The subject of this post is a response to the recent article in Metalsmith magazine by Bruce Metcalf entitled Alt-Craft in Theory and In Practice. As my brain works in a circuitous way I want to start with some long standing opinions that I have and work my way up to the article. I hope you can bear with me.It is my perception that practitioners in the fields of both Metalsmithing and Craft have largely chosen not to engage in art historical rhetoric, including the use of devices and mechanisms which art historians use to categorize, label, and ultimately understand the field of Contemporary Visual Art. I feel that this ignorance of scholastic contemporary dialogue is in part how we find ourselves in our current climate, one that is devoid of professional commentators. (This is a generalization, increasingly we are seeing competent commentators.) It is of crucial importance that we are able to engage with art historians on their terms. We need to know how to participate in their dialogue because they will be the ones to chart our course. Paul Greenhalgh rants about this very issue in the first issue of the newly relaunched American Craft (Oct/Nov of 2007). In retrospect, it will not matter what is done, only what is recorded. If we want to be participants in that record then we need to be attentive to the culture of art historians. It seems that despite the interesting and progressive work that is being made now, metalsmithing is only marginally being recognized by "decorative arts" historians.
So, who are some of the people charting our course? Our good friends at American Craft have really changed their tune since they relaunched their magazine. For those of you who read American Craft please note the slew of critical self assessment articles in the last three issues. The section entitled Critic's Corner has featured most of craft's recognized critics. To illustrate this let's look at who's been in the Critic's Corner.
1. (Oct/Nov 2007) Paul Greenhalgh author of The Persistence of Craft.
2. (Dec 2007/Jan 2008) Glenn Adamson in promotion of his new book Thinking Through Craft.
3. (Feb/Mar 2008) Howard Risatti author of A Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression.
I guess where I am going with this is that Andrew Wagner (editor of American Craft) is creating a discourse in his magazine. This discourse is an awesome thing, but...there is a problem looming. It is this same problem that has prompted me to write this post, which hits closer to home with Mr. Metcalf.
As a preface to the metalsmith article I would like to say this: I applaud the work of torchbearers of the critical writing tradition in both crafts and metalsmithing for the last few decades. Metalsmith practitioners/ writers such as Bruce Metcalf have been the voice of critical discourse in the field for a long time. We can look to illustrious careers like that of Bruce Metcalf as an example of how to balance the practices of writing and making, both of which he has done successfully.
The problem that we have now is that Bruce Metcalf is old. Ouch! Before someone accuses me of being ageist, let me qualify that. First, read the article. Okay. Bruce (can I call you Bruce?) went to a conference in Dundee Scotland this past summer and got the cliff notes about where the next generation of phd bearing euro-crafties is taking the field. As it happens, Bruce has gotten it right for the last 20 or so years. Craft is its own unique snowflake (coincidentally Glenn Adamson agrees in his book in the first 3 pages!). We are not subordinate to art. Oddly enough though, there are a great number of artists who use craft's perceived subordinate position as the content of their art (Check out the book By Hand, The Use of Craft in Contemporary Art for some examples). The new guard is using craft as an instrument of social critique, of social change, of community, and of humanization. What it really is, is the beginning of another Arts and Crafts movement. This time we are reacting against corporatization and globalization. Whoa. I will hit up the cultural impetus for this movement in the next week or two.
God love you fogeys but you are just now realizing that the future has nothing to do with the advances that you made in aesthetics and techniques for the past 60 years. Bruce rightly pointed this out in his article. So my question is this: Bruce you have written and made work for the past 30 years about narratives and formal aesthetics, do you get to claim the social craft revolution for your canon? Let me be the first to say no. This is not yours. You called it man, oh yes, you held tight for so long. I see you like Moses leading the Israelites through the desert (only for 30 years though) all the while speaking of reaching the promised land. Well we have arrived in the promised land, but you Moses Metcalf cannot enter the land of Canaan.
This is really the bottom line. This new trend belongs to the practitioners who have brought it about and who are living it. The institutionalized goons can go back to the craft fairs. It honestly scares the shit out of me that the first person to write about metalsmithing as a social instrument competently is someone who has openly opposed alternative craft practices in the past. There is no unified voice or leader to speak yet (like Ruskin or Morris), and I doubt there will be. But as someone who believes and practices craft's intangible aspects I feel justified in writing this post. My studio practice has never been about aesthetics as much as it has been about challenging the status quo. The graphic above I made previous to this hoopla. But for me it is a symbol of metalsmithing's ability to bring about social change in a egalitarian and utilitarian way. Perhaps the Manifesto of the New Jewellry has influenced this loaded iconography. Let's not forget though that William Morris was a staunch Marxist.
Before I get to far off topic, let me tie it all together. Andrew Wagner and Bruce Metcalf are giving a presentation at this year's SNAG conference entitled D.I.Y., Websites, and Energy: The New Alternative Craft. Can American Craft, replete with aging critics, call the play by play for the youngsters? Wagner and Metcalf are interesting bedfellows. Wagner is trying to steer a giant tanker in iceberg infested waters and Metcalf is.......an extremely experienced captain at the helm with horrible eye sight and no corrective lenses? I don't know really. I just get defensive when critics write about stuff they aren't involved with.
So, through an amazing set of circumstances I am eating lunch with Andrew Wagner on Monday. Sweet, I know right? (Thank you Sonya) I will post an addendum after that if there is anything new to say after talking with him.
I'll leave you with this and you tell me what you think: How different is Bruce Metcalf writing about new craft practices from colonialism? When middle aged white guys wrote about and plundered the artistic treasures of the world (1700-1950), the post-modern revolution came through and rewrote the history through a multiculturalist post-modern lens. If metalsmithing and crafts are to finally understand and apply postmodernism, then realize now that the people who canonize should be either:
a) the practitioners
b) the yet to emerge social, critical, and art historical commentators of this generation
c) Bruce Metcalf after making a body of work, or at least an attempt to use craft as something more than a formal exercise
See you next time, and keep those comments coming.
Best,
-Gabriel
Posts
