It is a shame that the Jeweler is not looked upon with the
same respect as an artist.
Hi Greg and other Orchidians;
The distinction that the established “fine arts” artists use to
distinguish themselves from “craftsmen” goes back to the
Renaissance. The first ideas were put forth in a book by Vasari
called “The Lives of the Artists”. In that book, the true artist was
described as a “Renaissance Man”, someone whose primary role was that
of a man of ideas, author, musician, painter, sculpture, scientist.
Da Vinci was the prime example of such a character. Since then, “fine
art” has lauded itself over the lowly crafts by presuming to be about
ideas primarily, and medium secondarily. What crafts will have to do
to establish themselves as equally invested in the higher destiny of
mankind and the pursuit of “truth” is to establish it’s own
aesthetic. Wherever it tries to break into the credibility circles
of the other fine arts by using the same systems of ideas, it fails.
Here’s an old feminist adage to explain it:
“You cannot take down the master’s house using the master’s tools.”
What it means is this: The status quo makes the rules, and rule
number on is . . . the status quo will judge the success of the
efforts of anyone trying to meet it’s standards. Simple enough?
Kinda like the “golden rule” . . i.e., he who has the gold makes the
rules.
It is complicated to explain here, so I won’t try, but there is one
possibility I’ve seen so far that might win out, not against the
established fine arts, but for itself. It’s called a “process
aesthetic”. Check out Paul Smith’s “Poetry of the Physical” for some
insight into this theory. Naturally, it will have to be applied to
crafts within their own set of venues. In other words, crafts must
develop not only it’s own system of measuring the depth of the work,
it must do so in it’s own world of markets, critics, and audience. I
think that is happening in some places, such as in the case of Daniel
Brush’s work. It is a bit eastern in it’s nature too. Consider the
Japanese potter, Hamada. Crafts with a spiritual component. Big
money makers such as Al Paley and Dale Chihuly are part of it, but
they have so much showmanship around their work it’s hard to measure
the effect of their ideas. They go straight to “sexy” and “eye
candy” before there’s any talk of poetry or human condition. I’d
also suggest that the origins of this idea need to be somewhat
politicized, and there’s no better source of that ideology than the
writings of Thomas Ruskin. Forget the “fine arts”. . . let them
implode further. Meanwhile, the dialogue of the new crafts
aesthetic, which is really not so new, needs to continue. That gets
back to my beef with Metalsmith. It has dropped the ball on that
fertile potential.
David L. Huffman
