LEVELING THE HIERARCHICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ART AND CRAFT

ОТНОШЕНИЕ МЕЖДУ ПОНЯТИЯМИ ИЗЯЩНОГО И ДЕКОРАТИВНО-ПРИКЛАДНОГО ИСКУССТВА

Вилкинсон Шиа Лорен

студент Алтайского государственного университета,

РФ, г. Барнаул

АННОТАЦИЯ

Более трехсот лет идет дискуссия о том, что такое изящное и декоративно-прикладное искусство и в каком отношении эти понятия находятся друг к другу. Эта дискуссия имела как положительные, так и отрицательные последствия для практиков и специалистов, работающих в этих областях. Данная статья анализирует, обобщает и дополняет эту дискуссию. Исторически, ученые ставили декоративно-прикладное искусство в низшее положение по отношению к изящному искусству. Но при этом, практикам и теоретикам было достаточно сложно точно провести границу между этими понятиями. Выдвигались различные теоретические подходы объясняющие их отношения. Некоторые исторические движения в декоративно-прикладном искусстве и художественные эксперименты 1960-х и 1970-х годов явились отправной точкой для изменения отношений между изящным и декоративно-прикладным искусством. Исходя из современной практики крупных и второстепенных художественных учреждений в Европе и США, а также изменения в художественном образовании можно сказать, что в современном мире искусства практикам и теоретикам становится все труднее провести четкую грань между изящным и декоративно-прикладным искусством. В статье утверждается, что декоративно-прикладным искусством возвышается до положения, более равного изящному искусству.

ABSTRACT

For over 300 years there has been an ongoing discussion about what art and craft are, and what their relationship is to each other. This has had both positive and negative consequences for practitioners and specialists working in these fields. The article analyzes, generalizes and adds to this discussion. Historically, art philosophy has had the effect of placing craft in a lower position in relation to art. This article considers modern works by authors such as Risatti, Davies, Adamson, and Auther, who have played a significant role in advancing theory on the relationship between art and craft. In order to explain this relationship, several theoretical approaches are described. Certain craft movements and artistic experimentation in the 1960s and 1970s are proposed as the starting point for the shift in the hierarchical relationship of art and craft. A look at curatorial practices among major and minor art institutions in the United States and Europe, as well as changes in art education, demonstrate that in today’s art world, it is becoming increasingly difficult for practitioners and theorists to draw a strict line between art and craft. The article asserts that craft is becoming elevated to a position more equal to fine art.

Ключевые слова: искусство; декоративно-прикладное искусство; описание; текстиль; керамика; художественное учреждение; отношение

Keywords: art; craft; definition; fiber; ceramics; art institution; hierarchy

INTRODUCTION

The term craft has been receiving ever more attention in the last several decades in the art world. At times it is spoken with ridicule and disregard, and at others with reverence and respect. For many philosophers, academics, and practitioners, the question repeatedly arises - what is craft, and is it art or something “other.” In today’s contemporary art scene, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to justify a hard line between art and craft. Historically, this line has been used to place craft in a position inferior to art. This is evidenced by the terms which used to be applied to it in the late nineteenth century, such as the lesser, minor, applied or decorative arts [22, p. 232). In fact, the term craft  was popularized in 1888 by the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society to replace the previous terms, which carried a connotation of something “inferior”. The goal of this new society was to escape the prevailing preconceptions around crafted objects, reunify the arts, and raise designers and craftsmen to the level of artist [23, p. 213].

Scholars have varying theories about why craft has been downgraded and excluded from the fine arts. Often, they make a case that it is linked to either elitism, sexism, racism, colonialism, or all of the above. Some postulate that it’s related to European philosophical trends valuing the mental (art) over the physical (craft) [19, p.68]. This article does not seek to explore that direction of inquiry, but rather to give an overview of leading thoughts on the definitions of art and craft, the consequences of the subordination of craft to art, and the changes taking place in the art world which, in many cases, are leveling this long established hierarchy.

DEFINITIONS AND THEORIES

Oxford languages defines fine art as “creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content” [20]. Based on this definition, many works created with traditional craft materials fall into the category of fine art, as increasingly more craftsmen are rejecting the functional assumption of their work, and instead using their chosen medium to create work which emphasizes aesthetic or intellectual content over materials. In turn, the Cambridge definition of craft is “skill and experience, especially in relation to making objects” [8]. This definition does not exclude the skilled activity involved in making fine art. Therefore, from our most basic understanding of these two terms, it’s clear that they are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually inclusive. However, philosophers, scholars, and practitioners of the arts have resisted such simplicity in a determination to keep a distinction in place, often resulting in the elevation of art and the diminishment of craft.

One way that a line is drawn between art and craft is by association with specific mediums used for their creation. Art is often considered to include painting, drawing, printmaking, sculpture (particularly from stone, bronze, and wood), and, more recently, photography. It’s interesting to note that photography, which was once considered a craft, was relatively quickly adopted into the hierarchy of “fine” art [6, p. 108]. Traditionally, crafts are defined as those objects typically made from wood, clay, fibers, glass, and metal. It will later be shown that these delineations are increasingly being made irrelevant.

After definition by medium comes definition by function. Essentially, the primary function of artwork is observation and contemplation, whereas crafts are assumed to have a utilitarian function. To quote Stephen Davies in his book, The Philosophy of Art, “The crafts are directed at the useful functions that their products can serve. By contrast, works of art are not mere means to ends but are ends in themselves. Their value lies within them, not in benefits and applications that come with their effects” [11, p. 4]. In the contemporary craft world, many objects are created as a means within themselves, without any intention towards functionality, yet they may still struggle to be considered works of art within the art establishment.

Further delineations become more philosophical and also debatable. To be considered art, an object must have an intrinsic aesthetic character. How this is determined may vary with each person. Whether an object has aesthetic character may be based on its beauty, formal unity, or whether it evokes an aesthetic response in viewers. It may be based on all of these factors. Some would also add that the maker must intend to imbue the work with an aesthetic character (19, p.57]. There is no agreed upon set of criteria for determining the presence in an artifact of an aesthetic character, therefore, though a common view, it is not particularly helpful in understanding the divide between those artifacts classified as art, and those classified as craft. 

Art critic and philosopher, Arthur Danto, distinguishes between an artwork and  “a mere thing” by its semantic character. An artwork must be interpreted, a person must contemplate and develop a theory as to what it’s about. An artwork becomes detached from the “real world” and becomes part of “a world of interpreted things” [10, p 135]. From this perspective, it is not enough to possess formal art elements which are aesthetically pleasing to the viewer. The artifact must also require interpretation, it must be about something (color and form, emotions, politics, experiences, for example) [19, p. 60].

Finally, a view proposed by philosopher George Dickie suggests that the very existence of institutions dedicated respectively to art and craft are the basis for the distinction between the two. By their very existence and dedication to either art or craft, they play a significant role in defining these categories and perpetuating their mutual segregation. However, the institutional theory doesn’t account for the underlying reasons why critics, historians, and artists assign works to the art and craft categories [22, p.231]. On the one hand, some  professionals in the craft field point to these institutions as the reason they are excluded from the larger art world. After all, if so many organizations dedicated to craft exist, craft must be separate from art.  On the other hand, these same institutions were created as a way to provide exhibition and professional opportunities to craftspeople who were already being shut out from the art world.

Notable in these definitions is to what extent they are relational, with craft often being defined by what it lacks in relation to art. Less attention is given to the unique attributes that craft objects provide, and which art lacks. Perhaps this is simply because most scholarly research and analysis is on art, as for a long time, craft was considered unsuited for such “intellectualization” [21, p. 2].

CONSEQUENCES

Now that the more widespread justifications for the division of art and craft have been enumerated, the question remains, “what are the consequences of this hierarchical division?” Some have posited that, though frustrating, it has driven the evolution of the art and craft worlds. Glenn Adamson writes in his book, Thinking Through Craft,  that craft represents a conceptual limit throughout modern artistic practice. As such, when viewed positively, craft is an unattainable goal, and when viewed negatively, it is a means of critique. Either way, as the perceived opposite of art, craft fuels its evolution [2, p. 2]. Craft’s perceived inferiority drives evolution in the arts, when artists use it to break the bounds of their own medium. Sculptors Eva Hesse and Robert Morris both used fiber in the 1960s and 1970s precisely for its mundaneness and “non-art” qualities. They understood the “lowliness” of fiber as an escape hatch from the prevailing conception of pure, autonomous form [4, p. xii). Already being of the “higher” art world, they were able to successfully use these media to their advantage and gain praise for their bold choice in materials (18, p. 291]. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the fiber artists  working in the same period, who struggled to get any recognition at all for their work because it was considered “decorative” and “undemanding” [4, p.xi].

The issue of receiving recognition by the larger art world is a prevalent one for people working in the craft field. Howard Risatti writes that the crafts have not experienced the same degree of “intellectualization” nor enjoyed the same level of critical and theoretical support as do the fine arts [21, p. 2]. Many well-known artists such as Picasso, Matisse, Calder, Arp, and Dali, also made works with craft materials, though those works have mostly been ignored, and have received much less attention from scholars than their “fine” art. The artist Sonia Delaunay observed, “for me there is no gap between my painting and my so-called ‘decorative’ work. I never considered the ‘minor arts’ to be artistically frustrating; on the contrary, it was an extension of my art.” Despite this, her decorative arts have been neglected for critical art studies [4, p. xxv]. Though her paintings are held in many of the largest American art institutions, most of her decorative works have only recently been exhibited for the first time in America [5]. Dale Chihuly’s glass work, which is in museum collections around the world, is also discussed mostly from a technical or aesthetic standpoint, with little attention given to critical interpretation of its meaning and cultural significance [7]. Despite the noticeable increase in craft media being displayed in venerable art institutions around the world, catalogs with scholarly essays still rarely deviate from the accepted “description, biography, formal analysis, or technical advice” in order to provide an analysis on the cultural or historical relevance of craft media [13, p. 8]. Of all the craft media, textiles have fared marginally better than the others, since the textile-as-art movement of the 1960s and 70s [14]. Even so,  design historian Dr. Ezra Shales notes, “the great majority of textiles that are made outside of the Masters of Fine Art-universe will not be read as intellectually, emotionally or psychologically rich as pre-approved ‘art’” [3].

Whether art is “higher” or more intellectual than craft is debatable. But it has been shown for centuries that there is a perception that craft is something “less” than art. This notion has consequences. As demonstrated above, sometimes these consequences are positive, when artists “stoop to” using ordinary materials to turn traditional notions upside down, by which evolution in the arts occurs, new audiences are created, and experimentation is enlivened  [4, p. xxx]. On the other hand, there is a fear among artists that by using craft materials, they will be excluded from the fine art world, and possibly also from the craft world, if their work does not fit neatly into one or the other category  [13, p. 6].  Once placed in the box of “the detested ‘c-word’” [22, p. 230], some artists may consider their professional and financial opportunities automatically stunted. Varda Yatom, a world-renowned ceramic sculptor, has been rejected “from most contemporary art museums in Israel, Europe and the United States. ‘Ceramic sculpture is not really art,’ said the director of one major museum… another asserted boldly: ‘Ceramics as a form of art has its own museums and places for display’” [6].

SHIFTING HIERARCHY

Thanks to art movements predominately taking place in the 1960s and 1970s, such as the California clay movement, fiber art movement, and American studio glass movement, craft was given an opportunity to improve its position in the art-craft hierarchy. Craftspeople began to reject the assumption that crafts must have function, they pushed the boundaries of their mediums, they struggled for and in some cases won recognition by the larger art community, creating awareness that craft materials can surpass previously held expectations and preconceptions. Artists working in ceramics are indebted to the trail-blazing work of Peter Voulkos, artists working with glass to Harvey Littleton, and artists working with textiles to a myriad of female artists, like Sheila Hicks and Lenore Tawney.

In America and Europe, the distinction between art and craft has been steadily dissolving over the last 60 years. Young emerging artists, who have much more freedom to choose whichever medium expresses their message most satisfactorily, often take the possibilities for granted, not understanding that this is a relatively new freedom in the arts [13, p.6]. Academic fine art programs are increasingly including craft materials and encouraging a broadening of skills in non-traditional media. Craftspeople and artists are studying together, exhibiting together, and learning from each other in unprecedented numbers. Especially since the early 2000s in the USA, major art museums, such as the Museum of Modern Art [12] and Whitney Museum, both in New York City,  have mounted exhibitions of craft objects, and placed them at the same level as traditional artworks [1]. Also starting from the 2000s, craft objects have been featured in venerable international exhibitions, such as the Venice [15] and Whitney Biennials [24], and have won prestigious awards, such as the Turner Prize and Artprize [13, p. 9]. Therefore, it can be seen that the hierarchical distinction between art and craft is gradually dissolving, as each group turns to the other for inspiration and evolution. While craft is still not given the same level of scholarly attention, and perhaps never will be, considering the historical baggage, it is nonetheless gaining respect and appreciation by larger audiences [9]. Both museums and a new generation of collectors are enlarging their collections of craft objects [16]. Dialogue as to the importance of craft in the modern world is picking up, and rather than being seen as art’s “inferior other” as before, it is gaining its own significance outside of the comparison with fine art. This is especially true with craft practices often being proposed as the antidote to society's obsession with technology and social media, and the need to hold onto something “real” [18, p. 296].

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this article has covered the more prevalent definitions and theories used to distinguish art from craft, particularly in terms of creating a hierarchy between the two. Considering the work being created today, rather than thinking of two distinct categories, it seems more appropriate to consider art and craft in terms of a venn diagram. This would more accurately represent their relationship: not all art is like craft, and not all craft is like art, but there are artists and craftspeople who are working within the space where the two overlap. This would include artists and craftspeople who use traditional craft media to create functionless artwork with an aesthetic and/or interpretive character. The article has also pointed out that this distinction has consequences for both scholarly research and analysis, and professional opportunities for both craftspeople and artists working with non-traditional media. This can create a vicious circle. Scholarly research isn’t done because there’s little precedent on which to base it. Craftspeople are denied the benefits and opportunities that come with being a “capital-A” artist, due again to a lack of precedence and the continuing need to overturn entrenched thinking regarding the hierarchy of art and craft. Fortunately, the art movements of the mid-twentieth century helped to create the required precedent to open the doors of art institutions a crack, so that over time, craftspeople could get a foot in. Lastly, the article demonstrated how this hierarchical distinction is gradually dissolving, as craft objects are increasingly being included in exhibitions and collections of major art institutions, and academic programs are encouraging a multimedia approach to arts education. The old debates about the relative values of art and craft, intellectual vs. utilitarian, high vs. low, are being gradually discarded. In its place is a desire to understand and value each tradition in and of itself, rather than in relation to each other [17].

References:

1. Adamson G. Why the Art World Is Embracing Craft. 14.01.20. URL: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-embracing-craft  (Access date: 14.06.24)
2. Adamson G. Thinking Through Craft. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2007. –P. 1-7.
3. Artists and Artisans: Uneven Reception of Craft within Contemporary Art. [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: https://voca.network/blog/2020/08/21/artists-and-artisans-uneven-reception-of-craft-within-contemporary-art/ (Access date: 15.06.24)
4. Auther E. String Felt Thread: The Hierarchy of Art and Craft in American Art. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009. – P. i-xxx.
5. Bard Graduate Center Gallery. Sonia Delaunay: Living Art Features Never Before Exhibited Objects and Reveals New Research and Insights into the Influential French Painter, Artisan, and Designer [Press Release]. 2024. URL: bgc.bard.edu/files/Sonia_Delaunay_Media_Alert_Final_(1).pdf (Access date: 15.06.24)
6. Bruderman E. Craft's battle for acceptance: Visual and spatial consequences / E. Bruderman // Ceramics: Art and Perception – 2021. – № 118 – P. 108-115.
7. Burgard T.A. Chihuly the Artist: Breathing Life into Glass. 2008. URL: https://www.chihuly.com/life/writings/chihuly-artist-breathing-life-glass# (Access date: 14.06.24)
8. Cambridge Dictionary. Craft. [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/craft (Access date: 14.06.24)
9. Craft Front & Center [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: https://www.madmuseum.org/exhibition/craft-front-center (Access date: 17.06.24)
10. Danto A.C. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. – P. 135.
11.  Davies S. The Philosophy of Art. 2nd edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2016. – P. 1-4.
12. Exhibitions [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions (Access date: 17.06.24)
13. Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art. / Duke University; [edited by M.E. Buszek]. Durham and London: Duke University Press. 2011. – 1-19 p.
14. Harrod T. What the art world gets wrong about craft. 27.02.23. URL: https://www.apollo-magazine.com/craft-textiles-modern-art-history/ (Access date: 14.06.24)
15. Introduction by Adriano Pedrosa, Curator of the 60th International Art Exhibition [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: https://www.labiennale.org/en/art/2024/introduction-adriano-pedrosa (Access date: 17.06.24)
16. Jacobin J.The Future of Craft Collecting. 18.08.22. URL: https://www.craftcouncil.org/magazine/article/future-craft-collecting (Access date: 17.06.24)
17. Jefferson M. Beyond Cultural Labeling, Beyond Art Versus Craft. 22.03.05. URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/arts/design/beyond-cultural-labeling-beyond-art-versus-craft.html (Access date: 16.06.24)
18. Ługowska A. The Art and Craft Divide – On the Exigency of Margins / A. Ługowska. Art Inquiry. Recherches sur les arts – 2014. Vol. 16. – P. 285-296.
19. Markowitz S.J. The Distinction between Art and Craft / S.J. Markowitz // The Journal of Aesthetic Education – 1994. Vol. 28. № 1 – P. 55-70.
20. Oxford English Dictionary. Fine art. [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access:
21. https://www.google^*.com/search?q=fine+art+definition&rlz=1CAPPDO_enUS970&oq=fine+art&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l3j69i65l2j69i60l3.2732j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (Access date: 14.06.24)
22. Risatti H. A Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press,  2007. – P. 1-12.
23. Shiner L. ‘‘Blurred Boundaries’’? Rethinking the Concept of Craft and its Relation to Art and Design  / L. Shiner // Philosophy Compass – 2012. Vol. 7. № 4 – P. 230–244.
24. Stansky P. Redesigning the World: William Morris, the 1880s and the Arts and Crafts Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. – P. 213.
25. Whitney Biennial 2024: Even Better Than the Real Thing [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: https://whitney.org/exhibitions/2024-biennial (Access date: 17.06.24)

^* At the request of Roskomnadzor, we inform you that a foreign person who owns Google information resources is a violator of the legislation of the Russian Federation - ed. note