Wednesday, June 13, 2007

"Post-Craft"?


As if defining "craft" wasn't complicated enough...

Mark Lyman, Director/Founder of SOFA, recently described SOFA artworks as “premier examples of a post-craft art movement” on SOFA's blog.

I hadn't heard this term "post-craft art movement" before, and honestly my first reaction was to basically roll my eyes -- the term sounds a little… cute. But let's see...

As I attempt to apply the term "post-craft" to the things I saw at SOFA (and blogged about earlier), I come up with more exceptions than good fits."Post-craft" suggests that craft is dead, and that is obviously not the case. Even at SOFA, there were plenty of examples of straight-up (as opposed to post) craft, including pottery (be it functional or decorative), lampworked glass orbs, and fine furniture. I mean, is George Nakashima "post-craft?"

Art jewelry, which is one of SOFA's strengths, isn't exactly conventional "craft," but do we want to call it "post-craft?" Why not just "art jewelry?"

Or perhaps "post-craft" is intended more to describe the art/craft hybrids emerging more and more these days, including at SOFA (i.e. the elongated embroidery work by Xiang Yang at Snyderman/Works Gallery, shown above). I can see that as a viable argument.

Although why not, then, call it a "post-art craft movement"?

In any case, this is good food for thought. If you'd like to read the full article (which isn't too long) click here.

What do you think?

1 comment:

hr_g said...

Shouldn't the term be neo-craft? Post-craft sounds, like you said, it is dead, but it isn't. It is in fact evolving or morphing...how can you define that in a word?