House-Trained Objects/Making Something From Nothing

Glenn Adamson’s anthology, The Craft Reader, is a behemoth.  Though filled with a variety of opinions and time periods, it is thoughtfully assembled and includes excerpts which affirm and contrast each other.

Two excerpts from the section of  The Craft Reader entitled Craft in Action, Tanya Harrod’s alternate art history, written in 2002, and Lucy Lippard’s treatise on hobby art, written in 1978, go together quite fittingly as critiques of institutions and structural hierarchies of art and craft.  Because this excerpt is a condensation of a longer book, I will focus on a few key points of her text. Harrod’s critique is centred on the presentation of art history, what is included and excluded.  She suggests that when crafts are included they become a large part of artists’ ouvres and show the whole picture of connections and ideas.  Many artists have “crossed the boundaries” into the craft world, making functional pottery, designing and making home decor items in the tradition of William Morris, but their retrospectives exclude this work.  One modern redux of a 1910 exhibition at the Tate actually left out ceramic works from the original exhibition, making no mention of them whatsoever.  The Tate’s mandate excludes craft, leaving it to institutions that would display craft historically, rather than in a fine art context(Harrod 513).  Harrod specifically mentions the use of ceramics by Matisse and Derain, which helped them discover aesthetics they would not have known to use in their painted work. Gaugin, Picasso, and others made pottery as well.  By the 1950s, artists’ forays into craft were theoretically derailed by the writings of Clement Greenberg, who suggested that painting was the more noble profession and “rarely goes with furniture”(Harrod 514). Many modernist women, such as Margaret Trahern and Frances Richard, trained as painters but ventured into craft (stained glass and embroidery, respectively), as the field was more welcoming to women.  Because their works were made out of “inappropriate and highly specific materials” domestic and made by women, they were largely ignored(Harrod 518).

Image via Amazon

Lippard comes at the heirarchy slightly differently.  Here she discusses hobby craft books, which often include instructions for making things from recycled objects, as well as easy materials for a housewife to obtain – bottlecaps, flowers made from feathers or dried plants, for example(Lippard 484).  Different types of hobby craft appeal to different demographics, based on the concept of “good taste” and class structures.  These activities are appropriate for their positions as housewives and supporters of their husbands and families as unobtrusive activities.  Lippard argues that these instructional leaflets and books appeal to women because they are already marginalized by the art world on basis of quality and derivitiveness, even though many high art objects meeting these criteria can be found in galleries.  Lippard argues that these particularly affect women’s art,” and adds that when a man tries a hobby craft, it is often elevated to “high” art or craft(Lippard 486).  Though written in 1977, Lippard’s essay does not feel dated₁. Perhaps this is due to the unwavering definitions of art practices and art institutions’ desire that the hierarchies within them remain. This is unfortunate, but is worth questioning and fighting against₂.

Lippard and Harrod together might suggest that the boundaries between art and craft are largely manufactured and discriminate based on gender and class.  Hierarchies of art and craft remain because they benefit the privileged few who run institutions and the artists who fit neatly into the categories within them.  Harrod’s essay was slightly difficult to read, being that it was condensed from a larger piece of writing.  It would have also been more interesting to read about the woman modernists using craft techniques, but it was subsumed by discussion of the old masters, which almost read as an attempt at proof of hierarchies in which old masters were not even exempt.

₁Though hobby books like “Feather Flowers and Arrangements” could be replaced in a rewrite with Pinterest and its endless links to tutorials.

₂For a slight update on Lippard’s opinions, this interview with Joe Lewis of Fibre Quarterly is quite informative.

——

Works Cited:
Harrod, Tanya. “House-Trained Objects: Notes Towards Writing an Alternative History of Modern Art.” The Craft Reader. Ed.      Glenn Adamson. Oxford: Berg, 2010. 512-524. Print.
Lippard, Lucy. “Making Something From Nothing (Toward a Definition of Women’s “Hobby Art”.” The Craft Reader. Ed. Glenn      Adamson. Oxford: Berg, 2010. 483-490. Print.