Art vs. Craft

[untonuggan]

I have always wondered about what seems to me to be an artificial distinction between art and craft. The societal narrative seems to go, "Serious artists make art, but crafts are for those homemakers who shop at Michael's every week." (Note: not that I think being a homemaker or shopping at Michael's are bad things.) Or perhaps it's because so many "crafts" (knitting, quilting, crochet, sewing, etc.) are traditionally done by women. Never mind that when you're done knitting a scarf, not only is it beautiful, it keeps you warm. It's wearable art.

I offer a brief example from a recent Washington Post review of Artomatic, a local unjuried art show.

"And Kristin Bohlander's use of sheep's wool - more sculptural than artsy-craftsy - is richly textural."

I love how the author throws in "artsy-craftsy" as though it's a bad thing. Of course, he also knocks Star Trek slash fan-art a few paragraphs later.

Does anyone else have this particular beef with knitting's typical designation as a craft? Is the word "craft" something that should be reclaimed in the way that "queer" is being reclaimed by the LGBTQ community? What is the line between art and craft?

Comments

[nonniemous]

Somewhen, during the Enlightenment or sometime in recent European history, I don't recall which, Western Civilization came up with the notion that "pure art" is "art for art's sake," with no practical purpose whatsoever. Which is kind of cool, because we have a huge gallery of painters that we might not have had.

However, you notice that a lot of other cultures, Chinese, First Nations, African, did not make that distinction. It caused a lot of issues when wealthy 'murricans first started bringing home gorgeous souvenirs from China and Japan in the nineteenth century. Where were we going to display these things? They were beautiful works of art--but they also had a function, a purpose, so they weren't "Art" as defined by western culture. Same battle with African art, and the same battle that a lot of Native American and First Nations artists fight today.

So there is, to me, this entirely artificial notion in our culture that if something has use and purpose--or is made of fibers or other traditionally feminine crafts, it's not ever going to be art. The Arts and Crafts movement in the early 20th century was a rebellion against this notion--I find it hilarious that their work is now displayed in museums as ART, but the "art" label in general has not been allowed for handcrafts yet. And it very much especially seems to be a battle fought by women, for traditionally feminine handicrafts.

I don't consider the use of a pattern to be a definition of not art, because cathedrals used blueprints. It's the end product that matters. Two people can use the same pattern to make the same knitted or crocheted item, and one will have made a work of art and the other simply a worked item.

(Sorry, this is a subject near and dear to my heart, and one that comes up a lot in museum studies and working with Native American art.)

[untonuggan]

"(Sorry, this is a subject near and dear to my heart, and one that comes up a lot in museum studies and working with Native American art.)"

No apology necessary! Pulling in non-Western-Civ examples is really helpful, as I am only just getting a handle on some of the history of knitting. (And as a history major, it's something I totally geek out about.)