Something useful

In Section 1.3.3, I outlined the term ‘usefulness’ as I refer to it in this exegesis. In any discussion of the craft object, whether about its history or about the daily practice of a maker, the question of use- fulness is always present. Often, the use of a craft object becomes its first definition. For instance, a teapot is for pouring, a tray must be balanced, a teacup must be able to held while hot, and so on. In my own work, the question of the object’s usefulness has played a key role in drawing attention to the different ways in which to experience the work. Usefulness may be highlighted in the form, the details, the way the object has been made or its aesthetic qualities, and these trigger the way the viewer may experience the object through interacting with the rail. Usefulness is important in my research because I am centrally interested in ways in which the viewer/user might perceive and engage with the craft object, and in how their relationship to the object in exhibition and domestic settings can influence their readings of the object, space and time. Here, I elaborate briefly on the background and value of usefulness, and in particular the idea of making ‘something useful’, as this in- forms my research and is fundamental to my craft object practice. Craft objects have a long history as elements that play a role within social engagement and that are central to social activities as pur- poseful objects used repeatedly by people in their everyday lives. However, a hierarchy of use and non-use is at play, whereby the treatment of art characterised in exhibiting institutions has been adopted and applied to contemporary craft objects perhaps more powerfully than ever before. The exhibition of contemporary craft objects in the gallery setting, typically on pedestals or under glass, ultimately distances the craft object from people by emphasising the separation of subject from object. This is quite a different rela- tionship from that of the everyday teapot or cup, even if that teapot or cup is handmade and one-off. Although many consider this a loss, it can also be seen as part of a richer and broader range of possibilities for craft objects. In this context, it is interesting to note that the utilitarian aspect of the object is what consistently anchors the debate about what artistic status the craft object should have. In a broader popular cultural context, the craft object has been un- derstood primarily in utilitarian terms through its everyday purpose and use; for example, a teapot is typically seen as being primarily for pouring tea. In craft’s own terms,71 _{the ‘condition’ of utility pro-} vokes several different positions, including those who consider it irrelevant, or at best marginal, distancing themselves from functions

constraints and limitations, as discussed in Section 1.3.3. Although the craft object has long since broken away from the imperative to be useful, many craft makers nonetheless make works that have a central relationship with the idea or reality of function, and often this is expressed or explored through the forms they use, which reference familiar and purposeful objects.

Utility may be “interpreted as representations of well known utility functions.”72

The concept of usefulness is important for my research because I see it as a core characteristic of craft objects. However, I am also interested in playing with this aspect through ambiguity. My works include objects that suggest use but are clearly not useable and others that are clearly useful but whose detail suggests a precious- ness that can deter use. This ambiguity is relevant because the work produced through this research project is focused on shifts in relationships between objects, space and time. Issues of usefulness and engagement, and their mode of exhibition, are critical in influ- encing how objects are perceived and understood.

43 _{CARTER, P., 1997. Peculiar to the night: the knowledge of craft. In: ATTIWILL,}

S., ed. Knowledge makers: Craft Victoria forum on research and craft practice, Melbourne, Craft Victoria, pp.10–13.

44 ibid pp.10–13, 18.

45 _{SCOLLON, E. 2008. Craft in the expanded field, Sightlines, p.144.} 46 _{LEE, C. 2010, Precious Light, MA Philosophy exegesis, Australian National}

University, Canberra.

47 _{POSTMAN, N. 1993. Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology, New}

York, Vintage Books, p.118.

48 ibid.

49 _{HEIDEGGER, M. 1993. Building, Dwelling, Thinking. In: HEIDEGGER, M. &}

KRELL, D. F. 1993. Basic Writings: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, HarperCollins, pp.308–341.

50 _{WATSON, P. 2005. Ideas: a history of thought and invention from fire to Freud,}

New York, HarperCollins.

51 _{ibid, p.394.} 52 ibid.

53 _{LUCIE-SMITH, E. 1981. The story of craft: the craftsman’s role in society,}

Oxford, Phaidon.

54 _{WATSON, P. 2005. Ideas: a history of thought and invention from fire to Freud,}

New York, HarperCollins, p.553.

55 _ibid. 56 ibid, p.554.

57 _{ibid, p.563.}

58 _{COCHRANE, G. 1992. The crafts movement in Australia: a history, Kensington,}

N.S.W., NSW University Press.

59 _{CORNALL, G. 1990. Memories: a survey of early Australian furniture in the} collection of the Lord McAlpine of West Green, Perth, W.A, Australian City

Properties Ltd.

60 _{VEITEBERG, J. & FERGUSON, D. 2005. Craft in transition, Bergen,}

Kunsthøgskolen i Bergen.

61 _{ibid, p.18.} 62 ibid.

63 _{KING, A. J. 1997. The lost continent of craft. In: HARROD, T., EASTERN ARTS,}

B. & CRAFTS, C. (eds.) Obscure objects of desire: reviewing the crafts in the

twentieth century: conference papers, University of East Anglia, 10–12 January

1997, London: Crafts Council.

64 _{VEITEBERG, J. & FERGUSON, D. 2005. Craft in transition, Bergen,}

Kunsthøgskolen i Bergen.

65 _{HARROD, T. 1998. Disorder in the World of Work: The Crafts in Britain in the} Twentieth Century, Royal College of Art. cited in VEITEBERG, J. & FERGUSON,

D. 2005. Craft in transition, Bergen, Kunsthøgskolen i Bergen, p.22.

66 _{COHN, S. 1993. The Crafts: on their own terms. In: TIMMS, P. (ed.) The Nature} of the beast: writings on craft. Fitzroy, Victoria: Craft Victoria. p.23

67 _ibid. 68 ibid, p.24.

69 _{RENDELL, J. 2006. Art to architecture: a place between, London New York,}