Crafts in a Muddle 1 2 3 4 5 6 - PRINTER VERSION
Published in
New Art Examiner, February 1987.
The recent opening of the American Craft Museum's new space across the street from the Museum
of Modern Art in New York focused an unprecedented amount of attention on the craft world. The
museum's opening and its inaugural exhibition,
Craft Today: Poetry of the Physical, have
been covered extensively by
The New York Times,
The Wall Street Journal, and
Time magazine, to name only a few. NBC's
Today show even had Willard Scott do his
weather reports from the museum one morning—you know you have arrived in popular culture when
that happens.
Craft Today was organized and curated by Paul Smith, the museum's director since 1963.
Smith put together an exhibition of some 300 works by 286 craftspeople from 36 states working in
what are commonly referred to as "craft media"—clay, fiber, glass, wood, and metal.
Craft
Today may well be the landmark exhibition that the American Craft Museum says it is, but not
for the reasons the museum expects. It is certainly, however, the largest survey of contemporary
craft since the 1969
Objects/USA exhibition at the National Collection of Fine Arts
(presently the National Museum of American Art). Now that the dust has settled and the hype and PR
have died down, we can start to look at this exhibition and assess its impact on the craft field.
Most important, has it aided craft's struggle for commercial and critical acceptance from the more
celebrated fine arts, and, if so, at what cost?
One of the biggest problems for those working in the craft genre who desire to be taken as
serious artists (not fine artists, but artists within the context of craft rather than that of
painting or sculpture) is how to convince those skeptical or ignorant power brokers in the fine
arts establishment that a cup, a plate, or a piece of furniture can have content—that these
objects can be "proper" vehicles for the conveyance of artistic expression without becoming
non-functional caricatures of themselves. Part of the resistance on the part of the fine arts
establishment to this idea is a by-product of crafts own cavalier attitude toward and ambivalence
about its own identity, as well as crafts lack of critical rigor or a developed critical
vocabulary. For these reasons, many in the fine arts find it difficult to believe that craft, like
painting and sculpture, has its own rich language with a long and varied history
Intelligent criticism of crafts depends to a great degree on how literate one is in crafts
language. Function is one of the most important parts of crafts language and the aspect of craft
that the fine arts object to the most. It is crafts ability to function that allows it to be
perceived by all of our senses and on a variety of different levels. Function not only gives
viewers access to the work, it allows them to become active participants in the aesthetic process
itself. By varying its placement and its use, the user's perception of the object is continuously
transformed. Function, therefore, is integral to the aesthetic experience of crafts. It does not
limit crafts, but rather is what gives crafts the unlimited potential to express a vast range of
philosophical and aesthetic concerns.
Function alone, of course, guarantees nothing; it is simply part of the language of craft that
the intelligent and articulate craftsperson uses to create eloquent and poetic statements. It is
unfortunate that the fine arts, as is the case with many groups whose own language has achieved
primary status and
>>
© 1980 - 2024 Rob Barnard . All Rights Reserved. Site design: eismontdesign