What’s Wrong with Pretty?

By: Jon Sutter

Would it be blasphemous to attack the aesthetic of conceptualism in contemporary Craft? Is it even possible to use language and argument to criticize the conceptual aesthetic without engaging in a conceptual conversation? What’s wrong with a work that was simply meant to be pretty? If something meant to be pretty by some measure fails to be so, does the ensuing discussion of how it fails become a conceptual discussion by default? Where in the list of priorities should a “concept” be placed when considered against the design and usability?

The current use of the term “conceptual art” (as I understand it) is where the “idea” behind a work has equal or greater importance than the physical artwork. Since I am currently a graduate student in “Crafts” it is interesting to me that contemporary craft education is hung-up on discovering an artist’s idea. In all the regular feedback that me and my fellow Crafts grads get concerning our work, the need to be able to articulate one’s “ideas” is both implicitly and explicitly required. It is assumed that work where the artist is able to clearly articulate his/her ideas is stronger work.

In my mind, the desire for the field of crafts to become “conceptual,” to put the idea at equal or greater importance than the object, directly assaults the basis of craft itself. If there is any place that the object’s quality, functionality, and the skill with which it is executed should matter, it should matter in fine craft. However, the craft curriculum here at VCU seems to be putting increased emphasis on conceptual concerns, and deemphasizing the discipline of craft skills.

Traditionally, the area of craft is the progenitor of manufacturing. Technical knowledge is of the utmost importance. Could Louis Comfort Tiffany have created his marvelous works in glass without a thorough knowledge of chemistry? Could ceramicists make their work without knowing the firing properties of different clays? Technical skill is vitally important to the field of craft, and deserves emphasis. However, when craft skill becomes less important than conceptual ideas, I believe that contemporary craft has gone off course.

Furthermore, because contemporary craft has chosen to align itself with fine art and conceptual concerns, it has lost its traditional ties to manufacturing. By aligning itself to fine art, craft has become just another medium of sculpture. Hence, much of craft education is academic in nature; there is a proliferation of non-functional compositions; and work that is made to be “pretty” is frowned upon. I believe it is time for the field of craft to accept that it will never be as “cool” as fine art, and instead to reemphasize its relationship to practical concerns. Craftspeople should, in my view, be concentrating on design and should stop trying to retrace the already worn path made by sculpture. Ironically, here at VCU, materials fluency or “craft” is gaining support among students of sculpture, who recognize the importance of knowing how to make things. It would be a sad irony if Craft, which has been following behind sculpture’s lead for a long time, should be following behind it again in understanding the importance of "making" and its associated technical skills. It’s time for Craft to take the lead in its own area and reemphasize skill, utilitarian design, and its traditional ties to the decorative arts and to industry.