Dear Kunde:

If the ceramic piece transmits a message, the concepts of form and content may be applied as in the study of any other work of art. If not, the relevant dichotomy would be form/function. Often all three concepts, form, content, and function, may apply. (These reflections may also be applied to the study of architecture.)

A ceramic product like an artisanal, original (typical) enterprise handcraft or like an artistic creation maybe considered.

 It would  be classified as an enterprise product or an artistic and creative product. Legal rules are almost different in the two cases.

In the analyses of ceramics (it doesn´t matter if it´s some prehistoric pottery, or present work of some folk artist, or contemporary ceramics) is one crucial moment, I think, or at least in the use of term “form” and “content”. Theory of Aesthetics gives a lot of explanations what does these terms mean; although there are some similar generalizations, there are also some differences, and so if you want to use both terms properly, you must not forget to work with term “structure”. It´s wider notion, and it´s not entirely on the side of “form” either on side of “content” but it could give you bigger picture and it represent the ideal way how to work with both terms, because this is the way how to solve discrepancies in the research. Currently I am thinking of structure as it was defined by C. L. Strauss, J. Mukařovský, or with the use of term “monads” by J. M. Lotman. And I must say, that I find it quiet interesting to look at prehistoric artifacts (in my case, or on the ceramics in your case) with perspective of “monads” as the “forms generating the meaning”. In researching of contemporary ceramics, I think is still very important to read cultural specifics, which are a big part of so usually called content, Because if you want to solve its meaning (content create it), if there´s any, you need to consider its relation to cultural traditions. It may sound, as we look and just read the meaning of content (in semantically meaning) but is more like iconological interpretation with all the lack that create a big wave of criticism.

I completely agree with Mr. Wright-Carr that the analyses of function is really important. For example (according to my research) you understand pottery with cult status and pottery of daily use totally different and connecting to this issue, the form and content makes total different meaning. We can also understand content as fulfilling the purpose of ceramics, and so we can see content and function in the same line, but not as the same.

@ David, Monica and Lukas, thank you very much for your contributions. It is indeed invaluable to giving a conceptual direction to the research. The issue of function is quite important but I need a deeper and diversify approach to viewing it within the context of how form and content can be effectively utilize to understand the meaning and function of contemporary ceramics designs as opposed to the traditional pottery made for other reasons like rituals, sacrifices, etc. 

That is very interesting. This approach is not adequately supported by the literature

Hi Kunde, I mostly agree with the other contributors, but I am missing one important consideration that is typical for any craft product, which is of course craftsmanship. For most craftsmen and women, the process of making is not just using a particular skill, it is also showing the level of virtuosity one has reached in a particular craft. Wether it is working at a potter wheel, or slip casting or modeling, all these technologies have their own limitations and often the craftsperson chooses to use these limitations by sometimes working within their limits, and other times  to develop new methods that challenge the existing limitations. Like function, these considerations contribute to the form. I am not pretending that it is a major factor, but it certainly plays a role and any analysis of the form should include, I think, an evaluation of how difficult the production is and to what extend the form is the result of a self imposed challenge of the maker. I will continue to read the comments and i am looking forward to more.  

The traditional dichotomy of "art" (a modern and contemporary social construct) and "craft" reflects a historical, social, and cultural bias with elitist and eurocentric connotations. Aesthetic experience is much more profound and central to human experience that many theoreticians of "art" appear to grasp. If we look at the evolutionary underpinnings of aesthetic experience, certain universal concepts (for example: pareidolia, symmetry, geometric harmony, and the appreciation of chromatic intensity and contrast) come to our attention.

The potential for aesthetic experience is universal and has no economic, ethnic,  or cultural boundaries. Much of what pretends to be "art history," "art criticism," and "asthetic theory" needs to be rewritten -and respoken- in the light of contemporary, historical, and prehistoric reality.

Thus ceramic objects may be viewed on an equal footing with objects created within any other creative alignment of materials/techniques/form/etc. What really matters is the impact of the aesthetic object (or act) on the embodied mind of the person experiencing the object (or act).

A transdisciplinary approach, grounded in critical reasoning, based on sound evidence, and taking our emotional reality into account, may provide a fruitful path for acheiving a deeper understanding of our collective experiences.

Understanding aesthetic experience is fundamental to becoming aware of our nature as human beings, interacting with our cosmic, geographic, biological, social, and bodily contexts.