Tradition and the Modern Crafts Establishment 1 2 3 - PRINTER VERSION
>> year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling of the whole of literature..." This historical sense, Eliot says, is what makes a writer traditional and at the same time makes him or her most acutely aware of his or her own contemporaneity. After all, Eliot says, "No poet, no artist of any art has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead".1
On the other hand, Marcia and Tom Manhart, in their essay on "The Eloquent Object", tell us that "the old limits, old channels for expression having broken down, we need new descriptive categories and new standards: without them, in this world in flux, critical analysis ‚ even simple conversation ‚ is almost impossible".2 They are, in essence, arguing that society has changed so greatly that the history and tradition of craft is no longer able to speak to us in a meaningful way or provide us with any kind of moral, philosophical, or aesthetic lessons. This is, of course, a ridiculous argument that can be refuted by countless examples of traditional crafts that have created resonances that can be felt as strongly today as they were when they were made. The Manharts' argument, which is essentially the same argument that the modern craft establishment advances, that modern crafts has to abandon its language and its tradition for the sake of "critical analysis and simple conversation", should be seen for what it is: a rationale that enables those who were trained in the crafts, but who have abandoned them for the language and tradition of modern painting and sculpture, to not only remain in the smaller, chummy, and less rigorous craft field but also to be seen as avant-garde or the cutting edge of the field. It is, in short, an attempt by a comfortably entrenched and self-satisfied group to have their cake and eat it too.
The time has come, however, for those in the craft establishment who find the craft language too constraining and no longer relevant to stop clinging to the craft field like a drowning man clinging to a life preserver and instead join the dialogue and critical discourse within the fine arts. Not only is the view of modern craft, expressed by the Manharts and embraced by the craft establishment, specious and untenable, but also it continues to fuel the opinion of many in the fine arts that modern craft does little more than borrow ideas and imagery from the fine arts, reproduce them in the craft medium, and then insist that these objects are so special and unique that they cannot be understood or criticized from the perspective of either modern painting and sculpture or the history of craft. It is this perception and not usefulness or references to crafts' history that makes craft such anathema to the fine arts.
I am not suggesting that craftspeople should start imitating or mimicking craft objects of the past or that to merely make reference to the craft tradition is all an object has to do to be successful. Work of this kind is likely to be as bad as the work of a craftsperson that feels that the most important aspect of modern craft is to avoid references to tradition, like function, while replicating the most current trends in the fine arts.
What I am suggesting is that those artists who are drawn to the language of craft explore the depths of that language and struggle to find their own voice inside that language. That struggle to create meaning
>>
© 1980 - 2024 Rob Barnard . All Rights Reserved. Site design: eismontdesign
>> year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling of the whole of literature..." This historical sense, Eliot says, is what makes a writer traditional and at the same time makes him or her most acutely aware of his or her own contemporaneity. After all, Eliot says, "No poet, no artist of any art has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead".1
On the other hand, Marcia and Tom Manhart, in their essay on "The Eloquent Object", tell us that "the old limits, old channels for expression having broken down, we need new descriptive categories and new standards: without them, in this world in flux, critical analysis ‚ even simple conversation ‚ is almost impossible".2 They are, in essence, arguing that society has changed so greatly that the history and tradition of craft is no longer able to speak to us in a meaningful way or provide us with any kind of moral, philosophical, or aesthetic lessons. This is, of course, a ridiculous argument that can be refuted by countless examples of traditional crafts that have created resonances that can be felt as strongly today as they were when they were made. The Manharts' argument, which is essentially the same argument that the modern craft establishment advances, that modern crafts has to abandon its language and its tradition for the sake of "critical analysis and simple conversation", should be seen for what it is: a rationale that enables those who were trained in the crafts, but who have abandoned them for the language and tradition of modern painting and sculpture, to not only remain in the smaller, chummy, and less rigorous craft field but also to be seen as avant-garde or the cutting edge of the field. It is, in short, an attempt by a comfortably entrenched and self-satisfied group to have their cake and eat it too.
The time has come, however, for those in the craft establishment who find the craft language too constraining and no longer relevant to stop clinging to the craft field like a drowning man clinging to a life preserver and instead join the dialogue and critical discourse within the fine arts. Not only is the view of modern craft, expressed by the Manharts and embraced by the craft establishment, specious and untenable, but also it continues to fuel the opinion of many in the fine arts that modern craft does little more than borrow ideas and imagery from the fine arts, reproduce them in the craft medium, and then insist that these objects are so special and unique that they cannot be understood or criticized from the perspective of either modern painting and sculpture or the history of craft. It is this perception and not usefulness or references to crafts' history that makes craft such anathema to the fine arts.
I am not suggesting that craftspeople should start imitating or mimicking craft objects of the past or that to merely make reference to the craft tradition is all an object has to do to be successful. Work of this kind is likely to be as bad as the work of a craftsperson that feels that the most important aspect of modern craft is to avoid references to tradition, like function, while replicating the most current trends in the fine arts.
What I am suggesting is that those artists who are drawn to the language of craft explore the depths of that language and struggle to find their own voice inside that language. That struggle to create meaning
>>
© 1980 - 2024 Rob Barnard . All Rights Reserved. Site design: eismontdesign