A Research Experience on Reception and Audience Attitudes toward Ceramic Art


  • Ayşe Güler Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University




Arts, Art of Ceramic, Aesthetics, Audience, Reception Aesthetics.


Ceramic, began to be recognized as an art phenomenon at the beginning of the 20th century. Although having developed in a way similar to the development process of modern arts up to today, within the same span of time and with the same value, debates have continued about its recognition and being accepted as a true art form. This study, designed as an experimental research project, was conducted to counteract against biased approaches detrimental to the development of ceramic art and to acquire evidence on how to make ceramic art popular as an art function for individuals and social culture. Within the scope of the project, the interests in and knowledge of art in general and ceramic art in particular, as well as the aesthetic experiences of 168 audience members were inquired into via face-to-face questionnaires, which were administered at four solo ceramic exhibitions held in Istanbul and Ankara. Responses to the questionnaire – prepared based on art, ceramic art, reception theory, reception semiotics and art ontology perspectives – were important in terms of revealing the attitudes of audiences toward art and works of art and the problems between the work and audience response, the identification of which is valid for not only ceramic art but also other art branches. According to the results of the questionnaire that the audience members used to evaluate themselves, they had an interest in art in general and ceramic art in particular, but only a few of them actually had a reception experience.

Author Biography

  • Ayşe Güler, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University
    She is working as an associate professor in the division of ceramics@glass, Faculty of Fine Arts, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey.


Acar, B. (2008). Alımlama Kültürü. ARTİST actual, 11, 40-41.

Ataöv, T. (2014, October 16). The questionnaire form filling by him at the “In Vain” exhibition. It is an archive document of the mentioned project in this article.

Beittel, K. R. (2017). Clay as Elemental Wholeness. In A. Livingstone&K. Petrie (Eds.), The Ceramics Reader (pp.14-17). London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

Brown, G. R. (2009). Ceramics Pluralism Diversity of Practice and the Role of Criticism. Ceramics: Art and Perception, 78, 43-47.

Brown, G. R. (2009). Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, Professionalism and Perspective. Ceramics: Art and Perception, 75, 109.

Clarck, G. (1994). Alev Ebuzziya Siesyby’nin Yalınlaştırılmış Seramikleri. Çev. Z. Rona, Sanattan Yansımalar- 5 (pp. 162-167). İstanbul: YEM Yayınları.

Çağan, K. (2006). Sanat Sosyolojisinin İmkânına ve İnşasına Dair. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (2), 11-31. Retrieved from: http://dergipark.gov.tr/bilgisosyal/issue/29118/311506.

Derinlikler Sanat Merkezi. (2014, February 28). Otar Sharabidze Seramik Sergisi. Retrieved from the Derinlikler Sanat Merkezi website: http://www.derinliklerart.com/2014/02/otar-sharabidze-seramik-sergisi/.

Eco, U. (1991). Alımlama Göstergebilimi. Çev. S. Rifat. İstanbul: Düzlem Yayınları.

Eco, U. (1997). Yorum ve Aşırı Yorum. Çev. K. Atakay, 2. Basım. İstanbul: Can Yayınları.

Elif Aydoğdu Ağatekin, (2014, October 16). Online Catalog. Retrieved from: http://www.ozguraydogdu.com.

Elif Aydoğdu Ağatekin (2018, December). Lebriz Artist Pages (2000-2018). Retrieved from: http://lebriz.com.

Erman, D.O. (2012). The Evolution of Turkish Ceramic Art: The Dance of Earth with Fire. ACTA TURCICA Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies, Year IV, No 1. 29-30. Retrieved from: http://www.beylerbeyidernegi.com/uploads/iv_02.pdf.

Fariello, M. A. (2005). “Reading” the Language of Objects. In M.A. Fariello & P. Owen (Eds.), Objects Meaning (pp. 148-173). Maryland, United States of America: Scarecrow Press, INC.

Higby, W. (2008). If the Taj Mahal was made of Glass. Material Matters (pp. 1, 11-12). Alfred, United States of America: Division of Ceramic Art School of Art&Design New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University.

İpşiroğlu N. (2001). Alımlama Boyutları ve Çeşitlemeleri - Resim. İstanbul: Papürüs.

Güler, A. (2014, February 10). Interwiev with Şirin Koçak. Unpublished project report, 2011/153. Çanakkale, Turkey: Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.

Material Matters (2008). “Gertraud Möhwald”, (pp. 36-37). Alfred, USA: Fosdick Nelson Gallery, Division of Ceramic Art School of Art&Design New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University.

Moran, B. (2002). Edebiyat Kuramları ve Eleştiri. 7. Baskı. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

Palmer Museum of Art Previous Exhibitions, (2018, December 21). Retrieved from: http://gallery.arts.psu.edu/items/show/95.

Paz, O. (1995). Yay ve Lir Şiir Nedir?. Birinci Basım. İstanbul: Era Şiir Kütüphanesi. +

Perreault, J. (2005). Crafts is Art: Tampering with Power. In M.A. Fariello & P. Owen (Eds.), Objects Meaning (pp. 68-88). Maryland, USA: Scarecrow Press, INC.

Rawson, P. (1984). Ceramics. USA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Stiles, K. and Selz, P. (2012). Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art A Sourcebook of Artists’ Writings. Second Edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Tizgöl, K. (2014, January 23). Şirin Koçak Özeskici Ceramic Exhibition Press Release. Retrieved from: http://sirinkocakceramics.blogspot.com.

Tröndle, M., Tschacher, W. (2016). Art Affinity Influences Art Reception (in the Eye of the Beholder). Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 34(1), 74–102. doi: 10.1177/0276237415621187.

Tschacher W., Bergomi, C., & Tröndle, M. (2015). The Art Affinity Index (AAI): An Instrument to Assess Art Relation and Art Knowledge. Empirical Studies of the Arts, Vol. 33(2), 161–174. doi: 10.1177/0276237415594709.

Tunalı, İ. (2005). Estetik. 9. Basım, İstanbul:Remzi Kitabevi.

Tunalı, İ. (1971). Sanat Ontolojisi. 2. Baskı. İstanbul: İÜ, Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.

Turay, A. (1996). Poet of the Earth and Sun Attila Galatalı. İstanbul: Çanakkale Seramik Fabrikaları A.Ş.

Üstünipek, M. (2014). Comments. “IRONY” Complicated Matters (p.16). İstanbul: Mas Matbaacılık San. ve Tic. A.Ş.

Young, J.O. (2010). Art and the Educated Audience. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 44, No. 3, 29-42. doi: 10.5406/jaesteduc.44.3.0029.







Similar Articles

1-10 of 331

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.