Favorite object | Favorite object
11
home,page-template,page-template-full_width,page-template-full_width-php,page,page-id-11,woocommerce-no-js,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-title-hidden,qode_grid_1300,footer_responsive_adv,columns-4,qode-theme-ver-16.9,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.5,vc_responsive
91L49WQAcuL

How to Make Cement Vessel: Footsteps

Having plants at home is no longer the exclusive privilege of those who live in places with immense backyards. In fact, the trend is now the urban jungle, that is, fill even the smallest green apartments. Combining this with the other fashion, that of DIY , we come to a very current issue: how to make a cement pot?

If you are considering indulging in urban jungles and want modern vases, there is no better option. So to further embellish your decor , here we will take a step by step how to make cement vase! In addition, we have also selected over 30 images of these objects to inspire you to make several different models.

Simple cement potting tutorial

Now let’s go to the cement potting tutorial. To make this decor item that is super high and that can be used inside and outside the home, you will need the following materials:

  • Mortar

  • Water

  • Shovel or trowel

  • Cooking oil or petroleum jelly

  • Pots of different sizes

  • Sandpaper

  • Ink

  • Brush

2326
Vases sold
120
New designs
7854
Site visit
8765
Satisfied customers
green-glass-vase-1970s-3

This leads us to the practice of ceramics

In the essay The work of art in the age of its technical reproducibility, Walter Benjamin celebrated the wonders of reproduction technologies such as photography and printing, as an extreme subversion of the cult of originality in art and the foundations of bourgeois taste and hegemony. It may seem that Benjamin’s theses contain a certain truth, because in the nineteenth century photography has effectively removed the prerogative of portraiture to nobility, spreading it among the masses as it had never been able to paint, and seemed to have replaced mechanically the hand of ‘artist. In fact, these means had freed the making of images from the fallibility and tyranny of the artist’s touch. But did they do it completely? Has photography really managed to remove the human element from the construction of images or even to extinguish our desire for the artist’s hand? Even when it appeared, in the middle of the 19th century, it was clear that technical reproducibility would not have replaced the human factor in the manufacture of images or eliminated the artist’s hand.
The camera did not act alone, without the intervention and control of the man. Someone had to prepare the apparatus, arrange the subject, frame the image from an angle and according to a particular atmosphere and then treat the raw image with a margin sufficient to manipulate it or to intervene “by hand”. it was clear that technical reproducibility would not replace the human factor in the manufacture of images or the artist’s hand. The camera did not act alone, without the intervention and control of the man. Someone had to prepare the apparatus, arrange the subject, frame the image from an angle and according to a particular atmosphere and then treat the raw image with a margin sufficient to manipulate it or to intervene “by hand”. it was clear that technical reproducibility would not replace the human factor in the manufacture of images or the artist’s hand. The camera did not act alone, without the intervention and control of the man. Someone had to prepare the apparatus, arrange the subject, frame the image from an angle and according to a particular atmosphere and then treat the raw image with a margin sufficient to manipulate it or to intervene “by hand”.
The mechanical reproduction has saved the manufacture of images from the decline of the painting of the late ‘700, but has neither replaced the hand of the artist, nor appeased the desire to see evidence of the action of man in art. At the beginning of the ‘900 a new movement arose that contributed even more to the revival of the idea that art could do without the artist’s hand. The Conceptualism spread the conviction that in the artistic process the mental factor was more important than the manual one, in other words that the artist no longer had to work or build to create works of art, but that he could realize them with the same skill thanks to the action of the will. Pushing much further than they had done photography or mechanical reproduction, the conceptual approach infused a very serious blow to what the West recognized as art. Almost a century has passed since 1913, fromBicycle wheelby Marcel Duchamp. Throughout this time, we have witnessed several manifestations of the new liberty brought into art by conceptualism. At the same time, this freedom has also given rise to innumerable controversy, as the unmade bed exhibited at the Tate Gallery in London has recently shown, or the neon lights that led an artist not long ago to the victory of the prestigious Turner Prize. . These last manifestations of conceptual art, naturally, have not raised any less controversy than those aroused by Duchamp’s pieces at the beginning of the 1900s, which could lead us to think that, after all, things have not changed much. The raising of the artist from an artisan to an intellectual has not revolutionized the world. One might therefore ask whether all the years spent and all the controversy caused by conceptual art and mechanical reproduction have really contributed to reduce, not to say to eliminate, our desire for a proof of the presence of the artist’s hand. No, really! You could risk it as an answer. The next question, perhaps more important, then is: why does the question of the hand of the artist fascinate us so much? Now, let’s go for example to visit an exhibition by Picasso or Van Gogh: we stop in front of the paintings and observe the brushstrokes.
ec7c9af1709a63e9613a0164a0082733

The practice of ceramics

We firmly set the signatures. We imagine how the work could be when it was still on the easel, as it was in the artist’s studio, the simplicity with which it was begun. We focus and try to enter with the imagination in the alleged world of the artist, insinuating us in his environment. In the end, when the imagination has set in motion, we identify with the process and the moment of the creation of the work. Or, let’s go and see an ancient or medieval monolith, or thepity, or a sculpture by Henry Moore: the first thing that comes to mind is how they were engraved, or merged, even as they were taken from their place of origin to their current location. We think about the process of their manual manufacturing: we think about how they were made. Only at a later stage, we wonder how they were conceived or even what they want to say. We can argue that we fix ourselves on the proof of the presence of the artist’s hand because the work also has a material value or because that presence demonstrates authenticity, because it is what makes us distinguish the original from the fake or from the copy and, in doing so, it elevates the work above the daily. But this, in the first place, does not explain why we value originality and singularity. What is the profound meaning of the human factor, beyond its link with the market value of a work? The artists would say that the artist’s hand reveals something that is peculiar to creation. That speaks to us fundamentally about that ability that makes us special compared to other species, as creatures also capable of creating. In his poetryGood Morning, America, the great American poet Carl Sandburg highlights the mystery of the human species: “that two-legged jester … Man” builds flying machines and buildings that reach the sky, to touch the eye of God with his finger. Needless to say, this egotistical inclination has also led to unspeakable angst, experienced with the recent collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center in New York. However, we are the only species that aspires to deifying know-how. We create and our ability to create makes us similar to the gods. Now, the hand of the artist is the best proof of our being able to replace the divinity: we give value, above all other things, to everything we create manually because this reminds us – reassuring us about it – our resemblance to the of. The copy does not offer us this reassurance, nor do the events of nature or the simple objects found, until we have moved, modified, relocated to redefine them and appreciate them better; until we have invested them with a proof of our presence. Therefore, when we look for the trace of the artist’s hand, we seek the testimony of the hand of God. It is for this reason that, in spite of all the forecasts and declarations that have decreed its end, painting is still alive today and has the same importance it had at the time of the caves, which dates back to our common origin. until we have invested them with a proof of our presence. Therefore, when we look for the trace of the artist’s hand, we seek the testimony of the hand of God. It is for this reason that, in spite of all the forecasts and declarations that have decreed its end, painting is still alive today and has the same importance it had at the time of the caves, which dates back to our common origin. until we have invested them with a proof of our presence. Therefore, when we look for the trace of the artist’s hand, we seek the testimony of the hand of God. It is for this reason that, in spite of all the forecasts and declarations that have decreed its end, painting is still alive today and has the same importance it had at the time of the caves, which dates back to our common origin.
This leads us to the practice of ceramics. I firmly believe that it is very difficult to find another process, or a means, able to provide us with a more evident proof of the artist’s hand, and even of his proximity to the gods, of the art produced with clay. Working the clay, manipulating and transforming the raw earth, this informal and malleable, almost living matter, of which we ourselves are composed, transforming it from its shapeless state into something recognizable, is what leads us to be closer to that moment original in which, according to all the myths of creation, we were formed from nothing, becoming supreme beings. In the African myths of creation, familiar to me, the creators’ gods sat down with a heap of clay like a potter’s wheel, and they formed our first ancestors precisely with the same fallibility of the potter working on the lathe. In the Yoruba myths, Obatala, the creator god, after several days of work gave way to fatigue and began to drink, thus beginning to lose strokes and to create albinos and infirm.
belgian-art-deco-vase-by-charles-catteau-for-keramis-1920s-7

A primitive period of formation, culminating with the geometric style

By Greek art (from the name of Attic- Beotic populations Graes, Graikoi, extended from the Latins to all the Hellenes) means the art produced by the Greek-speaking populations in peninsular and continental Greece, in the Aegean islands and in the colonies populated by Greeks established on the coasts of Asia Minor, the Black Sea, Sicily, of southern Italy and other Mediterranean locations, from the age of migrations of these populations in the basin of the Aegean Sea; then, after the conquests of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), in the Hellenized territories of Anatolia, Syria and Egypt, until the full subjugation of those territories under Roman rule, practically from 130 to 31 a. C. (battle of Azio). Although the recent decipherment of the writing of the Mycenaean age (“linear B”Minoan – Mycenaean , art ). Actually art g. it begins its autonomous and coherent development only after the end of the Mycenaean age, and (although some precedents are noticeable since the twelfth century), it can be said that this development can be followed from 1000 BC. C. until the vulgar era.
Considering therefore the Mycenaean art, the great subdivisions of art g. are the following: training period (1000-650 BC), archaic and severe period (650-450 BC), classical period (450-326 BC, the so-called “golden age”), Hellenistic period (325-30 BC, approximately from the death of Alexander the Great to the battle of Azio). These four great subdivisions can be maintained only for educational and reference convenience; a better historical and critical understanding requires a different articulation, not only more detailed, but also with a different definition value. We will therefore have to distinguish a primitive period of formation, culminating with the geometric style (the 150-750 BC) geometric , style , geometric ,), a proto-Corinthian and proto-attic style (750-680 BC, v. protoattici , vases , protocorinzi , vases ), a dedàlico style (68o-610 BC, v. Dedalo ) a style of full archaism (610-530) and mature archaism (530-480 BC). The following period, called the severe style (480-450), is nowadays considered rather belonging to classical art than to archaic art. Moreover, the two periods of classical art are clearly distinguished, with a different evaluation, the one that still belongs to the fifth century, the fidiac and post-fidelity style (450-400) and the fourth-century style, articulated in large and different personalities of the sculptors Skopas, Prassitele, Lisippo. Also in Hellenistic art (see Hellenism) at least three periods are distinguished: those of the Lisippo school; of the Baroque of Samothrace, Rhodes and Pergamum and of the Alexandrian style; of eclectic classicism and naturalism. But especially for this Hellenistic phase the subdivisions may vary according to the criteria that the authors follow to define and to localize the various artistic tendencies of this period. The most elementary and most convenient distinction is that in early Hellenism (325-230 BC), middle Hellenism (230-170 BC) and late Hellenism (170-30 BC). For the formal continuity of art g. in the Roman era, starting from 100 a. C., v. Roman , art .
84UqmuDgpuUO-EEpVVYIS1CBiquy_qtI