Two points were made in the editorial comment of your last New York Arts .
Letter to NY Arts
by NY Arts
Two points were made in the editorial comment of your last New York Arts
Magazine Newsletter:
* According to some critics, craft has been assimilated by fine art
* Are craft persons nicer people?
Critics have never been the best judges of what is. . . Contrary to
critical propaganda, craft has not been assimilated by fine art. It
has always been its foundation. Nonetheless, over the past century, the
effort demanded by craft was abandoned by many. Because of this, those who
have not assimilated the craft of art, have succumbed to the inevitable:
producing loud, adolescent, navel-gazing, non-grammatical, non-poetic,
art-therapy . It’s simply easier to "do". Express whatever you want,
however you want, despite your lack of ability has become the norm. That
there is more art in craft is undeniable. Craft worthy of recognition is
impossible to achieve without skill. The visual arts have tried to do
without. It hasn’t worked. Students are desperately demanding it of
teachers. Critics know this – but then, they’re part of the charade. How
could they ever admit it?
Are crafts people "nicer"? Definitely. As a group, they generally don’t
have the hang-ups or the "attitude" so prevalent in the "awtistic"
milieu. When you’re secure in the skills of your craft, (or your visual
art), arrogance, snobbishness, clannishness or cliquishness or titles such
as "artist" are unnecessary. Crafts people have a confidence in their
skills base, a confidence which frees them to express themselves
poetically, imaginatively and creatively without fear. Crafts people
identify with their work not their angst. "Being" an artist is not an all
consuming obsession with them. "Being" an artist has become nothing more
than a "status" symbol for those who can’t "do" art that is relevant to
anyone other than the "self".
How intriguing it is that a dancer proudly states he/she is a dancer. A
potter calls himself a potter, a sculptor, a sculptor, a writer a writer. A
musician without hesitation states what instrument he/she plays, a singer
readily admits to singing. . . Isn’t it bizarre that only the visual
artists have an insatiable need to be called "artist" rather than
"painter". . . Why this evident neuroses? Why can’t painters simply and
proudly admit: I paint. But then. . . This emphasizes "doing" which
implies work, skill, craft. . . labor.
Once, a long time ago, the title of artist was a crown bestowed only upon
those who had proven themselves worthy . Because they had achieved BOTH a
high level of craftsmanship AND an even higher level of self-expression,
they were universally acknowledged as masters of their CRAFT. Now, everyone
is an artist, not through recognition, but through appropriation of the
implied "mysterious genius" title.
Being an artist, (or master crafts person), has little to do with "being"
and everything to do with "doing" it better than anyone else in your
sphere. The rest of us should simply and humbly admit that we are
passionate students in a world in which we do "art work" as best we can in
the hope that one day it may be perceived as ART. The Fine Arts will regain
their once proud status when we realize this. Then and only then will the
lowest common denominator implications disappear.
Consequently, crafts people ARE nicer. They are less into themselves and
more into excellence. It’s that simple.
Bernard Poulin,
a painter
Ottawa, Canada
