RosettaStone: CRAFT A primary, secondary, and annotated source reader for functional craft. By: Randi O'Brien

I was concerned that this blog might become a bit boring and overly wordy. To remidy this I've decided for every third entry I will post a video of something I find interesting and craft related. Hope you enjoy!

The following is a primary source summary of the following:
Western Style of Living By: Bishop Morris
Bishop Morris, “Western Style of Living”, Ladies Repository, and Gatherings of the West (1841-1848); May 1846; 6(American Periodicals Series Online) pg. 130. http://proquest.umi.com.weblib .lib.umt.edu:8080/pqdwebindex=
3&did=1604719712&SrchMode=2&sid=20&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&
amp;amp;RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1265847962&clientId=48297

Bishop Morris' documentary of western living was found through the American Periodicals Series (200 years of American history as recorded in magazines, journals, and newspapers).
Morris opens his article through a brief life history. He address that he has seen great changes over the 52 year span of his life, 30 years have been spent as an itinerant preacher, and he is the son of a western pioneer. It is of his specific interest to "note the changes in the society of the far-famed west." He further discloses that he is not making specific observation into the account of "the wealthy aristocrat, with his costly mansions, Turkey carpets, silver plate, and thousand dollar carriage; nor the extremely poor man who lives in a wretched hovel, on the floor of the earth, and sleeps in his bundle of straw. They are both exceptions to the rule. My few observations shall have reference to the great mass of western population."

Morris contrasts "modern style" of living with the early style of living in the western country. Morris documents the ornamentation and lavish decor of modern housekeeping. The contrasted lifestyle of western living is simplified in consumption and decoration. Morris further documents the objects within the interior objects of western living: "In order to comfort and convenience, it was requisite, also, to have the following articles: one poplar slab table, two poplar or oak rail bed-steads, supplied with suitable bedding, and covered with cross-barred counterpanes of homemade, one of which was for the accommodation of visitors; six split-bottomed chairs, one long bench, and a few three legged stools were amply sufficient for themselves and friends; a half dozen pewter plates, as many knives and forks, tin cups, and pewter spoons for ordinary use, and the same number of delft plates, cups, and saucers for special occasions." Morris continues his article by addressing land, labor, and concludes with a reflection of the days of "simple hearted, honest friendships, when social life was unembarrassed by the affected and heartless etiquette of modern times".

Personal Conclusion and Evaluation
This article is an interesting account of the relationship between ornamentation and function. Morris is clearly biases towards the simpler social life style of western living. However the documentation of different functional objects being used for separate occasions, for example “special occasions” versus ordinary occasions; as Morris documents in the function of pewter versus delft plates, could be used an exciting primary support for the philosophy that elevates one object over another due to surface decoration (ornamentations versus monochrome), material (porcelain versus pewter), or process (handmade versus factory made). Morris’ article is short and easy read that could be used as a supporting document for research in the specific genera of ornamentation and function.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
The History of Craft By: Paul Greenhalgh
Paul Greenhalgh, “ The History of Craft” in The Culture of Craft: Status and Future, ed. Peter Dormer, 20-52 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997)


Paul Greenhalgh’s The History of Craft reviews the critical transitions of the word craft through the seventeenth century origination of the word craft to twenty-first century fragmentation of the word. Greenhalgh addresses the fundamental problems with the word craft and further “suggests that ‘craft’ as a naming-word is an unstable compound at this time (1997) because there is a disjuncture between its etymology and the constituency it is expected to represent” .


Greenhalgh summarizes the development of the word craft through several publications and usages: Caleb D’Anvers The Country Journal or The Craftsman (1729), Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1773), the use of the word by Freemasons, Gustave Stickley The Craftsman (1901), and Paul and Angie Boyer Craftsman (1981). Greenhalgh addresses each publication and usage through the publications political and social agendas of their time and further address that taken collectively the “most striking feature about all of these publications is the shift in meaning of the word [craft] itself”.


“The ‘craftsman’ implied by Caleb’s title, in so far as he can be characterized, was a confident, arrogant, self reliant, free-living Englishman. A century after his belligerence, Gustav Stickley’s craftsman wan an ethical aesthete. He clearly understood craft to a principally relate to process of making, but there was no limitations on what techniques or genres the word applied to. Craft for him was a broad, generic signifier that might be applied to any area of the arts or humanities; it could be used in the context of theology, opera or easel painting. Paul and Angie Boyer do not share this vision. For them, craft implies a particular type of person, environment, genre, technique and market. Pottery weaving, basket-making, metal-smithing, stick-making; their craftsman makes things by hand using pre-industrial technologies and sells them to make a living. He is an eco friendly small businessman.”


Greenhalgh further emphasizes a shift in craft meaning by observing historical definitions as three distinct threads: decorative art, the vernacular, and the politics of work. Greenhalgh defines these three separate threads and the motivations behind the separation of terms and further argues that in the last two decades of the nineteenth century these separate threads were brought together by makers and thinkers of the arts and crafts movement. By the early twentieth century craft was holistically invented, “in the sense that their came into being a generally recognized sense of craft as a thing in itself”.


However after the first World War the “Arts and Craft Movement had dwindled in to confusion and decline and made its next a possible final move, by entering into common usage”. Greenhalgh states that after 1918 craft began to “simultaneously expand, fragment, and fractionalize” and this “degenerative process is the key to the condition of craft as we have it at the end of the twentieth century”.


Greenhalgh demonstrates “the actual forces which gave craft cultural meaning in the nineteenth century, [how they] were split in the twentieth century and were exploited in isolation. The original combination of decorative arts, the vernacular, and the politics of work had a dynamism which proved important on a global basis. They had an ideological power that was generated from within. In our own times, that power has been lost and replaced by one from without”. Greenhalgh concludes that craft “needs to become internally dynamic once more, rather than allow itself to become externally constrained”.


Personal Conclusion and Evaluation


Greenhalgh article is a perfect jumping off point for someone interested in the basics of craft history. He reviews and addresses several centuries of craft and art philosophy. Due to the vast time frame he is dealing with if you are looking for the specifics of any one movement this may not be the article to support your research. However this article gives a clear linage to the separation of terminology within the craft fields. Greenhalgh proposes intellectual critical questions and pushes Art historians to expose the “actuality of history” not only through a measurement of fine art standards, yet through a holistic approach that engages craft from all of its defining characteristics (decorative, vernacular, and the politics of work).

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
The Language and Practical Philosophy of Craft By: Peter Dormer
 Peter Dormer, “The Language and Practical Philosophy of Craft” in The Culture of Craft: Status and Future, ed. Peter Dormer, 219-230 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997)

The dichotomy of craft as philosophy and craft as a discipline is the principle motivator for critical questioning within Peter Dormers article. The use of rules within a discipline; as Dormer provides metaphor through the use “a medical school that allowed its students to discover for themselves, by trial and error and without the benefit of existing hard-won knowledge, the disciplines of even a minor surgery would soon come to be criticized by the public”, is necessary. However the philosophy of creativity and “learning through self discovery” is critical to the duality of craft.

Yet, through this understanding there is a balance between philosophy and discipline that craftsmen should “be committed to practicing their craft honestly as a disciplined work strenuously to clarify their goals and seek out the rules, not only of making, but also of procedure, that will keep them sticking to the point.” Honest craftsmanship should not be founded in “disguising inadequacies” of construction, but in maintaining the integrity and in a standard that cannot be cheated.

Dormer further states that through recognition of honest craftsmanship different senses of rightness should be evaluated, specifically “concerns [of] fitness for function” and a combination of “aesthetics and function”. However through this evaluation, concerns of connoisseurship and the tacit knowledge that entitles nuances within the crafts often “leads to clashes and incomprehension” in the public life. Dormer empathizes with the connoisseur who works to enlighten public understanding, however address that “part of the search for the integrity of a practice is clarifying the nature of the context.”

Personal Conclusion and Evaluation

Peter Dormer’s article is laced with metaphorical and actual comparisons of craftsmen and connoisseurs whom set standards of integrity or whom overlook the bounds of the context a craft object is set. It is an easy 12 page read that puts into perspective the duality of philosophy and discipline, of aesthetics and function, and of connoisseurship and context.