Crafters, Craftspeople, and Artists OR the Treachery of Labels

Most people familiar with the discourse of contemporary craft are also familiar with the ongoing, and somewhat cliché, debate of art vs. craft. Before you roll your eyes (I can see you rolling them) or decide that this is a tired topic to post about, I want to assure you that this will not be a post that rehashes the finer points that have been bandied about for the last half century. What brings this up is my recent attendance at The Language of Craft conference at Haystack Mountain School of Crafts. While I was there I was involved in a spirited discussion with craftspeople, writers, and gallerists, in which the hierarchy of labels and the assessment of work become the central topic of discussion.

What I would like to address in this post is the problematic nature of qualitative assessment in the field of craft. I make no secret of the fact that I believe that craft has an inherent egalitarian responsibility and that part of respecting and honoring our own history is to acknowledge our roots as a field steeped in socially conscious (sometimes even subversive) production.

To bring you up to speed, it has become evident to me that a representative cross-section of participants at The Language of Craft conference found the term crafter to be a derogatory term in relation to their own practice, while the term craftsperson (also craftsman or craftswoman) should be reserved for makers who subscribe to and strive for standards of excellence in the physical creation of their work. In other words, crafters just make things without care, perhaps with a hot glue gun, while craftspeople execute works of technical virtuosity, thus elevating them to a status worthy of the term craftsperson.

I find this standard of technical accomplishment to be troublesome for several reasons. This first of which is that I do not feel a successful work can be judged on technical accomplishment alone. To paraphrase a previous post, The Importance of Synesthesia, Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran is neuroscience researcher who, through the evidence of his research, suggests that cross-sensory perception, or synesthesia, is the basis for creative thought. In other words, it is our ability to engage in metaphorical thinking that makes us artists, rather than any other trait. I find this to be most applicable in the context of this discussion. I believe, though you are welcome to disagree, that at least part of a work’s value lies in its ability to relay creative thought or metaphorical thinking. Therefore the precondition of technical proficiency is not a valid method of assessment in and of itself because tacit (or how-to) knowledge is only a means to express metaphorical thinking.

To illustrate this, I would like to relay an anecdote (originally from a 2002 oral history interview by Robert Silberman) from Glenn Adamson’s Thinking Through Craft in which Warren MacKenzie tells a story about his time in St. Ives as an apprentice to Bernard Leach, undoubtedly one of the most important ceramicists of the 20th Century.

Bernard worked in a part of the shop that was away from the rest of us. He had a separate studio upstairs, and so we didn’t actually see him making pots so much. But when he wanted to decorate his ware, it had to come down to the glazing room, where the pigments and slips and so forth were for decorating. And one day he brought down about three boards full of pots, 20 pots, let’s say, and then he got called away to the phone, and we, of course, all went into the glazing room to see what he had brought down, and we were able to pick up and handle his work. And there was a man who worked in the pottery, Bill Marshall, and Bill was technically the best thrower in the pottery. He could work with more clay; he could shape it quickly and easily and throw very well. And Bill looked at all these pots and picked them up and handled them and so on. And he finally said something which shocked us, but I guess I would have to have agreed with it. He said, “Bernard can’t throw worth a damn.” And we all thought, oh, well. And then Bill finished his statement. He said, “But he makes better pots than any of us.”

I hope this story makes it perfectly clear, even for those baptized into craft during the naissance of the studio craft movement, that technical accomplishment is not a good standard by which to measure the success or worthiness of a work. To me, it makes the most sense to objectively evaluate a work on ALL of its merits before coming to a judgment about a work or especially a maker. As Americans living in a politically correct paradigm, do we not evaluate each person individually as to their character and attributes rather than making a claim that all (fill in race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation here) people are less than the rest of us?

By making a qualitative assessment of a work as either good or bad based on the prerequisite of technical proficiency we are indeed judging work on only one superficial criteria, rather than objectively evaluating the successfulness of a work. In addition, the aim of many works is not technical proficiency alone. By excluding works from the field of craft (or its maker the status of craftsperson) that are deemed sub-proficient we are in essence discriminating against alternate modes of evaluation. By desperately adhering to qualitative technical standards we are reinforcing the exclusivity of our own status and stalwartly resisting change thus limiting the parameters of our field. The result of this practice can only be stagnation and regression.

This is discrimination, and it is discrimination in the truest sense of the word, I find to be repulsive. Should makers who do not exercise a base level of technical proficiency sit in the back of the proverbial bus? Use separate bathrooms and water fountains? Granted this is an extreme comparison, but in essence it plays. By not being like us (using qualitative technical standards) crafters are less than us, and should not receive the same status, benefits, and rights accorded to us. It just smacks of insecurity. Are we really concerned that by inviting crafters or non-technically proficient makers to our table we will in some way be harmed? I sincerely doubt that mixing with crafters would in anyway degrade craft as a field. On the contrary, I think it will only enrich the field and widen the spectrum and power of the word Craft. What I believe to be the chief concern of those who use the term crafter in a pejorative manner is the loss of hard fought credibility in the eyes of the public at large. Yet for all of craft’s hard won status, craft fairs (even the big selective ones) are often populated by booths filled with absolute dreck.

So this is where it comes back to the Art vs. Craft debate. Is the perceived discrimination and differentiation of craft from art not the same impulse as craftspeople attempting to differentiate and venerate themselves above crafters? It strikes me as hypocritical that the same minds who lament craft’s second class status are the same as the minds that are so eager to differentiate themselves from crafters. I think we should not be so eager to pass judgment on fellow makers.

Craft is big enough to incorporate both technically proficient and technically deficient makers. I have to believe that craft is about more than just how many skills you have. Though skilled labor is inherently part of what we do, it is by no means everything. And it is for this reason that we must keep an open mind and be egalitarian and inclusive in our field, our community, and about our passion.

Comments welcome,

-Gabriel

The Green, the Organic, and the Handmade

Introduction

What do eggs, urban planning, and ceramic platters have in common? A few years ago the answer may have been nothing. Today there is a pervasive cultural movement that links these seemingly disparate things together. Green practices, organic products, and handmade goods all share a social or moral imperative to the consumer. It seems clear that many of the phenomena we are experiencing are the result of a humanistic trend that is a reaction to corporatism and globalism. By looking at current cultural and consumer trends, including their motivation and history, I hope to convey the importance of the green, the organic, and the handmade to the current climate of crafts.

Historical Precedents

If there is any credence to claim that we are now experiencing a grassroots humanist movement, then surely we can look to examples from history for cross comparison in both philosophy and application. The Aesthetic Movement is widely considered to be the major precursor to the better-known Arts and Crafts Movement. Both of these movements were a reaction to a disdain for modern life. In the study of these important periods of craft production in the 19th century, historian Marion John Nelson gives us a useful distinction that pertains to the contemporary application of the impetus for humanist movements. Nelson relays that the Aesthetic Movement was a reaction to materialism, while the Arts and Crafts Movement was a reaction to industrialization and worker exploitation by industry. Notably, both movements were born in Britain in the late 19th century and later transferred to America. Note that both countries were economic and industrial centers of the world at that time.

Further, the Arts and Crafts Movement manifested itself as a return to the handmade and the personal, and had clearly defined Marxist undertones. A loss of consideration of the individual, largely due to the cold efficiency of machine manufacture, spurred the movement to international importance. The first major spokesman for the handmade and its value was John Ruskin, a name that may ring familiar. A second group, known as the South Kensington Reformers (Henry Cole, Owen Jones, Christopher Dresser, et al.) had a rival philosophy which embraced machine manufacture in order to bring good design to the masses. Both camps had a social imperative that sought to elevate the plight of humanity through the crafts; they differed primarily in their advocated methods to achieve social change.

Here is where I see parallels: First, the United States and other countries with highly developed economic infrastructure (such as corporations) are experiencing the largest impact from humanist movements. Industrialized and global economic powers are the countries whose populations seek the promise of individualized and socially responsible economic practices. Second, when looking at the current landscape of consumerism it seems obvious that there are growing niche markets that are reactions to the same agents of materialism and industry found in the late 19th century, only today’s causes and reactions veil themselves in new guises of advanced capitalism and globalization respectively. These economic systems have become the catalysts for the humanistic movement that is currently happening. Third, there are several philosophies of the current humanist movement and while some embrace globalization and technology, some react directly against it. There are two philosophic camps within the crafts that mirror the philosophies of both Ruskin and the South Kensington group. The updated version of Ruskin is exemplified by those makers who evidence the process of the handmade as a vital component of their work. To parley the recent article in American Craft by Marc Kristal (The Hand Meets High Tech), the South Kensington Group’s contemporary ideological equivalent is exemplified by makers who embrace technology and the advances in 21st century manufacture in the creation of their work. Lastly, the historical movements were cultural rather than media specific. The Aesthetic and Arts and Craft Movements affected not only cultural production, but also bled into everything from social norms to politics. Today we can see the same patterns of activism manifesting themselves across the spectrum of cultural production, social norms, and politics as well. A particularly recent example of this is that of a certain political front-runner achieving success on a platform of social change, environmentalism, reform, and many other socially responsible (and humanist) policies. The parallels could continue on into infinitude, but lets soldier on.

Shifting Social Norms: The Slow Movement, The Green Movement, and Anti-Corporatism

In the last fifteen years we began to see the rise and subsequent domination of the multi-national conglomerate corporation. Through the corporate economic prosperity of the late 1990’s manufacturing jobs were outsourced to countries where labor was less expensive. This was often coupled with the exploitation of indigenous populations in the countries of manufacture. In addition the increased reliance on technology in daily life and the dominance of the big box retail outlet further separated the average American from the means of production of the goods that they consumed.

From these humble origins arose a dissenting group whose interest was, at first, in the negative repercussions of the increasingly powerful and increasingly unethical corporation. The obvious reactions came first from environmentalists, labor unions, small businesses, independent farmers, health conscious consumers, and yes, crafts people. The slow food movement in America rose to popularity in the climate of health fanaticism that arose in the late 1990’s. Increasingly marginalized independent farmers began to partner with collective groups of consumers in order to fulfill the growing demand for environmentally and socially conscious provincial food products. In other words people wanted food that was free of chemicals, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and in addition was locally produced. The closer people could get to understanding how their food was actually produced the better. In many cases people owned shares in a farm or in a specific animal, and they would receive a portion of the production. The impetus for this type of morally responsible consumerism spread and by the time the Enron scandal began to make headlines in 2001, Americans were ready to hold corporations responsible. The way to do this was through responsible consumerism. Capitalism began to correct itself through the consumer will. Certainly marketing departments sat up and took notice. In the last decade there has been a steady increase in organic food and in turn organic food marketing. In 1998 organic milk was a novelty in the dairy case, and today, in 2008, it takes up equal space in the very same case, and at organic or health food markets it is often the only option (if you don’t count alternatives like soymilk). Slow food was only the beginning of a new paradigm in consumerism though.

Built partially on the success of the slow food movement, the simultaneously emerging green movement exploded only more recently due to increasing media attention on environmental issues such as global warming. In 2007 Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his persistent work in educating the public about the impending environmental crisis. If you do not yet know what a carbon footprint is then you must have been living under a rock for the last 5 years. Environmental sustainability has become a multi-billion dollar business spawning products with innumerable imperative tags such as eco-smart, eco-friendly, eco-minded, fair-trade, heirloom, non-conflict, organic, natural, all natural, free range, and just plain green. Corporate responsibility campaigns are now vital to the corporate image, often spending more money on their green advertising than their actual green activities.

The consideration of the green has even shown up in complex social schisms such as re-urbanization and gentrification. As urban sprawl reaches an apex, young professionals are leading the charge back into desolate cities in order to create urban sustainability that will meet the needs of future generations. Increasingly people are realizing that we cannot continue to sprawl indefinitely without precipitating severe environmental consequences. By choosing to live in and also reform struggling urban centers people are choosing both provincialism and environmental sustainability. The impact of re-urbanization on native residents is also relevant here, but ultimately is a separate and tangential issue. We are reminded forcibly of other lesser-of-two-evil issues. i.e. In an attempt to wean ourselves from petroleum, the overproduction of corn for ethanol has resulted in land devastation, and in many cases corn based ethanol requires more energy to create fuel, than the fuel provides when used.

It is the issue of environmental sustainability, that will define my generation (generation Y). If socially conscious moral imperatives didn’t take root with people looking to be healthier, or even with people trying to save America’s cities from decay, it certainly has taken root with young professionals looking to do their part to avoid Armageddon. Again we see a moral imperative that was introduced to consumers in the form of having the choice to buy goods that were environmentally friendly in order to help shift humanity towards a more sustainable future. Consumers are now trained to believe that making the world a better place starts at the cash register. “Environmentally friendly” has become the commercial mantra. And why not? It seems like a win-win situation. Frequently we are faced with a decision that may go something like this:

You are at the store to buy a new shirt and you are presented with two nearly identical shirts with that cool graphic logo that is really hip right now. One shirt is made from normal industrially produced cotton, while a second shirt is made of heirloom seeded cotton, that is picked by Guatemalans making a living wage, which prevents the destruction of more rain forests. You know all of this by reading the tag on the shirt, but there is also a green sign with neat white lettering that alerts you to the fact that this is a green product. The second shirt is a few dollars more expensive. So, which shirt do you choose? What are you a jerk? Of course you want the heirloom Guatemalan shirt. Oh…the heirloom Guatemalan shirt costs a few bucks more. Hmmm. Well I guess I can swing it. I am helping the world to be a better place.

A few very important things happened there that directly relate to where I am going next, so just to highlight them quickly: First, and most importantly, an increasing minority of consumers are now willing to pay more for products that are perceived to be morally superior to their standard alternative. Second, the in-store marketing of the product nearly fulfills the criteria to be considered a slow product, in other words, the consumer knows where the product comes from and is aware of the benefits of buying this product. Lastly, a clear association is made between the product and saving the environment. By buying the second shirt you were surely saving the rainforest.

Crafts and the Humanistic Moral Imperative

Whether the claims made by green and organic products are true is another matter entirely. Just as with health food marketing, low fat does not necessarily mean good for you. The point is that craft objects and crafts people fulfill many of the criteria that are listed above. One of the main things that we are lacking is an effective and collaborative marketing campaign to highlight the handmade in terms of that same moral imperative. Many makers can tell the consumer where their materials come from. Some makers even collect or produce material themselves. Since we are so involved with our work we have complete control of our material, often resulting in ethical material sourcing.

I work in metal. Now more than ever metalsmiths are turning to alternative materials because of the horrors of precious metal mining. I frequently talk to both customers and other metalsmiths, who are willing to pay more for “green” gold. I work now with almost exclusively recycled or ethically sourced material, and I see an opportunity in my marketing to use this to my advantage. If Boris Bally can be a purveyor of humanufacturing©, then surely I can be an environmetalsmith.

The truth is that we should all be these things. Studio Craft products have become increasingly marginal in the spectrum of cultural production. My evidence for this is talking to craftspeople and craft consumers. Attendance at craft shows is down and the economy is officially in recession (thank you multi-national conglomerate lending houses). Makers can no longer afford to have their work categorized as luxury goods. The good news is that for the most part, we are not luxury goods as long as we don’t market ourselves as such.

One thing that the Indie-Craft Movement does extremely well, that has been largely overlooked by conventional craftspeople, is to market its goods as an alternative to mass production, mass consumption, and mass destruction. The Indie-Craft circuit is green, slow-moving, and anti-corporate. It’s a more personal alternative even to small business. We can learn a lot from the marketing strategy of an Indie maker. The Indie-Craft Movement is popular right now because young, eco-conscious professionals are looking for an alternative to the big-box store and even an alternative to industrial production. Doesn’t this sound like the same humanistic impetus from the 19th century, only in a new set of clothes? The moral imperative that inspires people to shop green and eat organic is the same moral imperative that inspires them to buy handmade.

It comes down to forward thinking and seeing the potential in social, political, and generational signs around us. If we do not begin to market ourselves to the growing hunger in the market place for morally superior products, the door may close on our opportunity to regain market share that has been lost in recent years. There are plenty of industries capitalizing on this demand; we should be one of them. This is the opportunity to generate another Craft movement, through we need a catchy title for it. Art Historians, any ideas?

In the End is a New Beginning

If you are with me until now, then I should tell you I am not content to just comment complacently. We need to actively bring about change in order to secure our future. This is where I propose we go from here:

First, we need to realize and then incorporate green and organic practices into our work as much as possible. Know where your materials come from start to finish. You may need to do research. This is a good thing because it makes you just as connected to the slow-movements as your potentially slow-minded customer.

Second, if you make things by hand you are already perceived to be part of a movement away from corporate anonymity. Crafts has always been a community oriented and humanistic mode of manufacture. This can be used to our advantage if marketed correctly.

Third, it is useful to understand, from a young consumer’s perspective, how a pretentious craft object is viewed against a craft object with a moral ethos. I see this as the old model vs. the new model. An example of this: a Sam Maloof chair is a status symbol, like many other expensive hand made objects. I think his chairs are something to marvel at, but I could never afford one. In the same way that a traditional collector (baby boomer) might collect the Maloof chair as a symbol of wealth and refined taste, a young collector (gen Y-er) might purchase a chair made of wood from a planned sustainable forest that is certified eco-friendly and pesticide free as a symbol of moral behavior and environmental stewardship. This is not a black or white thing either. You can build your brand to harness both types of symbolic signifiers.

Fourth, prices need to come down. This is perhaps a ridiculous thing to say. Crafts people work hard to make a living and our labor is valuable. However, the price of our labor forces our products into the luxury goods market. We only have three things to offer, our materials, our ideas, and our skilled labor. If we devalue our labor we will cease to be as exclusive in our products, thus opening to a wider market. The down side is that this may be impossible for some. However, if we can make the handmade more affordable then we can market ourselves to a wider audience and in turn increase demand for our products. And for those of you out there who aren’t economists, when demand goes up so do prices. It is a temporary sacrifice. There are many more people involved in moral consumerism than are currently craft patrons. Many of them are young with smaller amounts of disposable income. Think about it like this. One hundred fish that weigh one pound weigh more than one fifty-pound fish. Most of America’s wealth is in the middle class. Our new target market should be the young middle class.

Finally, I echo the words of Andrew Glasgow, executive director of the American Craft Council “We need to partner in order to allow us to all go further.” It is my deepest hope that we can all look to the American Craft Council for leadership and for new ideas in propelling Craft into 21st century paradigms. If we can utilize the current infrastructure of craft organizations to help us achieve our goals then we can spend more time doing what we do best, making things. In order to do this we need a plan to effectively market craft to a drastically wider audience. We must urge our leadership to help us achieve this goal, and if they are unwilling, we must become leaders ourselves. In my eyes the ACC has a long way to go before they can begin to invoke Aileen Osborn Webb’s name with out shame.

The humanistic paradigm currently dominating American consumerism in the form of the green, the organic, and the handmade is the moment for the crafts to ossify its relevance and vitality for the next generation. Its time to wake up and smell the organic, fair-trade coffee.

As always comments are welcome,
-Gabriel