History of Craft & Its Cultural Baggage
Kathryn Lichti-Harriman
Having now looked briefly at what the key thinkers within the craft world are saying about craft (as practice), it’s worth turning to a critical exploration of the term – craft – and it’s history and cultural baggage.
It is necessary to say that there is a great deal of argument over what, precisely, craft means and to which people and processed it refers. This contention has been going on for the past 140 years (Metcalf 2008), and is likely to continue long into the future as “the meaning of the word "craft" changes as societies change, and people tailor the word to their specific needs and desires” (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated). It is, ultimately, an intellectual project for those “inside” the craft world (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated) and those in the art world who wish to keep others out.
"Craft is an empire. It is a constituency within the late-modern system of the arts, a naming-word and a major class in a professional world that is underpinned by a rigorous classificatory structure. For some time it has stood alongside two other classes, of design and fine art." Paul Greenhalgh (1997)
The ‘craft’ that arose from the four decades of the Arts and Crafts Movement, and whose legacy we husband today, is characterised by: 1. being theorised, Ruskin was a key inspiration; 2. physical practice/human labour leading to; 3. breakdowns in class structures and gender disparities in the value of labour as well as between art-craft value differences (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated). This situation, however, appears to be the hallmark of a liminal period for crafts and …
History “most craft historians […] date the beginning of modern crafts back to William Morris. He was the first to consistently place crafts in a much larger social context: labor, social justice, environmentalism, consumerism. Morris treated crafts as both the product and subject of discourse – and so brought them into the Modern era.” (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated)[1] Given the history of craft, one can say that in discussing “contemporary craft,” whether studio-based or ‘hobby’, “We're talking about the making of objects removed from necessity - we don't need handmade objects to survive, anymore - and we're talking about a collective response to industrialization.” (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated)
Arts and Crafts
It is a noticeable aspect of the literature on crafting that practices such as metal work, glass making, ceramics, pottery and other similar types of craft, are absent in much of the literature. Where they are present, these to be engaged as archaeological/historical practices or are conflated with other practices within discussions of creative regions/clusters. Greenhalgh’s work in this area (Greenhalgh, 2010, Greenhalgh, 2009) might be useful. His historicisation of contemporary craft practices, genres, and their political underpinnings. His work on the ‘persistence’ of craft in contemporary practices of making is also of note (Greenhalgh, 2002). As he puts it,
...the crafts are a consortium of genres in the visual arts, genres that make sense collectively because for artistic, economic and insitutional reasons, they have been placed togetner ...They have no intrinsic cohesion; they have no a priori relationship that makes them a permanent or special gathering (Greenhalgh, 2002 p. 1)
It seems important, then, to tease out what holds together this consortium of genres, where, and when. What economic/artistic/political rationales have been used to mobilise these different genres? What fashions have eclipsed some and valued others? By what means? How has this created/shaped/challenged the formation of community in and around these practices?
Craft – when seen as a movement, or an assemblage of genres – was a political project from the beginning. Utopian ideals figure in the work of Morris (Freeman-Moir, 2011) as well as other socially conscientious, socialist, and other elements of re-appropriating making as a political act. This is the underpinning of much of what the Arts and Crafts movement stood for. The histories are well established. The intersections between crafts, art and design have also been explored (Howe and Dillon, 2001). Several questions arise from this work: what are the different pathways to making contemporary craft communities? Do they draw from the same political stances? Are there alternative politics of practice? Craft practices – that is making, domestic production, pre-dates the explicitly political re-interpretation/reclamation of these practices as a poltical tool in the 19th Century.
So how can we pay attention to this? Is a contemporary knitting circle engaging in the politics of Arts and Crafts, or something older, more basic? There is, then, a sense that differentiating craft, or at least establishing its parameters is a task that should (and probably is) being undertaken by researchers and practitioners. However, as Greenhalgh (Greenhalgh, 2002 p. 1) points out “craft has always been a supremely messy word”. We need to be sensitive to its multiple uses.
Industrial crafts and craft guilds
Some of the prominent historical assemblages of craft practices, subjects and spaces are the craft guilds and associated institutions. The history of these practices will provide an understanding of how professional craft emerges, how communities of practice and experience are established in the nascent creative economies, and what role this organisation played in assembling the ‘genres’ under a craft banner. Perhaps Nicola’s new project can feed in some references here?
Domestic Labour
The work of domestic craft might offer a slightly different account of how different crafting practices were established and latterly adopted in the home. The contemporary resurgence of interest in craft has largely been seen as a partly political process. Newmeyer (2008) contends that multiple post-feminist reclamations of tradition, reassessment of valuing inter-generational skills, degendering of craft practices, and site of resistance to consumer culture have led to resurgence of interest in contemporary craft. Uses de Certeau (1988) to suggest craft resistance is a tactic of resistance in everyday life. Newmeyer (2008) attributes the changing context of domestic crafting practices to changes in a) labour patterns and b) more complex practices of consumption. Suggests with diminishing time/necessity to manufacture/repair in the home, and the rise of aspirational markets (and products to fill those aspiration:) ‘making’ lost its necessity but was supplanted with a commodified, improper or ‘mass-produced’ craft aesthetic (contrast this argument with Hackney (2006)). Newmeyer (2008) notes that generally, contemporary craft practices have generally been perceived as products made by those with the time and inclination to do so, often women in later life, reproducing patterns learned when younger (as opposed to innovating designs) (p. 439). Typically a conservative practice.
This points towards history of craft as political; despite being a marker of subjugation to domestic labour, ‘craft’ was also a marker of dissent; suggests that craftivists “demonstrate an ahistorical understanding of crafts as political, but also a remarkable ignorance of feminist theory, practice and indeed crafting” (p. 443). Triangulates craftivism with reactions to globalisation, labour exploitation etc. and positions them within a broader field of resistance. Contends that craftivists are not only reclaiming gendered activities out of choice, but engaging with an already-political practice of everyday resistance through-making.
Cultural Bagage
Despite the helpfulness of many of these craft insiders’ descriptions of the field, it is important to begin to critically review their assertions and, in some cases, assumptions. This is because “'Craft, art, and design are words heavily laden with cultural baggage” (McFadden, V&A 2012, unpaginated), so it is essential to look into and beyond this ‘baggage’, which Becker describes clearly and concisely as the “ideological descriptions of some preferred arrangement of elements” (1978:863).
This discussion focuses on craft as a European and American concept. See Venketasan (2002, 2009) for critical, grounded work on contemporary craft practices in India.
Thinking through Craft (Adamson, 2007), while a promising title, is sadly a re-presentation of popular craft rhetoric from those who love and practice it. There is little critical reflection, which makes it virtually useless to a social scientist, and it adds little which is novel to the understanding of the way craft makers perceive their field. Perhaps this is because “‘art’ and ‘craft refer to ambiguous conglomerations of organizational and stylistic traits and thus cannot be used as unequivocally as we would want to use them if they were scientific or critical concepts” (Becker 1978:863).
See Metcalf 1987 for an essay on the cultural baggage that denigrates craft (in very short form). He highlights key issues such as hierarchy between Art and Craft (see also Lichti-Harriman 2010); aura, or better explained, the ‘enchantment’ of craft pieces (see Gell 1998 for a deeper discussion)
Arising from the cultural baggage and assumptions surrounding craft as a concept, a practice and a mode of “being” (an exotic historicism), a selection of speculative social science research as recently arisen around the aura of art/craft. It is important to use with care work that deals theoretically with creativity and making, but which is not rooted in practice or in close, participatory experience. Such work includes Hallam and Ingold (2007)
Like Ruskin of the Arts and Crafts movement, this new speculative social science research often arises from philosophers who have little to do with the physical production, the labour, pain and pleasure of a craft practice. This lack is noteworthy because it embodies the opposite of what contemporary craft demands. In fact, it has been said that:
“To understand [craft] fully, one must sit at the workbench or the loom or the wheel, and observe[2] the careful shaping of things. The jeweler at her bench must spend years of practice to master her craft, and then must have invested a small fortune for the tools of her trade. The very act of sitting down to work proves a commitment, an allocation of time and money that most people never undertake.” (Metcalf 1987, unpaginated)
[1] Also published in: Exploring Contemporary Craft: History, Theory & Critical Writing, edited by Jean Johnson. Toronto: Coach House Books and Harbourfront Center, 2002
[2] Observe here means not just watching, but participating in the creation of – the sitting at the loom. It refers to the cognitive attention paid to the unfolding of the making process that one is doing.
Having now looked briefly at what the key thinkers within the craft world are saying about craft (as practice), it’s worth turning to a critical exploration of the term – craft – and it’s history and cultural baggage.
It is necessary to say that there is a great deal of argument over what, precisely, craft means and to which people and processed it refers. This contention has been going on for the past 140 years (Metcalf 2008), and is likely to continue long into the future as “the meaning of the word "craft" changes as societies change, and people tailor the word to their specific needs and desires” (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated). It is, ultimately, an intellectual project for those “inside” the craft world (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated) and those in the art world who wish to keep others out.
"Craft is an empire. It is a constituency within the late-modern system of the arts, a naming-word and a major class in a professional world that is underpinned by a rigorous classificatory structure. For some time it has stood alongside two other classes, of design and fine art." Paul Greenhalgh (1997)
The ‘craft’ that arose from the four decades of the Arts and Crafts Movement, and whose legacy we husband today, is characterised by: 1. being theorised, Ruskin was a key inspiration; 2. physical practice/human labour leading to; 3. breakdowns in class structures and gender disparities in the value of labour as well as between art-craft value differences (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated). This situation, however, appears to be the hallmark of a liminal period for crafts and …
History “most craft historians […] date the beginning of modern crafts back to William Morris. He was the first to consistently place crafts in a much larger social context: labor, social justice, environmentalism, consumerism. Morris treated crafts as both the product and subject of discourse – and so brought them into the Modern era.” (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated)[1] Given the history of craft, one can say that in discussing “contemporary craft,” whether studio-based or ‘hobby’, “We're talking about the making of objects removed from necessity - we don't need handmade objects to survive, anymore - and we're talking about a collective response to industrialization.” (Metcalf 1999, unpaginated)
Arts and Crafts
It is a noticeable aspect of the literature on crafting that practices such as metal work, glass making, ceramics, pottery and other similar types of craft, are absent in much of the literature. Where they are present, these to be engaged as archaeological/historical practices or are conflated with other practices within discussions of creative regions/clusters. Greenhalgh’s work in this area (Greenhalgh, 2010, Greenhalgh, 2009) might be useful. His historicisation of contemporary craft practices, genres, and their political underpinnings. His work on the ‘persistence’ of craft in contemporary practices of making is also of note (Greenhalgh, 2002). As he puts it,
...the crafts are a consortium of genres in the visual arts, genres that make sense collectively because for artistic, economic and insitutional reasons, they have been placed togetner ...They have no intrinsic cohesion; they have no a priori relationship that makes them a permanent or special gathering (Greenhalgh, 2002 p. 1)
It seems important, then, to tease out what holds together this consortium of genres, where, and when. What economic/artistic/political rationales have been used to mobilise these different genres? What fashions have eclipsed some and valued others? By what means? How has this created/shaped/challenged the formation of community in and around these practices?
Craft – when seen as a movement, or an assemblage of genres – was a political project from the beginning. Utopian ideals figure in the work of Morris (Freeman-Moir, 2011) as well as other socially conscientious, socialist, and other elements of re-appropriating making as a political act. This is the underpinning of much of what the Arts and Crafts movement stood for. The histories are well established. The intersections between crafts, art and design have also been explored (Howe and Dillon, 2001). Several questions arise from this work: what are the different pathways to making contemporary craft communities? Do they draw from the same political stances? Are there alternative politics of practice? Craft practices – that is making, domestic production, pre-dates the explicitly political re-interpretation/reclamation of these practices as a poltical tool in the 19th Century.
So how can we pay attention to this? Is a contemporary knitting circle engaging in the politics of Arts and Crafts, or something older, more basic? There is, then, a sense that differentiating craft, or at least establishing its parameters is a task that should (and probably is) being undertaken by researchers and practitioners. However, as Greenhalgh (Greenhalgh, 2002 p. 1) points out “craft has always been a supremely messy word”. We need to be sensitive to its multiple uses.
Industrial crafts and craft guilds
Some of the prominent historical assemblages of craft practices, subjects and spaces are the craft guilds and associated institutions. The history of these practices will provide an understanding of how professional craft emerges, how communities of practice and experience are established in the nascent creative economies, and what role this organisation played in assembling the ‘genres’ under a craft banner. Perhaps Nicola’s new project can feed in some references here?
Domestic Labour
The work of domestic craft might offer a slightly different account of how different crafting practices were established and latterly adopted in the home. The contemporary resurgence of interest in craft has largely been seen as a partly political process. Newmeyer (2008) contends that multiple post-feminist reclamations of tradition, reassessment of valuing inter-generational skills, degendering of craft practices, and site of resistance to consumer culture have led to resurgence of interest in contemporary craft. Uses de Certeau (1988) to suggest craft resistance is a tactic of resistance in everyday life. Newmeyer (2008) attributes the changing context of domestic crafting practices to changes in a) labour patterns and b) more complex practices of consumption. Suggests with diminishing time/necessity to manufacture/repair in the home, and the rise of aspirational markets (and products to fill those aspiration:) ‘making’ lost its necessity but was supplanted with a commodified, improper or ‘mass-produced’ craft aesthetic (contrast this argument with Hackney (2006)). Newmeyer (2008) notes that generally, contemporary craft practices have generally been perceived as products made by those with the time and inclination to do so, often women in later life, reproducing patterns learned when younger (as opposed to innovating designs) (p. 439). Typically a conservative practice.
This points towards history of craft as political; despite being a marker of subjugation to domestic labour, ‘craft’ was also a marker of dissent; suggests that craftivists “demonstrate an ahistorical understanding of crafts as political, but also a remarkable ignorance of feminist theory, practice and indeed crafting” (p. 443). Triangulates craftivism with reactions to globalisation, labour exploitation etc. and positions them within a broader field of resistance. Contends that craftivists are not only reclaiming gendered activities out of choice, but engaging with an already-political practice of everyday resistance through-making.
Cultural Bagage
Despite the helpfulness of many of these craft insiders’ descriptions of the field, it is important to begin to critically review their assertions and, in some cases, assumptions. This is because “'Craft, art, and design are words heavily laden with cultural baggage” (McFadden, V&A 2012, unpaginated), so it is essential to look into and beyond this ‘baggage’, which Becker describes clearly and concisely as the “ideological descriptions of some preferred arrangement of elements” (1978:863).
This discussion focuses on craft as a European and American concept. See Venketasan (2002, 2009) for critical, grounded work on contemporary craft practices in India.
Thinking through Craft (Adamson, 2007), while a promising title, is sadly a re-presentation of popular craft rhetoric from those who love and practice it. There is little critical reflection, which makes it virtually useless to a social scientist, and it adds little which is novel to the understanding of the way craft makers perceive their field. Perhaps this is because “‘art’ and ‘craft refer to ambiguous conglomerations of organizational and stylistic traits and thus cannot be used as unequivocally as we would want to use them if they were scientific or critical concepts” (Becker 1978:863).
See Metcalf 1987 for an essay on the cultural baggage that denigrates craft (in very short form). He highlights key issues such as hierarchy between Art and Craft (see also Lichti-Harriman 2010); aura, or better explained, the ‘enchantment’ of craft pieces (see Gell 1998 for a deeper discussion)
Arising from the cultural baggage and assumptions surrounding craft as a concept, a practice and a mode of “being” (an exotic historicism), a selection of speculative social science research as recently arisen around the aura of art/craft. It is important to use with care work that deals theoretically with creativity and making, but which is not rooted in practice or in close, participatory experience. Such work includes Hallam and Ingold (2007)
Like Ruskin of the Arts and Crafts movement, this new speculative social science research often arises from philosophers who have little to do with the physical production, the labour, pain and pleasure of a craft practice. This lack is noteworthy because it embodies the opposite of what contemporary craft demands. In fact, it has been said that:
“To understand [craft] fully, one must sit at the workbench or the loom or the wheel, and observe[2] the careful shaping of things. The jeweler at her bench must spend years of practice to master her craft, and then must have invested a small fortune for the tools of her trade. The very act of sitting down to work proves a commitment, an allocation of time and money that most people never undertake.” (Metcalf 1987, unpaginated)
[1] Also published in: Exploring Contemporary Craft: History, Theory & Critical Writing, edited by Jean Johnson. Toronto: Coach House Books and Harbourfront Center, 2002
[2] Observe here means not just watching, but participating in the creation of – the sitting at the loom. It refers to the cognitive attention paid to the unfolding of the making process that one is doing.
