[johnchristopher]

I recently had a conversation with a friend about that, it's a pet peeve of mine. My angle is that looking at a picture, a painting, I can have a rough idea of what it felt like to produce it (because at some point or another I draw a doodle or tried drawing). Ditto for dancing or singing. But sculpture seems different. I am separated from sculptures in two ways: first I don't have the experience of sculpting so I am not connected to the experience of creating a sculpture (what the artist experienced, granted I never can but I don't even have a rough idea) ; secondly I can't touch the piece of art, it's really rare when you are allowed to touch the sculpture or the installation and I think it's something that doesn't happen with paintings or dancing. The art of painting and dancing are more accessible to me just by watching but sculpting escapes me.

I think my feeling is that I believe I'd appreciate sculptures more if I could touch them. I don't need to touch a painting or a dancer to appreciate them. It's visual for me (and kinetic for the dancer). Sculptures are visual but I think I am missing out by not being able to touch them.

[tompottery2024]

so, quickly, most pots are made of two materials, a glaze and a clay body; the sound a pot makes when you strike it is a good proxy for the fit of these two materials... if you looked into this in detail you would discover that the larger North American audience has little understanding of good vs bad ceramics which makes it difficult to sell high quality ceramics here. The asian market is much better attuned to what make a pot good vs bad

[the_af]

Pretty good take!

I'll add that, as someone who likes seeing the brush strokes in a painting up close, I'd enjoy being able to touch the texture of the painting (if it was allowed and this didn't damage the painting, which sadly it does).