Some thoughts on make and craft
Back in September I made a late comment in a discussion thread on Shelley Powers‘ post, Craft/Make. I just want to pull it out and publish it here, and perhaps also on my OPML blog, because I don’t want to lose the thoughts in it.
‘The swap-o-rama-rama and the computer-related stuff were equally exciting at the Maker Faire. It was precisely that they were treated equally as cool exemplars of the DIY ethic that made this juxtaposition
so interesting. It wasn’t about gender, it was about the maker impulse, and all its forms.’— Tim O’Reilly
‘It wasn’t about gender, it was about the maker impulse, and all its forms.’
I’m a maker for the performing and theatre arts, and I appreciate this reasoning. But using the swap-o-rama-rama as an example of making Maker Faire more gender-inclusive, and describing Craft magazine as having a more ‘female spin’ seems to me to turn that statement around, because there is an underlying assumption there about what females are interested in. In a banner at the Renegade Craft Fair, Craft Magazine has the by-line ‘Hang it, Stitch it, Wear it, Light it’: the assumption is still that women are primarily interested in decoration, sewing and fashion. While that may be stereotypically true, working on that
assumption is preserving and encouraging the status quo, (and making money from it), rather than challenging it and acknowledging that there are women out there whose skills and interests within the making and
craft world go well beyond those traditional interests expressed in a modern way. I also think there is a danger of diminishing craft by defining it in this way, just when it seemed to have broken lose from being a lesser creature by being included in the broader term, make.As an aside, I’m also watchful about the new craft movement being somewhat bound up with retro and the 50’s, and I wonder if it means some of the social attitudes about gender from that time are also being revisited. I get worried when I see apron-making contests. Many craft bloggers are women with small children, and it must be great to have the community and connection of blogging if you are a stay-at-home mother. But I wonder if it also means that craft is still largely in the realm of something a woman makes for, or as a reflection of, her
domestic world, for love or pin-money, while the kids are small. There is nothing wrong with that seen for what it is, essentially a hobby and social activity, but it might mean the new craft movement is not so new
after all.— Hil
Yesterday Shelley wrote that O’Reilly’s company could do much to ensure that Craft attracts a good audience of men and women, and to encompass and encourage a broader less-gender-specific view of craft. My feeling is that the creation of Craft, in addition to Make, is essentially a marketing decision to diversify and increase their business domain by capitalizing on that ‘female spin’, and its therefore more likely to rely on preserving the status quo, as I said above. If it makes good business sense to divide Make and Craft in this way, I doubt Craft will go down the road that Shelley optimistically suggests.
I don’t really follow these debates – are there actual debates on this sort of subject? I hope so – but your second paragraph (the aside) enunciates something that I have found a bit worrying too, without really having thought it out specifically.
The 50′s craft movement was 2 sided. There were the women trying to create an “ideal home”, a fantasy, after the horrors of WW2. They were fleeing the workforce, leaving jobs (many non-traditional) they took when the men went to war. The other side was the academic and artistic study of traditional crafts- people trying to save them from extinction, trying to get the world to appreciate them. I’m thinking about the Appalachian pottery and textiles, the western infatuation with Japanese traditional crafts, again pottery and textiles is what I know about. I have to think that it is a terrible sign for high-end craft when The American Craft Museum changed it’s name to The Museum of Art and Design. My bad attitude says that much of what is refered to as “craft”, has very little to do with craftmanship.
I’m not sure how widespread this type of discussion about craft is, Laura. The discussion on Shelley’s blog originated out of talk about the inequity of gender representation at tech conferences, rather than coming directly from crafters. I’m glad to know I’m not the only one that finds that a bit worrying.
Mimi, I didn’t know specifically about the second strand in the 50′s, and it’s really interesting. At the puppetry conference there was talk about how there is that tension particularly in Asian countries between the traditional approaches to puppetry, and the new influences that have the potential to destroy the old. And there was also a sense that even in Australia, where we tend to have no real tradition of any one particular style of puppetry, rather a borrowing and experimenting with them all, the continuance of dedicated puppet theatre companies as such was not of particular interest to young puppeteers who were starting out. I’m all for experimentation, and using what works, but I could understand that the companies have resources and funding and institutional memories that would be a real loss if they have to fold.
I think I probably agree with your last sentence, though I love many of the craft areas that are not high-end at all. It’s just a problematic term all round because there are so many shades in it, I guess.