Kopijavimas ir kartotė: Plėviakojo vs Lauhano istorija keramikoje

LTStraipsnyje analizuojamos pasikartojimo ir kopijavimo galimybės keramikoje, tai yra keliamas klausimas, kokiu būdu, perkėlus šias veiklas į meninę praktiką, tampa (ne)įmanoma meno kartotę pateikti kaip originalų meno kūrinį? Klausiama, ar galima nekuriant jokio naujo estetinio turinio sukurti originalų darbą? Kopijavimas tiriamas pasitelkus kiniškos keramikos pakartojimą, europinio porceliano išradimo ir spontaniško piešinio mokymosi kartojimą, taip pat per žiedimo formų pakartojimą ir pačią žiedimo praktiką. Reikšminiai žodžiai: kopijavimas, kartotė, padirbinys, keramikos istorija, porceliano istorija.

ENThe article is concerned with copying and imitation in ceramic art, i.e. it looks into how these activities applied in artistic practice make it (im)possible for an imitation to qualify as an original artwork. The question is raised whether original work is possible without creating any new aesthetic content. The analysis of copying focuses on such practices as imitation of Chinese ceramics, mimicking involved in the invention of European porcelain and in the learning technique of spontaneous drawing as well as repetition of shapes in pottery making. Copying of Chinese ceramics, a common practice in Europe, has survived to this day; for example, tiled stoves at the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania have been restored in this manner. Research into the potential of porcelain imitation led me to create a collection of vases entitled Pinniped vs Louhan. I attempted triple replication and re-created the vases. While questioning the idea of newness in art, I find that copying, as a specific research method, ensures major opportunities for investigation. By appropriating or making use of someone else’s artwork in order to give it a different, personal meaning, one can open up infinite possibilities for reconstructing works of art. Keywords: copying, imitation/mimicking, fake, history of ceramics, history of porcelain.