Making things–beyond the art/craft wedge

Reading Glenn Adamson’s and Tanya Harrod’s joint interview with novelist A.S. Byatt (or Dame Antonia Byatt, as she is known in her home context—to my American tastebuds, Dame, I must confess, feels funny on the tongue), I was struck by the nationalism of her project, and the utter Englishness with which she is grappling: the difficulties and aftereffects of modernization, and the audiences, personalities, and social roles made manifest in the material culture in fin de siècle British culture. Put another way, Byatt’s book magnifies the twin ideologies of modernism and capitalism. The myriad descriptions of paintings, pots, glazes, wrought iron, skirted sewing tables, and whale-bone corseted women offer a stupefying collection of stuff: the Edwardian domestic possessions that have now become coveted antiques and collectibles, their well-conceived forms, colors and intensities spawning an assortment of Victoriana kitsch that continues to proliferate well into the present day—just attend any Victorian Studies Association conference, or save yourself the trouble and invest in a pair of patent leather granny boots, dye your hair black (with a center part), and knit yourself a tea cozy (or cell phone cozy).

Nationalism seems to be a consistent issue in craft practices, one we can’t really easily get away from. Why is this? Because craft processes are not only linked with “tradition,” but also, intertwined with production: labor practice, economic recovery, and collective pride. No matter that craft is still, more often than not, inefficient and expensive, and a touch utopian. Hand-dyed, hand-spun cotton and wool from a knitting store—you know, those lovely ones, independently owned and run—often go for $9 or $11 a skein, versus the yucky acrylic stuff sold at chain craft stores that sell for $3 or so. Much like farmer’s market produce versus the conventional supermarket, there is no comparison, of course, in terms of quality, but the small, independent stores more often than not end up belly-up. The intent is there: to ignite a revival, a community of like-minded souls who turn up for knit class, or collective quilting sessions altogether, but such publics are usually made, and not found.

Adamson asks pointed questions about whether or not there is a utopian imperative inherent in craft. Byatt redirects her answer, positing that utopianism is “…actually dangerous. Certainly in the 1960s it was. I decided that a kind of rather flat skepticism, and making things, making things well, is better than a utopian attempt to reform society.” I found Byatt’s statement a very useful correlative in re-thinking the de-skilled artistic practice that exists broadly throughout visual art training—the idea that one acquires skill based upon the sorts of projects one decides to execute. This is an anathema to traditional craft practice, of course, but now that the two are mostly merged—I don’t really make a distinction between contemporary art, per say, and contemporary craft, they are one and the same—that is, both camps are working conceptually. Furthermore, craft-based processes have been co-opted by visual artists of all stripes invested in issues of design, labor, and community. Yet, when Byatt says, “I believe in making things,” she hits on a tender nerve in our community, the seeming wedge between conceptual art and craft practices, which no longer exists. All artists believe in making things, it is just that the definition of “thing” is imprecise, and always in flux. That is also the beauty of artistic practice, in that there are so many kinds of “things” to make, be it a book, a tea cozy, an installation, or a You Tube video.

4 thoughts on “Making things–beyond the art/craft wedge

  1. You ask an important question Jenni, which touches on the implied nostalgia of Byatt’s outlook. How well does her fundamentalist championing of ‘things’ relate to an information age where the most relevant form of ‘making’ could be seen as video and networking? Does the subject of craft evolve with technology or does it necessarily revert back to the body as an enduring touchstone?

  2. I’m thinking about the idea that all art is conceptual now. Art has always been conceptual but art is less visual now. Yes we’ve all absorbed the experiments of the 60’s and 70’s. Is that what you are referring to?

  3. I’m thinking about this for 2 reasons. I just read Carol Armstrong’s piece in the current Art Forum about Cezanne and, noting other recent essays on Cezanne by T.J. Clark and Peter Schjeldahl, asks “what can we say about Cezanne these days? , Clark’s title from his Dec. essay, NYRB. And I wonder, is art really completely different now? And the other prompt for me is a long rambling discussion on Matthew Colling’s Facebook page about a 5th c. mosaic ceiling in Ravenna. I mean, I say this myself, “all art including craft is conceptual now”, but it’s starting to feel kind of rote and untrue.

  4. I don’t think if one makes something ones needs — a shelf, an apron, a tea cosy — that that is conceptual in any way, and it is this which is the root of a modern crafts practice. Fundamentally self-sufficient — which is anti-capitalist — and a mode of primary expression which is art.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.