Philip Rawson

Ceramics
Philip Rawson
Oxford University Press, London, 1971

Philip Rawson has been referred to by both Hopper in Functional Ceramics and Banard in his essay in Breaking the Mould, both of which I have discussed on this journal. This particular book seems widely read and quoted from generally. I find some of his points quite difficult to understand, maybe this is because he refers frequently to areas of historical ceramics and movements that I have little knowledge of. As with some of the other books on my journal for now I have just selected quotes and key points that I think are relevant to my work.

Rawson introduces his ideas by explaining that his book

“takes as its basis the fact that, despite their differences, all the ceramic traditions of the world rest upon a common substratum of meaning which is remarkably consistent” (Rawson 1971:2,3).

He writes that ceramics most important function is to hold food and drink, and that it is this that links the evolution of ceramics in separate cultures.

“the constant relationship with food has probably played the most vital part in endowing pots with their special symbolic qualities” (Rawson 1971:3).

“This intimate connection with a potent aspect of daily life and experience is what gives ceramics its particular aesthetic interest” (Rawson 1971:3).

Again he gives the reader an idea of what he wants his book to be about, this did help me understand his direction of thought better,

“The general plan of this book will be to follow the potter’s thought step by step, to trace out levels and degrees of symbolism involved in the transformation of clay into art, of inert objective matter into a symbolism of being, passing from the simpler levels of fact and use towards the sophisticated expression of clear non-verbal meanings which may rightly be called aesthetic” (Rawson 1971:9).

Rawson goes on to discuss the role of technology in relation to the relatively new control over glazes, types of clay etc,

“this industrialised facility, which prevails even in ‘studio potteries’ takes us out of contact with the circumstances under which potting has been done during most of the history of the human race, and makes of our ceramics an art with more in common with other modern ‘planned fabrications’ than with the ceramics of the past” (Rawson 1971:10).

He then discusses the tactile qualities of ceramics which he describes as “a crucial part of many ceramic traditions” (Rawson 1971:19). He goes on to talk about something which I feel is relevant to my work and I had been thinking about recently. He writes

“We Westerners are not allowed to handle things in our museums; we have been brought up in a culture dominated overwhelmingly by graphic images addressed solely to the eye” (Rawson 1971:19)

He argues that this is why pottery is important because it is formed directly by the hands. He writes that tactile qualities therefore cannot be found in ‘mechanized’ ceramics (Rawson 1971:20).

The impression I have got from reading the first few chapters of this book is that Rawson places a high value upon techniques such as hand-building and throwing, that produce objects with “an affinity with the earth” (Rawson 1971:12). Although he discusses briefly what he calls industrial style processes such as moulding and casting he seems slightly dismissive of their ability to produce work that expresses clays ‘symbolism’ (Rawson 1971:14).

I am struggling to see where my work could fit into Rawson’s ideal of ceramics. Although I want my work to embody the values he discusses such as considering historical evolution, functional aspects and emotional attachment, he does not seem to think the processes I am choosing to use can create any of these.

However, despite this I do think I can learn useful things from this book, for example this next section on ‘life functions‘. He discusses the evolution of form which I had already begun to look at. He writes about the large storage jars from the ancient Middle East which had rounded bottoms to make them easy to tilt as they would be very heavy when full. They would sit in depressions in the ground or on thick ceramics rings (Rawson 1971:70). He comments on how looking at various drinking vessels form different time periods can show us something about the culture. He illustrates this with a very tall, large German beer tankard from the 16th and 17th Century and a 19th Century gilded tea cup with a handle that is too small to comfortably hold (Rawson 1971:71,72).

Lastly for this post I read his chapter on imitation. He writes that ceramics have a history of imitating other art forms, for example when people could not afford gold or silverware. He argues that glass has had the most influence over ceramics form. Rawson writes that people now tend to think that ceramicists should not imitate other crafts but he argues that it would be impossible to separate the intertwining ideas.

To be continued…