PROCEDIMIENTO DEL ESTUDIO

taste is pitted against the camaraderie of honest work.1

In this chapter the art/craft debate will be examined to determine why it developed and what impact it had on the studio craft movement. It will discuss two major aspects of the debate. First, the aesthetic and technical side of the art and craft divide will be examined. Within this discussion three broad lines of reasoning in which craft was portrayed as distinctively

different, and often inferior, to art will be presented. The arguments include: the notion that art is an imaginative experience different from the physical experience that is craft; that craft works within a known realm whereas art plunges into unknown, creative territory; and finally, that craft is useful whereas art is not.2 It will also discuss alternative arguments that placed studio craft in a symbiotic relationship with art. The second major theme of this chapter is the social and cultural divisions between art and craft. As the surge of interest in craft spread across the Western world after the Second World War it became apparent that the educational background and

socioeconomic position of craftspeople increasingly placed them in a similar location to artists rather than their previous position as craft workers. The first part of the chapter examines the international philosophical and sociological arguments that influenced thinking about art and craft in New Zealand. The chapter then considers how the debate played out in New Zealand. Some

aspects of the debate, for instance the impact on women and Māori and the influence of the Crafts Council of New Zealand (CCNZ), are dealt with as a component of the underlying theoretical framework but are also examined in more detail in later chapters.

As a practising craftsperson during part of the period this thesis covers I bring a predisposition to the writing. The art/craft debate increasingly became the subject of discussion between craftspeople as the number of exhibitions

1

Kevin Murray, Craft Unbound: Make the Common Precious, Melbourne, 2005. ‘Dustcover’. 2

C. B. Fethe, 'Craft and Art: A Phenomenological Distinction', British Journal of Aesthetics, 17, 2, 1977, pp.130-32.

multiplied and as prizes in competitions increased in value. To many craftspeople the work that was made everyday for craft shops around New

Zealand was not ‘unique’ enough for these ‘special’ occasions.3

Craftspeople, particularly potters, often had little difficulty earning a living from producing items that could be used in the home, but as the excitement of learning new skills declined the desire to experiment continued.4 Often this extended into areas where function was not a priority. In my own case, this was the development of low-temperature experimental pieces – an area of the craft that was relatively new in the 1980s. Inevitably, when this work was displayed in art galleries, questions arose about where it sat – was it art or was it craft? This chapter examines the issues that informed the debate. The art historian E. H. Gombrich described the period from the French

Revolution through the nineteenth century as ‘the break in tradition’.

The academies and exhibitions, the critics and connoisseurs, had done their best to introduce a distinction between Art with a capital A and the mere existence of a craft, be it that of the painter or the builder. Now the foundations on which art had rested throughout its existence were being undermined from another side. The Industrial Revolution began to destroy the very traditions of solid craftsmanship; handiwork gave way to machine production, the workshop to the factory.5

The leaders of the Arts and Crafts movement had attempted to counter the perceived loss of craftsmanship by focussing on craft, while the new art

movements challenged the whole concept of ‘art with a capital A’.

Throughout the nineteenth century painting, sculpture and printmaking – sometimes referred to as the fine arts – no longer filled the traditional role of

portraying reality in ways that had been traditionally understood ‒ art

reflecting nature. By the middle of the twentieth century the crafts – often

called the ‘applied arts’ ‒ were also producing objects that appeared to have

3

In a study carried out in 1985 by Dr Kerr Inkson, studio potters were asked about issues that concerned them. Potter Y responded by saying that over the previous eighteen months

there had been a move to ‘one-off pieces’. See Kerr Inkson, 'Working Paper No 16, Craftsmanship and Job Satisfaction: A Study of Potters', Auckland, 1985, p.40. 4

For more on this period see Peter Gibbs, 'Vic Evans', New Zealand Potter, 29, 2, 1987, pp.37-8.

5

no discernible function other than to be looked at and admired. Defining the difference between art and craft had become more complex and problematic. The roles of artists and craftspeople had also changed. During the late

nineteenth century and for much of the twentieth century artists were

‘understood to be unique individuals, dedicated to their “vocation”, imbued with special charisma’6

and often appeared to exist in a realm apart from the rest of society – a form of modern-day sage. However, as Bernard Smith, an Australian art historian, suggested in 1976, whereas in the past the artist had served as a hero – to enrich civilization – increased democratisation had eroded that privileged position.7 The economic structures of the late twentieth century had made artists increasingly more dependent on the patronage of grants and public funding thus drawing artists back closer to their position in pre-Renaissance times when the terms ‘artist’ and

‘craftsman’ were intertwined.8

In the meantime, craftspeople had been working in the other direction and many discovered that they could exist without government support because their products were in demand. Some commentators in New Zealand were aware of the changes but their critique had to be expressed carefully. New Zealand in the early 1950s, when the studio craft movement began to gain support, was a country that valued egalitarian principles and was suspicious of apparent pretentiousness. Ernst Anton (E. A.) Plischke,9 an Austrian Modernist architect and furniture

designer, who exhibited furniture he had designed in the Helen Hitchings Gallery, phrased his understanding of the relative positions of art and craft in the 1950 Arts Year Book in the following way.

6

Jen Webb, Tony Schirato, and Geoff Danaher, Understanding Bourdieu, London, 2002, p.166.

7

Bernard Smith, The Death of the Artist as Hero: Essays in History and Culture, Melbourne, 1988, p.8. For more on the democratisation of art see Daniel Bell, The Cultural

Contradictions of Capitalism, London, 1976, pp.129-31. 8

Webb, Schirato, and Danaher, p.167. An indication of the interlinking of craft and art before

and during the Renaissance can be seen in the title of a ‘how to’ book by the fifteenth

century painter Cennino d'Andrea Cennini. The book, Il libro dell'arte, is usually translated as The Craftsman’s Handbook. See D. V. Thompson, Jr., The Craftsman’s Handbook, ‘Il libro dell'arte’ by Cennino D’a. Cennini, New Haven, 1933.

9

Linda Tyler, Plischke, Ernst Anton 1903 ‒ 1992, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography; available at: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/ (30 May 2008).

At all times there have been the bread-and-butter arts, ministering to the simpler and more pressing needs of humanity. ... It is useful to maintain some sort of hierarchy amongst the arts. But this must not be taken to imply that residence in the upper stories of the building in some way confers social superiority. And it is unsafe to assume that the basement and lower floors can be dispensed with; or even neglected for long. All it can be taken to mean is that there are larger or smaller contexts, different levels of intensity.10

Plischke knew the work of some craftspeople was a form of artistic expression for them and in an effort to support them he was aligning the crafts with the arts – but on a different level. The locating of the crafts in relation to the arts became the fulcrum on which the debate swung back and forth but during the 1950s and 1960s the animosity that would later split the craft movement was not evident.

By the 1980s it seemed that many craftspeople in New Zealand were making

‘art’ rather than ‘craft’.11 Craft leaders even sought to reassure craftspeople who were concerned about this trend. Bob Heatherbell, the Vice-President of

the New Zealand Society of Potters (NZSP), wrote in 1986: ‘Potters whose

only interest is domestic ware may be suspicious of this flirtation with the arts

but they can rest assured that they are far from forgotten.’12_{Heatherbell’s}

reassurance however, hinted that craftspeople were divided. Increasingly,

the ‘craft’ for sale in shops or on display in art galleries and museums did not appear to serve the traditional roles of craft.13 Some commentators described

this shift in emphasis as the ‘ethic of freedom from function’.14

In her thesis

10_{E. A. Plishke, 'Bread for the People’, in}

Arts Year Book, October, 1950, p.20. 11

Drawing on the ideas of Sally J. Markowitz, Professor of Philosophy of Willamette

University, ‘art’ in this chapter refers to paintings, sculpture, drawings and prints because no neutral term exists. See Sally J. Markowitz, 'The Distinction between Art and Craft', Journal of Aesthetic Education, 28, 1, 1994, p.57. However, a 1970s catalogue produced for an exhibition held in conjunction with a royal visit called Art in the Sixties listed ‒ along with thirty-four painters, seven printmakers and five sculptors ‒ seventeen potters. See New Zealand Art of the Sixties: A Royal Visit Exhibition: Thirty-Four Painters, Seven Printmakers, Five Sculptors, Seventeen Potters, Wellington, 1970. The use of the words ‘art’ and ‘craft’ does not signal a value judgement by this author.

12

Bob Heatherbell, 'Some Thoughts on Our National Exhibition', New Zealand Potter, 28, 1, 1986, p.2.

13

Naomi O'Connor, A Brief Guide to New Zealand Art & Culture, Nelson, 1995, p.27. 14

on the crafts in Australia called 'Truth or Trap: The Australian Contemporary Crafts Movement's Pursuit of Art Ideals', Grace Cochrane recognised this trend as a paradigm shift for the crafts.

Following the lead of the visual artists of the time, ... [craftspeople] denied many of the previously agreed central ideals of crafts practice: valuing skill in the use of hands and tools, taking pleasure in working with materials, seeing the validity of function as a purpose for production and acknowledging the legitimacy of working for a client.... In doing so, while certainly changing and overturning conservative perceptions about what the crafts might be, they set in train the beginnings of a denial of their own social and technological histories and values.15

Cochrane was acknowledging that craftspeople had conceded that their craft had to embrace the attributes that identified it as art using conventional art terminology. Craftspeople and artists did not always welcome the changes that were occurring and the debate became more heated as craft gained a higher profile in New Zealand.

Two Reviews, Two Views

As examples of how commentators took positions on this topic I discuss two exhibition reviews. Janet Paul, a painter and critic, wrote a review of the first exhibition held at the Helen Hitchings Gallery in Wellington in 1949 which is also the year I have suggested that the interest in craft began to gain

momentum.16 The exhibition was distinctive for the way it displayed both art (paintings and sculpture) and craft (pottery, furniture and textiles) as if set within a modern New Zealand home.17 This form of compatibility appeared to deny that an art/craft debate existed. In fact, in a catalogue produced to accompany a 2008 exhibition about the gallery, Helen Hitchings was quoted

as stating that “all forms of art [were] sources for interior decoration.”18 _Paul’s

review however, did not mention painting or sculpture ‒ although the gallery

featured the paintings of Rita Angus and Colin McCahon alongside the

15

Grace Cochrane, 'Truth or Trap: The Australian Contemporary Crafts Movement's Pursuit of Art Ideals', PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, 1998, p.3.

16

Janet Paul, 'The Helen Hitchings Gallery in Wellington', Landfall, 12, 1949, pp.357-9. For

a discussion on the significance of 1949 to this thesis see ‘Timeframe’ in the Introduction.

17

See figure 1 below. 18

pottery of O. C. Stephens and Len Castle – concentrating rather on craft.19 This appeared to confirm that craft and art could not be discussed in the same terms. In the review Janet Paul, in an apparent effort to further separate craft from art, could not resist at least one cautionary warning to craftspeople to remember their place: ‘Generally the shapes were good but some of the pottery degenerated into the arty-crafty.’20 The move by some craftspeople to attempt to break out of their traditional realm was not to be encouraged.

Figure 1: Helen Hitchings (1920 – 2002) admiring a portrait of her by Douglas McDiarmid on display in her Gallery circa 1950.21

In an ironic twist thirty-eight years later, Joanna Paul, Janet Paul’s daughter, and also a painter and critic, hinted that the attempt by craftspeople to move into the world of art was still not to be wholly endorsed. The exhibition she

19

Jane Vial, The Gallery of Helen Hitchings: From Fretful Sleeper to Art World Giant,, Wellington, 2008. See also Athol McCredie, 'Going Public: New Zealand Art Museums in the 1970s', MA thesis, Massey University, 1999, pp.53-4.

20

Paul, 'The Helen Hitchings Gallery in Wellington'. ‘Arty-crafty is a derivation of the more

insulting term ‘arty-farty’ which refers to ‘something or someone ... [who] tries too hard to seem connected with serious art, and is silly or boring because of this.’ See 'arty-farty' in Elizabeth Walter, ed., 2nd edn, Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, Cambridge, 1998, p.11. 21

Photo: Helen Hitchings, Museum of New Zealand / Te Papa Tongarewa, MS Papers 53, CA000124/001/0060.

chose to make her statement about the relationship between craft and art was the 1987 New Zealand Society of Potters annual exhibition. The location was the Sarjeant Gallery in Wanganui and demonstrated that pottery had

already moved into art’s natural territory – prestigious public art galleries. In

an article entitled, ‘Don’t Lift by the Handles’, Paul commented:

An elegant Egyptian jar22 dominated a vista at the Sarjeant

… Peering inside I saw a card “Don’t lift by the handles”.* But how is a ‘handle’ better than a handle, on a vessel that

is catalogued as ‘vessel’? I don’t question the integrity of

the maker, but the euphoric idea that art is somehow better or other than use. In traditional art, function and

meaning are inseparable. … How can a ‘handle’ go

beyond a handle? The language of transcendence peppers the talk of ceramic artists. As a practitioner of one of the useless arts – painting – I envy the thingness of the pot and lament the impoverishment of daily life by the flight of the potter.23

Joanna Paul, presumably viewing the exhibition before the opening and perhaps hoping to encourage debate, could not resist the opportunity to comment on the conundrum the studio crafts faced. She recognised that the

‘jar’ was attempting to conform to the poorly understood Kantian notion of art being disinterested and therefore autonomous24 and stated that she

regretted that the crafts were moving away from what she considered their natural territory. Certainly, by trying to distance themselves from the tradition

and ‘usefulness’ of craft, craftspeople were entering a world where the rules were set by the art world and for many it was unexplored territory. In this new

world craftspeople were exposing themselves to “art-guilt” if they reverted to

‘merely [making] a pot, a chair, a knife, a coat, or an engagement ring’.25

Nevertheless, Paul’s use of the terms ‘ceramic (clay) artist’ and ‘potter’ in the

same paragraph suggested that those working with clay were straddling two different zones and, to some extent, also acknowledged the changes that

22

The object that Paul used to frame her argument was made by the author. 23

Paul, 'Don't Lift by the Handles', p.23. The asterisk was inserted in a footnote by one of

the judges who stated, ‘*This warning was simply a scruple of the organizers and was

removed by the opening of the exhibition. It remains, however –a metaphor. JMP.’ 24

See Bruce Metcalf, 'Replacing the Myth of Modernism', American Craft, 53, 1, February, 1993, pp.42-3. For more on Immanuel Kant see Sandra Corse, Craft Objects, Aesthetic Contexts: Kant, Heidegger, and Adorno on Craft, Lanham, 2009, pp.33-52. Also see below. 25

had taken place in this medium during the thirty-eight years since Janet

Paul’s review. Clearly, if the goal to become an artist was the intention of some craftspeople, they had achieved it ‒ but some critics believed that craft

was the loser.

Others were more positive in their response to the repositioning of craft. Bill Millbank, the Director of the Sarjeant Gallery, when he reviewed the 1987 exhibition was of the opinion that those exhibiting had earned their place in the art world.

It was very clear from that exhibition, and others which I have seen over recent years, that studio ceramics are firmly established in New Zealand. One exciting aspect of this is that such work no longer consists of pondering,

“one-off” art pieces made by very able functional potters as they struggle to approach unclear art-gallery expectations. Rather, these are the creations of artists who see their studio pieces as their mainstream work.26

However, the two Paul reviews illustrate that a barrier existed between art and craft from the time that the studio craft movement started to develop after the Second World War. Defining and restraining craft became a persistent source of conflict both within the movement and from sources outside. The position taken was often linked to the place that the

protagonists occupied within the art/craft domain and to wider social, political, cultural and economic concerns. A further issue that the reviews

highlighted was the extent that crafts relied on ‘outsiders’ to define craft. This remained a persistent problem for a movement that lacked a legitimating authority.

26

John Parker and Cecilia Parkinson, Profiles: 24 New Zealand Potters, Auckland, 1988, p.8.

Figure 2: The ‘Egyptian jar’ made by the author and referred to in Joanna Paul’s review.27