Ceramic is a soft and malleable material that changes into a hard and fragile substance by firing. On the contrary, metal is a hard and resistant material that becomes soft and malleable in the process of firing. Our understanding of facts and phenomena is based on which of their existential layers?
My concern is to challenge the primary superficial interpretations of the matters in our surrounding by making certain tools in the hands of men into ceramic objects, while they seem unusual in the hands of women. These tools are often considered masculine, severe, functional and important, but they lose their functionality when juxtaposed with a feminine and fragile material. Now which of our interpretations define the identity of such tools? Is it our understanding of the material or functionality? Is it the gender backgrounds? … Which one plays a stronger role?
Maybe our minds need to put the usual interpretations of subjects away in order to perceive other cognitive layers and experience new attitudes in them.