Page 74 - Constructing Craft

more important as a means of defining who was a craftsperson and who was a craft

artist. Thinking about the relationship of craft to art before the studio craft
movement flourished was often informed by the Kantian notion ‘that an aesthetic

experience could be supported only by an autonomous art object, and that the
disinterested gaze of the art spectator is elicited only when art is removed from

10
moral, social and religious values and from ordinary life.’ Craft, through its
association with ordinary life and functionality, could not be an autonomous art

object. This concept of the independent aesthetic experience excluded function –

11
‘and thus much of craft ‒ from the possibility of having an aesthetic component.’
The distinction led philosophers and scholars not only to neglect craft as a subject
of study but also to devalue the role of craft in art.

The Aesthetic Theory of Art

Robin George Collingwood

An example of a philosopher who thought about art and craft in this way was Robin

George (R. G.) Collingwood. Collingwood, a British historian and philosopher, could
clearly present an argument separating craft from art. To achieve this he employed

12
13
the ideas of Immanuel Kant and Benedetto Croce that stated that the only
purpose of art was the expression of feelings and beauty and, in addition, only the
artist can decide if that has been achieved. Craft conversely, according to

Collingwood, was ‘the power to produce a preconceived result by means of
14
consciously controlled and directed action.’ He disentangled craft from art proper
15
by offering six reasons why there existed a distinction. ‘Proper’ has been
emphasised because it was through this word that Collingwood distinguished most

emphatically the difference between art and craft. Art ‘proper’ divided the modern

use of the word art from its ancient meaning – craft. Collingwood was offering his
advice on art and craft in the late 1930s when the studio craft movement in Britain

was at an early stage in its development and most craft conformed to his criteria.
Nonetheless, some thought Collingwood had misunderstood the role of craft and

furthermore, his description of craft was no longer relevant in the second half of the

Constructing Craft