“And I believe the best learning process of any craft is just to look at the craft of others.”
Wole Soyinka
I am a knitter and an art historian and I am not sure which one I am first. I work at a local area museum with a substantial collection of what is so objectionably referred to as “craft.” Like many of the words in the English language the term “craft” has developed over time, taking on certain connotations and culturally baggage. Why it was a necessity to draw a line between the terms “art” and “craft” is as mysterious as delineations between “decoration” and “ornament,” “regal” and “royal,” and “lustrous” and “shining.”
Glenn Adamson in his book, Thinking Through Craft cites many possible causes for the separation of the two terms. Many seemingly logical arguments are presented as to why craft is considered distinct from art, most notably that art is non-functional whereas crafted objects are made for use. As Adamson alludes to, this argument is not a hard and fast rule. If a vase or bowl is meant purely for display, or whose dimensions render it cumbersome and barely convenient, does it’s functional shape alone remove it from the realm of art? Fashion is widely considered art, but is certainly functional (except of course in the case of haute couture’s most daring ensembles.) Tapestries are both artful and purposeful, having been originally employed to kept drafts out of castles and great manor houses.
What then defines use? And is use to be considered as less valuable than purely decorative works? Wouldn’t use, in fact, make these objects even more worthy? Or is it because of their ubiquity as objects which we encounter and potentially interact with on a regular basis? Is it possible its a problem of dimension?
Most of the great works of art, the great masterpieces, are two dimensional….wellm except for the statue of David by Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, and the Pieta by the same, and many, many other statues.
Three dimensionality is therefore neither a signifier of art or craft. How then can we begin to classify architecture or the doors of the Florentine Baptistry Doors by Lorenzo Ghiberti (a maker who is often referred to as a carver rather than an artist) as strictly art or craft.
The baptistry doors, for example, are functional, but also sculptural and meant for contemplation and consideration (contemplation has historically been considered the main purpose of great art.) It could be said also that the narrative panels by Ghiberti are decorative, but that two is an ambiguous word. If the panels are art, is the door craft because it is functional? Where does decoration end and the object begin?
If a person embroiders a piece of fabric that was woven or sewn by another, is the embroiderer an artist, but the seamstress or weaver merely a maker (I will refer alternately to those who create works in the craft media as craftsmen and makers. The difference between those words being a discussion for another day. I also will say craftsmen when referring to makers of both genders as it seems to me very pro-genderization to sort makers by sex.)
Adamson also proposes that craft is widely considered both different from and less than art, because crafts are traditionally the work of women. This generized evolution of the word craft makes sense when viewing the patriarchal history of art. This also explains why many of the textile arts are referred to as craft. But this of course is also problematic as tapestry workers were traditionally women and woodturners and workers are by in large men. It also does not take into account non European modes of thinking, as some Native tribes of the Americas has men do the weaving, while others relied on women. And, does the gender of the creator really affect a piece? If so, Frida Khalo and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun would not be considered artists. Unless of course this rationale is more about who generally makes art, which would mean Kahlo and Le Brun count as artists only because they are anomalies – women doing “men’s work.”
And if something so beyond a persons control as their sex can affect whether their work is art or craft, why not their character. Caravaggio was a murderer, Gauguin a syphilitic adulterer…and these were outcomes they could control. Yet, there work is counted among the best of Western art.
Certainly the best defense of art (for art is considered better and therefore is the defendant) is that craft is replicative. That a pattern can be employed and works such as pots and hats can be produced over and over. It should be noted that a work made by hand, even when part of series, will be unique and that Rafael painted countless Madonnas and Childs, as did other Renaissance artists, some of which are very similar.
If replication is the main characteristic of craft, how then should photography and prints be categorized. Print plates are made by hand, but can be reproduced ad nauseum (I am merely being hyperbolic here, I do not dislike prints. Nineteenth century American prints were in fact the focus of my graduate thesis.) And photography produces a negative (or nowadays a file) which can then generate a print. More often than not photography is manipulated very little by the human hands (except for developing – if the work is on film- and the application of filters.)
Perhaps there something about the tools, materials, and techniques used by craftsmen that make craft so distinct from art? Artists use brushes and other hand tools while crafts are made with looms and lathes…but then again, makers also use hand tools such as needles and hooks. Woodturners may employ brushes, while printer’s may utilize needles. The camera is certainly a machine, but photography is routinely referred to as art. Does the use of a printer’s press mean that medium is more craft than art?
Is it then the materials that divide craft and art? Paint can be applied to both two and three dimensional surfaces, and is used by printers, painters, potters, and woodworkers alike. Possibly the durability of a material relegates it to the field of craft or art. Marble statues can last for ages, but so does a marble wash basin. Paintings will generally endure longer than textiles, and yet fabric has been discovered from the Han dynasty, and smoke and sunlight can obliterate a paintings very quickly.
The great stoneworkers who created “ornamental” (that equally ambiguous term) casements are aways referred to as carvers or masons (both of which are definitely a category of craftsmen) and yet their work has endured for thousands of years, while some of Van Gogh’s paintings, made with, what were at the time, new and experimental paints, degraded so quickly as to make the work totally incomprehensible in a matter of decades.
What quality must a material possess to define it either as a craft work or a piece of art? Malability as one finds in textiles, cannot be applied to other crafts like jewelry, pottery (or ceramics in general), stone or wood work. And tapestries can be rolled, as can quilts, and certainly works on paper are flexible.
Technique is no better as a comparison. Jewelers work in a variety of techniques and materials, but are defined as jewelers by the purpose of their work (though contemporary jewelers stretch the parameters of body adornment frequently towards the barely functional.) Metalworkers are designated as such solely by the materials they use. Painters have been known to use palette knives, brushes, and sponges to create a variety of textures and images (the most interesting painting nomenclature is definitely scumbling, you should look it up.) The painter J.M.W. Turner was known to spit on his work.
As far as the different craft fields (clay, wood, metal, metal (and jewelry), glass, and fiber (textiles), they are categorized by their media. Ceramic artists use clay, whether they are hand-builders or throwers (throwers are sometimes referred to as potters, unless of course their work is not functional.) In fact, the only category of craft that I can think of which is solely defined by process and technique is the creation of textiles. Weavers, what ever they weave and for whatever purpose, are called weavers, and the same is true of knitters and crocheters, and embroiderers. Contemporary fiber artists and those involved in the extreme knitting movement are never restricted by medium, but must adhere to the techniques of knitting. And that is what this blog is ultimately about – though there will be forays into marginally related craft topics and other art historical subjects – this blog is about the art of knitting and all the knit that’s fit to print.
Academknit 