Persistence of Craft

I’ve never understood why “intellectuals” and “artists” of the modern age decided to draw lines between art and craft. I’ve always thought of the two as symbiotic, as being absolutely necessary to the success of one another. In my own work, I take the use of either word as a compliment. On an individual level, I’ve never adhered myself strongly to either the fine art world or the craft genre because I feel that it is a debate of history, perception and pretension. Inherently, I think of craft in relation to the tactile qualities of a piece: the texture, function, weight, mood. “Art” for me speaks more to the design or treatment of a piece, to the concepts and effectiveness of the execution. Execution cannot be successful without carefully considered craft.

What I am interested in is Greenhalgh’s mention that our societies current view is that “we are all consumers but few of us are producers” when in all actuality “many of us make things with creative intent…but often we don’t look at, consume, absorb or contemplate the works of others…” I feel that this mentality is apparent in our culture, that it is a lot easier to get someone to do something than it is to get them to truly study and understand exactly what it is they are doing. Likewise, if these objects of the producers are so influential in the way that common people see, remember, and become connected to people and other places than it seems a no-brainer that these objects should and do require equal attention to the aesthetic and tactile qualities it possesses. Above all, I think that Greenhalgh was absolutely right with his conjecture that “Works of art are not objects; works of art are relationships between people and objects. If the relationship does not exist, neither does the work of art…Art is primarily an idea. Remove the idea, and only the social class and economics remain”.