Ceramics Monthly: How did your experience jurying the Jingdezhen Biennale compare to other international jurying opportunities in the past? What lasting impact did this experience have on you as a curator and writer?
Moyra Elliott: The most obvious and immediate difference between juries in China and almost anywhere else is numbers. We had seventeen members on the Jingdezhen International jury—one each from several countries in Europe, Japan, and Korea; three from North America; plus six from China. While the single juror preferred by exhibition organizers in New Zealand and Australia is not found elsewhere in my experience, three or five seems standard.
We were asked not to speak of the entries with other members of the jury. I imagine the reason was that none of the Chinese jurors spoke English, so fair enough. However, discourse is often a highlight of the jurying experience, as others’ opinions can contribute stimulating insights considering the seasoned expertise within the group. In Jingdezhen, we voted by entry number rather than dialog or dissection.
Our hosts commissioned a specific computer program that tallied our findings after each viewing of the show. This was supervised by a triumvirate from the area notary office, and we’d sit quietly as procedures advanced. It was a day of hushed reconsideration more than dynamic discussion, but engrossing and not uninteresting.
CM: When introduced to new categories of ceramic work (namely, painting and film), did you find it challenging to jury the work without the same familiarity as the vessel and sculptural entries? How did these new-to-you categories shift your perception of clay as a material?
ME: The new-to-me categories of film and ceramic painting were something of a test. Film was something I studied at university, so it was not intimidating, although I had never previously juried it. Varied in subject matter, they were mostly engaging and delightful. However, my query about what the category of ceramic painting entailed was finally answered when taken to one of the huge exhibition halls. Basically, it parallels painting a picture—four corners and subjects like figuration, landscape, or abstraction, only achieved with glaze rather than paint or pastel. The range was as great as you’d find on any gallery wall or park railing. I appreciate that it’s more challenging using glaze, but question any advantages. And then, there is the weight. However, the organizers wish to encourage this as a viable option and intend to include it in future competitions. I guess part of the current expansion is around perceptions of clay’s potential.
We understand your email address is private. You will receive emails and newsletters from Ceramic Arts Network. We will never share your information except as outlined in our privacy policy. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Please enjoy this complimentary article for the month.
For unlimited access to Ceramics Monthly premium content, please subscribe.
We understand your email address is private. You will receive emails and newsletters from Ceramic Arts Network. We will never share your information except as outlined in our privacy policy. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Subscribe to Ceramics Monthly
Ceramics Monthly: How did your experience jurying the Jingdezhen Biennale compare to other international jurying opportunities in the past? What lasting impact did this experience have on you as a curator and writer?
Moyra Elliott: The most obvious and immediate difference between juries in China and almost anywhere else is numbers. We had seventeen members on the Jingdezhen International jury—one each from several countries in Europe, Japan, and Korea; three from North America; plus six from China. While the single juror preferred by exhibition organizers in New Zealand and Australia is not found elsewhere in my experience, three or five seems standard.
We were asked not to speak of the entries with other members of the jury. I imagine the reason was that none of the Chinese jurors spoke English, so fair enough. However, discourse is often a highlight of the jurying experience, as others’ opinions can contribute stimulating insights considering the seasoned expertise within the group. In Jingdezhen, we voted by entry number rather than dialog or dissection.
Our hosts commissioned a specific computer program that tallied our findings after each viewing of the show. This was supervised by a triumvirate from the area notary office, and we’d sit quietly as procedures advanced. It was a day of hushed reconsideration more than dynamic discussion, but engrossing and not uninteresting.
CM: When introduced to new categories of ceramic work (namely, painting and film), did you find it challenging to jury the work without the same familiarity as the vessel and sculptural entries? How did these new-to-you categories shift your perception of clay as a material?
ME: The new-to-me categories of film and ceramic painting were something of a test. Film was something I studied at university, so it was not intimidating, although I had never previously juried it. Varied in subject matter, they were mostly engaging and delightful. However, my query about what the category of ceramic painting entailed was finally answered when taken to one of the huge exhibition halls. Basically, it parallels painting a picture—four corners and subjects like figuration, landscape, or abstraction, only achieved with glaze rather than paint or pastel. The range was as great as you’d find on any gallery wall or park railing. I appreciate that it’s more challenging using glaze, but question any advantages. And then, there is the weight. However, the organizers wish to encourage this as a viable option and intend to include it in future competitions. I guess part of the current expansion is around perceptions of clay’s potential.
Must-Reads from Ceramics Monthly
Unfamiliar with any terms in this article? Browse our glossary of pottery terms!
Click the cover image to return to the Table of Contents