Contemporary Art vs. Crafts Movement - Essay Example

Contemporary Art vs. Crafts Movement There has been a great deal of debate in recent years regarding the concept of art as it is opposed to craft. Various definitions and implications have been brought forward, such as the explanation offered by Mary Rayme (2006): “A craft is usually a cookie-cutter or close-ended activity. The craft activity is based on a formula or recipe and all participants follow the same directions and end up with roughly the same result every time.” This is contrasted with her definition of art in which “the results of the project will create many different drawings and therefore many different solutions to the same problem. While the end result may not always be considered art, the possibility of creating an original drawing that transcends it’s parameters and materials is always possible, and that, to me, is the definition of art” (Rayme, 2006). Others define the difference based upon distinctions of whether something is intended merely to suggest thought and ideas or is instead intended to serve a particular function as well as remain aesthetically pleasing. “People still debate the relative value of art made to be used (crafts and design), and art made to be contemplated (painting, drawing and sculpture). It’s the utilitarian versus the high art tradition” (Jefferson, 2005). As these definitions might suggest, there is no easy, one-size-fits-all solution to distinguishing between arts and crafts, yet it remains equally clear that there is a difference. Understanding the current debate between arts and crafts can provide several points of assistance to a high school level arts instructor in helping students recognize true talent from mere accident. Charles Lewton-Brain (2004) provides a helpful run-down of the various ways in which art and craft have been distinguished from each other. Somewhat jokingly, he indicates that one difference between art and craft is about $3,000, but more seriously suggests that the difference can be found in the intent. “The Canadian Professional Relations tribunal, after spending months on the question decided that ‘artists self-designate’, that for legal purposes you are an artist if you say you are or a craftsperson if you say you are” (Lewton-Brain, 2004). As was mentioned previously, another distinction between art and craft seems to fall along the reason for the object’s existence. “If you can wear it or put peanuts into it is craft” (Lewton-Brain, 2004), but art is something that exists purely for its own sake. Attempting to illustrate the difference between art and craft, Dennis Stevens (2007) compares a mask made of Nike products created by Canadian sculptor Brian Jurgen with a blown glass African-style mask created by Seattle artist William Morris. In comparing these two works, Stevens says “these are both sculptural works that are derivative of traditional objects from native cultures used in daily life and ritual, which we later, as purveyors of ‘good taste’ transformed into art objects through commodity fetishism, collecting and contextualization as art” (2007). However, Jurgen’s piece, utilizing a re-contextualized consumer product in an archaic form “gave it a new meaning which comments upon commodities, global consumerism and identity through its materiality” (Stevens, 2007). Morris’ design, using a culturally unsymbolic material and the cultural concepts of another cultural group, contributes nothing to the greater understanding. “This piece is considered collectable due to a fetishism of technical virtuosity and the appropriation of culture, artifact, mythology and aura; all of which are put into the direct service of economic gain. As these objects go into the world and continue to give us nothing back, craft will continue on it’s downhill slide” (Stevens, 2007). Through this illustration, Stevens distinguishes art as being something of value to the general discourse of humanity while craft is something that does little more than chase monetary gain. Two basic concepts regarding the defining characteristics of art include the concept that art exists for art’s sake and the concept that art exists as a means of furthering communication among men. Oscar Wilde defined art as something that should have as its primary purpose to be a true, sincere and uncorrupted communication of an artist’s vision. “A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman” (Wilde, 1891). Thus, art for art’s sake really equates to an abandonment of all the traditional rules regarding art and a focus on the experience, the intent, of creating. Further, Tolstoy defined art as being an essential element of human discourse. The art touches a string of resonance within an audience and thus spurs conversation into the elements that the artist portrayed. Having established a reason for art, Tolstoy is able to define three essential characteristics of art: “The presence in various degrees of these three conditions – individuality, clearness, and sincerity – decides the merit of a work of art as art, apart from subject matter. All works of art take rank of merit according to the degree in which they fulfill the first, the second, and the third of these conditions … in all possible degrees and combinations” (Tolstoy cited in Van Camp, 2006). These definitions continuously neglect to rule out the concept that art can be functional as well as controversial, ‘crafty’ in material or form. Joseph Goguen (2000) defines art simply as “something skillfully constructed by human artists” (7), a definition that provides very little in the way of defining and even less in removing the world of craft from the world of art. This distinction is further blurred as he illustrates the various ways in which contemporary artists such as Duchamp with his famous urinal, Damien Hirst’s dead animals in formaldehyde and Barry Flanagan’s natural displays have pushed the boundaries of art to include less traditional elements and make it difficult to argue that crafts should not be considered art. So if art cannot be succinctly and easily defined in a way that eliminates craft, perhaps a definition of craft will serve to distinguish it from art. D. Scott Patria (2006) offers a useful definition that does attempt to make a distinction from art. “Craft is about objects, the artists who make them and the people who use them. These objects surround us in our every day activities and allow us to interact and relate in a way traditional ‘fine art’ doesn’t” (Patria, 2006). He further helps to distinguish craft as applying to the objects produced by people working with glass, clay, wood, fiber or other materials while remaining rooted in the human process of creation. Hugh Williams (2001) has a similar definition: “Essentially craft is about making – and making with one’s own hands. Cabinet and wooden clock maker David Bowerman describes his works thus: ‘functionally useful, structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing’. Potters, glass blowers and silversmiths would agree.” Thus, both of these authors suggest that the concept of ‘craft’ can be distinguished by the concept of functional creations made of materials outside of the traditional realm of ‘art.’ However, the simple sounding description of crafts as being all those items that are functional first and art second is quickly thrown out the window as Patria indicates that “craft objects need not be strictly utilitarian; in fact, many artists create objects that may reference function, but are not actually usable” (2006). This is a concept that Williams agrees with as he illustrates several craft artists who focus on their art first and the form second, sometimes completely throwing out the idea of keeping designs functional. Amanda Vail (2002) also highlights the problems with the strict definitions of art that have been provided by looking into fields such as pottery and stained glass. Pointing out that Navaho pottery has been classified as art while Baroque pottery has not appeared as such and contemporary pottery has been featured in museums in recent years, Vail asks: “So, when and why did pottery stop being an art, and become a craft, and then start being an art again?” (2002). Stained glass is another field that has shifted from the realm of art to craft and has the potential to regain its status as art in the near future. This blurred boundary between craft and art, so obscure that even the experts can’t agree on a clear dividing line, has led to new developments in the contemporary creative world. One indication of change is the formation of the term ‘fine crafts’ to designate the difference between those objects that are made of materials that fall outside of the ‘fine art’ distinction but yet are led by the same aesthetic, communicative goals as the impulses driving fine artists. Attempting to make a significant distinction between the traditional concepts of artistic expression and the obvious new concepts of artistic craft having proven itself too problematic, many have turned to new means of definition. By excluding craft from the concept of art, an entire block of artists and their work would be allowed to undeservedly sink to the level of amateur association, but attempting to redefine these crafts as art proved to provide just as many obstacles. At the formation of the Norwegian Association of Arts and Crafts in 1974, a working definition of fine craft as “works in textiles, ceramics, glass, leather, metals or other materials given form and made into finished products in the craft artist’s workshop – under conditions in which the craft artist is him/herself responsible for the process from raw materials to finished product” (Veiteberg, 2007) was proposed. This concept of the fine craft has continued to grow to where it can be found among numerous artists regardless of medium or final art form. “I personally see art and craft as a very similar activity, that both involve creating, problem solving, composition and design decisions, pattern recognition, intuition, etc. I consider things a spectrum of kinds of work, no boundaries or strict edges to things, more of a blur” (Lewton-Brain, 2004). Mary Holdgrafer (2002) attempts to place the concept of art on a continuum rather than an either/or teeter totter. “If we are able to view craft and art as a part of a continuum, and if we can allow self-placement on the continuum, then we will take ourselves out of the power struggle. Staying curious will automatically create opportunities for learning and for resonance with others. It will not matter if we are artists or craftsmen. After all, our creativity comes from the same source, doesn’t it?” This means of redefining the concept of arts vs. crafts in terms of a continuum of practices that all have a common source and common fundamental goal has permitted a new way of discussing arts and crafts. In defining what they do from the new concept of crafts as a part of a creative continuum, artists such as Mary Holdgrafer are able to discuss their work in new ways: “I know that by choosing to work with fabrics, that I will not be universally recognized as an ‘artist’. I also know that by pushing the edges of traditional textile work I will not be universally accepted as a quilter. If recognition or acceptance is what I am seeking, then I have set myself up for failure and a pretty unhappy life. But if my goal is to learn about myself through the creative process, I cannot fail” (Holdgrafer, 2002). This sounds much like the definitions of art offered by Wilde and Tolstoy while coming from an individual working in textiles, a material formerly relegated to the realm of the amateur crafter. This concept of the continuum can have an effect on the way in which high school art teachers convey their subject to their students. While the Australian curriculum continues to define a clear difference between arts and crafts, the informed teacher will be aware of the many ways in which these fields have become blurred and be more capable of providing students with encouragement and progression. According to Anna Reyner (2006), art is an open-ended, unstructured activity while crafts are structured and goal-oriented. It is common for art teachers in Australia to feel constrained to the ‘system’ as they are consistently under pressure of external student achievement goals and unpredictable changes in employment terms and conditions, but the art teacher for Australia’s future will be one who can embrace the changes occurring in the art world and help communicate these concepts to the students (Emery, 1998). By instructing students in the differences and similarities between art and craft, illustrating the issues of material, approach and goal, instructors can be instrumental in developing the field of fine crafts as a part of a continuum of creative practices engaged in by humans that exists above and beyond the simple concept of functional or strictly aesthetic. The debate over the concept of whether a creation is an art or a craft has been waged for a long time. Professionals continue to battle over whether such cross-over practices as pottery or textiles should be classified as art or as craft while laypersons continue to equate art with something high class, intellectual and abstract and craft with something created by amateurs according to a pre-established, step-by-step format. Other distinctions between arts and crafts have emerged as being the types of materials used in the production of the object under consideration and a perception of the sublime within the work presented. Designations of what defines art as is communicated through such philosophers as Oscar Wilde and Leo Tolstoy continue to present the idea that art is characterized by a process, a communication and a focus upon true, sincere or in-depth personal reactions and ideologies, but these characterizations do not exclude the creations brought forward by talented, professional craftsmen. While the definition of ‘craft’ seems significantly more distinctive, particularly as it becomes associated with particular materials and processes, this, too, indicates many of the same goals and outcomes expressed as the purpose of art. It also indicates the lie in defining crafts as something intended to be functional first as numerous craftsmen produce works that have never been intended to be functional, beginning with the concept of the art first. Apparently concluding that there will be no satisfactory solution to whether crafts are art, many organizations and individuals throughout the world are beginning to recognize the need for collaboration between the fields and the distinction of a new way of thinking about art – not in terms of a binary opposition in which crafts receive the shorter end of the stick but instead in concepts of a continuum in which each can be equally beneficial, desirable and expressive in the hands of a master. Australian art teachers will need to be aware of the differences recognized between art and craft in order to effectively teach their students, but should also adopt a more flexible approach to their instruction techniques that illustrates to students the emerging recognition of the artistic ability and expressiveness of creations regardless of the materials used. Works Cited Emery, Lee. “Autonomy to Accountability: Changing Hegemonies in Australian Arts Education.” International Journal of Art and Design Education. Vol. 17, I. 3, (October 1998), pp. 267-274. Goguin, Joseph A. “What is Art?” Journal of Consciousness Studies. Vol. 7, N. 8-9, (2000), pp. 7-15. October 21, 2007 Holdgrafer, Mary Sullivan. “Craft versus Art.” Exploring Creativity. (August 2002). October 20, 2007 Jefferson, Margo. “Beyond Cultural Labeling, Beyond Art Versus Craft.” New York Times. (March 22, 2005). October 21, 2007 Lewton-Brain, Charles. “It is Art? Is it Craft?” Ganoskin. (2004). October 21, 2007 Patria, D. Scott. “What is Craft?” Functional Art. (February 26, 2006). October 21, 2007. Rayme, Mary. “Art vs. Craft.” (May 30, 2006). Suite 101. October 21, 2007 Reyner, Anna. “Arts, Crafts and Creativity in School Aged Childcare and Recreation.” OSHC News. (June 2006). Department of Community Development, Government of Western Australia. October 21, 2007 Stevens, Dennis. “Art vs. Craft: Who’s Winning?” Redefining Craft. (February 8, 2007). October 21, 2007 < http://www.redefiningcraft.com/?p=164> Tolstoy, Leo. “What is Art?” Excerpts presented by Van Camp, Julie. (November 23, 2006). California State University. October 21, 2007 Vail, Amanda. “Arts or Crafts: My Own Two Eyes.” Knot Magazine. October 21, 2007 Veiteberg, Jorunn. “What is Craft Art?” Galleri F15. (May 15, 2007). October 21, 2007 < http://www.gallerif15.no/catalouge/Tendenser2001/catJV.htm> Wilde, Oscar. “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” (1861). Available through The International Anarchist. October 21, 2007 Williams, Hugh. “Living a Craft: Hugh Williams looks at what crafts and craftspeople can bring to an increasingly wired-up society. And we meet two leading exponents of their crafts.” For a Change. (April-May, 2001). FindArticles. October 21, 2007 Read More