Museums

Bloody Bloody Boudoir Ladies: Turning Kitsch Ceramics Into Horror

by Allison Meier on December 11, 2013

Jessica Harrison, "Amanda" (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, “Amanda” (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint (all images courtesy the artist and the Museum of Arts and Design)

Edinburgh-based artist Jessica Harrison transforms the collectible ceramic ladies that populate grandmothers’ china cabinets into spectacles of gore. These elegant abominations are now on view at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York as part of Body & Soul: New International Ceramics, the first of a series of exhibitions highlighting different materials to mark the museum’s fifth year at its Columbus Circle home. Body & Soul is centered on the human figure in contemporary ceramics, and as the exhibition text notes: “Through clay the figure becomes the catalyst for addressing the emotional impact of contemporary pressures that confront our society today.”

However, the found figures in Harrison’s work are mass-produced, the personal emotion of clay-work eschewed in favor of a machine process. Through Harrison’s alterations some of that emotion of the body returns, although in a very visceral way. And that’s meant quite literally: the collectible ladies cradle their spilled guts or present their extracted hearts while maintaining cheery visages.

Jessica Harrison, "Tiffany" and "Clare," both (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, “Tiffany” and “Clare,” both (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

There is quite a bit of blood and horror in Body & Soul, which was curated by Wendy Tarlow Kaplan and includes 25 international artists. Marc Alberghina has a figure pummeled with bloody human hearts, Kate MacDowell’s jumbled porcelain “Daphne” shows the Greek nymph cut down like a tree, Saverio Lucariello has severed heads in an earthenware dish filled to the brim with fruits and vegetables, and Mounir Fatmi has a whole team of ceramic skulls sporting hard hats. For an art form that has so traditionally been about dainty perfection, contemporary ceramics seem to be embracing the messy and macabre.

Jessica Harrison, "Karen" (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, “Karen” (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Harrison in particular has a rather unsettling take on this with her series of ghastly ladies, the ones on view in MAD just being her most recent. She’s also crafted “skin” furniture complete with real sprouting human hair (ideal decor for the salon of the uncanny valley), a miniature piano full of red tongues, and, um, used fly legs as fake eyelashes. In contrast to some of this prior work, her figurines in this show — with their severed heads dripping on their petticoats, wearing neck wounds like just another fine necklace — seem rather refined. But their slasher-movie carnage rips through the fiction of mass-produced sophistication. Although they still have their own kind of lurid kitsch, one that would probably play nice with a McFarlane action figure collection.

Jessica Harrison, "Emma" and "Tippy," both (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, “Emma” and “Tippy,” both (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Her work is similar to that of artists like Barnaby Barford, who remixes mass-produced ceramic figures into reflections of contemporary life, like a little street urchin from the 19th century chowing down on a Happy Meal, or Carole Epp, who rips apart collectibles to reveal seedy secrets. There’s a major sense of play in all this ceramic collectible carving, but also something revealing, especially in Harrison’s work, of reclaiming the real body of a bloody human being in the porcelain.

Jessica Harrison, "Andrea" (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, “Andrea” (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, "Ethel" (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, “Ethel” (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, "Isobel" (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Jessica Harrison, “Isobel” (2013), Found ceramic, epoxy resin putty, enamel paint

Body & Soul: New International Ceramics continues at the Museum of Arts and Design (2 Columbus Circle, Upper West Side) through March 2.  

  • Subscribe to the Hyperallergic newsletter!

Hyperallergic welcomes comments and a lively discussion, but comments are moderated after being posted. For more details please read our comment policy.
  • http://artlovelight.com/ Katana Leigh

    This feels too derivative of Shary Boyle, only less nuanced. Still beautiful.

    • http://hragv.com Hrag Vartanian

      I believe they are contemporary so it’s not fair to call her work derivative. These works are recent but many are older.

      • http://artlovelight.com/ Katana Leigh

        Shary Boyle is also contemporary and a quick google search for Shary Boyle porcelain will show porcelain figures with amputated limbs and heads etc from just a few years back. So I think it is fair to call it derivative because it is not original – although I do believe its possible for two different people to come up with similar ideas in the same time period without seeing each other’s work, I feel that the world of porcelain is small enough that this artist would definitely have seen Shary Boyle’s work and has not done anything to differentiate this work from Shary’s work. It’s not a bad thing; I just think the artist has some expanding to do to have her own vision.

        • http://hragv.com Hrag Vartanian

          I think you misunderstood my point. Harrison has been working like this since at least 2010. Perhaps it is a riff but I do think they feel very different, no? Also Burnaby Barford has been doing similar experiments with porcelain since the early aughts: http://www.barnabybarford.co.uk/image_gallery/node/77 The question of precedent and influence is also a difficult one.

          • http://artlovelight.com/ Katana Leigh

            Good point. And thank you – I did misunderstand your point. :)

    • Zombie Prep Network

      You’re derivative.

    • sfsilver

      I can’t believe we’re engaged in a discussion of who thought up grotesque porcelain first. Frankly Boyle’s work lacks the subtle elegance and restraint of Harrison. Harrison’s work more closely aligns to the twee nature of her source and says something far deeper about the exploitation of women and their own collusion in that exploitation. Boyle’s work is all Grand Guignol and baroque excess (not a bad thing). It’s message seems far less targeted. They are both communicating very different things in their work and they have very distinctive styles within the same general medium. Harrison is no more derivative of Boyle than Michelangelo was of Da Vinci.

      • Syd

        Blabbity blah. Are you typing while sipping a glass of red wine with a translucent garnet colour, gentle fruit musings on the mid pallet and finishes of charcoal and light tannins?

        • bizenya

          *nods*
          Bunch of pretentious gits.

        • marcforte

          Are you typing while slouched on a dirty sofa in front of Eastenders eating a stale kebab and vomiting special brew down your shirt?

          • http://hragv.com Hrag Vartanian

            I have to say that these comments are getting very vivid.

        • Paul Gauthier

          what a pretentious comment.

      • Michael Finlan

        “Grand Guignol” is what came to mind, when I read your post.

    • http://www.cafepress.com/thebikestop Roy Crisman

      Perhaps “altered toys, figurines, and kitsch” is a genre that multiple people can work in, independent of ‘who started it’?

  • Hayley West

    Penny Byrne is an Australian artist who also works with these porcelain figurines, although more political

  • http://www.OcularJoyFoundation.com/ Tim Kent

    YES!

  • Cpt_Justice

    I hope these aren’t expensive pieces originally…

  • jonquimbly

    As they’re all women, all self-mutilating… is this misogynistic?

    • Beatrix S.L

      A female artist made them.

      • glumazon

        Women can’t be misogynistic?

        • Beatrix S.L

          They can, but calling these pieces “misogynistic” is a joke.

    • http://www.cafepress.com/thebikestop Roy Crisman

      “Ethel” seems to be enacting the final panel of the old social commentary comic about burlesque/stripping and the male gaze, though she is still clothed.

  • Kent Latimer

    Here’s one way I’m juxtaposing with found ceramic. From a line of lampshades I’m designing, of wiffle balls and zip ties. What a freaky collaboration we would be!

    • Cat Weaver

      Seriously? Is this the place for self-promo?

      • jonquimbly

        Yes, it can be, given how narrow the field and genre.

    • jonquimbly

      Great piece, love it.

  • Ms Brown

    I think its interesting to see other interpretations of a process…
    to call something derivative is just plain avoiding the ole’ Death of the Author argument…

    Here’s a Penny Byrne work, here’s a link http://www.artcollector.net.au/PennyByrneTheporcelainvandal

    quite different in concept, but similar in process…

  • scottydoesntknow

    Yeah, that’s pretty cool

  • Vaso Kay

    This is so lovely!

  • Dan Time Wyld

    This entire thread is dirivitive of the classy dump I took this morning. The level of class I bring to such a grotesque act by wiping myself with a pinky out technique can be summed up with one word…

    Elegant

  • Amber Arkel

    I would absolutely love one of these!

  • Carol Eaton

    When it comes to art I’m naive and have no formal education or background. I just know what like or dislike. I think Harrison’s work is brilliant and thought provoking. Funny thing is that I’ve been doing similar work for 30+ years with ceramic statues of Jesus and Mary. I alter them with a Day of the Dead theme. Maybe someone will discover my artwork someday….LOL!!!!

  • Cat Weaver

    Hit me square in the adolescent funnybone. Still suppresssing laughter.

  • jonquimbly

    So it’s not okay to ask a simple question? Ah. Okay then. I’ll shut my mouth and sit quietly like a good little boy.

    The problem is, you took my question as accusation. it wasn’t.

    • equinoxa

      Sorry if it seemed like that, maybe I should have said more. I felt your comment could have been either way. On the internet and in life, I am surrounded by easily offended people who talk constantly about misogyny and leaned toward reading it as an accusatory tone.

      I, too, was only asking a question. I had wondered if someone would be horrified by the possibly misogynistic display (I wasn’t sure if you were), and thought your relevant comment would be an OK place to put it.

Previous post:

Next post: