Crafts in a Muddle 1 2 3 4 5 6 - PRINTER VERSION
>> other words, if crafts can look like fine art, be shown like fine art, and talked about in fine art terms, then it will be seen as fine art. One of the difficulties with such a strategy, however, is that it invites the kind of rigorous criticism and intellectual accountability common in the fine arts but which the craft field has always shied away from. So how do you have your cake and eat it, too?—how do you achieve the prestige and financial benefits of the fine art world and avoid that world's rigorous critical scrutiny? Smith seems to believe that it can be done by insisting that there is a line between art and craft and then making sure he is the one who declares where that line is. It is a neat trick, one he has been performing for years. Craft for him, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, has literally been anything he can get away with. Craft Today, which is Smith's most ambitious attempt to date at promoting his reformist view of craft and establishing himself as one of the foremost arbiters of the definition of contemporary craft in America, pushes this philosophy to its extreme.
Smith divided the exhibition into four somewhat confusing and, on closer scrutiny, arbitrary categories: "The Object as Statement", "The Object Made for Use", "The Object as Vessel", and the "Object as Personal Adornment". The purpose of the categories, according to Smith, was to provide structure and to "clarify a confusing variety of activities and aid the viewer in understanding the vast range of contemporary craft." They did neither; in fact it was almost impossible while wandering around the exhibition to know at any given moment which category one was viewing (the exception was a small cul-de-sac devoted to "The Object as Personal Adornment", read jewelry— that was a physically distinct display). The confusion was the result not of the installation but rather of the way the lines between categories were parenthetically and arbitrarily, drawn. The categories seemed to serve no real purpose other than to contribute to the illusion of insight and scholarship that masquerades as a critical analysis of the various movements within the field.
The "Object as Statement" category presented, Smith says, works created "primarily for their aesthetic value". This is a euphemism for objects in which either reference to traditional craft forms has been rejected or function has been denied because it supposedly restricts freedom of expression. It is, in essence, Benezra's idea of craft as fine art. This category, which made up over one-third of the objects in the exhibition, comprised work by craftspeople who have. for a variety of reasons, abandoned the craft language for the Modernist language of the fine arts. Although they have rejected the language of craft, they have not rejected the field. In fact, the majority maintains an almost exclusive relationship with the craft field by occupying university teaching positions that have commonly been thought of as "craft" positions, by exhibiting only in craft galleries, and by relying on craft magazines for the publication of articles on their work. A few have found acceptance outside the craft field: Ken Price, Robert Arneson, Ron Nagle, and Michael Lucero have all been accepted by the fine arts establishment. They are represented by blue-chip galleries in New York and have exhibited in major museums across the country. But what were they doing in the American Craft Museum? We are asked to believe they were there because of their craft background and their use of a craft medium like clay, but what their inclusion was really about was the legitimization of this category and the reformist approach it represents.
There was interesting work in "The Object as Statement"—from both a fine art standpoint and a craft standpoint. In the former group, ceramic artist Stephen De Staebler, woodworker Howard Werner, and
>>
© 1980 - 2024 Rob Barnard . All Rights Reserved. Site design: eismontdesign
>> other words, if crafts can look like fine art, be shown like fine art, and talked about in fine art terms, then it will be seen as fine art. One of the difficulties with such a strategy, however, is that it invites the kind of rigorous criticism and intellectual accountability common in the fine arts but which the craft field has always shied away from. So how do you have your cake and eat it, too?—how do you achieve the prestige and financial benefits of the fine art world and avoid that world's rigorous critical scrutiny? Smith seems to believe that it can be done by insisting that there is a line between art and craft and then making sure he is the one who declares where that line is. It is a neat trick, one he has been performing for years. Craft for him, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, has literally been anything he can get away with. Craft Today, which is Smith's most ambitious attempt to date at promoting his reformist view of craft and establishing himself as one of the foremost arbiters of the definition of contemporary craft in America, pushes this philosophy to its extreme.
Smith divided the exhibition into four somewhat confusing and, on closer scrutiny, arbitrary categories: "The Object as Statement", "The Object Made for Use", "The Object as Vessel", and the "Object as Personal Adornment". The purpose of the categories, according to Smith, was to provide structure and to "clarify a confusing variety of activities and aid the viewer in understanding the vast range of contemporary craft." They did neither; in fact it was almost impossible while wandering around the exhibition to know at any given moment which category one was viewing (the exception was a small cul-de-sac devoted to "The Object as Personal Adornment", read jewelry— that was a physically distinct display). The confusion was the result not of the installation but rather of the way the lines between categories were parenthetically and arbitrarily, drawn. The categories seemed to serve no real purpose other than to contribute to the illusion of insight and scholarship that masquerades as a critical analysis of the various movements within the field.
The "Object as Statement" category presented, Smith says, works created "primarily for their aesthetic value". This is a euphemism for objects in which either reference to traditional craft forms has been rejected or function has been denied because it supposedly restricts freedom of expression. It is, in essence, Benezra's idea of craft as fine art. This category, which made up over one-third of the objects in the exhibition, comprised work by craftspeople who have. for a variety of reasons, abandoned the craft language for the Modernist language of the fine arts. Although they have rejected the language of craft, they have not rejected the field. In fact, the majority maintains an almost exclusive relationship with the craft field by occupying university teaching positions that have commonly been thought of as "craft" positions, by exhibiting only in craft galleries, and by relying on craft magazines for the publication of articles on their work. A few have found acceptance outside the craft field: Ken Price, Robert Arneson, Ron Nagle, and Michael Lucero have all been accepted by the fine arts establishment. They are represented by blue-chip galleries in New York and have exhibited in major museums across the country. But what were they doing in the American Craft Museum? We are asked to believe they were there because of their craft background and their use of a craft medium like clay, but what their inclusion was really about was the legitimization of this category and the reformist approach it represents.
There was interesting work in "The Object as Statement"—from both a fine art standpoint and a craft standpoint. In the former group, ceramic artist Stephen De Staebler, woodworker Howard Werner, and
>>
© 1980 - 2024 Rob Barnard . All Rights Reserved. Site design: eismontdesign