SCULPTING ORGANIC ORDER: THE NATURE OF

ORNAMENT

By

Stephanie Jonsson

BFA , University of Alberta, 2005

A THESIS ESSAY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY OF ART + DESIGN

© Stephanie Jonsson, 2012

This paper presents academic and practice based research. Exploring the

concepts of ornament, pattern, and decoration, it aims to define these terms as

they are applied in the research and studio. The role of ornament in Modernism,

examples of ornament in nature, and nature inspired ornamental forms

throughout history are examined. It considers the marginalized position of craft in

relation to fine art, and illustrates the shifting nature of this relationship in the

work of artists who use craft mediums. The association of decoration and craft

with the feminine and “women’s work” is also explored. The methodology for the

artwork involves research that is influenced by a formative undergraduate

degree, a reflexive studio practice, conventional scholarly research, observation

of natural forms, and adaptation of patterns in nature to consumer objects. The

methodology describes the use of both craft materials, such as ceramics and

textiles, and fine art materials as an ornate responses to Minimalism. The paper

presents a selection of artworks that use this methodology as examples of these

responses.

! ! ii!! ! !
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………… ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..……………………………………………………………. iii

LIST OF FIGURES ..………………………………………………………………….. v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..………………………………………………………….. vi

INTRODUCTION ..………………………………………………………………………1

CHAPTER ONE: METHODOLOGY/METHOD

1.1 An Intuitive Material-Based Process ..…………………………………………... 2

1.2 Ornament and Nature as Source Material ……………………………………. 11

CHAPTER TWO: ORNAMENT, PATTERN, DECORATION

2.1 Ornament, Pattern, Decoration ………………………………………………… 16

2.2 The Role of Ornament in Modernism ...……………………………………….. 19

2.3 Ornament and Gender ..………………………………………………………… 22

2.4 Ornament in Nature ...…………………………………………………………… 23

! ! iii!! ! !
CHAPTER THREE: CRAFT

3.1 Breaking down Binaries: Craft and Art ...……………………………………… 29

3.2 Three case studies ..…………………………………………………………….. 33

SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………. 41

WORKS CITED……………………………………………………………………….. 43

! ! iv!! ! !
List of Figures

Figure 1. Stephanie Jonsson, Leukocytes’ Nuptials ………………………………..4

Figure 2. Stephanie Jonsson, Solar Powered Plastic Plant ………………………..5

Figure 3. Stephanie Jonsson, Untitled Wall Piece ………………………………….9

Figure 4. Stephanie Jonsson. Mutant Nucleus …………………………………….11

Figure 5. Stephanie Jonsson. Violet Unfurled ……………………………………..16

Figure 6. Stephanie Jonsson. The Architecture of Ornament ……………………19

Figure 7. Stephanie Jonsson. Solar Powered Plastic Plant ………………………28

Figure 8. Neil Forrest. Hiving Mesh …………………………………………………34

Figure 9. Stephanie Jonsson. Corner Piece ……………………………………….35

Figure 10. Kim Dickey. Inverted L Beam #2 ………………………………………..37

Figure 11. Cal Lane. 5 Shovels ……………………………………………………...39

Figure 12. Stephanie Jonsson. 35 Ceramic Square ………………………………40

! ! v!! ! !
Acknowledgements

I would like to take this moment to acknowledge the people who have

supported and helped me throughout this two-year journey. Thank you to my

supervisor, Julie York, for her extraordinary feedback and invaluable perception

in the studio. Her guidance was a welcome contribution and her constructive

criticism and caring approach made me a stronger artist. I would also like to

thank Karolle Wall, Randy Lee Cutler and Carol Gigliotti for their immense

kindness and valuable input with the written thesis. I would like to thank my

colleagues at Emily Carr University who endured alongside me with generous

and generative feedback and honest critiques. I am grateful for Elyse Brazel, who

acted as a studio assistant during the production of Leukocytes’ Nuptials. Thanks

to Dale Gamble for his energy, enthusiasm, and constant moral support and

encouragement. I would like to extend gratitude to Steven Hall, who was very big-

hearted and gracious in helping me create my artwork on the CNC machine.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for all of their substantial

generosity and support. To my loving parents, who have always encouraged and

loved me through everything. To my sister, Katherine, who really understands

what it’s like to write a thesis and commit oneself to the pursuit of research. To

my Nan, who continues to be a gracious patron of my work. To my adoring

partner, Nathan, who never gave up on me, and had unwavering faith in me

when I could not find courage within myself.

! ! vi!! ! !
Introduction

During the Master of Applied Arts program at Emily Carr University, I

continued my life-long pursuit of an inquiry into organic forms, manufactured

ecologies, and ornament inspired by nature. The research produced in and out of

the studio has ferried me from fabricating ambiguously sexed underwater

organisms created in ceramic, fabric, and steel, to a more design oriented

practice focused on the investigation of ornament, pattern, and decoration

through the use of craft materials.

Throughout this paper I explore historical precedents and contemporary

work through the lens of my own practice. The ideas and research in this essay

are informed by my thesis project, and it is for this reason that I discuss specific

parts of the body of work created at Emily Carr University throughout the essay.

The choice to explore the ornament of nature is rooted in a deep formal

appreciation of naturally occurring configurations, such as the meandering veins

in a leaf, the symmetrical arrangement inside of a pomegranate, or the curled

tendril of a fennel head fern. Organic forms have been utilized in past works, but

during this degree the emphasis has shifted to focus on the ornament inherent in

natural structures.

! ! vii!! ! !
Chapter One: Methodology/Method

1.1 An Intuitive Material-Based Process

Before I came to Emily Carr, my practice included a variety of materials,

such as ceramics, textiles, steel, and spray paint. Due to my formalist

undergraduate training, I was initially seduced with rejecting the medium

specificity that Greenberg had instilled in Modernism1. Throughout my graduate

degree, I have continued to explore a variety of media, gravitating towards

disciplines that have been historically associated with craft, such as ceramics and

textiles.

My relationship with Modernism is complicated.2 I was trained to

appreciate the formal qualities in an artwork first and foremost. When I refer to

the word formal, I mean the purely visual aspects of the work such as colour,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Medium specificity holds that "the unique and proper area of competence" for a form of art
corresponds with the ability of an artist to manipulate those features that are "unique to the
nature" of a particular medium, a term that was popularized by Clement Greenberg in his 1960
essay “Modernist Painting”.
2
Modernism, arguably occurring from around 1910 to the mid nineteen seventies, is a term that is
widely debated. Few scholars argue that it began before 1860 and some believe it ended at its
height in 1945. I am using the term to apply to work made between Modernism’s beginnings
during the years of 1860-1910, and maintaining that its height was in the 1960s and 70s. It was
between the 1940s and the 1960s that what is referred to as 'the modernist paradigm' was
beginning to be conceptualized, most notably by the Frankfurt School theoretician Theodor
Adorno and the American intellectual and art critic Clement Greenberg. When I speak of
Modernism, I am most often referring to Greenbergian modernism. For a brief description of the
similarities and differences between Greenberg’s and Adorno’s modernisms, see Petter Osborne,
“Adorno and the Metaphysics of Modernism: The Problem of a “Postmodern Art”, Ed. Andrew
Benjamin, The Problems of Modernity, (Routledge: London, 1989), p. 36.!

! ! 2!! ! !
shape, line, and texture. I was trained as a Formalist, putting these values first

and foremost above any context or content in the work. This is still important to

me, but it is no longer of primary importance. While I still make artwork in which

the visual properties are taken into great consideration, I now believe the artist’s

intent and the concept or content of the work, aside from formal qualities, also

factor significantly into the production of quality art.

Greenberg stated in his essay “Modernist Painting” in 1960 that the

essence of Modernism lay “in the use of characteristic methods of a discipline to

criticize the discipline itself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it

more firmly in its area of competence (Greenberg 85)”. While I agree that certain

mediums have their own strengths and “characteristic methods”, I tend to create

work that denies concrete categorization and subverts the idea of medium

specificity. I do this by encouraging the use of multiple artistic forms: sculpture

displayed as painting, like in Violet Unfurled, (Figure 5), for example. The format

is both square and on the wall, two painterly conventions, but in addition the work

includes a dimensional element which breaks the medium specificity.

Although I disagree with many Modernist credos, my formative upbringing

still left with me an appreciation of the spiritual material practice that was

exercised in Abstract Expressionism. I do agree with Greenberg in his

appreciation that an artwork be explored in a physical and material way. He wrote

about Matisse and Picasso and how they “also appear[ed] to have felt that unless

painting proceeded… in its exploration of the physical, it would stop advancing

! ! 3!! ! !
altogether”(Greenberg 792). Greenberg’s vision favored these artists because

they “conceived of pleasure… in luscious color, rich surfaces, decoratively

inflected design” (Greenberg 792). Experiencing physicality during art making

and also in the finished artwork is central to my practice.

Figure 1: Stephanie Jonsson, Leukocytes’ Nuptials, 2012. Mixed Media. 36" x 36" x 24" Photo:

Stephanie Jonsson. Used by permission of the artist.

! ! 4!! ! !
 During the creation of Solar Powered Plastic Plant (Figure 2), and

Leukocytes’ Nuptials (Figure 1), I become aware of my physical engagement with

the material and my bodily experience. While creating Solar Powered Plastic

Plant (Figure 2), throwing on the wheel meant that both arms were engaged, as I

was pushing hard against the clay and conforming it to my will. These actions

were repetitive: I threw one bowl-like form on the wheel, then another and

another. Each one was slightly different, unique in its imperfections, but similar in

its basic vessel form. As I was manipulating the clay, I was constantly aware of

my body. The strain on my wrists and forearms quickly became painful, and the

pain acted as something that grounded me in my physical being. After some

time, my body became one with the clay, and I started to relax into the process of

throwing. It became meditative.

Figure 2: Stephanie Jonsson, Solar Powered Plastic Plant, 2011 (detail). Ceramic, spray paint
36" x 24" x 2". Photo: Stephanie Jonsson. Used by permission of the artist.

! ! 5!! ! !
 Being embodied in my artistic experience allowed me to reflect on my

bodily experience as a woman and, in turn, feminist perspectives on the body.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre are perhaps the most widely read

phenomenological philosophers. Phenomenology is defined generally as the

study of structures of experience, or consciousness. But it was French

philosopher Simone De Beauvoir (who was co-incidentally Sartre’s unmarried life

partner) who wrote extensively on phenomenology from a feminine perspective.

She agreed with Merleau-Ponty and Sartre that “to be present in the world

implies strictly that there exists a body which is at once a material thing in the

world and a point of view towards the world” (De Beauvoir 39). The fundamental

essence of her account, however, was that this bodily awareness was different

for men and women.

The binary separation of mind and body is often thought of as the

opposition between men and women (Lennon). This is an unfortunate and

problematic assumption, as it regards the female as an embodied being wrapped

up in her physical experience to the point where her rationality is questioned.

Elizabeth Grosz writes in Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism that

“women are somehow more biological, more corporeal, and more natural than

men” (Grosz 14). These gendered stereotypes are not often useful in

approaching phenomenology, but it is hard to deny that male and female

experiences are fundamentally distinct.

! ! 6!! ! !
 When Simone De Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex in 1949, the second

wave of feminism was just beginning. It was in this book that she examined the

notion of women being perceived as "other" in the patriarchal society. Women

have been marginalized for centuries, and although western culture has made

great strides in women’s equality, I would argue that women are often still

overlooked and omitted from many aspects of patriarchal society3.

As a female artist, I identify with a marginalized status and I am drawn

towards methods and materials that are in a peripheral area to more popular and

accepted art forms. The attraction towards craft in my practice is in part a

reaction to my Modernist training. Craft has been generally overlooked by

Modernist artists, designers, and critics alike, and especially in the case of my

Modernist professors.4

In Modernism, fine art that is appreciated purely for its beauty or other

aesthetic virtues is separate and different from making that produces items for

practical use, such as pottery, furniture, or clothing. The latter was assigned the

title “crafts,” and while their usefulness and skill-requirements were applauded,

the creation of a craft object was, and by some critics still is, considered

undoubtedly less of a unique accomplishment than that of a work of fine art.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3!Due to the length restriction of this thesis, I do not have time to explore an in-depth analysis of
feminism’s history and current status. Some suggested reading on feminism in the arts includes:
Wark, Jayne. "The Origins of Feminist Art." Radical Gestures: Feminism and Performance Art in
North America. Montreal: McGill-Queens UP, 2006. 27-57; as well as Robbins, Bruce. "The
Sweatshop Sublime." PMLA: Publication of the Modern Language Association of America 1.1
(2002): 84-98.!
4
Some exceptions would include the critic Harold Rosenberg, and (arguably) ceramic artists
Peter Voulkos, Kenneth Price, and Robert Arneson. Rosenberg’s views on craft are discussed in
more depth in Chapter 3.

! ! 7!! ! !
 The importance of the fine art/craft division for the valuation of women's

creative fabrication is substantial. Although many objects that are created by

males are also rejected from the canon of fine art, historically the objects that

were created by women were marginalized and the traditional domestic arts were

not seen on equal footing with fine arts. This is why there are so few great female

practitioners in the early twentieth century in disciplines such as painting and

sculpture, for example, because women’s place was thought to be in the home

producing domestic wares. These objects were thrust into the category of “craft”,

and the presence of women in the visual arts arena during this time was not as

significant as the frequent contributions of men.

Society tends to marginalize both women and their work. Sadie Plant

notes that “weaving, widely associated with women, has always fallen between

the arts and the sciences, and has rarely been taken seriously” (Plant 256).

Women’s engagement with textiles and the innovations that resulted from this

involvement exceeded the requirement of just providing clothing and shelter for

the family (Plant 257). There is a certain joy involved in the process of weaving.

Plant notes, “there is an obsessive, addictive quality to the spinning of yarn and

the weaving of cloth; a temptation to get fixated and locked into processes which

run away with themselves and those drawn into them” (Plant 257). This addictive

quality is found throughout many crafts, and in my practice it is a way to engage

with my body. The repetitive act of making similar forms allows me to tune into

! ! 8!! ! !
my physical being, creating an acute awareness that comes from a sensual

awakening.

This connection to my body is present across mediums – I am aware of it

when I methodically stitch textiles together (such as in Leukocytes’ Nuptials,

2012), sand wood (such in The Architecture of Ornament, 2011), or throw clay on

the wheel (such as in Mutant Nucleus, 2012). It is also mediated through

technology, as I will often utilize equipment such as the CNC (Computer

Numerical Control) machine, the pottery wheel, or the sewing machine to guide

the manipulation of the materials. I am interested in the differing aesthetics that

machines produce, in contrast to the aesthetics of hand made objects. In my

work, I attempt to fuse these two aesthetics into a hybrid practice that privileges

neither the hand nor the machine.

Figure 3: Stephanie Jonsson, Untitled Wall Piece, 2011. Mixed media, dimensions

variable. Photo: Stephanie Jonsson. Used by permission of the artist.

! ! 9!! ! !
 In the work Untitled Wall Piece (Figure 3), the distinction between the

handmade and the machine is explored. In making this piece, I utilized wood

pieces from another work, The Architecture of Ornament, as a stencil. I then

placed the wood pieces over a slab of clay, and traced out the shapes into the

clay, using the wood as a guide. In the resulting forms you can see the flaws and

trace of the hand very clearly. The edges are rough and bumpy as I chose not to

smooth them down, in order to retain evidence of transformation and process and

the material particularities of each medium. This evidence of process was further

enhanced since many of the pieces broke as they were shrinking and drying,

which gave the sharp edges a fractured, ancient aesthetic. I chose to use these

“happy accidents” as they were reminiscent of a past decorative architecture, the

white glaze giving them a fragile and delicate appearance. In this piece, I allow

the material to behave rather than controlling it.

Building off the painterly conventions I was exploring in previous work, I

intended to mount the work on the gallery wall. I decided to incorporate vinyl as a

machined contrast to the handmade quality of the ceramic elements. By placing

these two aesthetics in close proximity, a noticeable distinction between the laser

cutter’s pristine vinyl and the amorphously fractured clay emerged.

I realize now that my process has always involved my body in an intuitive

response to the material. My work is manifested through the experience of

molding, shaping, stretching, pulling, sanding, cutting, sewing, gluing, clamping,

and tracing. While working with various materials, I intuitively place shapes,

! ! 10!! ! !
colours, and textures together to see if they are formally harmonious. Often the

objects on which I am working will be in close proximity to each other in the

studio, and I will have the impulse to combine them together. For this reason, I

keep a large variety of materials on hand in the studio.

1.2 Ornament and Nature as Source Material

Figure 4: Stephanie Jonsson, Mutant Nucleus, 2011 (detail). Ceramics, fabric, spray

paint. 6.5” x 26” x 26 “. Photo: Stephanie Jonsson. Used by permission of the artist.

As an artist, I do a lot of looking. My eye has been trained to consider

everything formally – from trees to buildings to garbage cans. This keen

! ! 11!! ! !
perceptive skill is at work when I explore the world for source imagery. When I

was pursuing my undergraduate degree, I lived beside the forest and would take

my rabbit for walks every day, sketchbook in hand, and draw the forms I found in

the forest. Sometimes the things I found were rotting and dead. Other times, they

were blooming and flourishing. Through all of this looking, I have found the most

compelling and eye-catching forms exist in nature - they are attractive and I am

inexplicably drawn towards them, even if they appear ugly or disfigured.

It is particularly the ornament in nature that fascinates me and I choose to

artistically engage with these organic embellishments. In the same way that

natural forms can be both alluring and disarming, ornament appropriated from

nature can contain a certain kitsch quality to it. Augustus Pugin, who plays a

significant role in the history of Victorian architecture as a forerunner of the

Gothic revival, was one of the first people who endeavored to characterize what

became known in Germany as kitsch, “the vulgarity appealing to an uneducated

taste (Gombrich 36)”. My work often appropriates kitsch objects as source

imagery. Of course, kitsch is hard to define, and it no longer has a clear-cut

meaning, probably because it’s basically linked with the idea of bad-taste which

is sufficiently vague and equivocal in itself. Greenberg defined kitsch as follows:

Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious

experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but

remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in

! ! 12!! ! !
 the life of our times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers

except their money – not even their time. (Greenberg 12)

This quote gets at the origin of kitsch, but the meaning has changed over

the years, and what Greenberg meant by kitsch is very different from more

contemporary definitions. Curtis Brown defines kitsch as “a mass-produced item

that its purchaser believes endows him with an air of richness, elegance, or

sophistication” (9). This definition of kitsch is also considered derogatory,

symbolizing works created to cater to popular demand only and entirely for

commercial purpose, as opposed to works created as self-expression by an

artist. The relation of kitsch to my work is something I question and consider. In

some ways, my work is not extreme or ironic enough to be kitsch, as is the case

with artists Jeff Koons, Miriam Schapiro, Robert Kushner, and most of the artists

of the Pattern and Decoration movement. However, I look to appropriate nature

and through that translation it becomes kitsch. I also purposefully locate

contemporary objects or images that are already kitsch and use them as source

material. So kitsch is more of an inspiration in my practice, as opposed to an

actual categorization of my work. I consider it an influence both as source

material as well as in the use of digital fabrication tools as a contemporary means

of fabrication of mass-produced objects (in the case of the CNC work). Kitsch is

also conceptual – a way of thinking. I question the relevancy of kitsch to my own

! ! 13!! ! !
practice and consider why decoration and ornamentation often fall into this

category and are consequently perceived as frivolous.

Ornament is not inconsequential or frivolous, as it historically held different

meanings for various cultures. In Victorian times, for example, interior design was

suffocating in its clutter and overly decorative surfaces. This phenomenon was

referred to as horror vacui, a latin term meaning “fear of emptiness”, a term

coined by Italian scholar Mario Praz. The decoration served to ward off evil, as

the devil could get into any architectural space that was not adorned. Horror

Vacui as a visual phenomenon has also been associated with “outsider” art, as is

evidenced in the work of contemporary artist Takashi Murakami, Mark Tobey or

Jean Dubuffet5. It is this asphyxiating ornate atmosphere that I am trying to

overwhelm the viewer with, not unlike the art from the Victorian age.

James Trilling, author of many books on ornament, suggests that

ornament in a contemporary sense has lost its meaning, asserting:

If ornament once had meaning (the argument would run), then it

once had an identifiable and necessary function. We have lost the

meanings, and even the general awareness of meaning

in ornament, and as a result ornament has lost its function and

even become the antithesis of function. But so long as we are able

to recover meanings, we retain at least the ideal of ornament as

! ! 14!! ! !
 something necessary and functional, and there remains at least the

hope of restoring it to this former state. The search for meaning

in ornament may thus be symptomatic both of an unwillingness to

reject ornament altogether and of unease with ornament as a purely

visual phenomenon --a mere elaboration. (Trilling 52)

This phenomenon drives my practice. The disappearance of meaning from

ornament, which has been appropriated from its original source and manipulated

into kitsch, renders it devoid of cultural significance. It is this loss of meaning

through adopted symbols that interests me.

In examining ornament, I am not involved in appropriating the traditional

ornament of a specific culture, as Joyce Kozloff and Neil Forrest are (their

contributions are discussed in more depth later on). I am more concerned with

the ornament that has a traditional cultural source, but has been transformed,

conventionalized, and packaged as consumable imagery. While Forrest is

looking to Islam for a source of his imagery, I am looking to generic ornate

patterns found commercially that speak to a mass produced indulgence in

seemingly natural ornament.

! ! 15!! ! !
Chapter Two

2.1 Ornament, Pattern, Decoration

Figure 5: Stephanie Jonsson, Violet Unfurled, 2010. Ceramic, plywood, spray paint. 60” x 60” x
2”. Photo: Adam Stenhouse. Used by permission of the artist.

! ! 16!! ! !
 Often the terms ornament and decoration are used interchangeably, and

some even claim that ornament and decoration are synonymous (Brolin). A more

contemporary definition from Webster’s dictionary is more succinct, describing

ornament as “something that lends grace or beauty” or “a manner or quality that

adorns.” (“Ornament”). Although it is exceedingly common to use the terms

ornament and decoration interchangeably, it is important not to confuse them, as

they refer to related but are separate things. Art historian John Kresten

Jespersen notes that the Oxford English Dictionary offers a clear distinction

between the two:

essentially ornament refers to the thing acting as an embellishment and

decoration refers to everything which functions as embellishment, which

may or may not include ornament” (Jespersen 12).

Decoration’s agenda, according to Jespersen, is concerned with the

distribution of the ornament in architectural space whereas ornament refers only

to a “specific visual entity” (Jespersen 13).6 In this definition, ornament is a form

of embellishment that is a sub-category of decoration. Decoration is a broader

term that includes ornament, specifically where it embellishes architectural

space.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6!Of course, Jespersen is speaking in the context of architecture, but decoration embellishes
many other things such as objects and images.

! ! 17!! ! !
 Perhaps a deeper, more rigorous definition of these terms is in order.

James Trilling, in his book “Ornament: A Modern Perspective”, defines ornament

as

…separable from the functional shape of the object. If you want to know

whether a particular feature of an object is ornament, try imagining it away.

If the object remains structurally intact, and recognizable, and can still

perform its function, the feature is decoration and may well be ornament.

(Trilling 21)

This is a useful definition to begin thinking about ornament in an applied

sense, especially in terms of architecture and sculptural objects. In addition to its

distinction from decoration, ornament is to be differentiated from pattern, which

the Oxford English Dictionary defines as a repeated decorative design (“Pattern”,

my emphasis). Therefore, ornament and decoration are not synonymous with

pattern, but an ornament may contribute to a pattern by utilizing a repeating

shape, colour, or design element. Patterns are often “integrated, composed of

distinct motifs, orderly and predictable even at their most intricate” (Trilling 9).

Amy Goldin notes that “pattern has traditionally been used to embellish a given

form; rarely, if ever, has it been expected to provide an experience of form in

itself” (Goldin 12). The same can be said of ornament and decoration, they are

usually considered as “extra” or additions to an already existing object. The next

! ! 18!! ! !
section considers the Modernist agenda and how it rendered ornament, pattern

and decoration as arbitrarily extraneous to a successful artwork, ostensibly

removing it from an entire aesthetic sensibility. This was, according to feminist

thinkers, because the decorative was associated with the feminine.

2.2 The Role of Ornament in Modernism

Figure 6: Stephanie Jonsson, The Architecture of Ornament (detail), 2011. Plywood,

spray paint. Variable dimensions. Photo: Elisa Ferrari. Used by permission of the artist.

! ! 19!! ! !
 The modernist rejection of ornament has taught architects, designers, and

critics, especially of the last decade, to appreciate “the beauty of the necessary:

of undisguised materials, unconcealed techniques, and functional form” (Trilling

4). Under the laws of modernist aesthetics, ornament is rendered as unnecessary

and superfluous.

This rejection of ornament can easily be traced back to Aldolf Loos. In

1908, Loos published the essay “Ornament and Crime.” As the manifesto's title

suggests, Loos was highly critical of an ornamental approach to architecture and

design. In this and many other essays he contributed to the elaboration of a body

of theory and criticism on Modernism in architecture. Loos goes so far as to

equate ornament with crime, and says “the evolution of culture is synonymous

with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects” (Loos 168). He asserts that

not only is ornament produced by criminals, but also a crime is committed

through the fact that ornament inflicts serious injury on people’s health, on the

national budget and, hence, on cultural evolution. His argument is primarily one

of economics: “The ornamentor has to work twenty hours to achieve the income

earned by a modern worker in eight” (Loos 170). Reyner Banham, a prolific

architectural critic and writer best known for his book Theory and Design in the

First Machine Age (1960), suggests that Loos’ essay was a significant influence

on the abolishment of decoration in Modernism. Banham states with certainty

that

! ! 20!! ! !
 it is impossible now to imagine how the Modern Movement might have

looked as a decorated style, but it might have been just that, had not its

creators had ringing in their ears Loos’ challenging equation: “Ornament

Equals Crime” (Banham 88).

So strong was Loos’ sentiment, that few have escaped the conversion and

many architects and designers are still ornamentally paralyzed more than a

century later.

Although this abandonment of ornament was first articulated in the realm

of architecture, the general attitude towards ornament following Loos’ harsh

determination created a pervasiveness during Modernism that allowed the idea to

spread to multiple disciplines, including painting, sculpture, and interior design.

My work challenges these Modernist credos and states that ornament is

not insignificant by presenting it as an aesthetic art object – something that

implicitly demands attention and careful consideration. By displaying an

abundance of ornament in the austere white space of the gallery, I hope to

provoke the viewer to re-examine their relationship to ornament and its relevance

in our society today. In many ways, I have posed what seems to be a kind of

nineteen eighties or nineteen nineties set of questions (from the Pattern and

Decoration movement through to the height of post-modernist deconstruction).

Although this line of questioning may seem outdated, it is still relevant to me

personally, given the strict abolition of ornament in my Modernist upbringing.

! ! 21!! ! !
2.3 Ornament and Gender

Cheryl Buckley, an author who has written numerous articles, chapters,

and books on women and gender in design, fashion, and ceramics, notes that

during the early decades of the twentieth century that a decorative vocabulary

was associated with the ‘feminine’:

… the desire by 1930s design critics and historians to narrowly define

modernism in terms of European practices emerged against a backdrop of

social, political and cultural anxiety about gender. In particular there was

widespread fear in the early decades of the century that British culture was

being in some way feminized, infected by a ‘feminine’ sensibility which

was domestic, insular and essentially decorative.” (Buckley 54)

During Modernism’s establishment from 1910 to 1940, the domestic and

the feminine were omitted from art and architecture. Feminist art historian

Whitney Chadwick asserted that decoration had a significant part in the

advancement of Modernist art in the early 1900’s. She also points out, however,

that for artists like Kandinsky, this relationship to the decorative included an

unspoken peril that the abstract, formal language in progress would be read as

‘decorative’ and consequently lack content (Chadwick 237)7. To take this point

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7!Ironically, Kandinsky reproductions are now found as decoration in restaurants.

! ! 22!! ! !
further, author Christopher Reed argues that in addition to the fear of decoration,

there was also a general terror of the

“… domestic, perpetually invoked in order to be denied, [which] remains

throughout the course of modernism a crucial site of anxiety and

subversion”. (Reed 16)

This anxiety around all things feminine and decorative was present in my

undergraduate Modernist training, and the use of overtly feminine patterns in my

practice is a strong response to this formative experience. Although the fear of

ornament is no longer as present as it was during Modernism, it is still relevant to

my practice and important for me to respond to. Artists have reacted to the past

and to their own personal experiences throughout history, and the rationale

behind responding to Modernism in my own practice comes from a deeply

personal place in my relationship with Modernism.

2.4 Ornament in Nature

“Whenever a style of ornament commands universal admiration, it will

always be found in accordance with laws which regulate the distribution of

form in nature”.

- Owen Jones, The Grammar of Ornament, 1856

Ralph Waldo Emerson states that “Nature, in the common sense, refers to

essences unchanged by man; space, the air, the river, the leaf (Emerson 9)”.

! ! 23!! ! !
This nineteenth century view of nature was idealistic, representing nature as a

perfect utopia. It also assumed that humans and things made by them are

considered unique and distinct from nature, and perhaps the source of nature’s

decline. Contemporary Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Zizek does

not think of nature as “a harmonious, organic, balanced, reproducing, almost

living organism”, which is then “disturbed, perturbed, and derailed” through

human intervention (Examined Life). Instead, he suggests that nature is a big

series of unimaginable catastrophes. These events are occasionally contained,

and then they explode again. He suggests that, as humans, “We should not

forget that we are not abstract engineers, theorists who just exploit nature – that

we are part of nature, that nature is our unfathomable, impenetrable background

(Examined Life)”. Considering it in this way, without more generalized

assumptions, allows for different perspectives on potential trajectories towards

thinking about ornament in nature.

When I refer to “nature” or the “natural” in the visual body of work, it

operates as part of something manmade. It is only paradoxical if one subscribes

to the nineteenth century definitions of nature, as something from which we are

separate. My sculpture functions more as part of Zizek’s definition. It does not

distinguish between natural and manmade, but is simultaneously references both

of these things. My work is not nature, but it uses imagery inspired by nature. In

conceptualizing these ideas, however, I tend to think of nature as separate from

things that are manmade, and consent to Emerson’s approach to defining nature.

! ! 24!! ! !
This is an important distinction in the work, as Emerson’s approach is more

binary, and subsequently more defined and less complex. My material practice,

however, is a hybrid of natural imagery and manmade imagery, not one or the

other.

It is fascinating to me when humans appropriate and pervert the natural

world to their own end. Nature throughout history has been a source of inspiration

for artists, designers, and architects alike. David Bret notes that phrases such as

the “laws of nature”, and “the laws of growth”, and “nature’s plan”, are found

throughout the literature in Britain in the nineteenth century, especially where

ornament is involved in botanical design (37). Because of my own interest as well

as the wealth of writing, I am situating much of my research and practice in these

nineteenth century views of ornament and the handmade.

It can be argued that, as far as ornament may stray from natural form, it is

ultimately derived from it. Lewis F. Day in his book, Nature in Ornament (1902),

describes how various trees and plants recall ornament in their structure:

Nature seems to neglect no opportunity; the very scars left on the stems of

certain trees, such as the horse-chestnut, form a kind of decoration. Even

in the scarred stalk of an old cabbage you may see pattern. In the case of

the palm, the remains of the leaves of years past resolve themselves still

more plainly into ornament; and for once the Roman sculptors, who saw

! ! 25!! ! !
 palm-trees growing about them, adopted the idea in the decoration of their

columns.” (Day 17)

The patterns (or repetition of ornament) that natural forms engender have

been an inspiration for British designers for many centuries, and in particular the

field of botanical morphology received a considerable amount of attention in the

early nineteenth century (Bret 38). Leading botanists formed a part of design

teaching called “art-botany”. This was the study of plant forms for the purpose of

decoration, in particular the researching of plant forms and laws that preside over

the character of branches and stems (Bret 38). The study of decoration and

ornament was treated as if it were a natural part of biology – it was examined

through “collection, description and taxonomy” (Bret 38). Flourishing decorative

artists in the 1850s were at an advantage if they also possessed the skills of

practical botanists.

Richard Redgrave, in his "Passages from the Lectures on the Study of

Botany by the Designer”, published in 1850, urged his students to pay close

attention to the form of leaves of various plants, as well as the textures and

colours. He recommended drawing many sorts of leaves, as well as taking casts.

This did not lead to a naturalistic rendering of the plant in question, but rather an

amalgamation of all plants. According to Redgrave, the “true form of the leaf of a

plant is only to be found by comparing many leaves” (Redgrave 98). In this way,

! ! 26!! ! !
the stylistic rendering of the leaf and other forms of nature moved away from

realistic representation to an ornamented and symbolic abstraction of all leaves.

Over time, architects, designers, and artists have started to look less to

nature as a source, and more to a facsimile of a synthetic nature. Lewis Day

comments that during the early nineteenth century, designers were not interested

in capturing a naturalistic representation of a tendril from a plant, rather they were

searching for a form that spoke to a universal plant. Victorian architects and

theorists including A. W. N. Pugin, John Ruskin, Owen Jones, and William Morris

were interested in the conventional aspects of ornament inspired by nature.

Conventionalization was a theory and applied strategy employed by nineteenth

century architects and theorists in their engagement and preoccupation with

ornament in nature. The practice of conventionalization was a stylization of the

leaf ornament. Ralph Wornum, a Victorian librarian, stated in his Analysis of

Design of 1856 that “a plant is said to be conventionally treated when the natural

order of its growth or development is disregarded” (Wornum 15). So, asymmetry

in the veins of a leaf would be abandoned in favor of symmetrical cutouts.

Flatness and geometrical stylization are also seen in Victorian examples of

conventionalization. This reduction or stylization of the plant form in order to

confirm to anthropocentric systems of order is precisely the type of appropriation

in which I am interested.

! ! 27!! ! !
Figure 7: Stephanie Jonsson, Solar Powered Plastic Plant, 2011. Ceramic, spray paint 36" x 24"
x 2". Photo: Stephanie Jonsson. Used by permission of the artist.

In Solar Powered Plastic Plant (Figure 7), a work I produced in 2011, the

stenciled spray paint is a striking bright green, a colour that would not normally

! ! 28!! ! !
be found in nature. The bulbous ceramic elements appear similarly round but not

uniform, as if they were a naturally occurring structure like a wasp’s nest or coral.

The vines and tendrils that surround the structure are stylized and conform to a

(logical) symmetry that neatly frames the three dimensional element of the work.

This composition of perfectly round tendrils, not found in nature, is contrasted

with the organic splatter of spray paint where the form meets the edge of the

stencil. The object is at once referencing nature and things fabricated by humans,

utilizing natural imagery through manmade materials.

Chapter Three: Craft

3.1 Breaking down Binaries: Craft and Art

Craft as a concept is as complex as ornament or decoration. Bruce

Metcalf defines craft as having four simultaneous characteristics in his essay

“Replacing the Myth of Modernism”, originally published in 1993 (5). First, Metcalf

asserts, craft is usually made substantially by hand. Second, craft is medium

specific: it is always identified with a material and the technologies invented to

manipulate it. For example, ceramics, woodworking, metalsmithing, and weaving

are all disciplines specific to a medium and its mastery. Third, craft is defined by

use. Craft disciplines are traditional groupings of functional objects – jewelry,

clothing, furniture, pottery, etc. Importantly, Metcalf has a limiting statement here:

! ! 29!! ! !
craft in his definition does not include manufactured objects like small appliances,

airplanes, or telephone equipment. Fourth, craft is defined by its past. Each of the

craft disciplines has a multicultural history that is recorded mostly in the form of

objects, many from societies that have long since disappeared (5).

There are many good reasons for challenging Modernism in relation to

craft, or vice versa, namely the continued marginalization of craft within many

cultural institutions (Alfoldy xxi ). Garth Clark asks whether or not ceramics was

involved or made a significant addition to the history of the Avant-Garde of the

fine arts majority in the first half of the twentieth century. In his book, Shards, he

questions this and ponders why ceramics as a discipline was never

acknowledged as a participant during this time, if it did make a contribution at all

(Clark 330). Furthermore, Clark wonders, if ceramics was never a part of the

Avant-Garde of the fine arts mainstream, then why was it not included in this

dialogue? The lack of critical writing in the case of some well-known ceramic

artists such as Kim Dickey is evidence that craft has a marginalized position in

contemporary critical discourse. Historically, it illustrates a shift in attitude over

the years. In my own practice, I have shown in both traditional fine art galleries as

well as galleries dedicated solely to craft. My work exists in a liminal space that

consciously attempts to defy these definitions of craft and art.

During the nineteenth century the contemporary understanding of craft as

marginalized practice was fully articulated. Sandra Alfoldy, a writer on

contemporary craft, notes that “the ‘mechanical arts’ gave way to the terms

! ! 30!! ! !
‘handicrafts’, ‘minor arts’, ‘lesser arts’ and ‘applied arts’, and the ideas of the

design reformers Augustus Pugin, John Ruskin and William Morris laid the

foundations for the twentieth-century craft movement” (Alfoldy xvi – xvii).

Contemporary craft discourse is still wrestling with how to situate the Modernist

criticism of Greenberg, a sworn enemy of craft. In his 1939 essay “Avant Garde

and Kitsch,” Greenberg examines the relationship between aesthetic experience

and individual, social, and historical contexts. He made efforts to separate

everyday objects, including utilitarian crafts, from avant-garde art (Alfoldy xx). In

his keynote address to the First International Ceramics Symposium at Syracuse

University in 1979, however, Greenberg admits in his earlier writing, he “…did in

the past give in, as other people have, to the notion that ceramics was largely

craft, and that craft was just craft” (Greenberg 3). He goes on to say that society

should accept “ceramics proper” into “sculpture proper”, essentially eliminating

the lines between fine art and craft (Greenberg 5).

Sandra Alfoldy agrees that it is time to rethink our easy dismissal of critics

like Greenberg, and our association of crafts with all things anti-modern. She

maintains that although Greenberg, in his early writing, marginalized work that

utilized craft materials, he eventually decided to embrace craft. In addition, many

of his Modernist peers were in support of craft as a discipline. According to

Alfoldy, the art critic Harold Rosenberg, predominantly in his art criticism, invited

the crafts to be part of modern art discourse (xxi). In his talk, “Art and Work”,

Rosenberg addresses the First Wold Congress of Craftsmen in New York in

! ! 31!! ! !
1964, stating that “…the fine artist and the inventive craftsman are

indistinguishable from each other. It is regrettable that an inherited hierarchy

makes it more desirable to be an artist than an artisan” (Rosenberg 427). He

goes on to refer to the arts and crafts interchangeably, giving them equal footing

in the critical discourse.

More recently, formalism is no longer the dominating force it once was.

Postmodern craft artists have brought about a variety of conceptual reformations

that often place the formal qualities of the work as secondary to the concept. I will

discuss their contribution later.

In addition, a more contemporary definition of craft does not necessarily

include specificity to material as it once did. Many contemporary artists use craft

materials in their work, demonstrating how hierarchies are less rigid. Garth Clark

asserts that there is a paradigm shift and that “the notion of a single-medium

artist is under threat” (Clark 352). Art education is in Europe and the United

States are doing away with medium specialties and changing in favour of a cross

disciplinary pluralism in which any and all media are part of the combination.

Artists who employ craft strategies and materials do not seem to be fighting

against the marginalization of craft as much as they were even ten years ago.

Hierarchies are shifting to include craft in the contemporary art scene.

Ai Wei Wei’s recent exhibition, titled “Sunflower Seeds”, was exhibited at

the Tate Modern in 2010. The installation, consisting of millions of handmade

porcelain sunflower seeds, incorporated craft materials in a contemporary gallery

! ! 32!! ! !
setting. It was a particularly publicized event, partially due to the political actions

that followed the exhibition and the dust residue of the materials, but it proved to

be a revealing instance of the inclusion of craft into the art gallery. This

generalized shift in hierarchies has been formative in my practice and

considerations of what defines craft. A variety of materials are currently accepted

in a broader context with increasing frequency, and clay, for example, is not

necessarily synonymous with craft any longer.

3.2 Three case studies

Craft has emerged from its marginalized position. I am particularly

interested in this phenomenon as well as the inherent friction between fine art

and craft. More recently, Metcalf’s definition of craft and its four characteristics

have shifted: now it seems that specific materials are being freed of associations

with a particular discipline.

Neil Forrest, Kim Dickey, and Cal Lane are three artists who each address

ornament in their work through the use of craft mediums such as ceramics and

metalsmithing. I am intrigued by these artistic practices as they inform the

exploration of ornament in my own work.

! ! 33!! ! !
 Figure 8: Neil Forrest, Hiving Mesh, 1999 – 02. Mixed Media, dimensions variable. Photo: Neil
Forrest. Used by permission of the artist.

Neil Forrest uses various systems of interconnecting ceramic nodes that

hang suspended in the air, creating both a wall and a matrix of linking elements.

His piece, Hiving Mesh (Figure 8), is generated as dimensional ornament that is

inspired by the distinctive curves of arabesque and muqarna of Islamic

ornamentation. Forrest’s porcelain scaffolds, resembling coral environments,

represent ceramic ornament in response to contemporary architecture. Unlike

Forrest, I do not use overt architectural references, but in the example of Corner

Piece, 2011 (Figure 9), I explore how my work can fit into a specific architectural

space by using materials of the surrounding environment (such as concrete).

This particular piece was built to fit into a corner perfectly. This experiment in

concrete was a departure from the trajectory of my previous practice because it

! ! 34!! ! !
was incredibly unassuming. I wanted the work to blend into the architecture and

critique the space, instead of overpowering it. The piece surprises the viewer

because it is unexpected, nestled into the corner and occupies a very

unimportant part of the gallery floor.!!

Figure 9: Stephanie Jonsson, Corner Piece, 2011. Concrete, ¾” x 18” x 13”. Photo: Stephanie
Jonsson. Used by permission of the artist.

Ornament has traditionally been treated as a surface design, something

that is applied to a structure as an afterthought. If we recall James Trilling’s

definition of ornament, it asks the viewer to try imagining the ornament away.

According to Trilling, “if the object remains structurally intact, and recognizable,

! ! 35!! ! !
and can still perform its function, the feature is decoration and may well be

ornament” (Trilling 21). This definition becomes problematic when the ornament

is embedded into and integral to the structure of the object, and cannot be

imagined away without altering the form. In his work, Forrest is

[…] looking at ways to detach ornament from its conventional role

as skin, then dimensionalize it. This is a space that interlocks in

order to support itself, independent of architecture's tectonics.

Using the metaphor of colony, multi-layered ceramic fragments plug

in to their neighbours, creating an artificial experience from

patterned space. (Forrest 4)

In this way, the artist uses veiled and dimensional sculpture to alter three-

dimensional space, working against the concept of ornament as applied as a

decorative surface.

A second ceramic artist with architectural inclinations informing my interest

in ornament is Kim Dickey. In a recent exhibition in Denver, Colorado called "All

Is Leaf," Dickey alludes to the architectural elements of a formal garden. Her

constructions of artificial gardens in clay contain leaves that are not botanically

correct. Instead they are descendants of stylized leaves, such as the quatrefoil,

found throughout decorative-arts history. In this exhibition, Dickey also references

specific Minimalist forms. Her sculptural ceramics allude directly to Robert Morris’

! ! 36!! ! !
structures from 1964, Those works were derived from basic construction

elements, such as an L beam or plank (MacMillan 1). Minimalism removed

ornament from its streamlined and simple sculptural forms, and Dickey's

postmodern defiance of those intentions is similar to my own artistic response to

Minimalism.

Dickey’s use of the quatrefoil has another parallel in my work, as I often

incorporate stylized forms of nature that are generic in appearance. The imagery

she uses of flora and fauna mimic nature, but the resulting sculpture has an

overall geometric shape. She uses many compartmentalized and discrete

modular ceramic elements that are similar in size, shape and colour to create an

overall pattern in her walls, such as in Inverted L Beam #2 (Figure 10).

Figure 10, Kim Dickey, Inverted L Beam #2, 2011. Aluminum, glazed terra cotta, silicon, and

rubber grommets. Photo: Kim Dickey. Used by permission of the artist.

! ! 37!! ! !
 The methodology by which Dickey employs repeated elements in her work

to construct a sculptural wall of leaves is not unlike Neil Forrest’s use of the

modular wall. While Dickey creates a solid mass of wall that is impenetrable,

Forrest’s work produces a veiled dimension and an ornamentation that pierces

three-dimensional space. In my ceramic artwork, I use ornament to compose a

field that mounts on the wall or floor. Like these examples by Forrest and Dickey,

my pieces are dependent on the architectural structures surrounding them. My

sculptures physically rely on the walls and floors of the space, and in the case of

my thesis project, pierce through the gallery wall.

Finally, the last artist I would like to examine is Cal Lane. The work of Cal

Lane shifts traditionally female ornate sources such as doilies and tablecloths

onto metal tools and objects which are traditionally gendered male8. She calls to

mind all things feminine with her lace cutouts: lacemaking, cake decorating and

traditional “women’s work” (Pomerance 1). Using a plasma torch, Lane makes

lace like patterns out of rusted metal objects such as shovels, cars, or other

industrial tools and transforms them into fragile, flower-patterned cutouts (Figure

11). Lane “wields an industrial blowtorch as if it were a crochet hook”, rendering

the tools useless by their decorative patterning (Driedger 40).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8!Due to the word limit, I cannot go into detail on traditional gender roles and gender in my work.!

! ! 38!! ! !
 Figure 11: Cal Lane, 5 Shovels, 2005. Oxy-acetylene cut steel shovels, dimensions variable.
Photo: Cal Lane. Used by permission of the artist.,

Her work is handmade, and involves a great degree of manual labour

(Pomerance 1). The repetitive and obsessive act of tracing lace on to the metal,

then painstakingly cutting out each piece pays homage to the handmade cakes

and tablecloths that inspire her sculptures. Like Lane, my work often utilizes floral

imagery and has the same rough around the edges quality. In my practice,

decidedly feminine patterns are strongly juxtaposed against hard steel and

plywood surfaces. Similar to Lane, my practice is equally obsessive, as I will

often repeat the same pattern over and over, cutting the imagery out of clay and

creating a stencil. Our work shares an interest in the handmade, craft, and ornate

imagery. There is a visual contradiction in Lane’s work, the rusted metal objects

are at once attractive and repulsive. In my own practice, I aim to conjure up this

kind of response, repelling the viewer with gaudy colours while simultaneously

compelling them to take a deeper look by utilizing captivating curvilinear forms.

! ! 39!! ! !
 My practice is a response to my Modernist artistic education, celebrating a

departure from the Modernist ideals of sparing form, material, surface and

authorship. In my work, I interrupt the austere white cube of the gallery by

inserting an overwhelming and all encompassing ornament into it. This is a

continuation of the ideas and goals set forth by Joyce Kozloff and the artists of

the Pattern and Decoration movement of the seventies and eighties. In

generating work that sits in an uncomfortable space between painting, sculpture

and installation, I am attempting to rupture the grid by disassembling and re-

assembling source patterns into objects that recall aging architectural details,

broken Victorian porcelain or crumbling modernist ideologies. The ceramic pieces

are fractured and dismantled, similar to the work of Neil Forrest and Kim Dickey.

These pieces respond to the architectural elements in which they are installed,

spreading out along the length of a wall, into the corners of rooms and onto the

floor.

Figure 12: Stephanie Jonsson, 35 Ceramic Square, 2011. Ceramic, 60” x 60” Photo: Stephanie

Jonsson. Used by permission of the artist.

! ! 40!! ! !
 I have attempted here to demonstrate how the concepts of craft,

ornament, and Modernism have been embedded in my practice and how some of

these terms have shifted over time. Through an introduction to three examples of

influence (Neil Forrest, Kim Dickey and Cal Lane), I am positioning my work

within a historical and contemporary context.

Summary

My time at Emily Carr University allowed me to develop a deeper

relationship with content and multifaceted critical thinking in my practice. The

thesis work has pushed the idea of adopting organic, natural forms to a more

considered use of ornament, pattern and decoration. At this point in my practice, I

think about how appropriating this imagery impacts the reading of the work. I am

more aware of conscious choices around which specific patterns I appropriate,

and their cultural significance.

I now question the rules and principles of Modernism critically, while

maintaining a practice that appreciates formalism. My thinking has changed, and

I subsequently consider the intellectual reasons behind my aesthetic choices to

be driven by the concept of the work in tandem with purely aesthetic

considerations, not dominated solely by the latter.

My inquisitions into the status and history of craft have opened up a new

area of research that I was not familiar with before this degree. This has

! ! 41!! ! !
consequentially helped me to understand myself as a gendered visual artist

working with craft. My intention moving forward is to continue using an organic

visual vocabulary in craft techniques, with a focus on the feminine and domestic

labour. I am currently working on a piece that utilizes laser-cut felt, incorporating

an obfuscated William Morris pattern that was transformed and altered from the

original source through a happy accident. I would like to move more towards

installations and environments that overwhelm the entire gallery space and build

off of pre-existing architectural structures. I endeavour to continue working with

craft materials and sculptural objects that hang on the wall and fall to the floor.

Another objective in the future will be to appropriate historical patterns and

ornament from the past that once had a specific function, removing them from

their original context.

The evolution of my work during this degree and the development of my

practice have led me to delve further into ornament, which was only a small part

of my past practice. I could not have anticipated the meandering path that I have

taken to get to this point in my expedition, a journey that my fascination with

ornament in nature has truly provoked and encouraged.

! ! 42!! ! !
 Works Cited

Alfoldy, Sandra. Introduction. NeoCraft: Modernity and the Crafts. Ed. Sandra

Alfoldy. Halifax: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design,

2007. xiv–xxii. Print.

Banham, Reyner. “Ornament and Crime: The Decisive Contribution of Adolf

Loos.” Architectural Review 121, Feb. 1957: 85–88. Print.

Bernstein, Fred A. “Turning Steel Into Lace.” New York Times, 30 Dec, 2007:

Habitat. Web.

Brett, David. “Design Reform and the Laws of Nature”. Design Issues, 11:3,

(Autumn, 1995): 41–50. Print.

Brolin, Brent C. Flight of fancy: the banishment and return of ornament. New

York: St. Martin's Press, 1985.

Brown, Curtis F. Star-spangled Kitsch: An Astounding and Tastelessly Illustrated

Exploration of the Bawdy, Gaudy, Shoddy Mass-Art Culture in This Grand

Land of Ours. New York: Universe Books, 1975. Print.

Buckley, Cheryl. “The decorated object: gender, modernism and the design of

industrial ceramics in Britain in the 1930s.” Eds. Bridget Elliott and Janice

Helland. Women Artists and the Decorative Arts 1880–1935: The gender of

ornament. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2002. 53–69. Print.

Chadwick, Whitney. Women, Art and Society. London: Thames and Hudson,

1990. Print.

! ! 43!! ! !
Clark, Garth. Shards: Garth Clark on Ceramic Art. Ed. John Pagliaro. New York,

NY: Distributed Art Publications, 2003. Print.

Clark, T. J. “Clement Greenberg’s Theory of Art”. Critical Inquiry. 9:1 (1982): 139

–156. Web.

Day, Lewis F. Nature in Ornament: An Enquiry Into the Natural Element in

Ornamental Design and a Survey of the Ornamental Treatment of Natural

Forms. London: T. Batsford, 94 High Hoborn, 1902. Web.

De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex, London: Jonathan Cape. 1953. Print.

Del Vecchio, Mark. "What Postmodern is Not!” SOFA New York Sculptural

Objects and Functional Art (Annual International Exposition of Sculpture

Objects & Functional Art, 7th Annual). New York: Expressions of Culture-

NY, Inc.,!2004. Print.

Driedger, Sharon Doyle. “Ten Artists Who Rock.” Maclean's, 12 Jan. 2004: 40–

44. Print.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Nature. Germany: Random House, 1929. Print.

Examined Life. Writ. / Dir. Astra Taylor. Zeitgeist Films, 2008. Film.

Forrest, Neil. “A Sublime Congestion: Colonizing Architecture.” Challenging Craft

International Conference, Gray’s School of Art, Aberdeen, n.p. September

2004. Web.

Goldin, Amy. "Pattern & Print." Print Collector's Newsletter IX (Mar.–Apr. 1978):

10–13. Print.

! ! 44!! ! !
Gombrich, Ernst Hans. The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of

Decorative Art. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1979. Print.!

Green, Alison. “Utopias and Universals.” Art Monthly 265 April 2003: 7–10. Print.

Greenberg, Clement. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch.” Perceptions and Judgements,

1939–1944. Ed. John O'Brian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1986:

5–22. Print.

--- “Art.” Nation. 29 Jun 1946, 162:26, 792–793. Web

Grosz, Elizabeth, Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism, 1994. London:

Routledge. Print.

Jespersen, John Kresten. "Owen Jones and the Conventionalization of

Ornament." Library Faculty and Staff Publications, Office of the Library

Director, 1988. Rhode Island College. Web.

Johnston, Patricia. Joyce Kozloff: Visionary Ornament. Boston: Boston University

Art Gallery. 1985. Print.

Lennon, Kathleen, "Feminist Perspectives on the Body", The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2010. Web.

Loos, Aldolph. Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays. Ed. Adolph Opel.

Riverside, CA: Ariadne Press, 1997. Print.

MacMillan, Kyle. “Art review: Kim Dickey’s Gardens of the Mind at Rule Gallery.”

The Denver Post 2 Nov.2011. Print.

! ! 45!! ! !
Metcalf, Bruce. “Replacing the Myth of Modernism.” NeoCraft: Modernity and the

Crafts. Ed. Sandra Alfoldy. Halifax: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of

Art and Design, 2007. 4–32. Print.

O’Brian, John. "Critics: Clement Greenberg's Defense of Material Pleasure," Ed.

John O’Brian. Ruthless Hedonism: The American Reception of Matisse.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999: 173–91.

Pagila, Michael. “Kim Dickey’s All Is Leaf Creates A Spectacular Winter Garden

at Rule.” Denver Westword Arts 23 Feb. 2011. Print.

Plant, Sadie. "Ada Lovelace and the Loom of Life." The Object of Labor: Art,

Cloth and Cultural Production. Ed. Joan Livingstone and John Ploof.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. 255–64. Print.

Pomerance, Shelley. “Car Bombing: Cal Lane.” Metalsmith 28:2 (2008): 50. Print.

Redgrave, Richard. "Passages from the Lectures on the Study of Botany by the

Designer; delivered by the head of the School of Design," Journal of Design

and Manufactures 3 (1850): 97–100. Web.

Reed, Christopher, Ed. Not at Home: The Suppression of Domesticity in Modern

Art and Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 1996. Print.

Rosenberg, Harold. “Art and Work.” The Craft Reader. Ed. Glen Adamson. New

York: Berg, 2010. 424–429. Print.

Trilling, James. “’Meaning’ and Meanings in Ornament: In Search of Universals.”

Raritan 12.4 (1993): 52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Aug. 2012.

! ! 46!! ! !
Trilling, James. Ornament: A Modern Perspective. Seattle: University of

Washington Press, 2003. Print.

Wornum, Ralph J. Analysis of Design. London: Chapman and Hall, 1856. Print.

! ! 47!! ! !