]
• Her great age and pronounced female forms quickly established the Venus of Willendorf as an icon of prehistoric art., Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, [3]
• The world's oldest surviving works of art fashioned after the human image appear in the archaeological strata of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe (from Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines by LeRoy McDermott) [4]

The Prehistoric art article discusses Venus figurines as does the Art History wikibook [5]. It makes perfect sense to discuss the Venus of Dolni Vestonice in this article. --Sean Brunnock 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see that point too,... churches and icons are often artistically made and one of the main topics of art history... actually I can see Venus figurines are worth a new page to do them justice^expansion^ and that each ceramic page can link to, this page can discuss the artistic merits BUT mention we dont know if they were intended to be "fine art". They might fit well in a category called "mythological objects"Goldenrowley 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

... & I Just found the Venus figurine page and menu exists... I feel silly now! Goldenrowley 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

mergers

To discuss: Merge "fine art pot" page under "fine art" here. I always look at what other pages have before moving ahead and this seems like a good merge. Goldenrowley 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. I have not strong feeling about the merger. But if it does happen then some editting would be needed: remove the ceramics (art) stub from many of the industrial companies it is currently attached to, remove the listing of Wedgwood, Jasperware, and Royal Doulton. Replace the Portland vase as the icon that is currently used for ceramics (art). ThanxTheriac 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand ...your talking about the stub again. The stub was recently refocused to be "ceramic art and design" with links to both those topics (art) and (design) so that people who like ceramic high quality designes are not left out in the cold of stub categories.... Now about this page: I am sorry I was no to clear on the suggestion: If you notice the page has 2 subsections one for fine art one for commercial art. I planned to keep the topics somewhat separate and I'd rather not delete one section just so "a fine art" section can be written. I was proposing to put the paragraph on "fine art pot" which seemed fairly well written but all on its lonesome under "fine art". This would be beter than having 2 articles both on the very same topic. Goldenrowley 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Moulded/modelled??

"Moulded" means made in a mould..not all Ceramic works of art are moulded, some are "modelled" or "coiled" or "pinched" or "carved" so is there a better way to say the following?? Ceramics in the art world means artwork moulded out of clay prior to it being fired to create the ceramic. Teapotgeorge 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The word in encyclopedia was "molded" but I suppose it could be both molded or modelled, as well carved. Goldenrowley 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it said "fictile arts" but people thought I was soudning too elite, so I looked up the word fictile and got molded. I think we should mention the word fictile but it can be lower in article. Goldenrowley 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "made out of clay" . Goldenrowley 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley & Teapotgeorge. It was me that removed "fictile". This was for two reasons: whilst I would not say too "elite" I felt it a little to obtuse for the introduction an article. Also it was described as molded out of clay, whereas fictile refers to any material that can be moulded. So, for example, both plasticine and Fimo can be said to be fictile but neither contain any clay.

I agree "made out of" is a better choice than moulded or modelled as it does avoid possible confusion. For example, moulded can be for items made in a mould, and "modelling" is the term used to describe the making of the original used to form the mould.

Also: by defintion ceramics do not have to contained any clay at any stage of of their making. It is therefore possible there may be ceramics (art) that do not conform to "made out of clay". Any suggestions about covering this? ThanxTheriac 08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Venus

I tried to get everyone's comments from the talk page to the main page about Venus. If I have represented anyone please accpet my apology and just tweak the article. I am just trying to get things from talk page to the article, and have tried to reflect the general consensus. Goldenrowley 06:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. I guess you seen that on other pages the subject of the Venus of Dolni Vestonice has become rather sensitive. This is unfortunate. But I do think it will be an issue here. But about the current "Venus" section:

• "Made of burned clay" Couldn't this be re-worded to avoid "burned" which is really not what happens with the firing of clay articles
• The Venus of Willendorf is made from limestone. It is not pottery, and to cover all interpretations neither it is pottery
• It was recently suggested on the Pottery talk pgaes that the Venus of Dolni Vestonice may have been a Paleolithic version of Playboy. I note it here purely as it amused me, and in the hope that a supporting citation could be found so it could be included in the article. :ThanxTheriac 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very important, I'll be happy to replace "burned" as well as remove Venus of Willendorf (I did not realize her limestone-ness). Goldenrowley 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, According to Chris Stringer (Homo Britannicus, Alan Lane, 2006) the Venus was made by moulding and then firing a mixture of clay and powdered bone. I can't remember where I came across the Playboy centrefold reference, but it does exist, I'll see if I can find it. The exploding figurines proposition came from a very august personage, Pamela Vandiver, I think. Regards, Nick. Nick 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley, one other thing I found trawling round for information on Gravettian figurines was this [6] which you might think is worth a read. I don't buy into it myself, but then I don't know much about such things. It's a solid reference though. Regards, Nick. Nick 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Head material

Hi Goldenrowley, I think of this article as being yours or in any case as not being mine if you know what I mean. I've tried to put together some of the words at the head of the article in a slightly different form, see below.

This article is concerned with the ceramic arts and in scope covers ceramic works either made as objects of art or that are seen as being such. Works of ceramic art may be classified as fine art, decorative art, commercial art and might also be regarded as applied art. Objects of ceramic art may be made in small workshops and studios, and in large factories.

A simple utilitarian vessel hand-made by a potter five-thousand years ago might today be regarded as an object of art, as might a porcelain plate from an eighteenth century dinner service made in a large factory. Probably, neither vessel or plate were primarily created to be art, but both might be regarded as art today.

The term ceramic is derived from the Greek keramikos; keramos, potter's clay or pottery; and is taken here in the sense of having to do with wares including pottery, porcelain, stoneware, earthenware and terra cotta.

You're welcome to use all, or none, of this. Regards, Nick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N.Hopton (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh I am just a bashful beginner in ceramics and helping the page get off the ground. while your thoughts are very good on 1st paragraph... I would not bring in utilitarian vessel and dinner services ~as if~ they are art because of their age... rather to pay close attention to the meanings of "applied arts" and "fine art pot" compared to a "utilitarian pot" and "collectible" pot - which I wanted to do under "fine arts" but lack a good reference material. Goldenrowley 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, and now I'm forgetting to sign postings, sorry. The point I was trying to make is that even though old Wedgwood plates and Neolithic pots weren't made with the first object of being art, they might be seen as art today. It was just a way of trying to forestall trouble further down the line. Sooner of later someone is going to pop up and say that stuff made in factories isn't art. Just a couple of thoughts. Regards, Nick. Nick 12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, hi Goldenrowley. As you both may recall from someone previous comments I have some major reservations about which articles the "ceramics (art)" tag is attached. [ for example porcelain tile, Mason Cash, Wade Ceramics, Portmeirion Pottery would all much better described as utilitarian than anything related to art] I think in general the development of "ceramics (art)" is coming along nicely. I add support to Nick's recent suggestion, as it tries to find a way around what the makers of old pots were making them for (which of course can not be known for sure) and how they are currently viewed. ThanxTheriac 17:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I had some energy so began to expand along the above lines. The stubs on different articles can be changed if needed, if they are not "art and design" related although one of them has a brand name, which means they tried to design and market a design.Goldenrowley 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article needs pictures

Loses some of it's point since it's about art. Add pictures. 65.40.239.99 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello 65.40.239.99. I do not think anyone would disagree. But Wikipedia is a voluntary and a collaborative project, so perhaps you would like to "Add pictures" ThanxTheriac 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-wording introduction

Hi all. I have just re-written the first part. As per Wikipedia's published advice I was being bold (-: I think it reads now better. Hope you agree. ThanxTheriac 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like an excited teenager it sounds fantastic now, thank you ! Goldenrowley 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. Thanks. I do not think you sound like "an excited teenager", just an enthusiastic contributor. Through the combined efforts of all the article is gradually building. Lets keep it going! ThanxTheriac 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Korean Girl

If you have a look at the label in the Korean Girl picture I think you'll find that she's just a bit later than the early nineteenth century <grin>. Pure German, 50s, look at that face. Regards, Nick. Nick 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if your kidding! On each picture, I just cut and pasted the exact caption from the wikicommons where I got these pictures and the photographer details are recorded. Goldenrowley 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No honestly, have a look at the picture again, the museum label by the side of the statuette says modelled in 1953 and made in 1960 (I think). Regards, Nick. Nick 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess since we don't know that we should change the picture. Goldenrowley 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. It might be interesting, from the label it appears that the model dates from 1953. If this is the case, it was modelled in the GDR towards the end of the Korean war, so it might have a political message; noble peasant cheerful in the face of foreign imperialist aggression, et cetera. Regards, Nick. Nick 09:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Mm opinion is the "box" is a label to another display on the right not this display, if you review up close... Orientalistm was in vogue about 1880, so it could be authentic. Goldenrowley 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But it says Koreanerin on the label, that's Korean-something I think (my German is non-existent). I still think this is a 50s Rhein-maiden done up in fancy dress <g>. Regards, Nick. Nick 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally I just removed the date. Goldenrowley 17:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Defining art brands

Delft blue is a brand name ceramic art. I collect it... let's put it back. " Today, Delfts Blauw is the brand name handpainted on the bottom of pieces, this simply means Delft blue in Dutch and identifies it as authentic and collectible." Goldenrowley 17:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. Yes I know Delft Blue, but is it a brand in the same way the Doulton is, or a generic type such as majolica? ThanxTheriac 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I visited Delft, they are all hand painted by hired artists. Admittedly, some of the tourist shop ones are cheesy but the higher priced ones can be real art and in museums today. I could not be sure if it was a company or collective because the art shops are spread out (not all in once place) but it is a Delft design style. Goldenrowley 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. I believe in connection with pottery that delft is a style rather than being unique to any one manufacturer, and so is not a brand. Have a look at the article delftware and an associated external link http://www.xs4all.nl/~kalden/dblue/delftblue-workshopENG.htm ThanxTheriac 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I beleive you are right with the caveat it must come from the collective people in Delft, however an artist's style is by definition a ceramic art. the section heading is "industrial art" not "brand names". I would consider it purely "decorative art" in most cases to have a cow with painted flowers on it. Goldenrowley 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would call this one a regional "art movement" and maybe broaden the sentence that announced the list, so as to allow decorarive art and art movements? Goldenrowley 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. I've no issue if Delft goes back in. I removed it only as it was described as a brand. But if you're gong for regional then don't forget about English Delft! ThanxTheriac 18:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OKay I mean no disrespect to the English I just cannot find a link on an article on English Delft or I would use it. Delft is a place name in Holland. English people borrowed the word. Goldenrowley 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. Yes the name was borrowed from the town / pottery but it is used for the English variety of delft. Have a look at English Delftware ThanxTheriac 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok added it. Thanks Goldenrowley 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. You're going to hate me for this but delft wasn't / isn't made by "art collectives", it's a style. The manfacturers may not share any connection.ThanxTheriac 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No I don't hate you we are having a productive, nice conversation. I think industrial art has come up with some art styles. However there are also regional pottery styles. This article should include them to stay on topic. We just need to capture this in wording. Goldenrowley 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. Thanks. See what you think of my recent edit. ThanxTheriac 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think we've got it now! Its always a pleasure seeing your edits. Goldenrowley 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We got there in the end :-) Theriac 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Addition or New Section for Makers Marks

I propose to put together first, a short paragraph to introduce the subject of Makers' Marks, which I believe would be of interest to collectors and historians. There are a lot of references that can be made on this subject. Then perhaps at a later date, a separate, expanded article could be done on this subject and connected to Ceramic Arts. Thoughts?

I am also interested in expanding the section that mentions the discussion of Art vs. Craft among potters and ceramic artists. Or has that subject be re-hashed to death? Aclayartist (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

tiles

I have 4 tiles they are all in black and white,they all have the same guy in them,they are labeled Pilkington,all are framed. I have had these tiles for a number of years,they were found with pictures..Louis Pasteur, and Sir Richard Owen, yes I know the pictures are old, I am looking for info on my tiles, I am willing to send pics. please email me if anyone thinks they can help, sondra_neace@yahoo.com I look forward to hearing from you, happy holidays. Sondra Neace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.163.144 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Work to be done

Considering the length of the discussion about this article it is extraordinarily thin. As an overview of ceramic art it covers about 3 per cent of the field, and is very unrepresentative. There is a big job to be done here and I'll contribute when I have time. In the meantime, here's a suggested structure for any brave editor who would like to start filling the gaps:

• 1 The Far East

1.1 China [SOME DONE]

1.1.1 Tang

1.1.2 Song

1.1.3 Ming

1.1.4 Qing

1.1.5 Modern

1.2 Japan [DONE]

1.2.1 Kakeimon [DONE]

1.3 Korea

• 2 The Middle East [SUMMARY OF ISLAMIC POTTERY DONE]

2.1 Persia

2.2 Mesopotamia

2.3 Turkey [IZNIK DONE]

• 3 Europe

3.1 Ancient pottery [SOME DONE]

3.1.1 Mycaenian

3.1.2 Attic Greece [DONE]

3.1.3 Roman [DONE]

3.2 Medieval and early modern [SOME DONE]

3.3 Stoneware

3.3.1 Salt glaze

3.4 Tin Glazed pottery [DONE]

3.5 Soft paste porcelain }

3.6 Hard paste porcelain } [SOME DONE]

3.6.1 Sevres

3.7 Wedgwood and the North Staffordshire Potteries [DONE]

3.8 Art pottery

3.9 Studio pottery [DONE]

• 4 Africa [STARTED]
• 5 America [SOME DONE]

Marshall46 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good - even very short sections with key links would be an enormous improvement. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Shaping up nicely. Now has the makings of a good article. Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise! Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I took out the sub-heading referring to medieval pottery and merged that section with my material on tin-glaze. In due course we can include a section on the rough European earthenwares that pre-dated tin-glaze. Marshall46 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed sub-heading from "Modern Ceramics" to "Medieval and Modern Ceramics" as there is a lot of pre-modern in there now. Medieval and Modern can be disaggregated when we have enough material. Marshall46 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Medieval & modern make no sense for East Asia, America or Iran, so we probably need to end up with something like:

PREHISTORIC

ASIA

ANCIENT EUROPE & MIDDLE EAST

AMERICAS

ISLAMIC

EUROPEAN (Western)

Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. We need to add something on African pottery, which is under-represented in Wikipedia. Perhaps a main article on that topic should be written first, then a summary here.

Thanks for your work on Ceramic. Marshall46 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Angel by Deborah Halpern

Is this really the best illustration of a piece of ceramic art? As I understand it most of it is made of non-ceramic materials, such as a steel frame. The ceramic part is the surface, this being many tiles. Surely having it here is a bit like claiming a bathroom or kitchen is ceramic because of the tiles on the floor annd wall. If Anegl does remain here then explanation about the mixed medium should be included.

• - sez non-signing anon again - FOUR TILDES PLEASE! Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• - He has made 143 edits in the last nine months and refuses to create an account. Marshall46 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an illustration of a piece of ceramic art, not necessarily the best, but ceramic art nonetheless.

I have reverted the removal of the word "plain" applied to the industrial ceramics of post-war Britain because it refers to the post-war ban on decoration.Marshall46 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Undecorated is a more appropriate word.

I think anyone who has better images to replace that & the Korean girl should feel free to do so. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Iznik and North Staffs

I agree with Malcolm Shosha that there was too much on Iznik relative to other Islamic pottery, and I've cut it down, removing the sub-heading. Anyone who wants the whole story can follow the link.

North Staffs doesn't belong under Early European Porcelain because it's mostly earthenware, quite a different topic in the history of ceramics. Marshall46 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained why you think the English factories need a section of their own (Wedgwood and the North Staffordshire Potteries), while those of other countries (Ginori, Meissen, Limoges, Lenox, Noritake, etc.) are not even mentioned. I am restoring my change so these others can eventually be included in a logical format. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the North Staffs potteries have a section of their own is that they are important in the history of ceramic art. The only reason why other important pottery districts and manufacturers do not is that the article is not complete. By all means add them. Marshall46 (talk)

How do you figure that they are more important than Ginori, Meissen, Limoges, or Sevres? My change was so all the major manufacturers could be discussed on an equal basis as subheadings under Early Porcelain. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said they were more important. I said they were important enough for a section heading and I said that you could by all means add section headings for Ginori, Meissen, Limoges and Sevres. The subheading "Early Porcelain" is not appropriate for Wedgewood because his importance lies mainly in late earthenware. Marshall46 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Late earthenware? I never heard Wedgewood mentioned aside from for porcelain. In the world market that is their reputation. Anyhow the company was founded 1759, which only about 20 years after Ginori. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jasperware is not porcelain. We do have too much proportionately on English pottery, but the problem perhaps does not need facing until we expand other areas; in particular Chinese & early Midlle Eastern pottery need more. Then the full material could become the basis of English pottery perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod.

Wedgwood make a lot of bone china now but Josiah Wedgwood is well-known for his improvement of Creamware, a new type of earthenware. The 18th century is early for European porcelain, because a successful formula was not created until the end of the 17th century at St.Cloud, but it is late for earthenware, which had been in use from the earliest times. Hence it is inappropriate to put North Staffs under Early European PorcelainMarshall46 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

“Jasper, although usually regarded as a special refined type of stoneware, could be regarded as a porcelain, because unless being coloured by one of the usual colouring oxides, it is practically white and translucent when thin." Published description by Paul Rado, Former Technical Manager at Royal Worcester.

Wedgwood don't make anything now. When they did their production was primarily bone china and earthenware. Jasper was only a small part of their production, albeit the body with which they were most closely associated.

Josiah Wedgwood is justifiably renowned for: the industrialisation & introduction of the division of labour in the production of ceramics; the invention of the clocking-on clock; one of the first to market a 'brand' (including the use of the Frog dinner service to Catherine the Great as a promotional tool & his London showrooms); the scientific study of ceramics (the latter including the invention of pyrometric devices which got him elected to the Royal Society); being a member of The Lunar Society; an advocate of the abolition of slavery and being the grandfather of Charles Darwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have put both Porcelain and Wedgwood under a new heading, 18th Century Europe. Marshall46 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiles in East Asia

Re. "With exceptions, notably the Porcelain Tower of Nanjing, tiles or glazed bricks do not feature largely in East Asian ceramics." The only comment I can think of is '!' Aside from the other countries in East Asia China is the world's biggest manufacturer of tiles. It is estimated there are at least 2,000 seperate factories in the country and the annual about (in 2004 ) of 2100 million m2 from the country's top five main producing areas alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ceramic art. Of course they have bathrooms. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says all the tiles made in China are for bathrooms? Anyway the tiles produced in China, or elsewhere, are consistent with the description of this article: "Some ceramic products are regarded as fine art, while others are regarded as decorative, industrialor applied art objects, or as artifacts in archaeology. The identification of a ceramic object as art varies, and there is no agreed standard or definition. It may be made by one individual or in a factory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The tiles produced in China are also consistent with the tagged text. Merely pointing out that tiles produced in China (or anywhere else) might be artistically significant is not enough. You'll have to do better than that. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "You'll have to do better than that."

Where in the article does it state that inclusion should be limited to "artistically significant." Incidentally, who makes this judgment: what is its definition?

As Chinese tiles comply with the description of the article given in the first few paragraphs what reason is there to exlude or ignore them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An article about ceramic art is about ceramic art, not tiles. The opening sentence, "In art history, ceramics and ceramic art mean art objects and tiles, and tableware made from clay and other ceramic raw materials," is bad and should be altered:

• Delete "In art history", an unnecessary qualifier.
• Delete "ceramics and" from "ceramics and ceramic art". The article is about ceramic art, not ceramics.
• Find a better expression than "art objects and tiles, and tableware made of clay"; tiles and tableware made of clay are not ceramic art if they have no artistic content.
• The phrase "made from clay and other ceramic raw materials" is clumsy and pedantic.

I suggest, "Ceramic art describes ceramics with a significant artistic or design content."

The passage quoted by User:210.54.238.178, "Some ceramic products are regarded as fine art, while others are regarded as decorative, industrial or applied art objects, or as artifacts in archaeology. The identification of a ceramic object as art varies, and there is no agreed standard or definition. It may be made by one individual or in a factory," is also bad. Better would be, "Some ceramic art is purely decorative, some is useful as well and some is used in rituals". It is better to avoid reference to the debate about fine art, applied art and functional ceramics because it is uninformative and confusing. Remember this is an encyclopaedia. Marshall46 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree partly with Marshall's points, they are not strictly relevant here. This article is a short overview of the whole of the vast field of ceramic art, and therefore necessarily touches briefly on high-points and major areas as seen by art-historians generally - not in fact something there is too much controversy over really. We certainly have not achieved the perfect balance yet - see above, but AFAIK East Asian tiles are not mentioned as significant in any of the more detailed articles on the area, & anybody who knows anything about historic East Asian architecture will understand why they are not a significant feature. The more detailed articles could cover decorated ceramic (terracotta) roof finials and what are called Ante-fixae in Roman architecture, which are very widespread in China, if rarely of exceptional quality or interest. But these are not wall tiles, the subject of the section. The anon isp has given no reasoning why the statement: "With exceptions, notably the Porcelain Tower of Nanjing, tiles or glazed bricks do not feature largely in East Asian ceramics." is "dubious". The tag should not be used for "I didn't know that". If he can come up with an area I have overlooked of significant EA ceramic wall-coverings, the section can be altered. But it seems he can't. Modern Chinese industrial production of tiles for flooring & walls is supremely beside the point. The isolated references to tiles, some painted or roofing, in: L Sickman & A Soper, "The Art and Architecture of China", Pelican History of Art, 3rd ed 1971, Penguin (now Yale History of Art), LOC 70-125675, confirms that this is unlikely, though pressed tomb tiles of before 200CE should be mentioned in a more detailed article.

On the lead para, the point is that "ceramics" is in fact the usual term, with the "art" understood by the context in a museum or book on art. The phrase "ceramic art" itself is much rarer - "art ceramics" is about as common, in the US anyway. I think something needs to be said about the recognition of essentially industrial products as art in ceramics also. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good evening.

• An article about ceramic art can include tiles. This of course would not be of the white-glazed 15cm x 15 cm bathroom-type. No one, including myself, has claimed this.
• Are there tiles which are ‘artistically significant’, however that may be defined. Yes.
• It is valid to claim “_ _ tiles or glazed bricks do not feature largely in East Asian ceramics”? No. Very clearly tiles are very significant in East Asian (inc. Chinese) production and use.
• And in response to ‘_ _as given no reasoning why the statement: "With exceptions, notably the Porcelain Tower of Nanjing, tiles or glazed bricks do not feature largely in East Asian ceramics." is "dubious". Yes I have. I have given references to the significant production of tiles in China. How can this not be a reason that ‘_ _ tiles or glazed bricks do not feature largely in East Asian ceramics’ is incorrect?
• The tag should not be used for "I didn't know that". I do not know why you have noted this. I did not add the tag for this reason.
• You claim of “If he can come up with an area I have overlooked of significant EA ceramic wall-coverings, the section can be altered. But it seems he can't.” is then immediately countered by “Modern Chinese industrial production of tiles for flooring & walls” This is completely the reverse of being 'supremely beside the point': as EA produces and uses a huge amount of tiles for wall & floor coverings it is highly relevant.
• Considerable care needs to be taken with the use of the word ‘ceramic/s’. Its meaning is far, far wider than what is described here. The subject of this article is an extremely small part of the wide scope of a very large group of materials. (One short & easily accessible overview is found here [7] There are some, myself including, who have challenged the inclusion of glass. But after its inclusion first originated in the US it does have some recognition.)
• The recent suggestion of re-wording parts of the article is agreed. Indeed it is essential.
• This re-wording needs to include the part about tiles & EA Ceramics, so that bathroom types tiles do not comply.
• ‘Fine ceramics’ also needs to be altered. Like it or not this is an accepted, standard terminology for what some (including myself) would otherwise describe as ‘Engineering’ or ‘Advanced’ Ceramics. Its use for this types of ceramics originated in Japan. My personal view, or that of others, is nothing compared to the unquestionable authority of organisations such as the ISO. There is no question that ‘Fine ceramics’ is used for significantly different types of products, but is there an appropriate definition?
• I do not understand the objection to ‘fine ceramics’ being changed in the article. Why include it at all? Considering the care needed with the meaning of ‘ceramics’; that ‘fine ceramics’ is a recognised description of clearly non-artistically significant ware; there are more suitable alternatives; and, quite simply what is wrong with being accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Heath Pottery

I removed:

Heath Pottery

In the United States Edith Heath (1911 – 2005) was an industrial designer, potter, and founder of Heath Ceramics in 1948. The artist and company, well known for its Mid-Century modern ceramic dish-ware (Heathware) and architecural tiles, is still operating out of Sausalito, in Marin County of the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Edith Heath's "Coupe" line remains in demand and has been in constant production since 1948, with only periodic changes to the texture and color of the glazes. (Home Is Where the Heath Is: A Bay Area pottery tradition continues under new ownership)

- as all wrong for here. Might go somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Ceramics category is unclear. It seems that the article is U.K. sourced? -In California there can be a different use of the words. Not right/wrong here; but would never have considered Wedgewood as pottery or ceramics in 'Calif. terms' (probably as china) - but Heath - yes - by many for decades here. Non-production and limited production pieces by artists - artisans are in fine arts, contemporary art, art & craft, and decorative arts museums in U.S. In Ceramics article's first lines: "... tiles, and tableware made from clay and other raw materials by the process of pottery. Some ceramic products are regarded as fine art, while others are regarded as decorative, industrial or applied art objects... They may be made by one individual or in a factory." Confused why Edith Heath was removed from article, please explain. --- Look2See1 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a summary article. It no doubt does under-represent the Americas, but adding a great lump on one minor figure is no help. Surely you can see that? Give him his own article by all means. "China" is clearly pottery/caramics - all this is nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use phrases such as "as all wrong for here" and "all this is nonsense." It does not help me or any other readers learn. I was just sharing my previous ignorance, before my very first reading of the article, that Wedgewood was considered pottery or ceramic art. I'd misplaced it as 'decorative arts in production.' It's in gift shops here, so I misjudged. I still do not understand why brief mentions of Edith Heath (a her), or Heath Ceramics seem not to? Are Eva Zeisel, Fiesta (dinnerware) or Bauer Pottery in or out? Is there a way under "--See also--" to include wikilinks to list articles like 'Category:American potters', 'Category:Ceramics manufacturers of the United States' & Category:lists for other countries, eras, etc.? The reorganized America section is good-thank you. I now understand its under-representation is only from awaiting new efforts. One may want to make it 'Americas' to not upset those not in the 'U.S.-America.' I'm a 'newbie' to both editing and understanding a sophisticated classification of the topic, & do want to learn more. thanks Look2See1 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult article to write because its scope is so vast and there is a danger that it could sprawl so far as to be useless. It is about ceramics as applied art, so it excludes things like mass produced floor tiles and porcelain insulators but it's meant to be an introduction to or synopsis of ceramics with an artistic content. I would think that that does include all the potteries you mention, but the article is not just a list and there has to be some test of notability. It can't include every pottery. The way for readers to find the less significant ones is not through this article but by browsing the relevant categories. Josiah Wedgwood is so important in the history of ceramics - as a designer, a technician and a businessman - that he has to be in, but I'm not sure of the status of Heath Ceramics in the USA as I'm less familiar with American pottery. The article should mention the main features of ceramic art, and the test of notability has to be the major books on the topic.

As to terms, although they each have a technical meaning, "ceramics", "pottery" and "china" are pretty well interchangeable in everyday language. Marshall46 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Zeisel would seem the most significant on a quick look, but none are among the names in the text at Studio pottery. We don't have any British equivalents either, or indeed any coverage of factory-made but well-designed 20th century tableware etc. That tends to regarded as falling under "design" rather than "art", rightly or wrongly. An article on the topic would be good. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Imbalance

Perhaps this is a U.K. sourced article? It appears to have Euro-centric bias. The 5,000 years or so of Native American pottery in the Americas; and 'recent' 200 years or so in the United States and other contemporary countries of studio, artisan, and production work; has been deleted and was not previously covered. Please consider including the artistic talent and skilled technique that has and does exist between the Mediterranean and Europe - and - the Near East and Asia. I do appreciate the good coverage of those regions and traditions. --- Look2See1 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Look under heading 20 here, "Work to be done". The absence of America has been noted for a long time. The only reason for that absence is that there have been no editors so far who know anything about it. If you know something, write it, don't just tag the article POV. Marshall46 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and Pre-Colombian pottery has a decent section. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have re-organised the material in this article according to geography. It is difficult to be consistent, whether the material is organised by place, time or type of ceramics, but it is easier to follow if we adopt one clear method.

The contents are now

   * 1 Prehistoric pottery
   * 2 East Asia
         o 2.1 Japan
         o 2.2 China
   * 3 Western Asia and the Middle East
         o 3.1 Early glazed ceramics
         o 3.2 Islamic pottery
   * 4 Europe
         o 4.1 Early figurines
         o 4.2 The ancient Mediterranean
         o 4.3 Tin-glazed pottery
         o 4.4 Porcelain
         o 4.5 Wedgwood and the North Staffordshire Potteries
         o 4.6 Studio pottery in Britain
   * 5 America
         o 5.1 Native American pottery
         o 5.2 Studio pottery in the United States
   * 6 Africa

I think this shows that there is no cultural bias and certainly no POV, so I've removed the tag. Some sections are longer than others and there is still some material missing. I suggest that when the gaps are filled, some of the longer sections (e.g. on tin-glazed pottery) can be cut down. Marshall46 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Slightly changed since, but I agree. Some bits are still too long - "Studio pottery in Britain" should be moved en masse & replaced by a summary - as we have seen it just encourages people to add biogs of other minor figures. Do you agree? Almost everything else except the archaeology & maybe Europe needs expanding. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it is all copied from Studio pottery, so I have just précis-ed it, perhaps not enough. There are still problems - "Early glazed ceramics" is misplaced now - this is about tiles & glazed bricks through history & should be kept together somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Bureaukraten by Arne Ranslet.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bureaukraten by Arne Ranslet.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Mochica Portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Mochica Portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Studio Pottery Images

Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages). I've been uploading images of Studio pottery from the W.A. Ismay Collection. The whole set can be found here: Category:W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic Collection (53 images), I hope that they're useful for various articles! You can find out something about Ismay and the collection on the Google Cultural Institute (written by YMT's curator). Also, if there are any ways in which we could help you achieve your goals for coverage of ceramic arts (or anything else!) on Wikipedia that would be great. You can contact me with any queries. Look forward to working with you! PatHadley (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Renaming article

The article Ceramic art was moved to History of ceramic art. I agree, the article is about the history of ceramic art however the subject is ceramic art. There are articles on Ceramic for technical aspects of ceramics and Pottery, which includes a history of pottery. What is your opinion, and is there a consensus for keeping the article named History of ceramic art, renaming to History of ceramics, or reverted back to Ceramic art? Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think "art" should stay in the title. I wouldn't have moved it myself, but don't have very strong feelings against the present title. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This article was moved to make way for the creation of a root article on the base subject. This article is now a subtopic of its parent Ceramic art, an article on the subject in general. The new root article includes a section on the History of ceramic art, created via Wikipedia:Summary style approach, which links to this article. The Transhumanist 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a terrible article, and much of it barely on the topic. I wish you would stop doing these sort of things. If it hasn't improved significantly after a while it should be deleted and the status quo ante restored.Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The creation of the new root article is a good solution; allowing for articles on ceramic arts to be expanded and created. In reading past talk page discussions, this was a solution proposed however never put into action. Summary articles do not overwhelm the reader and allow the reader to focus on the topic they are interested in if they so desire - as well as giving an overview of the subject. Good work and a good solution. There is no need to change the title of History of ceramic art. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately almost none of the new Ceramic art is actually about Ceramic art, as opposed to just pottery. I'm amazed you can find it a "good solution"; have you actually read through it? My support for retaining the existing title here is entirely conditional on Ceramic art redirecting here, or having another article that is actually on that subject, unlike at present. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)