Two-faced rhetoric and false assumptions: Signs of replicated past terms for discussion in museum catalogues

As art-criticism plays a crucial role in constructing stereotypes, the two-faced rhetoric used by writers when they discuss successful ceramic artists has reaffirmed the marginality of ceramics as art and fostered ceramic art stereotypes. By and large, individuals who write about such artists tend to replicate decades-old terms of discussion and make false assumptions to reinforce their arguments, rather than developing a contemporary discourse that expands the boundaries of taste and knowledge. Although these ceramic artists are noted as being “exceptional,” the writers are apparently reluctant to describe their unique contribution to the field. Rather, they use such trite expressions as “rejecting the standards of the ceramic medium” and being able to “speak the language of art” without any elaboration on the context of their creations. Furthermore, they never refer to historical changes and developments in Israeli ceramics but continue to characterize the field as stagnant.