On a good day in June the mercury in Phoenix hovers around the 105º (F) mark. The high on June 20, 2007 was predicted to be 107º, but I skipped town early in the morning, when it was a cool 80º or so. After a few hours choking on chewy airplane air, I arrived in Victoria, BC where the daytime high was merely 68º (F) – or better-sounding yet, an even 20º Celsius. I nearly applied for Permanent Resident status.
The 11th annual Furniture Society conference was, for my money, the best yet. It may have been the significant nod to Canada’s First Nations carvers and craftspeople – Haida artist Robert Davidson was the keynote speaker, for example. Or the fact that I sat through the better part of two Critical Discourse sessions and actually understood most of what was being said. Or it may just have been the ubiquitous UVic bunnies, which lent an air of unhurried serenity to every activity.
I sensed a renewed emphasis on the importance of craft and craftsmanship as essential elements in making furniture of all stripes: functional, non-functional, artistic – whatever you want to call it. As David Richardson points out here in his excellent conference recap (“What Happens in Victoria…”), Robert Davidson learned from his grandfather that “you can make stuff up.” Balancing that idea, Haida carver John Livingston said convincingly that if you don’t understand your tools and materials, and don’t know the traditional techniques that have developed over the years, then you don’t know diddly.
Peter Pierobon revealed that he now considers himself a maker of objects rather than strictly furniture, but he pays homage to his foundations in traditional furniture making. Though it wasn’t necessarily the focal point of their talks, makers from Tom Hucker to Jon Brooks to Jere Osgood to John Dunnigan – and several others – spoke in different ways about the importance and relationship of craftsmanship to the process of making stuff, regardless of the medium or genre or intention.
Garry Knox Bennett gave an enjoyable talk and Q&A about his participation in the excellent PBS production Craft in America . The next day as part of another panel, Bennett insisted that he just makes stuff, and that – with few exceptions – none of it is art. A young fellow in the audience boldly but respectfully disagreed. I’m not so sure, either, but I’m coming around to the conclusion that it doesn’t really make any difference. Maybe it’s a matter of perception more than anything else. The maker’s intention and the buyer or viewer’s perception can differ. To Garry they may be chairs first and foremost, but I just don’t believe that buyers of many of the 52 chairs in his “Call Me Chairmaker” exhibit simply need new seating in the breakfast nook. Then again — maybe they do. (For another look at GKB’s chairs, try this link)
Make what you like, call it what you will. No argument from me. My only admonition would be to make it well. There’s not much that’s ambiguous about craftsmanship. Folks may debate what an object is, what it means or what it does, but sooner or later someone is going to get on their hands and knees and peek under the skirts; and friends, you want to have things in order under there.
Bebe Pritam Johnson’s presentation at the conference, “Furniture, Home and the Honor of Use” got me thinking about a sort of litmus test for distinguishing furniture – however artful it may be, and however unimportant the distinction in the first place – from plain ol’ art. That is, how is it being used? Adding my own interpretation, if you’re sitting on it or storing your underwear in it: probably furniture. If you’re just looking at it: pretty much art. I’m not sure if Bebe would agree with my simplistic, less-than-academic assessment, but she does an elegant job of promoting the idea that furniture is stuff that is meant to be used in the context of daily life. You can read a slightly edited version of her presentation in this blog here , or view it in Flash here.
At this writing the Victoria conference is nearly 6 months in the rear-view mirror, and the exit sign at Purchase is blinking way off in the distance ahead. We have a lot to learn from each other, and if these gatherings are successful we each come away from them clutching a few bits that are really precious.
Bonus points if the weather is pleasant. Bunnies are a plus, too.
I just got Howard Risatti’s recently published “A Theory of Craft” which dissects the elements of craft and art and, from a preliminary scan, seems to emphasize that the differences between the two are at least as important as the similarities, contrary to the long term trend in craft precincts wanting to equate the two, to bring craft “up” to the level of fine art. In fact, Risatti seems to say, understanding the differences between fine art and craft may be crucial to the success of craft in the future. Glenn Adamson takes this view too, judging from his American Craft article (dec/jan 07) introducing his soon to be released effort, “Thinking Through Craft”. You’re ahead of the curve David.
Said by David Richardson November 20, 2007 at about 8:00 pm