Recently, I had a good showing at an arts and crafts festival near my house and I blogged a bit about the show here. What caught my interest peripherally during the show and more as I think about it now was the prevalence of crafts into shows like these and the dilution of the power inherent in the crafts by the artisans that create these crafts by purposely subverting their wares to dress them up like art. Let me explain. Close to my assigned booth, I met this charming lady (she is actually trained as a silversmith) who made jewelry. Her booth was crammed with styrofoam busts of women wearing custom designed jewelry and the whole setup looked really nice and beautiful from far. During short breaks from the steady stream of visitors, I would go by her booth and marvel at the designs that she created in silver and grimace at some designs that she created out of glass/silver. The silver creations were exquisite, the design fetching and the pieces very compelling to look at and buy (in fact I even asked my wife to look at a piece but she later chided me on the price). The jewelry made of painted glass beads on silver strands with the glass over painted with strange designs seemed lower in quality compared to her silver works. On asking her the price of the painted bead based jewelry, she explained that she was slowly branching out into ‘art’ and the prices for these were almost double the prices compared to equivalent silver pieces. I remember walking out of the booth with a strange feeling in my head.
Firstly, the painted glass pieces with a bit of silver strands were not good as the hand made silver pieces (from a purely aesthetic perspective) but they commanded extra prices because they were considered ‘art’.
Secondly, it looked like glass was being used for a purpose for which it is not inherently suitable – glass is great when blown or stained, but when it is hand painted and added along with other beads to make tacky jewelry, it loses the freshness inherent to glass and it makes for bad craft.
It almost seemed like the market forces that congregate around ‘art’ is pushing people to create work that is substandard and at the same time giving them less time to be more creative at what they are trained and good at… At the end of the day, I also understood that she sold much more silver pieces than the ‘art’ pieces.
Sterling silver jewelry
Necklace of glass beads
I was wondering why does she want to dress up her exquisite works under the word ‘art’ when her ‘craft’ can speak for itself (and very eloquently)? Why are craftspeople not proud to say that their work is ‘craft’ and keep trying to pay obeisance to art and try selling their works labeled as art? Is there a perception that when works are referred to as ‘art’, they are automatically elevated to another plane all by itself? Shouldn’t craft be on an equal plane? Is the word ‘art’ and by extension ‘artist’ over-hyped?
Hi Sunil,
“It almost seemed like the market forces that congregate around ‘art’ is pushing people to create work that is substandard and at the same time giving them less time to be more creative at what they are trained and good at…”
I have to take exception to this sentence because I believe it’s the artist’s/craftperson’s choice to do this and there’s no forcing involved (and anyway, I suppose substandard is in the eye of the beholder).
As a woman, I am sensitive to the whole craft/art debate because for so many years, centuries even, women were not allowed to create “art” but were resigned to create “craft” which was deemed lower than art so therefore worthy only for women. If a woman was “lucky” enough to paint or use pastels, she was allowed only to create “feminine” works like flower still lifes.
Some people still believe this history to to be fair and accurate and I have argued with past art history professors about my belief that a handmade quilt can in fact be art. (The Folk Art Museum in NYC has a quilt exhibit up now, btw)
I have to think though, after reading the post on your blog about the art show, that a lot of the visitors to the show would be more than happy to pay double the price for “art” rather than “craft.” So, is this woman a savvy business person who understands this and wants to make a lot of money off of the poseurs? Or, is she a bad business person who fails to value her “good” work?
Hope this makes sense, I’m at work and have to run…
Sunil,
Aren’t people artists when they create jewelry, furniture, ceramics, rugs, sculptures and buildings as long as each piece has its individual stamp?
Isn’t craft-making or ‘air port art’ the mass-production of such pieces involving simple copying even if hand-made?
Do you think it is presumptuous to say that Jim Letourneau, a jeweler from Evanston Ill, Steve Branch, a furniture maker from Honor MI, or Jean Nouvel, an architect from Paris, who create individual pieces, are artists?
I won’t get into the art/craft distinction, which I don’t find fruitful as an abstract discussion. However, I agree that attempts to make something more “arty” often misfire. On the other hand, there is jewelry in the gallery I’m with that I immediately thought of as art: the bracelets made me think of wearing a breeze or a cloud on your wrist. Somehow that reaction made it art to me; it was not “just” decorative.
I watched Richard Serra’s recent interview with Charlie Rose (highly recommended), and they refered to an earlier discussion in which Serra vehemently insisted that architecture wasn’t art because it had a utilitarian purpose, which “art” didn’t. I would say that at least some aspects or elements of architecture don’t have such a purpose and do qualify as art, but anyway it’s the possible basis for a distinction that would relate to some crafts (though not jewelry, I think).
Sunil:
As always, a thought-provoking post.
The art/craft debate falls squarely upon the Pavilion Mall on Chagrin Avenue. There one finds Thomas R. Riley Galleries, specializing almost entirely in glass. As you mentioned, glass is very much a craft medium, but here it is taken to an almost reverential level: I feel that I should remove my shoes before entering the place.
You may wish to Google the gallery. I might propose that there is a degree of virtue in many of the works there that calls for its own definition – something that bypasses the old art/craft conundrum. “High craft” doesn’t make it, but is headed in the right direction. Sometimes “objects of virtue”, done up in French, is applied to such things. “Extraordinary objects”? Then you’re getting into shrunken heads, etc.
I might e-mail the Rileys to find out what they call their merchandise.
Sunil:
Just got off the phone with Riley Galleries and the lady insisted that they only sell art. I’m sure that her assertion is a business-related stance, as the word “craft” might put off their more wealthy customers.
Sunil —
Sigh………………………….
Tree is definitely correct in her historical perspective about art and craft and women’s work.
And the exhibitor at the sale was definitely right about “art” having generally higher price tags than “craft.”
And Steve is correct in saying it’s hard to discuss these issues (in this century, anyway) in the abstract: is Chihuly’s glass “mere” craft? Are the 100’s of baltimore album quilts that were made in the 1990’s art?
To add to the confusion is the DIY (“do it yourself”) movement, where apparently millions of people take up some kind of hand work (painting, jewelry making,woodcrafting knitting, quilting), achieve some ability with the techniques, and decide to call it art because everyone’s an artist. And artists command a decent price for their work (right?).
Being an artist who works in a field oft described as craft, I generally clutch my head in despair at the discussions. There’s bad art, there’s bad craft, there’s great art, there’s great craft. And at both the top and bottom end there is a continuity in which one of these categories slithers and slides into the other.
One way to make the distinction is to ask questions about the process — what informs the decision-making process — the need for a fine finish or the need to express a visual idea? The need to have the proper standards achieved or the need to work the composition more fully and interestingly? What are the directives that push the maker to resolve problems in certain ways — does she work from a sense of wanting to achieve a certain feel from the materials or does she wish to have something that will knock the viewer’s eyes out? Does the maker decide to use certain materials or methods because they are the best to work with or because they fit into some kind of visual idea she has in mind? When she gets stuck, does she decide to change the materials in order to get the seams to hang right? Or does she refuse to change the materials because she wants a certain look that only this particular material can achieve. The answers to these questions are particularly telling when the maker comes to a problem area, a place where there are two possible paths, one leading to, for example, a beautiful finish and the other leading to fascinating visuals; that path where you can have one or the other but not both.
My usage of silk charmeuse is where I hit the decision making split in the road.
Your fellow salesperson was misguided or perhaps very young in her glass work, jumping ahead of her abilities. Or maybe she was just crass and thought she could get a better price for glass. At any rate, she seems to have failed.
But I have seen many imitative, decorative and bright-colored pieces sell well, while the truly interesting, intricately thought out work won’t sell because it’s “harder” to grab onto than the instantly recognizable. The bind works both ways. And, believe me, the crafters complain just as loudly about the artists inability to achieve the standards of fine craft as vice-versa.
And Tree — quilted textiles (ie quilt art) has been around and seen as art in some eyes since 1972 (isn’t it nice when there’s a definitive date?) But we who use quilting techniques in the making of our art are still conflated with the loving-hands-at-home comfort-bringers (generally someone’s grandmother). I fear that my art doesn’t bring much comfort to anyone (although I admit to being someone’s grandmother). But I must say that for comfort, my quilts do just fine. And yes, I even have been known to do crafty wall things to sell at local bizarres. They were definitely the best sellers.
Is the word ‘art’ and by extension ‘artist’ over-hyped?
Yes.
Tree,
Thank you for your comments. I think this lady (whose silver works I think of highly) is a savvy business woman intending to try her hand at the ‘in’ thing to see which way it will go (plus a little bit of betting is ok)…
Why should status quo be such that sentiments like the one expressed by you are prevalent? “that a lot of the visitors to the show would be more than happy to pay double the price for “art” rather than “craft.”,?
I think crafts should be placed on the same pedestal as the arts – which was the point of this post…
Birgit,
I was really not talking about ‘airport art’ which is the kind of thing that gives craft a bad name. I was talking about craft in its highest sense – when a craftsperson after years of honing a particular skill on a chosen material imparts her/his conscious into the makeup of the material. Jewelery, glass blowing, quilting, scrimshawing, macrame’ are some of the trades that come to my mind…
Steve,
Thank you for recommending the Charlie Rose interview. I will definitely check it out. Richard Serra is one person whose talk I would like to hear…
I think Richard is alluding to the same thing as what I am trying to say – that art, craft, architecture are all their own free standing disciplines – to have all of it clumped together in an amorphous blob of a concept as ‘art’ robs it of some of its inherent beauty. Such is the case with crafts also…
Jay,
You hit it right on the head when you say “I’m sure that her assertion is a business-related stance, as the word “craft” might put off their more wealthy customers”. Guess you understood the point of this post. I am going to check this gallery out (if they let me in with my shoes ;-)
June,
As expected a thoughtful response. My response to the DIY’s is as follows:
It is left to the onlookers to call an individual an artist. I generally do not subscribe to the school of people who call themselves artists. The label should be one worn with pride and bestowed by others…
Fine finish, standards, training, attention to detail and materials are all signs of craft. In fact I might say that some of the netherlandish oil paintings are really ‘craft’ – they were painted in a particular scholarly fashion paying attention to details, a bit formulaic sometimes and done with exacting standards with respect to medium and materials. I guess the art/craft conundrum will never end and we could continue to endlessly debate about this…
David’s comment explains the issue.
Sunil,
To me, craft is production that focuses on technique instead of innovation and discovery, whereas art is about innovation and discovery in the realm of expression. Of course, there needs to be innovation in the long run for craft to develop, but on the time scale of the individual work, the technique won’t change that much.
Some successful painters seem more like craftsmen to me than artists. I don’t see why people working in traditional ‘craft’ media shouldn’t be considered artists in some cases. For example, Lisa Call is clearly an artist, though she works in a traditional craft medium — quilting.
The whole art versus craft distinction is at the heart of Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party (now in its permanent home at The Brooklyn Museum). She incorporated embroidery and ceramics to elevate those media to their rightful status as artwork rather than just “womens’ work.” I’ve always seen it as being in the same vein as the idea that housewives “don’t really work.” Chicago sees this distinction as a feminist issue, but you can extend this to a cultural issue as well, where third-world crafts are seen as more anthropology than art.
–Bob (ArtBlogByBob.blogspot.com)