AMERICAN CRAFT
February/March 1994

TRADITION AND TRANSITION
by Claire Wolf Krantz

At a symposium in Chicago, fiber artists weighed history versus change, healing versus criticism, and Me versus We.

The diverse stimuli of "Tradition + Transition: a symposium on fiber art sponsored by the Textile Arts Centre in Chicago, and held in that city October 9-10, generated broadly appealing themes, which were aired from various perspectives but by no means resolved. Paramount were questions of identity and demarcation of purpose, of self-definition and ambivalence, and of the desire of artists for recognition on their own terms (with disagreement as to the composition of those terms). With elo­quence and a sure sense of self, the featured artists, critics and historians ventured opin­ions often more radical than, and occasional­ly at odds with, those of their audiences.

A Field in Flux
In some ways the event was a paradigm of today's fiber field and its perceived strengths and weaknesses, a scene clearly in the process of transformation and redefinition. It was a small group as national meetings go, with several hundred participants, predominantly women. Sessions were orderly, friendly and coop­erative. No posturing occurred; no nasty, ad hominem remarks were hurled from the podium or the audience. People began and ended their presentations prompt­ly, and no one hogged time or attention. More complaints could be heard here than battles. One sensed in this crowd an interest in sharing thoughts and finding out how to get a place in the sun, rather than a desire to fight for ideas or recognition.

Yet in this generally tension-free atmosphere, important concepts were articulated and pondered. Divergent beliefs were expressed and, most importantly, conflicting views were allowed public consideration. A disparity emerged between models of cooperation and of competi­tion. Artists appeared torn between a desire to use their work for com­munal benefit and the realization that, without a tougher attitude toward self-promotion and more rigorous critical standards, their work would never achieve full significance and recognition. The consensus seemed to be that healing and growth must come to terms with critical thinking.
Speakers focused on pushing fiber artists toward articulated goals and stronger content in their work, tougher criticism, and a greater engagement in social and political issues in the world at large. They looked to history to find a basis for current directions, but questioned the value of regarding history and tradition as defining features.

Rethinking the Past
In a panel discussion entitled "Historical Perspective/Future Goals," Gerhardt Knodel, head of the fiber department at Cranbrook Academy of Art, spoke of "objects of the past" that illuminate possibilities for him. Yet he clearly advocated the dynamism and change, characteristic of human life, that should be mirrored in its crafts. For Knodel, reflection is fundamental. Craft, he said, must no longer be described only as a visualization of intu­ition and emotion, but rather as "the manip­ulation of materials combined with thought." On that same panel, Jan Janeiro and Lou Cabeen, both textile artists and writ­ers, emphasized the multiplicity of influ­ences and cultures that inform the contem­porary craftsperson, among them the histo­ries of ideas, fine arts and textiles. Fiber artists, they said, must comprehend and synthesize useful aspects of each history to extend our understanding of the present.

In this provocative session, several other themes emerged which would be heard repeatedly over the weekend. Janeiro questioned whether fiber artists can be just artists or just crafts­people, and whether it's possible to mediate between these extremes. She suggested that certain ideas, generated by mod­ernism and incorporated into a model of the essential nature or integri­ty of crafts, may need rethinking. Must the craft object, for example, necessarily be an emotionally connected, skillfully created, autonomous object of contemplation?
Cabeen warned against the compliance of artists in uncritically "swallowing whole" various "passively received historical assumptions" which constrict our imaginations and leave out entire areas of cultural production. Her understanding of the importance of craft history to contemporary cultural theory set a tone that resounded in the sympo­sium's subsequent sessions. Crafts, for Cabeen, are cultural docu­ments that record and transmit histories of the Other. Lamentably, craft can also be a label for marginalized artwork.

Janeiro asked the members of this panel (who also included Lotus Stack, curator of textiles at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts) who they thought is currently writing textile history (and, by extension, theory and criticism) and how they felt it should be written. Their consensus was that writers come from diverse backgrounds: anthropology, history, stu­dio art, journalism, collecting, dealing. While diversity is generally desir­able, they agreed, it has pitfalls when applied to writers. Knodel warned against untrained writers who bring their own agendas and biases to their work. Other panelists took his admonishment further, listing such culprits as artists who write about their friends, and dealers and collec­tors who promote their own interests.

What is Criticism?
Disapproving of much current writing about textiles, Janet Koplos called for tougher criticism. In her particularly cogent talk, Koplos, her­self a writer and critic, asked the audience to reflect upon what it wants from criticism. Pointing out an important distinction (largely ignored in the textile field) between feature articles and criticism, she empha­sized that the latter requires more than an emotional engagement with the work, which yields simple description and contemplation. Distance and objectivity, she said, are necessary for the growth and develop­ment of the field. Koplos advocated a critical approach that speculates about an artist's intentions, evaluates them, and judges his or her suc­cess in their implementation.

Because tendencies in textile criticism reflect and influence actual practice, Koplos's remarks had particular relevance to an issue that has begun to generate much discussion in the field: how fiber art is defined, and how that definition might be expanded. That fiber criti­cism is inclined to be vague and general rather than specific, she said, indicates less interest in the concept than in the thing itself. Devotion to the materiality of artwork and its capacity for symbolic and emotional expression overrides critical efforts that refer to an intellectual or histor­ical system. What is lacking. said Koplos, is a personal or societal con­text for the work-discussion of how an artist makes choices, how his or her present direction compares with earlier ones, or with the work of others. She listed some generalizations about contemporary fiber art that not only summarize the perceived nature of this work, but also illustrate how, rightly or not, it is viewed both by the larger world and the field itself as outside, or different from mainstream art. It is known for its softness and flexibility, its emphasis on line, density and com­plexity of surface, domestic familiarity and often-modest size. Artists can exploit or overturn its tendency toward order, its structure based on the grid and repetition of modules, its capacity for inducing a medita­tive state, and the investment of time necessary for its fabrication.

Furthermore, while the fiber arts encompass a spectrum of worth­while modes of being, criticism may not serve all kinds of art produc­tion equally well, said Koplos. Decorative and utilitarian objects cannot be evaluated on the same terms as artworks having other intentions, and those, which depend on emotional resonance for their significance, are more difficult for critics to write about than those referring to words and intellectual thought. Yet Koplos rejected the notion that fiber art exists outside language, asserting that "nothing is outside of language." Nor, for her, is there any truth to the restricting but commonly held idea that society has no shared beliefs and symbols to empower art.

Semantics and Self-Definition
Other themes recurring at the symposium had to do with the manner in which artists define themselves. The importance of descriptive words became evident: a distinction between "weaver" and "artist," for example, shapes how certain makers conceive of their work and how the world treats it. Unfortunately, the schism between those who call themselves craftspersons and those who see themselves as artists using fiber as their medium is limiting for everyone. The latter group expressed regret that they may pay for their choice by losing some of the camaraderie of the close-knit fiber community. Those who claimed craft status, on the other hand, voiced a sense of victimization, of not getting their share of exhibition opportunities and critical attention.
The majority of speakers felt that "artist" is the more respectful term, and that it is their own professionalism, self-assurance and ability to expand their options, challenges and expectations that determine how their work is received. One speaker, Bonnie Lucas, even speculated that it may be necessary to stop delineating specialized fields altogeth­er. She favors the more general classification of "artist" in order to be open to new possibilities, to focus on work rather than on definitions, and to avoid an almost institutionalized feeling of victimization. Although many artists have said they experience less respect and opportunity for women's work and the crafts associated with it, the symposium speakers repeatedly emphasized that the major limita­tions come from artists themselves, in their methods of defining their own boundaries and their strategies for pushing beyond obstacles. Every artist must find an audience for her or his work, and audiences differ according to the nature of the work-a tautological condition that revolves around self-definition.

Interactive Art
Such interrogations into "who speaks," and "for whom," leads us into the problematic keynote address by Suzi Gablik. Invited to address this symposium because of her promotion of global interconnectedness and her outspoken devotion to environmental issues, she attracted angry criticism from many participants for appearing to claim these beliefs as her private domain. Equating the past ills of modernism's rugged individualism and narcissistic self-promotion with object mak­ing, she seemed to be throwing out the baby with the bath water. She confronted an audience consisting primarily of object makers with her own brand of acceptable art, a kind of interactive didacticism, a perfor­matory mode that includes doing "useful" work and making "service­able" objects (one artist wryly called it "social-work art").

Thus, Gablik reduced complex issues regarding art's actual ability to effect change to an endorsement of one kind of art over another. Moreover, her obvious and self-professed ignorance of textile arts manifested itself in a lack of understanding of either the problems or the goals of her audience. Most women artists, who comprise an over­whelming majority of the fiber field, are already interactive in their per­sonal and professional lives, not macho individualists. They struggle
 with finding a voice in the first place, then with making their voices heard and relevant in the larger
 world. They spend their lives taking care of others, responding to other peoples' needs, teaching and lis­tening. They need to talk, and to make things that reflect a growing sense of self. In this context, lectures that exhort against object making are unhelpful. It is counterproductive to discourage the development of a shaky "I," to induce guilt for using scarce resources or devoting attention, after a lifetime of caretaking, to the evolving self.

In contrast to Gablik's construction of acceptable politically engaged art, other speakers pointed out that any work challenging the power structure is activist and risky. It is in itself a political act to create and appreciate societally disdained objects or use unvalued materials and processes, to pay attention to cultural documents from marginalized groups, or to promote unpopular artistic and cultural values.

Artists presenting overtly politicized work exemplified a wide breadth of activity. Joyce Scott, in her performances and beaded sculptures, amplifies perceptions of black body types and behavior, thus making white norms problematic in such humorous ways that the stereotype itself becomes ridiculous. Focusing on different issues, Bonnie Lucas subverts the meaning of her materials themselves. Using pastel colors with materials she calls "Girl Scout" crafts, she makes tableaux that suggest violence just below the surface refinement both of the piece and of the class and gender of her subjects. Lucas's work illustrates a major problem faced by women and by the fiber field as a whole: soci­ety's demand that they be "nice." Women need to acknowledge vio­lence in themselves and in their culture, she seems to be saying, and learn to demand their due. In yet another example, Arturo Sandoval uses various fiber materials and processes to highlight social problems such as terrorism, AIDS and the nuclear threat. In one body of work he has created facsimiles of the American flag as a structure to symbolical­ly convey complex meaning. For instance, "silence is acceptance; silence = death" is one message of flags made to look burned.

What unites these three artists is a commitment to fiber as a feasible medium for effecting social change in some way, and their optimistic view that change and healing are possible. While they have taken a crit­ical stance in relation to their audience al'ld society as a whole, other fiber artists have displayed in their work a sense of embedded ness in particular cultures and groups. This conceptual difference illustrates the variety of attitudes, intentions, politics, media and techniques that comprise textile arts today. In a spirit of commitment to their communi­ty and to art, and the expectation that their work can make a difference, the artists, critics and curators who took part in "Tradition + Transition" made their statements. Calling for a broader view for textile art, for activism, high standards and critical thinking-as well as continued comradeship and cooperation--this energizing symposium offered nourishment for thought and action.

Claire Wolf Krantz is an artist, freelance critic, and guest curator.
As an artist she works in a combination of painting and photography as well as digitally created images.