Page 104 - Constructing Craft

goal to become an artist was the intention of some craftspeople, they had achieved

it ‒ but some critics believed that craft was the loser.

Others were more positive in their response to the repositioning of craft. Bill
Millbank, the Director of the Sarjeant Gallery, when he reviewed the 1987 exhibition

was of the opinion that those exhibiting had earned their place in the art world.

It was very clear from that exhibition, and others which I have
seen over recent years, that studio ceramics are firmly
established in New Zealand. One exciting aspect of this is that
such work no longer consists of pondering, “one-off” art pieces
made by very able functional potters as they struggle to
approach unclear art-gallery expectations. Rather, these are the
creations of artists who see their studio pieces as their
34
mainstream work.

However, the two Paul reviews illustrate that a barrier existed between art and craft

from the time that the studio craft movement started to develop after the Second
World War. Defining and restraining craft became a persistent source of conflict,

both within the movement and from sources outside. The position taken was often
linked to the place that the protagonists occupied within the art/craft domain and to

wider social, political, cultural and economic concerns. A further issue that the
reviews highlighted was the extent that crafts relied on ‘outsiders’ to define craft.

This remained a persistent problem for a movement that lacked a legitimating

authority.

Constructing Craft