Craftivism 2000: Utopia of Socially Engaged Craft?

If perhaps somewhat surprisingly, throughout history craft has played a significant role in imagining numerous alternatives to the existing social order. Indeed, the reasons for the emphasis on craftwork, as well as the approaches to the understanding of craft within all these quests have been as varied as the worldviews that inspired them. Notwithstanding though, from literary utopias, through monasteries, intentional communities, through the 19th and 20th century art, craft and design reforms or the 1960s rise of DIY movement up to the quite recent phenomenon of Craftivism, craft seems to have repeatedly resonated in times of political, social, economic and cultural crises. Despite the variety of approaches employed, one of the common features linking all these approaches together have always been their vulnerability to the charges of ΄idealism΄ and ΄utopianism΄ of one kind or another. The aim of the proposed paper is therefore to look at the relationship between craft, social transformation and utopianism. Consequently, the paper will seek to answer the question of whether and how can craft act as an agent of social change through drawing a connection between the ideas of the British poet, designer and socialist William Morris (1834-1896) and the currently flourishing Craftivism movement. The term Craftivism ( craft + activism) was coined in the early 2000s by the writer and ΄crafter΄ Betsy Greer. Greer defines craftivism as “a way of looking at life where voicing opinions through creativity makes your voice stronger, your compassion deeper and your quest for justice more infinite”[1]. Most of the issues at the core of the craftivist agenda (environmentalism, anti-capitalism, anti-sweatshop or anti-war), quite strikingly resemble the topics eagerly addressed by William Morris almost one and a half century ago. Yet, despite the very similar points of departure and the mediatory role ascribed to craft in both craftivist and William Morris’s anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist stance, there are a number of differences that draw these two approaches apart and, moreover, raise justified questions about the power of craft to negotiate social change. The proposed paper will suggest that the main differences between the two approaches are threesome and lie in their treatment of: 1. creativity, 2. materials and 3. skill. These, with special focus on the latter, will therefore serve as the main framework for the discussion of transformative potential of craft. The paper will question how creativity relates to skill and whether a consistent and convincing political statement can be made without what Richard Sennett describes as “quality-driven work”[2]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] www.craftivism.com, (accessed May 16, 2011) [2] Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (New Haven&London: Yale University Press, 2008), Chapter 9 Quality-Driven Work