On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:01:17 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 31/03/2013 3:41 PM, graham wrote:
>
>>>> I think you missed the whole point of the article and interactive.
>>>> It is about art, and craft.
>>>> Nobody said the bowls had to be used for food although many are if you
>>>> read the captions.
>>>
>>> I didn't go though it very carefully. I thought the reason it was
>>> posted was they were supposed to hold food and that's why I went
>>> there. None I saw were shown with food, all looked like some pot
>>> throwers idea of art and I thought everything I saw was butt ugly, so
>>> I had no incentive to read about them or look any more thoroughly.
>>>
>> So you don't know much about art, but you know what you like{;-)
>
>
>I suppose some people confuse form and function. When one is talking
>about a bowl it is not big stretch to assume they are referring to a
>function piece of kitchenware. IMO, a bowl is something that should be
>used.... for something, rather than just an objet d'art. To make a bowl
>that really can't be used as a bowl is IMO, silly. There are some
>beautiful bowls around that are useful as bowls. The others are just props.

There are plenty of artsy fartsy bowls used for food, they are just
not touted as mixing bowls. I have several very fancy bowls that I
use for serving candy, nuts, etc.