Contemporary research in craft

predominantly concerns the rather general issues of status and identity of the practices, possibly due to several scholars representing a reflective theoretical view on craft, rather than an immersed view. Specific issues such as sustainability are covered sporadically as mentioned in section 1.4.

Sennett (2008) explores the importance of crafts to the development of the philosophical aspects of the footprint of mankind. Associating craftsmanship with a pragmatist philosophical school of thought, he accounts for a close interconnectedness between the hand and the mind characteristic of craft practices, emphasizing what he considers to be the most dignified way of living which is through “taking pride in ones work rather than in one self” (p. 296).

Exercising craftsmanship, in his interpretation, is a manifestation of such an ethical choice. While appreciating his points about the experiences and knowledge that can be acquired through a craft practice, I find it questionable whether taking pride in one’s work is specific to the crafts, and whether it is a value that should be held forth as the epiphany of craft practice. Claiming that it is particularly ethical to be proud of one’s work rather than of oneself is also questionable in a postmodern paradigm where mindfulness, healing and celebration of the self is gaining more and more widespread recognition and support as opposed to puritan attitudes of self-denial.

Recycle. About Sustainability in Glass Craft & Design ● Maria Sparre-Petersen ● KADK 2016

27 Mazanti (2006) is proposing a theory of craft

in its own right. She is arguing that particularly the recent conceptual craft wave is different from art in that it relates to material culture by embracing elements of it and creating critical commentary through this embracement. She explains how craft takes a semi-autonomous position similar to that of the avant-garde and particularly “in line with later avant-garde movements as Dada, Duchamp, pop and conceptual art” (p.

212), thus representing a unique position in an art/life dichotomy.

Risatti (2007), like Mazanti and Sennett, is also proposing a theory of craft. He attempts to show “the importance of craft in the development and expression of human values” (p. xiv). He believes craft has a value in and of itself that is functionally and aesthetically distinct, and that will disappear unless craft is defined properly especially in relation to art and design. He bases his account on comparative analysis of the relation between craft objects and tools as well as between craft objects and art objects to show that although relations exist between these types of objects a distinct definition of craft is relevant and necessary. Craft objects, according to Risatti, are defined by three main purposes: containing, covering and supporting, that make them into self-contained objects independent of the user’s handling of them. This differs from tools’

main purposes of shaping through the directing of kinetic energy supplied by an outside source (p. 46). This part of his analysis seems to exclude certain craft practices. E.g. instrument making is a

practice that is traditionally categorized as a craft. In Risatti’s analysis, instruments would not fit into the category of craft but rather into the category of tools because of the need for an outside energy source to activate them. Instrument makers, as far as I know from being married to one for 10 years, do not think of themselves as tool makers, and their products do not fit the category of tools any more than bowls and furniture do although they have a tooling effect in music making. Jewelry would also have trouble fitting any of the three defining categories of containing, covering or supporting and would therefore also not qualify as a craft. His well-meant intention to classify what defines craft thus ends up as an exercise in excluding particular practices rather than promoting the overall idea of arguing for values brought forth in and by craft practices.

In his discussion of the differences between art and craft Risatti draws attention to what he defines as the “social function” of art as opposed to the “physical function” of craft that enables craft to be understood regardless of time and space, whereas art is only understood in the particular semiotic context that it is created within. He claims that works of art experienced out of context “descend to the level of artifact – artificial objects of solely historical or anthropological interest”

(p. 85). Veiteberg on the other hand argues that, it is no longer a “requirement that craft be functional in the sense of useful” (2005, p. 41), which supports Mazanti’s concept of the Super-Object that reference and comment on material culture but do not

28

necessarily serve a particular practical function as its main purpose.

The problem of trying to define crafts, be it as containing, covering or supporting or other functions such as acting as tools or as signifiers of a conceptual content, is related to the problem of trying to define art. In the words of Veiteberg “Even though the process is not as far advanced in all countries, the tendency is still clear: it is becoming more and more difficult to employ fixed, internal criteria for what makes craft, and even though some of crafts institutions, be they museums, acquisition committees or groups of craft makers, still attempt to advocate an unambiguous understanding, it is becoming ever clearer that there is more than one truth about what is valid and historically relevant craft” (2005, p. 41). The autonomous character that Veiteberg ascribes craft practice allows for it to develop independently of any attempt at defining the limits of it, be it theoretical, institutional or individual, and it is likely that craft practices and products will continue to develop regardless of theorists attempts at defining it.

The current development of the field includes incorporation of new technology, conceptual content, formal crossovers to other art forms, user participation, interventions, installations inter- and cross disciplinary activities. New craft forms emerge in this development and the practitioners experiment with and combine whatever materials, technology, media, platforms, social forms and natural forms are

available and generate new aesthetic expressions employing the findings of their experiments.

Concluding remarks

The theoretical currents in craft cover concerns about establishment of the field as a research topic in its own right, attempts at defining the specific characteristics that distinguishes craft practices from other artistic or handicraft practices as well as mappings of the trails of the field. Various attempts to define craft seem to run the risk of inventing limitations that are not reflected in the realities of the practitioners of craft instead of clarifying the meanings of the concept. These attempts thus fail to supply the foundation for discussion of issues of content; discussions that could provide insight and shed light on the values that craft offers, what it is capable of doing to and for human existence and how it may contribute to development, preferably sustainable. The different positions in the theoretical discourse mirror a dilemma in sustainable development between expanding aesthetic spaces of opportunity while developing sustainable practices that could potentially seem like a limitation of the creative freedom much like the theoretical attempts at defining craft can come across as a reductionist attitude toward the conceptual contents of the subject matter.

The works of Veiteberg and Mazanti suggest that the field of craft is already going through a conceptual expansion including and incorporating disruptive ideas as part of its dna. In order for the field to be able to

Recycle. About Sustainability in Glass Craft & Design ● Maria Sparre-Petersen ● KADK 2016

29 embrace sustainability in its practices it is

productive to consider how sustainable practices may embrace the autonomous character of the field, since crafts professionals of the future are likely to continue to create new aesthetic visions and ideas that will challenge the attempts to make sense in a traditional sustainable manner.

3.2. Contemporary research in