Craftpocalypse Now

Holy shit, y'all!  The Craftpocalypse is here.  There's nothing I like more than a good debate, and there's a doozy swirling around the craft world right now.  It all started with a talk at the SNAG conference in Savannah with Andrew Wagner of American Craft Magazine and writer/artist Bruce Metcalf.  Metcalf comes from an older generation of "studio craft artists" that has suddenly sat bolt-upright at the realization that there is a new generation of crafters taking over.  A whole generation is busy convening conferences that try to get to the bottom of the alt-craft phenomenon. 

Metcalf's comments at the conference, while not a blanket condemnation of alt-craft, is more of an achingly unhip attempt at defining it.  just reading Annie from imogene.org's account of Metcalf's portion of the speech made me vaguely uncomfortable...sort of like when my parents (well my mother anyway) talks about sex.  Andrew weighed in....then Bruce Metcalf weighed in...and before you could say "felted cat toys'', most of the luminaries of the alt-craft world weighed in too!  Tsia Carson, Sabrina Gschwandtner, Faythe Levine and a bunch of other folks have been hashing out the argument.

So HAVE A LOOK at the discussion and weigh in.  I've been subjected to Metcalf's rantings before, so I had to scratch at the old scabs he left me with at last year's NCECA conference.  Speaking of which, I'm off to NCECA in Pittsburgh tomorrow!  Why don't discussions like this happen at NCECA?  Because people at NCECA are too busy sitting around bitching about the "art world" passing them by.  If I have to hear one more panel where a bunch of otherwise interesting people sit around whining that there is no valid writing and criticism in the ceramic world, I'm gonna scream. 

I've said it before....ceramic artists all want to exhibit their windchimes and travel mugs at the town gazebo craft fair, then cry foul that the Whitney isn't swooping down to give them a retrospective.  There are plenty of great ceramic artists who are making a dent outside of ceramic circles, but the common denominator is that THEY'RE EXHIBITING OUTSIDE OF CERAMIC CIRCLES!  So.  If you see me at the bracing panel discussion on deflocculants or maple syrup raku firing, gimme a nudge and say hi.  I'll have a new Extreme Craft sticker for you!

LINK

Comments

[Jared B.]

Wow, super fascinating, Garth, thanks for posting this. I'm constantly intrigued by the "fence" that suggests, say, craft, folk art, comics, "low brow art," etc. are somehow inherently infefior to academically vetted (?), whatever "high art." This SNAG exchange is especially interesting because it kind of pits disenfranchised (mainstream crafters) against (further) disenfranchised (alt crafters)...reminds me a bit of Hillary supporters versus Obama supporters arguing about whether blacks or women have it tougher.

[Bruce Metcalf]

Hi Garth,

I trust by now you read the speech I gave @ SNAG about alt-craft (on Imogene.org). Achingly unhip? What I was trying to do was let the SNAG mainstream know about alt-craft, while speaking in my own language. It’s true that I discovered alt-craft only recently, and it’s true I don’t write like you- and I like the ferocity of your writing – but I think there ought to be room for different voices in this biz.

Let me pick my own scab here. You think my speech at NCECA last year was a rant? You think I was needlessly and stupidly paranoid? That’s your right, by all means. But follow my logic here, and let me know where you think I went wrong.

My speech proposed that craft educators should consider reframing craft as one of the liberal arts. This makes sense only within the academic environment, where such framing matters. Sometimes. It has little immediate impact outside academia, but plenty of possible long-term consequences.

I’ll break my argument up into a series of propositions.

Prop One: It’s good that craft education takes place at colleges and universities. In academia.

BTW, I would never say that academia is the only place to get an education in craft, or even the best place. The history of craft is full of individuals who taught themselves, or who came from industry, or etc. etc. I don’t think there’s a hierarchy or educational quality. As a self-taught woodworker, I couldn’t argue that an academic education is superior to anything. However, and I think you would agree, it’s very good at certain things. For better or worse, the academy is now the most comprehensive repository of craft skills and information in this country. It’s also open, vaguely meritocratic, and it tries (more or less) to keep up with current developments.

Prop Two: Craft is its own field. You might disagree with this. I think craft is directly analogous to architecture and design: it has its own concerns, techniques, and histories. That’s not to say that hybrid forms are bad. Hybrids are inevitable, and some of them are pretty wonderful, as your website documents. But to continue the plant metaphor: in order to have a hybrid, you may want to preserve the original breeding stock. A core of craft, so to speak. A repository of craft knowledge and skills, so that future hybrids can branch off the same core. If you accept Prop One, then academia is the logical candidate to be that core.

What has pissed me off for decades is that craft is so eager to claim it’s a completely owned subsidiary of Art. My generation has wasted tons of trees and lots of breath trying to assert that CRAFT IS ART! I say: baloney. Craft is itself. It deals with its own histories (the history of pottery, for one) its own attitudes (for example, service towards others - not symbolically as art generally does, but in reality) and its own techniques. Also a long list of characteristic forms: tables, vessels, clothing, jewelry, whatever: all the things that might still be handmade after the onslaught of the industrial revolution.

Prop Three: the argument for the place of craft in academia is failing. Again, if you accept Prop One, this might matter. If you poke around, you find that the standard justification for teaching craft at the college level is that you can make Art in craft mediums. Craft defers its whole existence as a subject of study to Art! Which, again, goes to the definition of craft as a subset of Art, and nothing distinctive on its own.

For the past 25 years or so, I have watched one craft studio after another close. While a few craft programs have opened up, I believe that the ratio of closures to openings runs about 4 to 1. The pattern is for administrations to close individual studios, not whole craft areas. Textiles are usually the first to go, followed by small fields like enameling. Glass, with its fabulously expensive gas bills, will probably be next. The newest trend is to eliminate craft majors, but keep studios open as service components to the whole art school. (Carnegie-Mellon, U. of Michigan, and U. of Washington textiles & metals are examples.) I think this sucks. Again, you may disagree.

Why this erosion? Because craft cannot adequately explain its place in academia. It has no cogent theory to justify its continuing existence as a field of study. And so the erosion will continue. Maybe you’re copasetic with that, but I’m not. I think craft has to go on the offensive, and develop its own argument based on its own identity.

Prop Four: Craft could be reconceived as a liberal art. As a member of the liberal arts club, craft could demand respect (and budgets, and faculty lines, and decent facilities) from administrations and boards of directors and donors. And thus it could survive in academia, and continue to have an impact in the wider world. (By educating people like me and you.) Admittedly, this is a conservative approach, but I couldn’t think of a better argument. If you think this proposal is a loser, can you provide a better one?

So, Garth, where did I go wrong? Clue me in.

Your fuddy duddy buddy,
Bruce Metcalf

[Garth Johnson]

Bruce! Thank you for the great reply. I wish some of this stuff could have been hashed over closer to last year's NCECA, rather than this one. I know that plenty of my colleagues who are facing down the barrel of skeptical administrations are very much in agreement with you. I agree with a ton of things that you are saying, and never meant to imply that you meant academia was the only valid place to receive a craft education.

I agree that for better or for worse, academia is where the bulk of craft knowledge lives at the moment. My main disagreement with you is the argument that the only place the "seed" of craft can be preserved is in hermetic craft departments. Craft is experiencing a huge revival right now, and academia will follow. I don't have enough experience in fibers and jewelry to adequately speak for them--I can see for myself that programs have been eliminated and downsized (including the school where I teach). However, plenty of programs have been expanding in the past ten years. The programs that are expanding mostly "play nice" with art departments. The faculty are aware of the art world and work liberally with "craft as idea".

The reason I don't see a reason to circle the wagons and raise the alarm is that the same faculty members who are teaching their ceramic students to make installations and include performance in their work are also teaching beginning students to make dynamite pottery. Most "art" ceramics faculty have kitchens filled with crunchy brown pots and an extensive history with making pottery. In my experience, these faculty members can critique functional work every bit as well as a studio potter (studio potters can also, in my experience, give dynamite critiques to sculpture students).

Judging from the swelling attendance at NCECA, geeky clay knowledge is in absolutely no danger of dying out. A well-rounded ceramics department wouldn't be complete without its fair share of mad glaze scientists and students competing to see who can throw the biggest pot. The kind of student who makes functional pottery and the kind of student who puts on a performance piece where they throw pots with their penis are two vastly different animals, and most ceramics programs that I know can accommodate them both.

One thing that I thank you for, though, is your conclusion that NCECA (or other organizations like SNAG) should have an answer at the ready for programs that want to eliminate or downsize their craft programs. If we can assemble the benefits that an institution can reap through the inclusion of CRAFT in the curriculum, we can keep art departments healthy. I would never argue that ceramics should simply be folded into sculpture, but I would never discourage the exploration of sculpture within a ceramics program. Rather than worry that ceramics studios will become subservient to sculpture programs if boundaries come down, think of the opportunities that an engaged ceramics department can offer a sculpture student.

[Bruce Metcalf]

Hey Garth,

Maybe I'm just more paranoid than you are? The business of craft students making installations, performances & whatnot has been going on for some while now... most of my grad students @ Kent State U in the 1980s did installations for their thesis projects.The institutional question that emerges from this situation is that administrators ask: If ceramics students are just making sculpture, why do we need these kilns & facilities & gas bills? Why not just fold everything into sculpture? Which is exactly what happened to clay at Carnegie-Mellon U in the 80s.That's why I think a coherent logic for the core of craft practice needs to be developed, just in case. It seems you agree with me.

BTW, I would never argue that academia is the ONLY place to learn a craft. I think it's the best place, though, since it encourages a much deeper knowledge and longer training period than most other situations. Places like Penland, with its residencies, are also very good, but there just aren't many of them.

Good luck with your "actions." If you're ever in the Philly area, let me know: I'll show up. In the meantime, I plan to be a regular visitor to your website.

Yr. geezer pal,
Bruce