Comments on: Jack of all arts, crafts, wannabe

By: sarah bagshaw

sarah bagshaw — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:31:50 +0000

Hi, just found this blog and post. I’m at the very early stages of starting a PHD..just getting my area of focus together. I want to focus (through an art practice-based method) on the work made in the areas where fine art, craft and decoration overlap. This stems from my own practice as I have always felt confused as to where to locate it!
I like your reasoning between art and craft, hmmmmm, something to think about!
I’d love to hear from anybody else who interested in this field!

By: Art for art’s sake « The Aesthetic Elevator

Art for art’s sake « The Aesthetic Elevator — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:42:18 +0000

[...] Artist as genius, Beauty, Criticism. trackback This is my third line of thought following up Jack of all arts, crafts, wannabe and Is art defined by communication. It was also prompted by “Mo-Coffee’s” [...]

By: TAE

TAE — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:40:33 +0000

Definitely worth kicking around . . . Yesterday afternoon I was actually thinking about how aesthetics played into my thoughts and questions . . . Sick today so not sure that will play out on the blog . . .

By: Mo-Coffee

Mo-Coffee — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:21:46 +0000

So, Tally (and others)–
Try these working definitions on and see if they fit:

Art- aesthetic built around the idea that the concept drives the material

Craft- aesthetic built around the idea that the material drives the concept

These definitions completely redefine the art v craft debate, and creates all kinds of problems about how we define certain people (e.g. Pollock might be considered a craftsman), but it’s worth kicking around. If I have the time I’ll unpack my rational in a post soon

By: Is art defined by communication? « The Aesthetic Elevator

Is art defined by communication? « The Aesthetic Elevator — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:00:03 +0000

[...] by TAE in Art, Ceramics. trackback This post is continuing the line of thought I began in the Jack of all arts, crafts, wannabe [...]

By: Tally

Tally — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:35:07 +0000

Hm, I love these answers to my question. Call me an idiot, but I never thought about considering the proper use of a material and realizing that its occasional handicap in performance might be attributed to the simple fact that it just wasn’t made for the purpose I was intending it. K, all that to say, I guess I work backwards. I get an idea and grab whatever material I think will produce the effect I want. Sometimes it works (and I feel like a genius) and sometimes it doesn’t (and I get frustrated).
I really like the analogy of the eagle’s eyebrow. In thinking about function, I realize that’s part of my problem. Function is relative for me. Here’s an example. I bought a really cute silverware caddy for my sink. It’s black iron and I love it. It is not very functional though. The silverware constantly slips through the wide slats. My mom was washing dishes for me at Christmas and at one point said as calmly as possible, “Doesn’t this thing ever annoy you?” “No, I said. I have a normal plastic one you can use instead if it’s annoying you.” She declined, I think because she didn’t want to rock the boat. And that boat is…..it’s far more important to me that something look good than actually work well. Obviously function is important to me on some level or I wouldn’t be using the caddy for its intended use. I’m just saying its hard for form to keep up with function, if function is fickle.
I’m not sure any of this made sense. Sorry. I spent too long on it not to post it though.

By: TAE

TAE — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:36:17 +0000

@ Mo-Coffee:

Great to make your acquaintance. I’m ecstatic to find someone with an MFA in ceramics on my blog; if you scan the headlines back over the last few months you’ll see that I’m pondering the worth of the same degree.

I don’t take Image Journal but have known about it for years, and have been occasionally involved in their online forums.

By: Mo-Coffee

Mo-Coffee — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:47:49 +0000

This is a lovely post. I don’t know if you will ever find a completely satisfactory stance between art v craft and art v craft v theology, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth making the effort! I often feel it is similar to the story of Jacob wrestling the angel, or God (depending on translation)–sometimes you just have to hang on and refuse to let go until you are blessed.

I have an MFA Ceramics (Kent State), and am a Christian, and have been dealing with many of these issues for 20 years now. I don’t have any specific wisdom to give– I find whenever I plant my flag in one place the sand is shifty, so i just carry it around mostly. Will our society ever embrace great craftsmanship again? Probably not. Did it ever? That, too, is debatable. Is there a Biblical mandate to do so- I think that case is makable. (BTW do you get Image Journal?)

FLW was amazing, but he was a designer, not a craftsman. I have visited many of his houses (I live close to Oak Park, IL), and I’m pretty sure about that. He designed some pretty lousy sculpture, and worse furniture. He was no fan of function (like most great architects). He was, perhaps, a slave to his own ego- well, who isn’t, really? But he did get MATERIAL. I would argue that Gehry does, too, in his way.

I love Matthias’s comments. What our American culture is rapidly losing is the ability to abide in time. That greatly effects our ability to recognize God and each other. It is my hope that good craft somehow helps us do that- both in it’s creation and in its use.

By: TAE

TAE — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:43:00 +0000

Matthias said: "Rather than thinking of materials in how they have been traditionally used (I’m not implying this was all you were doing), the specific attributes of a material needs to be studied and then that material can be utilized based on its function not its historical use which could open up non-traditional expressions." Very good. The implied uses of materials need not be their end all, but I'm assuming craftsmen before me have — to a large degree — explored the limits of many basic mediums. However, as artists I hope we always push the limits of our craft and design, doing so in a well-considered manner. That is, so the end product doesn't end up needing to be covered up because it's too bright (referring Gehry's L.A. Philharmonic building). I meant to mention Sullivan in my original post with respect to the abstract decorations on the Wainwright building in St. Louis. I've gone back and added a photo to the post; thanks for the reminder.

By: Matthias

Matthias — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:17:50 +0000

You ask “What do you do when function contradicts your form?” I suggest change the model until both complement each other or are the same. Horatio Greenough wrote a book around 1840-50 entitled “Form and Function, Remarks on Art, Design and Architecture” that perhaps set the tone for much of the discussion surrounding this topic (a really good read by the way). He does an in-depth study of creation and how, for example, the form of an eagle’s eye brow is shaped to enable it to shade the eye so that the eagle can see its prey clearly. Louis Sullivan, FLW’s mentor used the same terminology. Then FLW came along and married the two stating that “form and function are one”. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle of those two but my goal at least is to always aim for the Wrightian interpretation. It is harder to achieve, takes more time, requires more craft, but results in a richer, multivalent (I learned that word from one of my students) solution.

Rather than thinking of materials in how they have been traditionally used (I’m not implying this was all you were doing), the specific attributes of a material needs to be studied and then that material can be utilized based on its function not its historical use which could open up non-traditional expressions.