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

It is precisely the break between the world of sensual immediacy and critical theory that the greatest of our ceramic makers and thinkers plunge. This “timeless urge that moves us again and again” should enter into mediation with critical theory, for what seems as oil and water is in fact the cream in our coffee on the four am shift of a brisk January firing. I’ve returned from the Critical Santa Fe symposium and have had the time and mentorship to productively reflect from this opportunity. The following are my observations, interpretations, and conclusions.
No three page summation would be able to satisfy your interest in the occurrence of the symposium, or the integral after hour table talk between historians, critics, and makers. Let’s be realistic; your assumptions are correct if you assumed that there would be stagnant conversations created by the individual insecurities of a maker, your assumptions are correct if you anticipated term twisting, and linguistic labyrinths that leave one lost in translation . Your assumptions are correct if you envisioned both impassioned arguments, and profound sincerity . Your next question would of course encourage me to divulge all of the insightful information received. While there were a variety of panels and individual speakers it would be safe to refine the overall context of the CSF symposium to two main discourses and disciplines: 1. Critical Theory of Modernity and 2. the act of writing in criticism (how words have been used in criticism, poetry, the growth of descriptive words, where criticism is published, where it has failed, etc) . As I can now safely presume your eyes may be glazing over and your final disappointed assumption; that there would be a divorce between process and critical theory, comes full circle. If it is the case that you assumed as much, then you are incorrect to a degree. I’m sorry to say that no presenter successfully touted the metaphorical significance of shaping clay, nor the importance of one’s journey. However; while I appreciate the significance of both, that wasn’t the point and rightfully so. Nevertheless this does not necessarily negate the avenues presenters offered for broader theoretical connections to materiality, process, and the journey.

In the community of woodfiring, it is my conclusion that you as a general group are the most insightful in continental philosophical awareness and, in the context of firing, carry on with most excellent discussions of love, poetry, and other forms of divine madness. Yet within this niche we lack quality control and broader interconnectivity of disciplines, which has sadly led to (you have of course heard this criticism before) incestuous reproductions both in writing and making. This of course leads me back to elaborating on the dialogue of CSF and the relationship of how ones specific discipline (in this specific case woodfiring) can and does in fact converge with a broader interconnectivity to theory.

If your aim (in terms of making or critiquing) is to redefine the relevance of woodfiring to the establishment of 21st century aesthetics then you must read and look at the development, growth, and current trends of modernity as a broad discipline; politics, faith, economy, and yes even ceramics. You must read Baudelair, Lacan, and Foucault. While it is not everyone’s aim to redefine relevance; the point of this example is, for one to dictate the nature of what is or should be, one must probe to the foundational basis of knowledge and experience. In terms of CSF and in terms of general artistic progression, modernity will always be a key theory. In general observation it seems that makers of a traditional vein cringe at the word modernity. Yet, I plead with all traditionalists to not assume that the idea of modernity equates to the severance of ties with historic practice. If one were to probe the dialogue of modernity, they would find encouragement to understand and reflect on the historic, and to further analyze and respond to ones immediate surroundings through a historic and educated understanding.

I would argue that while woodfiring and ceramics is of a rich historic linage, the connection to modernity is still applicable. If we were to briefly evaluate the socio-political concerns and trends of today (aka: modernity) the dialogue would be bombard by ideas of conserving, sustaining, and developing communities on both global and individual levels. Of course these communities include everything from environmental, financial, educational, to smaller communities like the “Church of Craft” , my Montana fishing community, and to the extent of this article the woodfiring community. This connection to community is vague, often over played, and incorrectly inserted in woodfiring. However, CSF’s conclusion and my point are for the woodfiring niche to look at the qualities of their discipline and connect these qualities to alternative and broader disciplines. Take a moment to look at trends with Hugo Boss nominees (The Hugo Boss award is overseen by the Guggenheim Museum and is revered and honored as a leading contemporary art award): Roman Ondák, Caofei, Rirkrit Tiravanija. Caofei has developed a utopic interactive cyber world to compensate for the pitfalls of contemporary society, lack of community, and a disconnection to place. Rirkrit Tiravanija’s work assesses the socio-political role of the artist through a literalization of “art’s primitive functions: sustenance, healing, and communion” , by empting out galleries and inserting makeshift kitchens or homes for viewers to simply eat, live, or converse at will. These acts of contemporary community construction and inquiry mirror acts of woodfirer’s who gather local weathered rock fragments to construct the simplest of serving objects- a bowl. This act of community assessment mirrors many woodfirer’s sentiment that local clay “provides the richest connection to place”. The labor and process of woodfiring is by no accidental chance a commentary on the value of one’s community and should be recognized as such. This is just one brief and oversimplified connection that the woodfirer’s processes’ have to modernity and contemporary critical theory.

While the niche of woodfiring further specializes itself with myopic technical or aesthetic alterations, we can of course argue with each other about the need for progression versus mastery, or we can look at how your processes, metaphors, and journey’s are overwhelmingly connected to the broader conversation of modernity and the general discipline of art. Ultimately for the discussion of woodfire aesthetics to regain its integrity in contemporary conversations artist and critics must address the unity of theories, traditions, processes, and objects as a working whole. Only then will woodfire practices redefine its relevance to the establishment of 21st century aesthetics, and only then will woodfired objects transcend their quantifiable parts.

The bottom line of CSF and myself is not to encourage the counteractive conflict of art versus craft, tradition versus modernity, or colorful pots versus brown pots because all of these conversation could be sorted out and transcended by a maker-critic who proudly engages and analyzes his (or her) discipline, tradition, process, etc., and of course his relevance to a broader social picture. A simplistic brown bowl may seem empty and irrelevant in comparison to the complex conceptual endeavors of the ultramodern. Yet it is in the subtle curve and emptiness of your bowl that the actual and cultural function depends. It is in emptiness of a bowl that we can recognize our own societal emptiness, where we can see both the product of and answer to suffering. It is in the articulation of your clays connection to place, that society’s dislocation to place is best analyzed and evaluated.

When you sit down at your studio this week do some quality control. Look at your surface. Are you just another flash versus ash, or is their more you can to do better articulate your end goals. Honestly analyze your intentions and object. Maybe your conclusion is that you do in fact fit to a broader social dialogue and should thus be recognized for it, or maybe you’re simply making another Voulkos sculpture or MacKenzie tea bowl and woodfiring it because it reduces your accountability to surface. To either end this self realization will only better the visual culture of woodfiring. To either end this self actualization will help to marry critical theory and process in a union where we can examine the conditions of possibility.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, Professionalism and Perspective. by Glen R. Brown
Glen R. Brown, “Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, professionalism and Perspective”  Ceramics: Art and Perception, No. 75 2009, 107-110.

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

A profound article on fundamental short-sighting’s within the contemporary ceramics field, Contemporary Ceramics and Critical Theory: Prestige, professionalism and Perspective written by critic and Art History Professor at Kansas State University; Glen R. Brown, engages new perspectives on the demand for a change in ceramic criticism. Brown presents a rationale for critics and studio ceramicists to engage a sophisticated approach of critical writing and critical theory. He argues that stereotypes and assumptions of criticism create barricades the make for naiveté within writing and the dialogue of critical ceramic evaluation which Brown believes is pivotal when addressing the outcome and lament of critical discourse within ceramics. Brown is particular to point out new methodologies for contextualizing and the cannon’s for art historians to deconstruct specialized fields and further connects these practices to the promotion of critical ceramic evaluation. My overall impression is that Brown has prescribed his contention in an authentic and dedicated way while invoking a pertinent and appropriate authority.

Ceramicists would find this article useful for developing a holistic perspective on the pitfalls of their grievance’s with the quality of critical evaluations on ceramic work as well as a new insightful perspective on the continuing dialogue within ceramic evaluation. Brown has been able to call attention to the downfall of criticism within ceramics and further suggest an in-depth understanding of both ceramics and criticism (history, tradition, process, practice, etc.) which gives support to his key claim that; “it seems to me terribly naïve to suppose that an increased emphasis on criticism will automatically exert a positive and prestigious effect on contemporary studio ceramics. Such an outcome can only be truly realized if criticism is itself approached critically- which is to say if criticism is not promoted blindly but rather with an adequate understanding of its history, the vocabulary that has developed around it, the variations it currently assumes, the problems that confront it in various fields in the humanities and the potential benefits and negative consequences that it may entail when applied to contemporary ceramics”

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Slanted and Enchanted: The Evolution of Indie Culture. by Kaya Oakes
Kaya Oakes. Slanted and Enchanted: The Evolution of Indie Culture (New York: Holt Paperbacks 2009)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

Slanted and Enchanted: The Evolution of Indie Culture written by author and lecturer at UC Berkeley Kaya Oakes, investigates the practice of indie culture. Oakes presents a journalistic perspective of indie communities for readers to understand the central tenets of DIY community service and empowerment. Oakes is poetic in her journalistic perspective and observations of DIY culture that includes Early Independent Networks, Punk Roots, Indie Regionalism in Berkeley, Independent Literature, Comics, Indie Rock, and Indie Publishing in the twenty-first century, as well as Crafting and the Indie Design movement. My overall impression is that the author has a poetic knack for observation and presents her observations in an engaging and descriptive story board.

In this book, the author has relied on personal observations and sites personal accounts of early zine and indie interviews. While this article is a smooth read that is entertaining and well articulated the Crafting and Indie Design portion of her book is lacking any complex observation or evaluation of the DIY craft movement. Though lacking in contribution to the larger craft dialogue in terms of DIY craft history or contemporary perspectives craftsmen would find this article useful for an entertaining and journalistic perspective of the later indie and DIY movement.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

DIY: The Rise of Lo-Fi Culture. by Amy Spencer
Amy Spencer, DIY: The Rise of Lo-Fi Culture (London: Marion Boyars, 2008)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

A comprehensive and holistic book on the development, distribution, and evolution of DIY culture, DIY: The Rise of Lo-Fi Culture written by author (with an upcoming book soon to be out in 2011 London Clay), currently researching a PhD in Cultural Studies, Amy Spencer. Spencer presents a wide-ranging perspective of individuals working to create their own cultural identity in the wake of pop consumerism for an audience interested in the emergence of indie/DIY technology or an audience interested in the cultural revolution that has developed into today’s modern DIY culture boom. Spencer is impressive in her approach to address the multiple veins within the development of DIY culture, she highlights press, art, political, music, radio, punk, queer, feminism, and craft (to name a few) and has further addressed specific categories, individual, and movements within each genre. The depth of knowledge and research into these categories and sub-categories is masterful. My overall impression is that Spencer has developed this documentary in a realistic way while utilizing relevant, understandable, and applicable language.

While Spencer’s book only briefly documents craft, craftsmen would find this book useful for cultural developments and movements that connect current craft communities use of technology and have further united craft in the search for independence from mainstream culture. Though lacking the professionalism of a well edited scholarly book the book makes up in over all mass and wealth of interconnected knowledge to a variety of twenty first century independent practices.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Handmade Nation: The rise of DIY, art, craft, and design. edited by Faythe Levine and Cortney Heimerl
Faythe Levine and Cortney Heimerl, ed. Handmade Nation: The Rise of DIY, Art, Craft, and Design (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

A book on the romantic perspective of “do it yourself” (DIY) artist/craftsmen, Handmade Nation written/edited by craft shop and gallery owner, author, and maker Faythe Levine, and crafter and critic Cortney Heimerl, is supporting documentary to a DVD under the same title. The editors present a compilation of personal experiences of DIY craftsmen for a target audience that could be open to the vast community of craft, however due to the limited perspectives (education, age, and function) this article reads more as a catalogue or an Etsy bio page of multiple craftsmen. My overall impression is that the author has missed an opportunity to specifically address the rise of DIY, art, craft, and design in our handmade nation. Few of the 28 articles mention the development of the DIY practice, as the title suggests. While the title suggests potential avenues of research and craft theory development, Levine and Heimerl compose these documentaries in a preverbal sales catalogue that markets the individual crafters experience and blogs or websites, which ironically is quite universal and uninspiring. This is not to say that there are no noteworthy or commendable experiences within this documentary, rather it is a question of what makes DIY an important and progressive movement within the crafts that Levine and Heimerl do not answer. Levine and Heimerl propose an exciting direction yet are missing the basics of description, interpretation, and evaluation that make for good documentaries, writing, and critical analysis; which this topic certainly deserves.

Readers would find this article useful in the search of exciting craft based blogs; however I would personally recommend Garth Johnson’s extreme craft blog for better articles and direction on DIY, indie, and contemporary craft culture.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Making Space for Clay?: Ceramics, Regionalism, and Postmodernism in Regina Saskatchewan. By David Brian Howard
David Brian Howard, “Making Space for Clay?: Ceramics, Regionalism, and Postmodernism in Regina Saskatchewan” in Neo Craft: Modernity and the Crafts, ed. Sandra Alfoldy, 33-46 (Nova Scotia: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 2007)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

Making Space for Clay?: Ceramics, Regionalism, and Postmodernism in Regina Saskatchewan written by the Associate Professor of Art History at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, David Brian Howard, researches the building of universality within modernism and the “revolt against modernist orthodoxy” within ceramic artist of Regina Saskatchewan. Howard presents a view and model for ceramic artist to investigate the contradictions of regionalism and cultural resistance which the author believes is topical when addressing the context of rejection of modernism and the “relationship between diverse material practices and regionalism”. My overall impression is that the author has fleshed out the claim in a personal and immediate way while making the argument approachable to a variety of regions.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
The Fate of Craft. by Larry Shiner
Larry Shiner, “The Fate of Craft” in Neo Craft: Modernity and the Crafts, ed. Sandra Alfoldy, 33-46 (Nova Scotia: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 2007)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

An inquisitive article on contemporary issues of the word craft and the anxiety and associations that follows craft classification, The Fate of Craft written by author, and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, History, and Visual Arts at the University of Illinois Springfield, Larry Shiner, considers descriptions and associations of the word craft as well as examines “crafts position between design and art”. The author presents a line of reasoning for craftsmen, designers, and artist to observe the overlap and barrowing of elements (hand, material, mastery, and use) between design, art, and craft that does not necessarily make three distinct areas of practices, which the author believes is necessary to fully understand that the term “craft” has a flexibility and strength in its ambiguity. Shiner regularly proposes philosophical and critical questioning of the term craft that elicits multiple perspectives and rationales. My overall impression is that the author has expanded the discussion of craft labeling anxiety in a voice and line of inquisition that develops strength for the term craft in a non-binding and masterful way.

In this article, the author has relied on past theoretical debates in the crafting field, some of which include Peter Dormer in the Culture of Craft, Paula Owen in Objects and Meaning, David Pye in the Nature and Art of Workmanship. Makers and thinkers of all practices would find this article useful for an understanding on how each field or practice barrows fundamental elements from one another, as would craftsmen looking to develop an argument for the nature in which craft museums, craft magazines, and other craft organizations are dropping the term craft from their titles to adopt other labels.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Replacing the Myth of Modernism. by Bruce Metcalf
Bruce Metcalf, “Replacing the Myth of Modernism” in Neo Craft: Modernity and the Crafts ed. Sandra Alfoldy, 4-32 (Nova Scotia: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 2007)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

Bruce Metcalf writes a masterful article on contemporary social conditions within the ceramic field. Replacing the Myth of Modernism written by jeweler, author, and lecturer Bruce Metcalf, examines crafts envy and assimilation into the arts while calling for and addressing the fundamental differences essential to craft. Metcalf presents a contention for craftsmen to set aside modernism (or the principles that have elevated modernism) to re-address social and psychological functions, production, craftsmanship, the senses (tactility), and decoration to reshape meaning that is “relevant to social conditions today”, which the author believes is fundamental and beneficial for the survival and sustainment of modern craft. Metcalf is keen to point out modernist theory and the consequential effects on crafting practices. My overall impression is that the author has developed his contention in a practical and persuasive way while exercising a clear, relevant, and convincing methodology.

Craftsmen and critics would find this article useful for reigniting meaning and significance in what they choose to decorate, produce, sense, and critique within the crafting field. The author has been able to identify key obstructions in modernist theory of craft which gives support to Metcalf’s claim that; craft would be better off to “relinquish art envy and stop aspiring to the alleged nobility of fine art”. In summary, I believe that the author’s position that through embracing the conceptual foundations of craft; not art theory, has been progressively developed and justified.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Affectivity and Entropy: Production Aesthetics in Contemporary Sculpture. by Johanna Drucker
Johanna Drucker, “Affectivity and Entropy: Production Aesthetics in Contemporary Sculpture” in Objects and Meaning: New Perspectives on Art and Craft, ed. M. Anna Fariello and Paula Owen, 24-34 (Maryland: Scarecrow Press Inc., 2004)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

Affectivity and Entropy: Production Aesthetics in Contemporary Sculpture by the Martin and Bernard Breslauer Professor of Information Studies at UCLA Johanna Drucker, considers the production of values and the values of production. The author presents a disorienting and technically backwards article for an audience interested in objects and meaning. She attepmts to convey a shift in attitude towards affectivity and entropy which the author believes is “how to make art count [and] how to make it show up on the cultural scene. Drucker writes a sloppy article that take well over fifty percent of her article to summarize her main thesis which is unclear and whishy washy. My overall impression is that the author has come to her topic point, thesis, and conclusion in her last four paragraphs

In this article, the author has relied on linguistic artifice to support her article. Though lacking clarity and efficiency of language, and word choice, as well as a defining and direct argument the article does have some concise sentences’ that recollect the article to a general foundation, and in terms of future improvements if this article were to be stripped down to the core topics and address in a logical or well articulated format the potential of the argument could be better understood and valued.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
Moving Beyond the Binary. by James H. Sanders
James H. Sanders, “Moving Beyond the Binary” in Objects and Meaning: New Perspectives on Art and Craft, ed. M. Anna Fariello and Paula Owen, 88-103 (Maryland: Scarecrow Press Inc., 2004)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

This is a commendable and persuasive article on fundamental considerations of art history, aesthetics, and criticism within the larger framework of cultural studies and social theory within the visual domain, and specifically craft field. Moving Beyond the Binary written by the Assistant Professor in the Department of Art Education of Ohio State University James H. Sanders, interrogates and offers solutions to traditional hierarchal distribution of aesthetic. The author presents a line of argument for historian, critics, educators, makers, and viewers to redevelop a critical valuation process that strips away the continuation of gendered, racial, and queer labeling to embrace the importance of “theories of craft that dignify the multiple experiences of the maker”. Which the author believes is essential for aesthetic perception in craft aesthetic theory. Sanders is quick to call attention to the separation of the intention of a maker and the interpretation of the viewer sighting situations in gender, race, and sexuality where the maker avoids a sense of identity to fit in to the more acceptable hetronormative hierarchies. Sanders further address that this dismissal of identity reaffirms old standards in aesthetic hierarchies and regress the potential of craft theory to male-dominate, white, homophobic labeling. My overall impression is that the author has developed the rational in a persuasive, controversial, and praiseworthy way while offering both critical questions of the field and resolutions to problems addressed.

In this article, the author has relied on surveys of active studio artist, statistics, and prior aesthetic theory in both the craft and art fields. Historians, critics, educators, makers, and viewers would find this article useful for potential direction in new aesthetic theory as well as suggestions of developing a stronger critical base when evaluating art. Though lacking a humble perspective the article provides specific critical questioning, specific examples, and specific resolution that are refreshing and exciting to read.

In summary, I believe that the author’s position that “more than craft’s simple inclusion within the range of objects considered as art, seeking instead a valuing of craft and art studio practice as models for policy analysis, research, and pedagogical performance. These include explorations of craft as metaphor, as theoretical process, and as a foundation for libratory curriculum. In short”, “an aesthetic theory of craft that challenges the raced, gendered classed, and the hetronormative notions that have imbued fine art with surplus economic and cultural capital and denigrated craft’s functional and social embodied meanings”, has been engagingly defended.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Critical Approaches: Fragments from an Evolution. By Patricia Malarcher
Patricia Malarcher, “Critical Approaches: Fragments from and Evolution” in Objects and Meaning: New Perspectives on Art and Craft, ed. M. Anna Fariello and Paula Owen, 36-53 (Maryland: Scarecrow Press Inc., 2004)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

This is a reflective article on the enduring discussion of the conflicting critical approaches taken when evaluating the field of craft. Critical Approaches: Fragments from an Evolution, written by author and fabric artist Patricia Malarcher, investigates a “body of critical writing on craft that has been evolving slowly”. The author presents a view for craft connoisseur to see the lineage and confliction within critical evaluations of craft as a general field; including glass, fibers, and ceramics, which the author believes is finally making its impressions on the critical landscape for the crafting field. Malarcher is dedicated to point out multiple perspectives of critics evaluating the same or specific shows of artist and craftsmen. My overall evaluation is that the author has represented her research in a creditable way while employing a clear and logical lineage of the critics who perceive art and craft from both perspectives and biases.

In this article, the author has relied on chronologic research of critics who have evaluated craft from the 1940’s to the mid-1990. Malarcher sites both insiders and outsider critics of the crafting field including Harold Rosenberg, Newman Rice, and Roberta Smith. The author contends that while on the one hand critical evaluation has elevated in significance through the nineties, on the other most critics leave out a holistic engagement of the crafts. For example when one review of a show is published it may rely heavily on form, function, and process, yet entirely overlook expression and vice versa. Emerging critics would find this article useful for the mistake that have been mad and the needs that must be addressed when evaluating craft objects. Reader will find that after reading this article they are better able to use the individual and selective successes Malarcher pinpoints of contemporary critics and will be able to harmonize these specific case studies to develop a holistic approach to evaluating both craft and art. Though lacking any actual suggestions for improvement or suggestions of reading by critics who Malarcher feels connect all the critical foundations of craft evaluation the article is a good stepping stone to address the continued need for critical evaluation the engages material, process, function, expression, and aesthetic effect.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Labels, Lingo, and Legacy. by Paula Owen
Paula Owen, “Labels, Lingo, and Legacy” in Objects and Meaning: New Perspectives on Art and Craft, ed. M. Anna Fariello and Paula Owen, 24-34 (Maryland: Scarecrow Press Inc., 2004)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien
This is a noteworthy article on fundamental labeling and use of language within the craft field. Labels, Lingo, and Legacy: Craft at a Crossroads written by the president of the Southwest School of Art and Craft Paula Owen, addresses classifications within the crafting field that perpetuates ambiguity “leaving the field without a central base, theoretical framework, or ideological principles”. Owen presents a contention for scholarly documentation to examine the motives and a structure by which we classify or declassify craft which the author believes is significant for the integrity of contemporary craft and emerging hybrid artist/craftsmen. Owen is keen to point out the crossover of conceptual and tactile dimensions within emerging crossover artist and/or hybrid artist, yet warns artist looking to call themselves hybrid-crafters to address function as a primary objective within craft. My overall impression is that the author has developed this line of argument in a plausible way while expressing a simple and appropriate voice.

In this article, the author has relied on older writings none dating post 2000, and directly quotes prior articles on object and meaning to defend her position. Owen sites Janet Koplos (1992), Howard Risatti (1998), and other scholars of objects and meanings. The author contends that a crossroads is emerging in the craft field that may split or scatter crafting ideology. Artist and craftsmen crossing the divide and balancing both fields within there objects or concepts would find this article useful for reference of critics and writers documenting and supporting this hybridization; even though Owen may be biases against this hybridity, as would craftsmen who are looking to strengthen their general knowledge of crafting categorizations. Though lacking contribution to the larger methodological or theoretical debate of categorizations by means of solution or potential resolutions the article provides critical questioning to the overall debate.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Craft within a Consuming Society. by Gloria Hickey
Gloria Hickey, “Craft within a Consuming Society” in The Culture of Craft: Status and Future, ed. Peter Dormer, 83-100 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

Gloria Hickey is a contemporary craft writer and curator. In Hickey’s article she address the attributes that make craft appropriate as a gift as well as the process in which people inject themselves into the action of consumerism. For example, the way in which we experience the process of shopping as a retailer, buyer, and receiver and the way in which we add meaning or a value to a specific object; security blankets. What is especially exciting about Hickeys article is the engagement with authenticity and cultural identity that a buyer will align with craft. While the association of cultural identity and authenticity is synonymous with craft in the consumer mind and often elevates the identity of craft with in markets, Hickey addresses the down fall of misconceptions in the assumption that craft is rustic, irregular, or rudimentary in nature, often lending to a primitive aesthetic.

Hickey concludes that a majority of craft based objects are not bought as gifs yet rather as a distinctive article or collectable. This is in direct correlation to a consumer’s relationship to expectation and association of marketing. The consumer is essentially buying the craftsman, the limited edition, or the specimen which often skews or re-contextualizes the craft object. Hickey’s article is an appealing theoretical addition to discussions on value and meaning within objects that are handcrafted in contemporary society. Additionally Hickey’s bibliography is full of references on materialism, rituals, gifts, marketing, tourism, consumption, and other theoretical debates on objects and meaning; 26 additional articles in total.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
Craft and Art, Culture and Biology. by Bruce Metcalf

Bruce Metcalf, “Craft and Art, Culture and Biology” in The Culture of Craft: Status and Future, ed. Peter Dormer, 67 -82 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997)
Reviewed by Randi O’Brien
It takes immense dedication to effectively balance the roles of maker and writer. Bruce Metcalf is certainly a key model when looking to artists who are able to clearly articulate significant meaning and understanding in their field as well as retain the integrity of making. Craft and Art, Culture and Biology is one of a hundred plus articles written throughout Metcalf’s career, published in 1997 this is a mid-career article.

Metcalf clearly and articulately navigates through the mine field of the art versus craft continuum. Withinin Metcalf’s article his primary objective is to address the ineffective standards for comparison of art versus craft, through the different biological and social context in which craft and art are rooted. He engages this argument through two secondary points of view that promote larger understanding of the theoretical and historical context of craft. Metcalf opens with the first of his two standpoints by addressing the importance of craft retaining its materiality regardless of the philosophical tendencies of art. Craft as a class of objects needs specific characteristics and limitations: handwork, traditional craft materials (post industry), and context. While Metcalf argues that it is necessary for craft to address these characteristics, he also emphasizes the “elastic quality” of these terms. Although Metcalf uses the word limitation as a synonym of craft, he smoothes the water through an evaluation of dematerialization in post modernism. Concluding that craft limits are not negative in effect, yet the limits of material, technique, and context that post modern art lack is the supporting and defining structure of the craft world.

Metcalf further addresses the ineffective standards for comparison of art versus craft, through different biological means of hierarchies established in the art and craft worlds. Metcalf addresses intellectual thinking as a primary faculty of post modern art, and further questions the legitimacy of placing biological intelligences in hierarchies, for example bodily intelligence versus linguistic intelligence, or mathematical intelligence. The basis for Metcalf questioning is founded in the research of Howard Gardner, who places biological intelligence not in hierarchies, rather in separate divisions. Gardner’s research revises “the standard hierarchies of mind over body”, and suggests “that there is no biological basis for placing the various human intelligences in a hierarchy”. Metcalf concludes; through various reference to neurobiologists, anthropologists, and psychologists, that craft cannot be compared to an art world that places its values in verbal and logical cogitative abilities” because craft is a universal human nature that uses bodily intelligence equally to logical intelligence. To fully understand the capacity of craft one must evaluate craft through bodily intelligences as well as logical inteligences.

Metcalf’s main arguments are clear and convincing, and through his use of outside sources he develops an argument that contributes to methodological and theoretical debates in both the art and craft realms. This article is a valuable perspective of the difficulties between art and craft comparison.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
How Strange the Change from Major to Minor: Hierarchies and Medieval Art By: T.A. Heslop
T.A. Heslop. “How Strange the Change from Major to Minor: Hierarchies and Medieval Art” in The Culture of Craft: Status and Future, ed. Peter Dormer, 53-66 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997)

T.A. Heslop's article is a documentation on the changing the hierarchies of artistic endeavors of the twelfth century. The hierarchies Heslop categorizes are founded in the separation of the forge and furnace versus painting and sculpture. Heslop defines the socio-political connotations of craft in the eleventh century, sketches out the developments, and further equates the status of crafting mediums (metal-smiting, glass, and furniture) to divine complicity.

Heslop pinpoints the attraction of material as the essential and key factor to the authority craft claimed in the eleventh century. Glass and metal ornamentation was an attempt for medieval patrons to mimic biblical representations of the art practiced in Bezaleel, the early paradise lands found in Havilah, and the garneshed walls of New Jerusalem. Both the technical and ornamental practice was equated to the divine characteristics of biblical peoples and land. Heslop describes the sift in the authority of divine craft to a focus on the representation of human form. During this shift of attraction to imagery Heslop describes craft as “attempting to play the games of painting and sculpture” and essential loosing the” power to amaze the senses by a dazzling display of color and virtuosity”.

Personal Evaluation
Heslop article is an exciting document of the relationship of crafting mediums and practice to divine conceptual agendas. Heslop is clearly biases towards the function of craft and the stimulation of senses through craft. He asks exciting and critical questions of the loss of the audience’s capacity to critically engage craft due to their lack of knowledge and inexperience with difficulty of making. He additionally questions the audience’s ability to look with informed imagination and sense the quality of things through their maker and themselves. Heslop questioning is biased yet articulated with honest evaluation and concern for the “minor” connotations of craft.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:

Neo Craft: Modernity and the Crafts edited by Sandra Alfoldy
Sandra Alfoldy, ed. Neo Craft: Modernity and the Crafts (Nova Scotia: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 2007)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

Neo Craft: Modernity and the Crafts edited by the assistant professor of craft history at NSCDA University Sandra Alfoldy, assembles a collection of articles that builds a comprehensive book that calls attention to the multiple approaches linking craft history, discourse, and theory to modernity. The collection of authors presents their assessment for an audience that far surpasses the field of craftsmen, to include topics of politics, nationality, identity, anthropology, and technology. Alfoldy gathers themed essays to convey perspectives on the craft field under threat (Cultural Redundancy or the Genre Under Threat), Global Craft, Crafts and the Political Economy, the Invention of Tradition, and Craft, the Sences, and New Technologies which Alfoldy believes is fundamental to the position of craft in relation to modernity. My overall impression is that the Alfoldy has compiled and selected a collection of writings that has expanded the current craft dialogue in an engaging way while utilizing a well structured, relevant, and eloquent layout.

In this book, Alfoldy has relied on critics, authors, professors, and makers to present their position on craft themes that link to broader contemporary life. The authors contend a variety of positions that develop the discourse of craft as a collective whole (I have reviewed and highlighted several of the articles more specifically; see annotations from Neo Craft). Multiple disciplines would find this book useful for contemporary craft trends, concerns, and theoretical developments as would craftsmen looking to break down assumptions of the relationship between craft and modernity to develop and engage a broader visual culture.

Alfoldy has been able to expand scholarship within the crafting field which gives support to Alfoldy’s key claim that; “I believe that the strength of the writing in relation to the crafts, with its own set of concerns and approaches, indicates that we are in the process of developing our own unique discourse”.

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
The Culture of Craft: Status and Future edited by Peter Dormer
Peter Dormer, ed. The Culture of Craft: Status and Future (New York: Manchester University Press, 1997)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

The Culture of Craft: Status and Future written by critic, curator, and author Peter Dormer, brings together discussions on the relevance of craft theory and philosophy . Dormer presents an boulevard for craftsmen to build into their dialogue positions and meaning that make craft essential in historical and current society. My overall impression is that the author has compile a collection of scholars and makers that articulately and engagingly push the development of craft theory forward as well as support concerns and issues within the crafting field.

In this book, Dormer has relied on historians, makers, scholars, and his own writings to develop three themes: The Status of Craft, The Challenge of Technology, and Writing About the Crafts. Craftsmen would find this article useful for the contemporary development of craft significance within society as well as useful for the perpetual concerns that continue to arise in craft discourse. Readers would benefit from Dormers collection by means of theory development and by means of looking for the critical questions that have build crafts foundations yet are still unanswered and should be addressed in twenty-first century craft theory. (I have further reviewed specific articles from Dormers collection; please see the following annotations within The Culture of Craft)

This is an annotated evaluation of the following:
Objects and Meaning: New Perspectives on Art and Craft. edited by M. Anna Fariello and Paula Owen
M. Anna Fariello and Paula Owen, ed. Objects and Meaning: New Perspectives on Art and Craft (Maryland: Scarecrow Press Inc., 2004)

Reviewed by Randi O’Brien

A expansive book of compiled essays that provide historical, theoretical, and cultural conversations within the realm of artistic made objects. Objects and Meaning: New Perspectives on Art and Craft edited by author and curator M. Anna Fariello, and the president of the Southwest School of Art and Craft Paula Owen, charts the dialogue of innovative, progressive, and critical thinking of makers, scholars, and connoisseurs of artist made objects in the twentieth century. The editors present an avenue for artist and scholars to engage the meaning of objects through the perspective of craftsmen, artists, philosophers, and the concerned maker. While I have selected several articles from this book to review in-depth, the reaming articles I didn’t specifically review were written with raw and confusing methodology. This is not to say the perspectives and arguments were inadequate, rather that the voice and format for writing was heavily distracting to the core concern.

The editors organized a concise and logical format, with their voice and perspective heard solely in their own writings. Craftsmen, artists, and makers of all disciplines working with objects and the theory of objects would find this article useful for the perpetual concern of assigning and interpreting meaning within an artist made object.

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.