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?
Labels:
SOFA Expo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
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?
Post a Comment