Extra/ordinary: Craft and contemporary art

The most valuable feature of the concept of culture is the concept of difference, a contrastive rather than a substantive property of certain things. Although the term difference has now taken on a vast set of associations (principally because of the special use of the term by Jacques Derrida and his followers), its main virtue is that it is a useful heuristic that can highlight points of similarity and contrast between all sorts of categories: classes, genders, roles, groups, and nations. When we therefore point to a practice, a distinction, a conception, an object, or an ideology as having a cultural dimension (notice the adjectival use), we stress the idea of situated difference, that is, difference in relation to something local, embodied, and significant. This point can be summarized in the following form: culture is not usefully regarded as a substance but is better regarded as a dimension of phenomena, a dimension that attends to situated and embodied difference. Stressing the dimensionality of culture rather than its substantiality permits our thinking of culture less as a property of individuals and groups and more as a heuristic device that we can use to talk about difference.

Philosophy Compass, 2012

Art world talk of ''blurred boundaries'' and ''hybrids'' between art and craft, suggests that the philosophy of art needs to rethink the concept of craft. This can best be done by adopting four strategies: first, distinguish between craft as a set of disciplines, and craft as a process and practice; second, keep in mind the differences among craft practices such as studio, trade, ethnic, amateur, and DIY; third, recognize that craft's relationship with design is as important as its relationship to art; fourth, attend to the role digital design and fabrication are playing in craft and art today. At the core of the craft process are three contested characteristics found in most craft practices: hand, material, and skill, although these are better understood as body, medium, and mastery. After discussing a fourth contested characteristic of many craft and design practices, function, I show that none of the four characteristics is a requisite condition for artistic practice today, yet none are excluded from contemporary (fine) art, despite its current ''post-studio'' or ''post-disciplinary'' tendencies. I conclude that the boundary between art and craft conceived as a set of disciplines defined by materials and techniques has not become blurred, it has all but disappeared. On the other hand, I show through an analysis of some references to ''mere craft'' by Stephen Davies and Arthur Danto, that craft conceived as a process and practice can be understood as distinct from art, but in a non-invidious sense.

“Craft and the Making of ‘Global’ Contemporary Art,” A Companion to Contemporary Art in a Global Framework, eds. Jane Chin Davidson and Amelia Jones. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 119-31. , 2023

To approach the broader question of how craft often serves as a constituent element in contemporary art, this essay traces the historical developments that catalyzed the ideological differentiation of art, craft, modernism, and the contemporary in colonial and postcolonial contexts. I suggest that this historical mapping, dating back to projects of industrialization and empire in the nineteenth century, is important in terms of tracing the transcultural routes to contemporary art’s desire for globalism today, and the role of craft therein. This also provides necessary context for considering craft as the hinge of an artwork but also as risk for artists from regions like Southeast Asia, whose works become instrumental in the making of a “global” contemporary art.

Practices, 2017

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'

2012

The art-craft debate is as much an issue of aesthetics as it is of ethics and the traditional and modern values and interpretations assigned to "art" and "craft". The creator, critic and consumer all claim the privilege of attributing status to an object -whether it be a work of art or an artifact -and not necessarily in agreement with one another. Culture, religion, ideology, race, gender, fashion and economics will dictate or influence preference and prejudice, either elevating a craft to the status of art or at the very least, acknowledge its exemplary qualities of materials, design and function.

Craft Research

Craft Research, 2013

Malcolm Ferris, (ed), Making Futures: The Crafts as Change-maker in Sustainably Aware Cultures. Vol 2. ISSN 2042-1664 , 2011

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”. Most of the issues at the core of the craftivist agenda (environmentalism, anti-capitalism, anti-sweatshop or antiwar), 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”.