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

[suncat]

I think it hinges almost entirely around the fact whether the object is at all utilitarian. A painting that only hangs on a wall, or a sculpture that simply sits there to be viewed, have no other use and get the label "Art". A beautiful piece of clothing, a graceful glazed vase, an elaborately carved cabinet or even a marvelously formed sword all fall into "Craft". Because no matter how well they please the eye, they were made to be, and are, used.

I agree that this seems to be a conceit of the West, and likely arose because the objects that were beautiful but had no functional use were only affordable by the wealthy and so acquired status. Look at all the other things that only the wealthy could afford: crystal and precious metal table ware, finely woven and patterned carpets, fancy carved furniture, elaborately constructed houses. Yet all still functional and used, and never elevated to being Art. I much prefer the attitude of the rest of the world, that doesn't bother with such silly distinctions.

I also agree that many of the activities confined to Craft seem to be those that also qualify as "women's work", and there is an element of sexist labeling involved. But I don't think it's such a sharp distinction. I think it's more that women have historically had less opportunity to spend their time on those activities that get unequivocally labeled Art. When they do find time to, say, paint, I don't think anyone claims their paintings are "only" Craft. Even if their paintings irritatingly never are accorded the acclaim they are due for their quality, but are down-graded compared to their male contemporaries' works. That is a well-documented effect of historical sexism and can send me into a frothing tirade.

[ironed_orchid]

Yes, the utilitarian aspect is definitely something that comes into play.

Which is why discussions like this always make me think of William Morris and the Arts And Crafts Movement, who were all so invested in making useful, daily objects like curtains and chairs into something that were both practical and beautiful.