In late 2000, Slovenia officially shut down its last manufacturer of ceramics. Despite a few subsequent attempts at reviving the industry it never quite recovered and never managed to integrate with modern directions in art and design.
 What’s the reason that the ceramics industry failed? Several factors, e.g. the country’s small size, the cheap cost of imports, and the uncompetitive nature of Slovenian wares in international markets, all inhibited the ceramics industry from keeping up with the pace dictated by modern, globalized production. Even though the collapse of the ceramics industry might at first glance come across as insignificant for such a small country, an unfortunate set of circumstances without other far-ranging effects on society, the economy, and design in general, in truth the consequences were direr than they perhaps seem. The vacuum remaining after that industry’s collapse left a wide wake, with effects still tangible today. It was not merely the end of the country’s self-sufficiency as regards ceramic products, but also heralded a change in who made ceramics and how, not to mention the drastic plunge in the quality of finished goods. Product designers were left with no recourse for realizing their visions, resulting in brain drain, as they sought production opportunities abroad. The lack of production capabilities also simply meant a lot of well-designed projects never made it out of the conceptual phase or were subsequently produced in a different medium. What production remained after the industry’s collapse was undertaken by individuals, both by those who were formally trained in fine arts and by those already working with ceramics at the amateur level. This open field that was now accessible to anyone, whether they were qualified or not, was promoted by local fairs and later by the internet. It remains problematic, as it still lacks any sense of curatorship or qualified assessment, untouched as it is by theoretically qualified experts; there is no sieve to filter out the talented artists from the saturated flood of goods, leaving laypeople to view the excellent next to the mediocre, or, put simply, art and design from merely fired clay. Aesthetic rules have become lax, mistakes and inconsistencies have been championed as side effects of artistic expression, and technically poor wares have been promoted as unique artwork. The industry’s collapse also signified a break in the continual transmission of technological knowledge; not just within the industry, where workers ensured that new recruits mastered the old skills, but also within individual institutions. Students lack opportunities for internships or apprenticeships, and further lack true collaboration with experienced and talented manufacturers that are capable of realizing large-scale projects.
The end of the ceramics industry in Slovenia can therefore be understood as a broad problem that affects not only the economy but also the evolution and development of aesthetic expressions.  But, twenty years down the road, what is the heritage of the lost industry? What are the successful practices and approaches individuals took to balance creativity, innovation, production and good design?