I included Howard Risetti's book 'A theory of craft: function and aesthetic expression' in my annotated bibliography because it was of interest and of relevance to me. Within the book Risetti talks about the importance of craft and how craft must find a niche for itself that is neither fine art, nor design, but something separate and unique, but of the same importance within the umbrella of the visual arts. Otherwise, the importance of the crafts will be lost. It's an interesting subject since ceramics sits under the umbrella of the crafts or applied arts.
Risetti doesn't like the term 'applied arts' since, for him the term has connotations with something that is machine made. I am comfortable with the term since it is used widely within educational instiutions to describe the arts where something with a purpose is made, i.e. ceramics, textiles, jewellry, 3d. But there are other types of craft aswell, since people who build dry stone walls, who make lace, who make cricket bats (and many other craftspeople)are also practising a craft, are they not? Then there are those who 'craft' at home and do things like glass painting or scrapbooking. This is something altogether different. I think the term 'craft' when talking about the applied arts is too simplistic.
Indeed, Grayson Perry said that craft is something that can be taught by a skilled craftsperson to someone else, whereas art can not be taught but is something inherant within the artist. Although Perry is a potter, to me he is a fine artist, the only difference is he is using ceramics as his medium or canvas on which he chooses to comment on contemporary issues relevant to todays society.
I think it is too simplistic to assume that a work of art must be either craft or fine art. Risatti asserts that the main function of the fine arts is to communicate certain ideas or concepts and that the main purpose of craft is to serve the physiological needs of the body. But an artist can work with traditional craft materials whilst communicating the concepts behind the work. Artists are continually exploring new materials to communicate their ideas. Love him or loathe him, Perry has done a lot to 'sell' the benefits that ceramics has to offer the visual arts. For me, as well as being a fine artist, Perry is also a craftsman since he has spent years perfecting his craft and he executes his pots (and textiles) with a lot of technical expertise. Tracey Emin is an another example of a contemporary artist working with traditional craft materials (textiles).
But is it important where the crafts/the applied arts sit in terms of the visual arts? Of course it does since paintings command a lot more money than ceramics or other applied arts. In his book 'Painted Clay: Graphic Arts and the Ceramic Surface', Paul Scott asserts that the material an artwork is made from will determine its value within the visual arts field. He used the example of how well the exhibition of Picasso’s ceramics held at the Royal Academy was received in London in 1998. He quotes the journalist Adrian Searle from ‘The Guardian’ who cited Norman Rosenthal, exhibition secretary for the Academy at the time that there had been a lot of resistance to the very idea of the ceramics show, referring to Picasso and his ceramic work as ‘kitsch.’
It's an interesting debate though...
Incidentally, I went to see the 'Power of Making' exhibition at the V&A. It was an interesting collection and it showed the breadth and depth that crafts still have today.
No comments:
Post a Comment