These pieces are incredible! The most interesting part about Ruth's work is the amount of contrast that is included in the display of these pieces. The overall forms contrast each other because the pieces tend to have a somewhat smoothe shape, and then some sort of sharp or jagged piece is added to the smoothe from. In addition to shape contrast, the colors contrast from the very first pictures becasue the one is black and the other is white. I really like the fourth piece due to the more sculptural esapect of the piece.

I enjoy the structure and fluidity of the pieces, but in terms of my personal opinion of the art itself, I find it too boring. The lack of color degrades the quality and visual satisfaction from the work--although some may argue it highlights particular contrasts. Overall, I don't like the work or the themes of the pieces; however, I can see how some my love the pieces. Sam loves them for the sharp contrasts in color, shape, and texture. I, on the other hand, see pieces without meaning, color, or emotion. The blank pieces reveal nothing more to me than the blank emotion of the artist. Although this may be a little too harsh, I genuinely can't relate to the pieces or their messages. For me, the abstract ideas and shapes of Duckworth blurs with inadequacey and inablility. I find no value within these pieces.

Ruth had a very interesting background that influenced her greatly. She was a german jew during the second world war, so she left to go to england when she was nineteen. she then made ammunition and worked on her art. apparently she is influenced by european modernism, although i am not sure what that implies. any help?
Over all I think her work is interesting. I think my favorite is the porcelain cup being bisected by the plane of porcelain. It is interesting how she basically destroyed the cup by doing this, but in doing so, I think she created a very visually interesting piece. I agreed in some ways that color would be nice until I realized that actually in m opinion color would ruin the pieces. I like the simplicity of the color of the pieces as well as the texture, in that it contrasts nicely with movement in the pieces. I think that is what I like most about the pieces, they make your eye move, they are not static in any way. My favorite as far as movement goes is the wall installation that has the balls in it. I think that pout of all of the pieces this one made my eyes move the most. overall interesting work that I would most likely not buy, one because they are way out of my price range and two because I am not a big fan of sculptural pieces.

The shape of these pieces are very unique and how the pieces flow is also very nice. However there are to boring for my taste. With out color or glaze these pieces seem almost depressing it like looking at something not quite finished, but maybe that is the point, to make you wonder, but I doubt it. These is no emotion in these pieces no life, you couldn't spend a lot of time looking at them you would lose interest. If sculpture serves no other function than to look interesting, you would want it to be interesting.

I really like the monotone color and matte finish of her pieces. I also like how they seem really clean, and how smooth the lines are.I don't really understand how they are suppose to look archaic, because they all look very modern to me, but i still like them. I find them interesting, but in a different way from the last artist. They are pleasing to the eye with out being overly complex, which i a really admire.

I agree with Tess that the pieces all look modern, but I disagree that they are complex. To me, the point of the pieces are supposed to be so subtle and simple that they provide the audience with a more tantalizing message. However, I also agree with Ellen that sculptural pieces are not 'my bag.' I find the message convoluted and the expression of the idea uninteresting. Although they provide a unique style of art and clay, these are siimply pieces I would never buy.

Now that I read Tess's comments I understand why black and white works for me in these pieces. Describing the pieces as clean is exactly why I like them. They seem pristine and crisp, and perfect just as they are. they remind me of a starched white shirt, but the shirt that hangs in the closet that you never wear cus it is too clean and perfect and yet really really simple. Thats what these pieces remind me of. Especially the porcelain cups.

I agree with David the pieces are far to boring with out there being any color to the work it loses the flow of the pieces and the boldness.

really crazy sculptural pieces =0 These pieces contain a high level of confusing aspects which would fit in great with my own artist statement. I love how she plays with her shapes but i wish she would try to experiment with different surfaces because all of her pieces are smooth. Ruthhh is good at what she does and i like the shapes she is able to create! I also like the colors she uses (white and Black) because they are very simple but make the piece seem very elegant, formal, and they seem to stand out. The only thing i would say I don't enjoy of her work is the 3rd sculpture looks VERY fragile and weak which i dont think is a good aspect in 3D artwork. The point of 3D art is so you can touch it but it seems that we couldn't touch some of her pieces. Overall pretty good work!

I like what everyone said about the pieces "flowing" i definitely see it! It's amazing that she is able to put two awkward shapes together and yet they still flow together, COOL technique!

These pieces are very interesting.Their structures have such amzing aspects. A genuine artistic identity was represented with a true capacity to integrate form. Plain and simple colors maximize the capacity of his pieces to show their real dimension; lights and shadows apparently display their depth without us having to worry about complicated glaze. Besides, I personally think that this simplicity leaves audieces to add more colorful imagination into these pieces.

I agree with David that they are supposed to be so subtle and simple that they provide the audience with a more tantalizing message but I disagree that they are boring. I think they have done a great job sending the message.

I am a little late on my responses here but I think I'm just going to write about my opinions and then write a separate paragraph in response to what other people have said. First of all I really like the geometric aspect of this work as well as the simplicity. The pieces are obviously not functional and I would say they are almost a little too simple or almost boring to be purely sculptural. I think the artist could really improve her work by some experiments with physics, to increase unique balances. Looking at these pieces as sculpture actually really frustrates me, I think that I just really disagree with the artist's "eye" for design. I like that the pieces are black and white, I think it adds to them vs. taking away. I like the piece that is supposed to hang on the wall more than the others because I think it is interesting the way the artist shaped the clay to show contrast between light and dark.

I agree with Ellen and Tess the black and white really add to these pieces. I really disagree with alex and whoever else is saying the pieces flow, I think that is exactly what the artist should try to avoid, and the mixture of flowing and non-flowing is I think what bothers me. I think the pieces would be so much more interesting if they were not intended to flow together but rather to create contrasts. In a way good ceramics work is similar to other 2-D work like photography, contrast is what makes things work, and what grabs our attention.