When creating a new composition, be it art or design, the creator makes a series of aesthetic choices. Many of these choices are entirely conscious, but some are not. One, which I believe is largely unconscious in contemporary work, is the aesthetic of progress. This aesthetic choice is perhaps the most pervasive and widely used choice, and its continuous use has weakened certain fields. I believe that academic furniture design is one of those weakened fields.
When a designer uses the aesthetic of progress he/she makes the assumption that what is new is better. A new and previously unseen combination of design elements is “fresh.” New and uniquely individual compositions have become the hallmark brand of the designer. There is much to be valued in this type of aesthetic, as design fashions move their way through history. Changing styles also create a demand for new products by making older compositions obsolete. However, in the case of studio furniture, an aesthetic of progress isn’t always better.
Furniture is for most people a substantial investment, even with inexpensive imported furniture from which to choose. Studio furniture typically resides at the top price-point amongst new furniture. Only important historic pieces are sold for more money. However, it is indeed against the backdrop of antiques that I would like to compare studio furniture.
If one compares the design complexity of many antiques to current works, one will often find that historic designs are much more complex and required far greater labor to create than much of what is currently being made in the studio furniture area. If one compares the best antique work against the best work of today, the antique work is superior in almost every regard: better workmanship, better integration of design elements and a higher level of complexity. So how did antique work get so accomplished?
I have come to believe, not that the appreciation of antiques has grown, but that modern design and construction skills have gotten got worse. The reason modern design got worse is that culture has demanded new and interesting things. Artists and designers, in turn, increasingly responded to this expectation for several generations. The priority for newness, however, has gotten to the point that traditional skills and design methods are no longer taught. Instead, the educational priority in crafts is for experimentation. Experimentation is a fine thing, but I believe that students of craft should also learn the lessons of history. Traditional design required a development of skills that current curricula do not even approximate. I believe a lack of knowledge of traditional design negatively impacts future work.
About 5 years ago I began to gain a new respect for traditional design. My wife’s career relocation necessitated closing my studio. Because the move was temporary, it didn’t make sense to open another studio, just to lose that investment of work and money when we moved again. The break, however, gave me the opportunity to examine historic architecture in western Massachusetts where we lived. I quickly realized that I did not possess the ability to recreate much of the work I examined. It seemed almost impossible to understand the organization of complicated architectural ornaments, or even to comprehend the design method for a Victorian piece of furniture. The more I attempted to create work in the Victorian style, the more I realized that I actually knew very little about design. As the years have passed and I have become more educated about traditional design, some of the mystery has disappeared. However, I continue to be humbled by the high level of compositional ability that was considered mere competence in the previous era. In my current work, I am attempting to use what I have learned from traditional works to improve the overall quality of what I do in the studio. However, these attempts have met with resistance from the faculty advisors in my graduate school program. In my opinion, they are clearly dedicated to the aesthetic of progress and to the development of a personal style of work. My attempts to gain a design fluency that incorporates the lessons of history are met with comments like, “We’ve seen this before.”
So, is new always better? I suppose from a marketing standpoint that it could be, but it also may not. When it comes to furniture, often people want what helps them to feel comfortable at home, and this is not always something challenging and new. In addition, if the field is always looking to innovation without actually learning the tradition of our craft, how can a craftsman say that he/she is a master? I don’t argue that progress should be stopped in favor of a rear-looking copying of past creative efforts, but I think it’s also wrong to ignore the good lessons that can be learned from studying historical work. It seems particularly noteworthy to me that a history of crafts survey course is not even offered by my graduate department.
How ironic it seems that a field like contemporary crafts, that owes so much to traditional methods of handwork, should be so averse to historical study. I believe the craft field as a whole could use a renewed discussion about its relationship to traditional work. In my opinion, there is much to be gained by studying and understanding past designs.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saying the 'B' Word:
Above is a short proof of the Pythagorean theorem. This proof is the shortest and most elegant one I have ever seen for it -a mere three lines of algebra. Can this be beauty?
I would argue that beauty is something that exists outside the boundaries of art alone. Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians know beauty in their own fields. Often, something beautiful is an idea or solution that is exquisitely simple. But for anyone who has tried to simplify a design or a problem solution, the simple solution is often the hardest to find. Discovering a simple solution sometimes requires a new understanding of the problem - requires a shift in perception or a throwing out of assumptions - a kind of personal purgation in service of the endeavor.
If beauty can exist outside the field of art, what's the problem with focusing on it within the world of art? I believe that the pursuit of beauty in contemporary art has gotten a bum rap. Some people would say that beauty is a worn-out idea, that art which aspires to beauty is dull. However, I believe that beauty is the hardest quality to achieve. To achieve beauty requires time and discipline, things that culture at present doesn’t make a priority. Modern culture strives, instead, for efficiency, something which is practical and measurable. Beauty, however, has ill defined rules. One knows it when it is seen, but there is no procedure for creating beauty. Beauty, therefore, is impractical in the contemporary world.
I believe that the tendency toward conceptualism in contemporary art is a kind of substitute for story telling. Conceptual art makes little sense if you don't know its backstory. Beauty, however, is more egalitarian - people know it right away. Not that all art should be easy to understand. I admit that certain works yield additional rewards when studied further. Therefore, there must be that extra something in the work that makes it worth going back to, and that is beauty.
I would also say that to truly witness beauty can be a kind of religious experience. Hence major works of religious architecture are designed to evoke the feeling of awe which is an inherent response to witnessing beauty. Witnessing beauty can be transformative in a way unlike anything else. Consequently, conceptual or not, contemporary art that is truly good must concern itself with beauty at some level, even if the beauty of a work is in its irony or its humor.
So why are discussions of beauty so taboo in art education these days? Perhaps it's like talking about religion or politics amongst strangers...
Monday, September 22, 2008
Contemporary Craft: Non-Functional or Dysfunctional?
By: Jon Sutter, Graduate Student in Wood
At: VCU, Department of Media-based Art and Design
Contrary to what many artists think, I believe that aesthetic choices in art are wholly suffused with the economic circumstances of life. This is nowhere more evident than in the field of contemporary craft. I am a woodworker and a craftsman who has spent many years learning his skills. So it pains me to say this, sort-of. However, craft is pretty much dead. Maybe it’s not all dead. There’s still a little bit kicking around, but, by and large, it’s breathing its last breaths. Contemporary craft has lost its main purpose for being and has devolved into a form of media-based sculpture. Both the recent dropping of the word “crafts” from the name “California College of Arts and Crafts,” as well as the renaming of the “American Craft Museum” to the “Museum of Art and Design,” exemplify recent shifts toward an honest acknowledgement of the state of craft. This is also exemplified in the proliferation of non-functional craft work.
What does it say when a functional item cannot be used? Let’s say we have a chair. The chair is made like a chair, displays the fabrication methods and the skilled labor of a chair, but cannot be used. Is this chair a sculpture? Perhaps it is. However, I would argue that it is also the symbolic and final degeneration of a field of endeavor that has become obsolete. This is craft that embodies its own tragedy, the symbolic death of the craftsman’s relevancy to culture. Because craft’s traditional usefulness has become depleted, the motivations of contemporary craft artists have begun to align with the motivations of fine artists. Because these motivations are nearly identical, the field of contemporary craft has taken up the same preoccupation with concept and theory that typifies the practice of modern fine art. How woeful it is that craft artists need to concern themselves with a “Theory of Craft.” Unfortunately, theory will never resuscitate that which has died by economics.
William Morris complained, more than a century ago, about his work finding an audience only among the well-off. He wouldn’t have been able to make his work if he hadn’t come from a wealthy family. Industrial culture doesn’t need art in the way it needs the things of everyday life. And the things of everyday life are made less expensively (and often better) by the methods of mass production. Granted, mass produced products don’t carry the uniqueness of a handmade item. However, when shopping for value, the cost benefit of manufactured goods far exceeds that of handmade ones. Therefore, the traditional role of the craftsman, someone who provides his/her community with the items needed for everyday life, has nearly ended. Without strong consumer demand for handcrafted items that can compete in the market with manufactured goods, where else but into theory, introspection, and self expression can the virtuosic energies of craft artisans go?
Of course, there are plenty of people who will disagree with me, who will claim that it is their personal vision that drives their creative work. I believe it is their personal vision. However, without very specific economic circumstances, the making of hand-crafted work, functional or nonfunctional, would not be possible. In fact, it is my assertion that the career of most craft artists will end on the day they graduate from their craft program. It will end the day their student loan payments become due. Otherwise, some alternative form of financial support is required. They may hang on for a while, but only a lucky few will find long-term employment in the field of contemporary craft or will be able to develop a viable niche market for their work.
My own graduate study in the field of crafts asks what can be done about these economic circumstances. I am focusing on the niche market. Craft, particularly furniture-making, requires the same space and tools of a regular business. In order to truly survive outside of academia, craft artists need to study the business aspects of what they do. Because of their high price, craft items necessarily serve a luxury market. However, which luxury market they serve could be the difference between losing money and being profitable. I believe that new technologies can make crafts a somewhat profitable endeavor once again. For woodworking, software tools like AutoCAD combined with newly developed low-cost CNC routers may make artisan furniture a viable enterprise. Custom furniture will never compete with low-cost, imported furniture, but it may be possible to develop a niche furniture business that utilizes these newly developed tools and caters to a market that isn’t only “the rich.”
The question for every craft artist who aspires to sell his/her work is this: “How do I create value in the work I make.” This could be work of technical virtuosity, or “green” work, or work that is interesting and unique, or work which steps into the realm of sculpture. However, work which does not find a sufficient niche market and is supported financially by the artist can only be someone’s pet project. The work may be fine art, may be significant in some way to a cultural dialog, but, in the true and traditional sense of craft that serves the utilitarian needs of a culture, its purpose for being is mostly gone. In addition, the traditional skills that exemplify the best work are going as well.
Skill, however, is relative always to the task at hand. As traditional skills die away, others are created. Today’s craft artists, in addition to the “hard” skills needed to make their work, must also master the skills of marketing, sales, and other “soft” skills to gain and maintain a market presence. Those whose success carries them beyond a niche market will inevitably find themselves in the realm of product design and will need to turn to outright manufacturing. Those whose work is celebrated and widely popular, who don’t pursue manufacturing, may find their ideas stolen by the likes of Target or others who are willing to utilize manufacturing to its fullest. Whether craft artisans are willing and able to use manufacturing to their advantage, or whether their livelihood will continue to be destroyed by it, remains a challenge for the field as a whole.
At: VCU, Department of Media-based Art and Design
Contrary to what many artists think, I believe that aesthetic choices in art are wholly suffused with the economic circumstances of life. This is nowhere more evident than in the field of contemporary craft. I am a woodworker and a craftsman who has spent many years learning his skills. So it pains me to say this, sort-of. However, craft is pretty much dead. Maybe it’s not all dead. There’s still a little bit kicking around, but, by and large, it’s breathing its last breaths. Contemporary craft has lost its main purpose for being and has devolved into a form of media-based sculpture. Both the recent dropping of the word “crafts” from the name “California College of Arts and Crafts,” as well as the renaming of the “American Craft Museum” to the “Museum of Art and Design,” exemplify recent shifts toward an honest acknowledgement of the state of craft. This is also exemplified in the proliferation of non-functional craft work.
What does it say when a functional item cannot be used? Let’s say we have a chair. The chair is made like a chair, displays the fabrication methods and the skilled labor of a chair, but cannot be used. Is this chair a sculpture? Perhaps it is. However, I would argue that it is also the symbolic and final degeneration of a field of endeavor that has become obsolete. This is craft that embodies its own tragedy, the symbolic death of the craftsman’s relevancy to culture. Because craft’s traditional usefulness has become depleted, the motivations of contemporary craft artists have begun to align with the motivations of fine artists. Because these motivations are nearly identical, the field of contemporary craft has taken up the same preoccupation with concept and theory that typifies the practice of modern fine art. How woeful it is that craft artists need to concern themselves with a “Theory of Craft.” Unfortunately, theory will never resuscitate that which has died by economics.
William Morris complained, more than a century ago, about his work finding an audience only among the well-off. He wouldn’t have been able to make his work if he hadn’t come from a wealthy family. Industrial culture doesn’t need art in the way it needs the things of everyday life. And the things of everyday life are made less expensively (and often better) by the methods of mass production. Granted, mass produced products don’t carry the uniqueness of a handmade item. However, when shopping for value, the cost benefit of manufactured goods far exceeds that of handmade ones. Therefore, the traditional role of the craftsman, someone who provides his/her community with the items needed for everyday life, has nearly ended. Without strong consumer demand for handcrafted items that can compete in the market with manufactured goods, where else but into theory, introspection, and self expression can the virtuosic energies of craft artisans go?
Of course, there are plenty of people who will disagree with me, who will claim that it is their personal vision that drives their creative work. I believe it is their personal vision. However, without very specific economic circumstances, the making of hand-crafted work, functional or nonfunctional, would not be possible. In fact, it is my assertion that the career of most craft artists will end on the day they graduate from their craft program. It will end the day their student loan payments become due. Otherwise, some alternative form of financial support is required. They may hang on for a while, but only a lucky few will find long-term employment in the field of contemporary craft or will be able to develop a viable niche market for their work.
My own graduate study in the field of crafts asks what can be done about these economic circumstances. I am focusing on the niche market. Craft, particularly furniture-making, requires the same space and tools of a regular business. In order to truly survive outside of academia, craft artists need to study the business aspects of what they do. Because of their high price, craft items necessarily serve a luxury market. However, which luxury market they serve could be the difference between losing money and being profitable. I believe that new technologies can make crafts a somewhat profitable endeavor once again. For woodworking, software tools like AutoCAD combined with newly developed low-cost CNC routers may make artisan furniture a viable enterprise. Custom furniture will never compete with low-cost, imported furniture, but it may be possible to develop a niche furniture business that utilizes these newly developed tools and caters to a market that isn’t only “the rich.”
The question for every craft artist who aspires to sell his/her work is this: “How do I create value in the work I make.” This could be work of technical virtuosity, or “green” work, or work that is interesting and unique, or work which steps into the realm of sculpture. However, work which does not find a sufficient niche market and is supported financially by the artist can only be someone’s pet project. The work may be fine art, may be significant in some way to a cultural dialog, but, in the true and traditional sense of craft that serves the utilitarian needs of a culture, its purpose for being is mostly gone. In addition, the traditional skills that exemplify the best work are going as well.
Skill, however, is relative always to the task at hand. As traditional skills die away, others are created. Today’s craft artists, in addition to the “hard” skills needed to make their work, must also master the skills of marketing, sales, and other “soft” skills to gain and maintain a market presence. Those whose success carries them beyond a niche market will inevitably find themselves in the realm of product design and will need to turn to outright manufacturing. Those whose work is celebrated and widely popular, who don’t pursue manufacturing, may find their ideas stolen by the likes of Target or others who are willing to utilize manufacturing to its fullest. Whether craft artisans are willing and able to use manufacturing to their advantage, or whether their livelihood will continue to be destroyed by it, remains a challenge for the field as a whole.
Monday, September 8, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Hell-o to the the the...Blogosphere
Ok. So I started a blog. Ok. Like a Blog? The word BLOG sounds like some kind of awful nasal blockage. "Oh my gosh! I just blew out the hugest blog!"
I don't understand the new mish-mash of internet lingo either. I suppose it's human nature to recombine language into words, like blogosphere. It gets me wondering what else is out there:
Blogalicious: Really good reading...
Blogedelic: Really crazy reading...
Blogorama, blogellation, blogitution, symblogosis, embloguation, bloggage...
Oh my stomach hurts! I think I'm about to blog....
I don't understand the new mish-mash of internet lingo either. I suppose it's human nature to recombine language into words, like blogosphere. It gets me wondering what else is out there:
Blogalicious: Really good reading...
Blogedelic: Really crazy reading...
Blogorama, blogellation, blogitution, symblogosis, embloguation, bloggage...
Oh my stomach hurts! I think I'm about to blog....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)