My musings on arts and crafts

During the renaissance, there emerged a clear division of methods of producing art into fine arts and decorative arts; or arts and crafts.

The have remained firmly separated in the eyes of many ever since.

Worse than this, they had developed into a hierarchy of the high 'arts' and lower 'crafts’. Why arts higher than crafts? I can't say for sure but I think it is partly to do with the fact that art is supposed to be original and craft can make several very similar items (I don't believe anything is ever completely identical, including twins!)

William Morris (a Victorian advocate of both the arts and crafts) commented on the split in the mid-nineteenth century:
"I shall not meddle much with the great art of Architecture, and still less with the great arts commonly called Sculpture and Painting, yet I cannot in my own mind quite sever them from those lesser, so called Decorative Arts, which I have to speak about: it is only in latter times and under the most intricate conditions of life, that they have fallen apart from one another; and I hold that, when they are so parted, it is ill for the Arts altogether: the lesser ones become trivial, mechanical, unintelligent, incapable of resisting the changes pressed upon them by fashion or dishonesty; while the greater, however they may be practiced for a while by men of great minds and wonder-working hands ... are sure to lose their dignity of popular arts, and become nothing but dull adjuncts to unmeaning pomp, or ingenious toys for a few rich or idle men. (William Morris, Selected Writings and Designs, ed. Asa Briggs, 1962, p. 84) Found In G Pollock and Rozika Parker OLD MISTRESSES P.50-51)"

Morris looked back to the middle ages when the division between the areas of the arts was not so defined.

I was speaking to my partner last night and he felt that it was his understanding that art is purely decorative and craft is functional. I too hold to this. This is why nothing I've made recently has been purely decorative. They all hold something or are used for a purpose. But then, in the academic art historian part of my brain, is a little voice questioning whether the functionality I desire in the objects I make detracts from the beauty of them? How can function diminish beauty?

I admit to having a love of beautiful things, an inner aesthetic if you will, and appreciating beauty in an object is all part of art but who says my favorite brown denby teapot is any less a work of art than a designer vase? It is a wonderful teapot with a rich brown colour, and doesn't drip (a very important factor!) and I would display it as proudly as I would a Ming vase!

Even the word craft is being relegated to a phrase for a hobby or pastime rather than something that a person’s life can revolve around producing.

It gets further and further defined and sub-divided into fields relating to the materials used etc. and I think this breaking down of it into its component parts is damaging to the idea of craft itself.

Everything we (we, on this occasion referring to those who make craft) make requires a mixture of skill, and imagination. I see no difference between this and 'art'.

There seems to be an argument that because it is apparently easier to learn a craft rather than learning an art there is less skill required.

That’s complete B.S. is what I have to say! How is wielding a needle any the less technically demanding than a paintbrush?

How does the creative impulse and needed knowledge and even talent that are involved in craft differ from the creative drive and talent required to produce art?

It’s all in the interpretation. Art (and Crafts) are validated by the way in which they are interpreted and contextualized. Until Craft is interpreted within the same criteria as Art, there is no way for the rampant bias towards Art being reduced to give Crafts the status I believe it deserves.

Gerry has provided me with this very interesting link.