Monday, August 9, 2004

Third Place- Continuing our look at the 1st European Ceramics Competition and the lack of gold and silver medals awarded in the Functional category. How does one usually understand a ceramic piece that has been awarded a bronze medal?  Some typical thoughts that would frame one's perspective might include: Well, this is one of the best of the lot. There's two others that have something that make them better. A possibility of a tie. If we add the judge's statement: All the pieces we chose have an aspect of use although they have abandoned all the rules of ergonomics. The jury thought it disturbing to find little really well designed ceramics. That is why we did not give Gold and Silver awards. (I am not able to read the Greek version of the statement, but it is three sentances as well, so probably says the same thing.) Now how does one understand the piece? I think we can still look at the piece as one of the best of the lot, however, the whole lot is tainted with the idea that few were 'well designed' / most were non-ergonomic. We also see the piece as tied with two others.  Considering all the qualities of each, none of the three has an additonal element of or quantity of quality that the others lack.  Note, the judges did not award a single bonze and some 'lesser' places, like 4th and 5th.  They did not distinguish between the 3 finalists. And we can see the piece as part of a unusal judges statement about the lack of well designed ceramics. Ceramics that are judged in a competion all have their understanding changed in some degree by the application, or lack of, an award by a judge.  In some way, the judgement is added to the piece's meaning.  In the case of the 1st European Ceramics Competion, Functional category, the judgement is so unusual that it overshadows, or co-opts the piece's meaning. 7:01:06 AM