Form and Function
Many years ago I asked an evening class teacher about whether my pot ‘looked right’. They replied, possibly rolling their eyes ‘oh, you mean aesthetics’. Yes, I did. But the conversation didn’t get very far. In fact, it’s only recently that I really think that I have been able to consider this issue any further.
But what I have known for a long time is that I am interested whether my pots ‘look right’.
This will largely be a discussion about some elements of a book I recently read called Ceramics by Philip Rawson¹. It’s a fascinating read for those interested in the form, function and aesthetics of ceramics.
With functional pottery there is a further consideration beyond the aesthetic beauty of a vessel, and that is whether it fulfils its’ intended function at least adequately – or at best, well.
In fact, depending on what that function is, then the form will most often follow. For example, many ancient civilizations needed to carry water, and the pots were stored on the ground, so they have wide, rounded bases to allow stability and easy pouring, with a narrow neck to prevent pests and dust from contaminating the water. It makes sense.
In our own culture, we drink tea (back to that tea and cake thing again!). We’re used to drinking it with a handle, so that our fingers don’t get too hot and we drop the vessel. So, the handle needs to be ergonomically placed to allow the cup to be picked up and taken to our lips for easy pouring. The rim then becomes significant as this is where our lips are placed for the purpose of drinking. Sometimes I see discerning customers run their fingers around the rim to check it’s smooth enough. Moreover, there is the shape of the mug – an outwardly curving concave top will allow the liquid to come out easily but a more inward curvature will keep the warmth of the drink for longer.
At the other end of the argument, in contrast to function, there is the aesthetics of the pottery, concentrating on beauty and expression. I guess that this was the question that I was asking my teacher all those years ago. Rawson argues that this concept is culturally determined. From the Western European view we are conditioned by the idea that ceramics is ‘Noble Treasure’. That is, pots are to be seen from a distance, as perfect, and beautiful as object in themselves, with no need to be used as functional pots. These were the pots that The Nobility had in their houses, as a means of showing off their wealth and importance. Of course, there were also functional pots, made by potters serving their communities. These were the pots that everyone else used in their daily lives. But I’m not sure that until recently these were desired by people in their homes.
Other cultures have very different views; with Japan, for example they have a concept of negating the norm of perfection, and thus bringing to the fore ideas of poverty and anti-formalism in the notion of Wabi Sabi. In this way the humble vessel is to viewed in a spiritual manner. (see my blog https://www.marywrightceramics.co.uk/blog/why-make-marks-2-the-dialectic-of-permanenceimpermanence).
Since my pottery is influence by Korean pottery, it is interesting to me what Rawson has to say about Korean forms. He says that ‘good pots’ often have more than one unit of shape, which is not the exact arc of a circle, and that medieval Korean pots are great examples of this. He cites Maybeyong jars as his example, which really delighted me as I love them (but boy, are they difficult to make; I haven’t managed it successfully yet). He describes how this type of form is made through ‘overlap and elision’ of component forms. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O15188/melon-shaped-earthware-maebyeong-vase-unknown/ shows an example of a Maybeyong jar from the Victoria & Albert museum.
The type of clay body that you use will also influence the form of the pot that you make. My newest clay body has some fine grog² in it, so it has a certain roughness to the touch, but is great for the structure of the pots, giving the pots enough support to literally hold themselves up. It allows me to be bold with my forms, altering them as spontaneously as I want to, while also leaning into the idea of earthiness and emphasizing the organic nature of the material.
Ultimately, I think that there has to be an interweaving of functional purpose and artistic expression in domestic pottery, and I hope that my pots tread that line carefully.
¹ Rawson, P (1971) Ceramics. London: Oxford University Press
² Grog is ‘ground fired body added to clays to provide a proportion of already fired and often refractory material.’ From Hamer (1975) The Potter’s Dictionary of Materials and Techniques.