Bob Kavanagh on wed 19 jun 96
I think that most, if not all, of our conversations of this nature must
take into account the history which has given rise to the discussion: the
terms, conceptual frameworks, what constitutes a good reason or a value,
what words make sense when applied to other words, how we use things, view
design, art, work, products, cultural values, and other similar issues.
Obviously, as we approach matters today there will be a different slant
than in the more distant past because of the accumulated experience
between then and now. If we take too different a stance from the general
history, then I don't think we're going to be talking even remotely about
the same things, even though the words might suggest that we are.
There are many contexts in which the notions of "applied art", "functional
art", "decorative art" or "fine art" are usefully kept apart and many other
contexts in which we may want to link them up for some particular purpose.
It seems to me that understanding the setting within which a given
discussion arises, helps us understand the various values connected to
these ideas. Our understanding of the setting along with our own feelings,
thoughts and commitments puts us in a position to assert something which
might help further our own understanding and that of others, with respect
to any given domain which interests us.
I think that almost issue which is taken "as an end in itself", will
eventually run into the problem of "abstraction" which you talk about,
mostly because so much of the diversity of lived life is bound up together
and wehn we say "as an end in itself" we are taking the thing out of its
grounded context. We think abstractly about a great deal, and part of
being human seems to be our tendency to think abstractly about things. It
seems to me, however, that it is prudent to temper this abstract thought
with the fullness of experience when we move out of our thinking to make
claims.
The example you offer from Osborne's work, provides us with a fairly
specific context for a discussion of some of these ideas. He reflects the
underlying ideology of John Ruskin or William Morris's analysis of the
"artistic" mind of the mid to late nineteenth century, the dominant mode of
industrial production which Morris so despised and Morris's interest to
link craft production to regular daily human needs. In general, we tend
not to use this kind of language nowadays except in detailed discussions
amongst people who are highly committed to the history of such matters, or
to scholarly and educational activity, or to those of us who are so
involved in making quality objects that we naturally have a stake in the
values which are espoused in the various debates.
When a jug which I make is taken "as an end in itself" a whole pile of
things can happen. It can be divided into material, process (imaginative
as well as production), form, texture, finish, colour, surface, volume and
other similar categories all of which can be studied by themselves. The
question of function becomes less relevant because we have opted to
consider the jug "as an end in itself" and "function" tends more to place
the things into a lived context with all the muddied results related
thereto. My own opinion is that even "function" has become somewhat
abstract in many contemporary discussions. When we talk about function in
the context of the functional objects which we modern craftspeople make, I
think we tend, along with many others, to think that our objects have only
one function and that this one function is the feature which actually
defines the jug (i.e., the function/purpose of a jug is to pour). (I will
send you privately a copy of something I'm writing on this very topic;
it's too long for a list submission - as if what I've written already
weren't too long - oh well). It so happens that I think that the jug
serves many functions, some are historically grounded, some are emotional
in how they address modern emotional needs, some tie in to cultural values,
some are aesthetic through use and others are aesthetic in a more
traditional meaning of the term, some are physical (as tested by balance
for example).
Enough of this rambling for now. I will get a few more up to date library
references which I have in a list somewhere. Where, is the question?
By the way, Dan, although I haven't yet responded, let me say in passing
(no pun intended, it just came out that way) that death often changes my
mind.
b.
| |
|
