Alright, so I’ve discovered that asking a direct question is not necessarily successful in the the land of blogging…dully noted. After many days of nothing but static over the airwaves I realize that maybe my question regarding Global Craft was just far too open-ended, and maybe not really a question anyway. So I thought I’d post a bit about my own thoughts while preparing for the conference later this week.

I must say it’s been interesting to be moderating a panel on craft practices that are not ceramic related. Of course all craft theory can be interrelated, but the panel speakers topics are related to textiles – quilting, weaving, fashion design and traditional practices of specific cultures, and one panel member is speaking about a specific case study in a China of traditional stone carving practices. It’s all been quite interesting to read and learn about, as I have no background in these areas. And of course there is cross over in terms of theory and methodology back to ceramics practices, so it’s all relevant.

One of the more interesting topics addressed is the issue of sustainability, which we often view as a solely contemporary issue, one related foremost in our minds to issues of economic or environmental sustainability, both of which are highly relevant to any individual practice. But there is call for concern as well for raising the issue of creative sustainability in the face of globalization and this has a impact on craft as an industry as well as craft as an individual practice.

This made me think back to a workshop I attended with the ceramic gallery/writer “god” Garth Clark and his equivalently successful sidekick Mark DelVichio. They were discussing, and quite frankly I might add, the American ceramic arts market, it’s realities and pitfalls. Again and again audience members would question the pair regarding “breaking into” that market as it was seen as the global stage for artistic success. Interestingly neither Mark nor Garth promoted the practice of trying to find success in an American market and instead questioned the seemingly negative attitude towards regionalism and building a successful practice within a smaller market. They basically turned the tables on what I had been thinking throughout most of my studies and practice as an artist, that to aim big was the only way. It was so glaringly obvious that to factor into your work success in a market other than your own would have an influential impact on the work created. Now this is not to say that should such opportunity for success and recognition at national or international levels present itself one is to shy away, no, but rather than true success on such a scale will come as a direct result of the inherent strength of the work rather than any conscious drive for success.

But I’m getting off topic now. What I wanted to bring up was the issue of outside influence on craft practice, and in relation to the presentations of the panel, more specifically on traditional craft practices which were developed over centuries and once trade routes were established and foreign interest in the crafted objects was solidified, the commodification by foreign interests began to have it’s impact on the aesthetics and imagery presented, which in turn has also impacted the crafted objects made for regional use as well. I just think it’s interesting to follow the web of how globalization even centuries ago has impacted what we view as traditional crafts today, as they do not, and could not exist in their pure forms. And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be viewed in terms of negative of positive outcomes, but rather studied as a means of greater understanding of material process knowledge transfer between different groups and to address methodologies of creating sustainability for these crafts, on a creative level, for future generations.

Contemporary globalization is also brought up by panelists to highlight the push towards industry over the individual crafted object and the impact of access to non regional materials for artisans. The debate (or perhaps debacle) regarding craft and industry relations is nothing new, and many artists (perhaps now I speak more specifically of ceramics) are addressing this directly in their work, as a means of understanding individual, economic and global impacts of modernity’s reliance upon technology. Where do we sit in a world where machines and humans make designed objects on par with each other? How do we as artisans/craftspeople state our case for the validity and valuing of traditional practices over hyper commodification? So much of this requires a mass re-thinking of not only our current value systems, but the ways in which we want to live our lives and see our futures. Case studies into regions, cultures, villages that have managed to somewhat keep intact their traditional craft practices provide insight into not only craft (and creative) sustainability, but in turn also into economic and environmental sustainability as they are often regions that have resisted globalization to a degree and who have managed to exist more self sufficiently as a community than someone in my position as a north american consumer could likely ever fully understand.

Okay, that was quite a bit of rambling for one day, a nice procrastination from preparing for the conference. Hopefully some of this nonsense made some sense…I guess its time for me to get back to work and sorting through some of these ideas properly. I’ll keep you posted as to how it all goes, and hopefully have tons of pics from Halifax to show you next week!