The Norwegian crafts field is focusing increasingly on academic theory and discourse. As an instantiation of this development, Marit Øydegard chairs a round table discussion with Jorunn Veiteberg, Knut Astrup Bull and Jørn Mortensen, on the question of how contemporary crafts are viewed as a distinct field of practice or in relation to fine art.
Books and magazines. Photographer: André Gali
What is ‘Contemporary Craft’?
Text: Marit Øydegard
The Norwegian crafts field is focusing increasingly on academic theory and discourse. As an instantiation of this development, Marit Øydegard chairs a round table discussion with Jorunn Veiteberg, Knut Astrup Bull and Jørn Mortensen, on the question of how contemporary crafts are viewed as a distinct field of practice or in relation to fine art.
For some years, the Norwegian crafts field has been focusing increasingly on academic theory and discourse. As an example, in December of 2010, the Art section of the Norwegian Critic’s Association and the Norwegian Association for Arts and Crafts arranged a round table discussion on the question of how contemporary crafts are viewed by critics who usually devote their attention to fine art. A debate following up this discussion was held in October 2011, and posed new questions regarding whether there has now been a turn towards craftsmanship in fine art, and whether art critics have increased their focus on craftsmanship as a strategy.
With the increasing amount of discourse and the theoretical approaches to contemporary craft as background, Marit Øydegard – a crafts practitioner and MA student in art criticism and cultural dissemination at NTNU in Trondheim – invited three key figures within the craft sector to participate in a discussion about the terminology, theories and discourses they see as relevant today. What issues seem most significant within the crafts field, and what function should academic theory and discourse have within the field?
Marit Øydegard: The Norwegian concept ‘kunsthåndverk’ derives from the Arts and Crafts Movement that flourished in England from the 1890s to 1910. In Norway, starting in the 1970s, it had the function of distinguishing industrial and mass-produced design objects from unique and handmade objects. But the term translates back into English in different ways, sometimes as ‘arts and crafts’, sometimes simply as ‘crafts’, other times as ‘decorative arts’, ‘studio craft’ and so forth. There are many instances where it is difficult to find English terminology that can take into account the same ideas the Norwegian concept ‘kunsthåndverk’ currently seems to contain or is used to try to convey. Yet even when discussions are only in Norwegian, ‘kunsthåndverk’ now seems problematic. At a recent round table debate at the Museum of Decorative Arts and Design in Oslo, questions were asked about the current relevance of the concept ‘kunsthåndverk’ and how it relates to the concept ‘contemporary crafts’. These questions constitute a recurring theme in the contemporary crafts field in Norway. It is a fact that the educational institutions have largely stopped using the word ‘craft’. For example, at Bergen National Academy of the Arts, what used to be the Crafts Department is now called the Department of Specialized Art. At Oslo National Academy of the Arts, what used to be the Department for Crafts is now called the Department of Visual Arts.
Nomenclature is an issue which the entire field of contemporary crafts in Norway should probably reflect over. Many sentiments are triggered by naming – it has to do with identity. This might be partly why consensus on nomenclature within the field eludes us. Jørn Mortensen, as the new Dean for the Visual Arts Department at Oslo National Academy of the Arts (formerly the Department of Crafts), I am curious to know: What term you prefer for discussing ‘kunsthåndverk’? What do you think this word communicates? Do you think it is still fitting, or is there a reason to re-evaluate it – to instigate a name change?
Jørn Mortensen:
At present I am more interested in the materials themselves than in ways of processing them. Kunsthåndverk (‘art-handiwork’) as a traditional term therefore appears a bit out of step with contemporary thinking. But this is not only my opinion; most students at the Visual Arts Department define themselves as contemporary artists and not as contemporary crafts practitioners. If there is ever going to be a name change, it will happen because of a change in identity. We are not there yet. Having said this, I am interested in developing the concept of ‘materialistic aesthetics’ in order to investigate what relevance it might have today as a reading strategy, not only within the crafts tradition but also within the fine art tradition.
Marit Øydegard: As a former editor of the Norwegian crafts magazine aptly named ‘Kunsthåndverk’’, Jorunn Veiteberg, how do you perceive this term?
Art historian Jorunn Veiteberg arranged the conference ‘Making or Unmaking? – The Context of Contemporary Ceramics’ in Bergen 27-29 October 2011. The picture is taken when she gives a lecture on the ‘Duchamp effect’ in contemporary ceramics. Photo: André Gali
Jorunn Veiteberg:
To me, ‘the crafts’ is an open concept, which means that the content of the term ‘kunsthåndverk’ can only be explained through looking at the forms of practise it historically has covered. After the term was introduced in the second half of the 1800s, the crafts have changed contents several times: from being associated with luxury objects and later utility objects to today meaning works of art (e.g.,kunstindustri and brukskunst can be translated as ‘applied art’, and kunsthåndverk as ‘fine craft’, ‘studio craft’ or ‘craft art’). Today, contemporary crafts include forms of practice that were unthinkable only a generation ago. My own research project on the use of found objects and ready-mades as raw materials in the making of contemporary crafts has been about exactly this (see www.k-verdi.no). Some core values, however, are closely attached to thekunsthåndverk concept, and in my view add meaning: within the contemporary crafts tradition, it is not as if an object can be art only when the utility function is removed. Use and non-use are not contradictory. It is more important to insist on materiality and the artwork as a physical substance. It is also fundamental to identify which materials have been used and subsequently what meanings they carry. To consider a name change is, it seems to me, a strategic and political question. It may be necessary due to changes within the art education systems, but I see no theoretical reasons for it.
Marit Øydegard: Knut Astrup Bull, you positioned yourself as a critical theorist within the crafts field with the book ‘En ny diskurs for kunsthåndverket – en bok om det nye konseptuelle kunsthåndverket’ [A New Discourse for Craft-Based Art: A Book about the New Conceptual Arts and Crafts] in 2007, where you discuss the difference between crafts and fine arts. What are your thoughts on the term and concept ‘kunsthåndverk’?
Knut Astrup Bull:
The foundation for contemporary crafts is not the crafts themselves, but the aesthetic discourse that examines the act of craft-making, the culture of things and our civilization. This means that kunsthåndverk as a concept is flexible, as is the ‘fine art’ concept. What gives an object the status of being a contemporary craft object is when it triggers questions that resonate with the traditions of contemporary crafts. This means that the concept ‘contemporary crafts’ has moved the focus from the execution of craft knowledge to the reception of the work. The concept ‘contemporary crafts’ does not point to objects per se, but rather to a discourse about current craft practices and the responses to reality which they trigger. To my mind, this aspect is what makes the field of contemporary crafts so interesting, and it is as kunsthåndverk that it is interesting.
Marit Øydegard: When discussing the Norwegian concept of ‘kunsthåndverk’ in English, I recognize that many English terms can be used to refer to it. Jorun Veiteberg, as a project manager of ‘Creating Artistic Value’, a research project focusing on rubbish and ready-mades as materials in ceramic practises, you recently organized an international conference in Bergen. What English term did you use for ‘kunsthåndverk’? And how do you consider the English terminology in comparison with the Norwegian?
Jorunn Veiteberg:
In English I use the terms ‘studio craft’ or ‘craft art’. The English terms are less precise than the Norwegian. Norwegian Kunsthåndverk has a clear boundary to handicraft or vernacular crafts, while ‘craft’ can include both hobby production as well as other types of handmade and hand-crafted work.
Knut Astrup Bull:
As Jorunn implies, ‘craft’ is problematic in English because it can mean anything from doing something with your hands tokunsthåndverk. I say ‘contemporary craft’ when referring tokunsthåndverk. When I talk about the field in a historical perspective I say ‘decorative art’, which was the terminology used by the Arts and Crafts Movement. ‘Decorative art’ signals an alternative aesthetic in comparison to ‘fine art’. I believe it would be unfortunate to invent a new term that is not rooted in the tradition. It would be difficult to communicate a brand new term and would blur the field of contemporary crafts.
Jørn Mortenesen:
In the absence of a better word, I use ‘craft’, which is disappointingly far from my understanding of an art form so closely linked both to material and its semiotic context.
Marit Ø: At the conference ‘Making or Unmaking?’ in Bergen this October, professor and philosopher Søren Kjørup talked about how contemporary crafts are sometimes viewed as ‘the other’, as a minor art form to fine art. The fact that art history students are hardly learning anything about contemporary crafts, and that contemporary crafts only recently have been welcomed in a few contemporary art galleries – this state of affairs signals that it is a less important or prestigious art form. Jørn Mortensen, what you said earlier may lead us to believe you regard contemporary crafts as a branch of fine art. Is this the case, or do you see contemporary crafts as a parallel art form that offers an alternative to other art forms?
Jørn Mortensen:
The American theorist and curator Glenn Adamson, currently working at the V&A, sees contemporary crafts as part of the fine arts horizon. Just like design, architecture and pop music. Personally, I regard parts of contemporary crafts practice as much closer to hand than the horizon. Parts of contemporary craft production, those tangling with utility, are not even visible on the horizon. My point is that one must understand the practice as very flexible and dynamic. There are ‘craft’ artists who operate closer to a fine art tradition and there are artists who do the opposite. To fully understand the ones operating almost as fine artists, one must apply different ‘reading strategies’, as I mentioned above. This is where I agree with Knut; it is a matter of reception.
Jorunn Veiteberg:
I see contemporary crafts as art forms in their own right, with their own institutions, distributing channels, journals, educations, fairs, biennales and so on. There are several overlapping areas between contemporary crafts and fine art – also with respect to design. I see these three as equal when it comes to value and meaning – albeit not size! In Norway there is much overlap between arts and contemporary crafts. In other parts of the world this is different. I recognize value in the friction between the different disciplines. This is due to dissimilar ways of making and thinking about art.
Knut Astrup Bull:
Based on what I said before, I see contemporary crafts as an alternative aesthetic to fine art. It is, however, important to point out that fine art and contemporary crafts are closely interwoven, partly on account of the friction between them. Contemporary crafts have their origin in the critique of fine art and idealistic aesthetics. They draw nourishment from each other due to their dissimilarities.
Marit Øydegard: There appear to be many overlapping points between contemporary crafts and fine art today, so much so that it can be difficult to tell one discipline from the other. Jorunn Veiteberg, what do you see as characteristic for contemporary crafts? Is it appropriate to compare contemporary crafts to other artistic genres? If so, what unique qualities should be focused on to distinguish contemporary crafts?
Jorunn Veiteberg:
If you read jewellery as if it were sculpture, you get one perspective. If you read it as you would design objects or crafts objects, you might get something else out of the same jewellery pieces. Lots of different approaches are possible and welcome. To me, contemporary crafts are about traditions and stories that are specific for this area. This is even more applicable when it comes to the particular disciplines of ceramics, jewellery, textile and glass. The perspectives these stories or traditions offer for thinking through a material, are, it seems to me, the strength of contemporary crafts. They also allow for other references and modes of presentation. I have noticed that the distance between jewellery and other disciplines has increased; among other things, this suggest that the umbrella phrase ‘the crafts’ is weakening, while the particular disciplines are expanding their areas of practice. Perhaps it is more interesting to identify what is unique to each particular discipline?
Jørn Mortensen:
Given my observations above – that today’s craft-based art students are not calling themselves kunsthåndverkere (art-craftsmen) but artists – I disagree with the premises underlying the question of whether contemporary crafts have any distinguishing characteristics. After observing the dissimilarities amongst the practitioners – and they all seemingly come from the same contemporary crafts tradition – I have reached the conclusion that there are no common characteristics for the contemporary crafts. Likewise, it is problematic to address the characteristics of fine art.
Knut Astrup Bull:
I think what characterizes contemporary crafts is the crafting (regardless of whether it be a conceptual or concrete approach) and that contemporary crafts are not tied to the notion of autonomy. It is particularly the latter that signifies the boundary to other visual arts.
Marit Øydegard: It seems like the contemporary crafts are moving towards the fine arts arena by becoming more conceptual. But if you look at the phenomenon from the other side, do you also see a tendency towards more focus on craftsmanship in the contemporary arts in general?
Jorunn Veiteberg:
Yes, but on dissimilar levels. On one hand you find the specialist workshops, which manufacture the complex sculptures and installations that flourish in today’s art. The fine artist Olafur Eliasson has his own ‘laboratory’ with several employees. So also the designer Hella Jongerius. Craft is central to both. Globalization has led more and more artists to make their art in collaboration with craftsmen in China. And then there is this whole wave of ‘Do-It-Yourself’ and ‘craftivism’, which represents an interesting reaction to globalization by insisting on the homemade and locally produced. Here there are parallels to 1970s feminist art. As you can see, there are several reasons to pursue crafts. I do, however, want to warn against fetishizing things made by hand. The fact that something is handmade is interesting only when it is used politically, like Erlend Leirdal in his ‘After Oil Furniture Company-project’. Or because it is simply the best way to express oneself. The handmade quality should not be a goal in itself.
Jørn Mortensen:
One might claim that there is an increasing orientation toward craft, materials and tactility in the fine arts today. But I see this as a very narrow approach from the Western hemisphere. Okwui Enwezor showed us – with his work at Documenta 11 in 2002 and at the Johannesburg biennales – that global contemporary fine art is closely linked to craft and materials. But craft and materials also constitute part of history, stories, politics, gender and debate. These aspects have been the content of fine art for a very long time – despite some people believing that hardcore late 1960s conceptualism was trying to say something else.
Marit Øydegard: Knut Astrup Bull, as an art historian and senior curator at the Museum of Decorative Arts and Design at The National Museum of Art in Oslo, what do you consider as relevant contemporary crafts theory today, and what function should the theory have?
Knut Astrup Bull:
Relevant theory on contemporary crafts consists of theoretical considerations founded on an independent discourse rooted in the crafts’ own history and aesthetic tradition. If ‘contemporary crafts’ can be used to denote a discipline in its own right, it should also stand out, in a particular way, as an aesthetic approach that reflects both the art institution and the culture. The purpose of aesthetic theory is to develop relevant and interesting parameters for interpreting the contemporary crafts.
Marit Øydegard: Jorunn Veiteberg, you are the author of ‘Craft in Transitions’ (2005) – a book broaching the question of craft theory. What is your position on the subject?
Jorunn Veiteberg:
Like all other cultural areas, contemporary crafts are not static. This is why there is not just one relevant theory. Which theories are most relevant? The answer is related to our views of humanity and society in general. As an art historian in the 1970s and ’80s, New Art History and Cultural Studies had a major influence on me. This means that a mixture of theoretical impulses from social history, Marxism, Feminism and Semiology influence my questions and analyses. Resent research within anthropology offers a direction concerned with our senses but also with human relationships to objects. Both directions have given me a lot. Resent design history also contributes to the contemporary crafts field. Theory is also being developed in research programs at art colleges and universities. Theory helps us ask questions and look at phenomena in an informed way. It gives us a language and a horizon of understanding. The value of being eclectic in choosing theories is that it prevents tunnel vision. A variety of questions and perspectives allows for a variety of answers.
Marit Øydegard: Jørn Mortensen, with your background as a curator and project manager within the field of fine arts, what are your considerations on theory in the crafts field?
Jørn Mortensen:
Relevant theory manages to discuss the crafts tradition in relation to how the works actually function in today’s culture. Interestingly, you soon discover that we cannot talk about one tradition. There are many traditions. There are consequently also many modes of reception. A good example is the difference between how new graduates of the Visual Arts Department at Oslo National Academy of the Arts operate in comparison to more traditional craft-practitioners. The young people are more pragmatic than their older colleagues, and less engaged with tradition as such – either in political or artistic respects – and they use a broader spectrum of scenes in their practice. For the students at Kunstfag (the Visual Arts Department), the independent scene is as natural to use as it is for the artists graduating from the Art Academy. Consequently, theory cannot linger in old beliefs about a craft’s immanent character. Rather, to take into account a more contemporary logic, theory should focus on reception as the foundation for contemporary crafts. Logic is a manifold – it is not just one thing. I am still looking for a theory that understands this.
It is important to remember that theory has several functions, but basically, it is there to help us understand practice. Even though this is an old Greek idea (theory vs. practice) this duality still is meaningful today. This does not mean, however, that there should not be any spiritual or creative activities, or that new knowledge and realization cannot occur through encounters with materials in a broader sense. But theory is a good – and actually democratic – tool for understanding art.
Marit Øydegard: The questions we have already talked about will probably be discussed for some time to come, but what other discourses within the contemporary crafts do you see as interesting?
Jørn Mortensen:
The discourses I find interesting are those focusing on social, political and cultural contexts for craft-artefacts. These are discourses focusing on meaning outside the work itself.
Jorunn Veiteberg:
I am predominantly interested in terms like ‘found objects’ and ‘ready-mades’ in relation to ceramics, jewellery and textiles, and what incorporating these types of materials means in relation to our understanding of contemporary crafts. This phenomenon has made it clear to me that the traditional contradiction between contemporary crafts and craft-based industries most likely is undermined by the dynamics in today’s globalized capitalism. The discourse on this subject and on economics in general should be more central. What ‘work’ and what ‘artistic work’ mean – I think these are also important questions.
Knut Astrup Bull:
I regard any theories that have their derivation in contemporary crafts as independent art forms as interesting. A living art discourse is dependent on an exchange of diverse opinions.
Jorunn Veiteberg has a PhD in art history and has worked as a critic, curator and head of arts for Norwegian National Television. She was formerly the editor-in-chief of the Norwegian art and craft magazine Kunsthandverk. Veiteberg is currently Professor of Curatorial Studies and Craft Theory at Bergen National Academy of the Arts (KHiB). In 2008 she became the project manager of Creating Artistic Value, a research project focusing on the use of rubbish and ready-mades as materials in ceramic practises. Latest book: Thing Tang Trash: Upcycling in Contemporary Ceramics, Bergen 2011.
Jørn Mortensen holds an MA in Media and Communication from the University in Oslo. He is the new dean of The Visual Arts Department at Oslo National Academy of the Arts (KHiO). Mortensen has promoted art and culture since the early 1990s, at UKS (society for young artists), Momentum Biennial in Moss, Public Art Norway (KORO) and at the Office for Contemporary Art, Norway (OCA), and Kunsthall in Oslo where he currently is chairman. Mortensen just recently edited the book Visual Art in the Oslo Opera House (2011). He is now, for the first time, working in the educational system.
Knut Astrup Bull is an art historian and senior curator at the department of design at the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design in Oslo. He has published the book En ny diskurs for kunsthåndverket [A New Discourse for Craft-Based Art] (2007) and has curated several important exhibitions and seminars. The most recognized is Hverdagsliv / Everyday Life, held in Trondheim in 2008.
Marit Øydegard is a crafts practitioner with an MA in contemporary crafts from the University for the Creative Arts (UCA) in the UK. She received her BA in ceramics from Oslo National Academy of the Arts (KHiO) and is currently working on a second MA in art criticism and cultural dissemination at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim.