Page 210 - Constructing Craft

craftspeople were forced or encouraged to reassess what they produced, as well as

how and where they sold their work, or in fact, whether they would continue as
craftspeople at all. Many, such as Reay, had been given an economic boost during

the first of the periods mentioned above but found they often had to adapt during
the second. Some were able to continue largely unchanged, some became artists

and educators and some abandoned their craft altogether.

The studio craft movement was sometimes represented by policy makers,

businesspeople, politicians, and some craftspeople as a model of how small-scale
and sustainable free enterprise businesses should and could operate. The reasons

for doing so were self-interest ‒ craftspeople hoping to boost the economic

importance of their craft ‒ and sometimes unrealistic expectations of what the studio
craft movement might become, or what it could bring to the national economy. In

contrast, industry would often down-play the benefits it received through
government policy in an effort to maintain them or boost the level of support

received. Industry and craft existed in an environment that encouraged both
cooperation and competition. Both industry and craft needed to be aware of what

the other was doing to remain competitive or to anticipate future developments. In a

few cases craftspeople discovered that there were economic rewards for
cooperating with business but the experience could also be culturally frustrating.

Defending the Value of Craft

A feature of the studio craft movement was the effort made by ‘professional’

craftspeople to distinguish their vocation from ‘the trades’ (industry). When their
livelihood was threatened craftspeople were forced to defend their craft using both

cultural and economic arguments. The difficulty for them was to protect their cultural
integrity whilst maintaining or enhancing their economic position. Craftspeople had

to understand the rules to ensure the balance between cultural and economic

capital was working for them. A craftsperson might have amassed great cultural
capital by becoming recognised as a ‘leading craftsperson’ but remained poor.

Meanwhile, commercially successful craftspeople could be shunned by the arbiters
of taste because of their financial success. The restraints to the accumulation of

both cultural and economic capital were controlled by the dominant classes within

Constructing Craft