Metalsmithing, Modernism, and Role Models

With 11 million users world wide, it seems like etsy.com is more than just a passing fad. Recently, I have been preparing an article about the moral imperative that is associated with current trends in craft. All indications point to the changing perception of craft in general culture from expensive luxury goods to socially conscious alternative goods. While I do not want to chart this claim here, I can point to the rising popularity of indie craft fairs, galleries like green jeans, and the green movement in general.

To me it is clear that craft (and metalsmithing) is changing, at least for the people I care about, the general public. So the next set of logical questions to ask goes as follows: What does this mean for metalsmithing? How will this trend impact our field? And lastly (the subject of this post) how do we digest this rising paradigm shift?

The impetus of this paradigm shift is rooted in a moral imperative. Any time there is a mention of craft (or decorative arts, or applied arts, or ornament) in conjunction with social reform, we are immediately recalled to the historical precedent, the Arts and Crafts movement. John Ruskin, an Architect, writer, and critic contributed his sentiment that the blue collar craftsperson should, "take pleasure in their labour." William Morris' notion of the designer - craftsman, "the craftsman ideal," posited the maker on par with those that s/he had formerly worked under. Interestingly, Ruskin was not a maker, and Morris (and his company) made furnishings for upscale architectural commissions (he was a servant to the gentry). Ironically, it was these two British, upper-class, socialist, artist/critics that shaped early 20th century American craft.

This little history lesson is important in comparing then to now. In a culture where everyone has access to publishing (the internet), it is hard for me to see any particular individual as a leader of the new socially conscious craft movement. The only person that immediately comes to mind is Rob Kalin, founder of etsy.com. And not to keep plugging etsy, but Rob is outspoken about craft as a lifestyle choice, and is more of an entrepreneur than a craft practitioner. But I guess that is an aside.

What I have been trying to wrap my head around for some time, is how we went from a craft paradigm which had a social reformist and community oriented agenda, circa 1890-1920, to a craft paradigm with a market driven, studio artist centered agenda circa 1945-200? The simple answer is this: The Arts and Crafts Movement arose in England in a climate of extreme economic class separation. In its transfer to America it retained its socialist roots, but as the US economy exploded in the early 20th century, the market economy destroyed all traces of a social or moral imperative in craft.

After World War II, the studio craft movement romanced the handmade, and it appealed to many would be makers. The notion of the designer and maker as a single individual had been established, but it persisted in the employ of a new economic system. Craft became a commodity. And that would be the end of the story except...

The theoretical system known as modernism intervened in the craft world. Maybe I am being a little bit pessimistic, but craft is always a little bit late in coming to the table.  I can't imagine a world in which modernism didn't happen, but all the same, I hate modernism. It totally ruined craft. Imagine if you never again had to hear about the Art vs. Craft debate? Awesome. Who even brought that up? Modernism. Who attempted to break with all previous history in order to create new more meaningful art, and in so doing isolated craft from its socially conscious roots? Modernism again.

To fully illustrate how bad Modernism was for craft I would like to quote Dr. Terry Barret, an art critic and distinguished professor at The Ohio State University. Barret on Modernism:

"Modernism in art is known for such tenets as these: a superior attitude toward and opposition to popular culture; an emphasis on high art and its superiority to the crafts; an objection to art as entertainment; an insistence on its own self-sufficiency ("art for art's sake"); a belief that art primarily refers to other art, rather than to the social world; a desire to be judged by formalist criteria and how the artwork furthers the history of art; a disregard for context in interpretation; a preoccupation with the purity of medium ("flatness" in painting, for example); a rejection of narrative content as appropriate for serious art; a belief in the individual genius of the artist; a desire for originality; a thirst for the new; and a reverence for the precious, unique art object."

What a list, right? Sadly the same theoretical system that devalued craft, has also infiltrated the craftperson's belief system. While most craftspeople would object to the superiority of art over craft, there is certainly a majority, or at least a large (and vocal) minority that has a preoccupation with the purity of medium in metalsmithing. Similarly, I know many metalsmiths who reject narrative, who want to be judged by formal criteria only, who believe in originallity and individual genius, and who desire to make a unique art object.

Personally, I have rejected modernism wholesale. Anything on this list is out for me. I have a hard time sometimes. I still hold on to my thirst for the new. I rationalize it as my desire to attain knowledge. Maybe we should start a 12 step group for metalsmiths trying to overcome Modernism? Metalsmiths Overcoming Modernism Together (MOMT). What I would like to point out is that the formal devices and aesthetics put forth by modernism became part of the art lexicon used by metalsmiths from 1945 - present. I liken it to smoking. Smoking is bad for the smoker, but all the smoker can do is shake his or her fist at the tobacco company and keep smoking. Abstract expressionism, minimalism, and material and process based experimentation are all offenders. Let me be the first to say that I don't advocate a full scale erasure of the modernism from contemporary metalsmithing practice, but I do see a need for the continued proliferation of modernist ideals to be questioned, and where appropriate, stopped. I can't imagine a teacher who obtained their MFA in the 1960's or 70's reconsidering what they are teaching.  

To bring it full circle, a reconsideration of modernist principals is by definition post-modern. As we enter a period of renewed ardor for socially and morally conscious craft, that certainly refers to the social world rather than the insular art world, we are indeed reconsidering modern principals. I see the philosophies of John Ruskin and William Morris as more relevant to today's craft practitioners than to the 1940's studio craft movement, which bastardized "the craftsman ideal." In essence, as metalsmithing (and craft) becomes post-modern we are actually becoming proto-modern as well. In so doing we should realize that our proper role models lie in the late 19th century, and not in the mid 20th. 

As always I welcome your comments,

-Gabriel