Yi-An Shiau
Craftivism has been an activate part of people’s lives for more than ten years: although the term might not be familiar to everyone, some activities have attracted attention and even affected the world to some degree. For instance, the PussyHats Project on the day of the presidential inauguration in the United States was part of this growing popular phenomenon. For George McKay craftivism’s activities act as a bridge that links the gap between art, life, politics and activism (Ratto & Boler, 2014). Betsy Greer gave this kind of activism a formal description and attempted to redefine and critique it to find the value and importance of this movement (Pohl, 2011). As her open-ended definition and description of craftivism suggests, several practitioners can develop their activities in many ways, however, the categories and difference within these practices remain unclear. The backgrounds of various practices and Betsy Greer’s idea of craftivism are worthwhile to explore further to contextualise craftivism. After offering some historical context with the Arts & Crafts movement and the Bauhaus, this essay discusses the different practices of craftivists in the contemporary world and contextualises the development of craftivism after the third-wave feminism, Betsy Greer and other different issues. Firstly, there will be an introduction to the craft movement’s background which links to social concerns; secondly, Betsy Greer’s description of craftivism is clarified at this stage and thirdly, I will briefly contrast Betsy Greer and other craftivists’ practices to explain the development as a whole.
To begin with, it is possible to trace the element of craftivism back to the Arts & Crafts movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century—here John Ruskin and William Morris could be regarded as the main influence on the movement. From a theoretical perspective, Ruskin’s social critique and his ideology could be seen as the first bridge bonding social movements and craft. With industrialization, the division of labour could deprive people of creativity, and lower the quality of what was produced and numerous social problems emerged. Ruskin’s position focused on the effects of industrial society on human nature and morality: part of this consideration, advocated a return to the pre-industrial medieval idea of craftsmens’ guilds as the way out of these confines. Ruskin’s ideas had a significant influence on William Morris and others and gave a tremendous impetus to the Arts & Crafts movement that stimulated reflection on the current state of art after the industrial revolution, especially the relations between people and objects, people and production, and life and aesthetics. William Morris gave the underlying relations of labour to art a higher status through his creative craft works and proposed the concept of equality of work for men and women (Metcalf, 1999). Nevertheless, the industrial revolution and the first World War were the obstacles which interrupted the craft movement. Those social issues, the disappearing humanity of work and the manifestos of craftsman’s status and gender equality, were ignored at the time.
Since industrial development has confirmed that machines could produce products of very high quality, the Arts & Crafts movement was therefore regarded as meaningless resistance. Although in the twenty-first century, craft still stands on the opposite side of the machine industry, among the remnants of the Arts & Crafts movement after World War One, Bauhaus was one of the most eye-catching, and it can also be considered as the first link between craftsmanship and the conception and the style of modernity (Metcalf, 1999). In the Bauhaus, modernity was defined as geometry, ornamentation, and high-level abstraction, but it was difficult for modernity to include an overview comprising of one style (Metcalf, 1999). Another flaw was that, in the development of Bauhaus, there was no apparent mention of labour’s working conditions and status that William Morris had cared about, indicating a slight break between craft and social issues.
Through the series of modernism, postmodernism, and many other different ideological trends and influences, the trend now is to link craft to the commodities of the ‘creative industries’; moreover, the innovation of craft became more linked to the relationship with fashion and a well-designed product rather than social issues. Possibly this indicates that the only way for a resurgence of craft is to be wholly commodified (Bratich & Brush, 2011). To contextualse craftivism as a widespread culture phenomenon, it is necessary to turn our attention to the more radicalised sectors of the craft field. Aside from economically oriented craft products, another intensive approach has been trying to prove the relevance of craft, in terms of the connections of humans, labour and society that commodification cannot provide.
To fill this chasm, some scholars have made efforts to contextualise the situation of craft in the complex ideological tends of the past decades. Maria Elena Buszek’s (2011) writing compensates for a lack of thoughtful and theoretical writing on the subject of craft and contemporary art in an anthology that incorporates hypothetical expositions, contextual analyses, individual reflections, and transcripts of meetings, arranged into four topical segments. The primary section abridged the chronicle of the foundation of the speciality and identified pioneer’s points of view and postmodernist theory (Simpson, 2012). The enumerating of examples show how people deal with the constantly changing context from the traditional studio craft community to a different understanding of modernism and conceptual craft which indirectly triggered thinking from a more personal aspect back to a broader social one.
The most interesting section is the third part in the anthology, documenting contributors in the more radicalised sectors of ‘Craftivist history’. Betsy Greer’s exuberant and sincere clarification of the organ of craft pursues activism and its connections to challenge the Iraq War with her stitchery works. Other practitioners such as Kirsty Robertson who knits in public spaces to protest on specific issues are also mentioned. Moreover, in the anthology, there is also references to explain the connection between traditional female craftwork and the 1970s women’s movement as Robertson indicates that some writers—such as Rozsika Parker—and activities in the second wave of feminism were against the division of craft and ‘high’ art (Simpson, 2012). The illustration of other contributors, galleries and museums provides evidence of the fact that there are political engaged curatorial approaches, such as exhibitions of Anthea Black and Nicole Burisch’s works, which give people a broader understanding of craftwork in the contemporary world before the term ‘Craftivism’ become more popular in public. From Simpson’s (2012) review, it is apparent that embodiments of Craftivism already existed before Betsy Greer’s integration of the idea. Indeed, not only those previous investigations but also Betsy Greer herself claimed that she is not the first person—but one of her friends in her knitting community—to put two words ‘craft’ and ‘activism’ together as part of a new vocabulary and thinking (craftivism.com, 2014). In one of Greer’s publications, she mentions the original meaning of Craftivism for her and expresses her attitude toward other people who want to use this new word.
The stimulation of Greer’s thinking about a kind of quiet activism and how craft could be a part of protest was the silent but mighty political puppets paraded down a street in New York City (Greer, 2014). Craftivism was not officially discussed until she published the concept in a research proposal in 2002. To her, with the term ‘Craftivism’, artists seem able to create or craft something that was motivated by social and political perspectives. The reason is that the fundamental part of Craftivism is to create some things that trigger people to ask questions and be aware of something. Reading through Greer’s publications, interviews, website and other texts about her narration and explanation of Craftivism, some keywords and points that she uses frequently are apparent. A mini investigation for this essay traced Greer’s different attempts to give the proper definition and the value of this unique word.
Using a term frequency-inverse document frequency, we can say that some forms of vocabulary and terminology appear in Greer’s narration about Craftivism more frequently than others. The highest frequency word category is such as ‘political,’ ‘social,’ ‘justice,’ ‘cultural’ and ‘historical’. The second high-frequency category is comparative words and terms; for instance, ‘better place,’ ‘stronger’ and ‘more infinite’. Greer also uses ‘creativity’ and ‘creative production’ many times to indicate attributes of the craft work used in Craftivism. She also emphasises those words like ‘personal’ and ‘your’. According to the frequency, particular political causes in life and creative craft works are the most important elements in Craftivism and related practices. Moreover, Betsy Greer uses fifty-eight words in 2006, forty-five words in 2007 and twenty-six words in 2009. The shorter sentence she uses to identify Craftivism, are more specific indicating that she knows how and what to explain.
Aside from the original idea and definition, in Craftivism (Greer, 2014), there are many chapters about Greer’s interview with other Craftivists and their practices which are helpful to understand the spread of this kind of activism in many different areas with divergent methods. Greer tries to contextualise craftivism from a personal aspect to a more political degree involving a more comprehensive community involvement. In fact, she tends to distinguish these differences in her definition of Craftivism over the years. Similarly, some studies also categorise Craftivists’ practices by the different degrees of personal to public concern. Indeed, it would be hard to tell the methodology and content of Craftivism’s embodiments from a single aspect. As knitting and other forms of craft could offer unlimited and subversive possibilities, the modus of radicalised craft is regarded as the providing the logic of an influential political tool (Bratich & Brush, 2011).
What supports these activities is a critique of diverse causes and ideologies such as the postindustrial world, modernism and global capitalism to approach the initial central idea towards everyday life, job and the surroundings (Pohl, 2011). From pure craft work to Craftivists’ work, there are a lot of layers of political engagement. Different from the placid individual craftsmen who work for their personal hobby or daily use, the activities of Craftivism are more like a social movement which takes forms of direct actions (Bratich & Brush, 2011). For Sarah Corbett who established the Craft Collective, organization—which will inevitably be discussed while talking about craftivism in the UK—consists of people from different living conditions, social and cultural backgrounds around the globe. Although having a separate appeal, the common thread is that they all fight for human rights injustices, environmentalism and feminism and motivate the public to be a part in activism with a tender and positive way instead of bullying (Corbett & Housley, 2011).
Before investigating a broader layer of political engagement, it is essential to look at the practices of Craftivism in their personal aspect that is usually a smaller but important element. Kristen (2011) points out that most of those embodiments are created independently and solitarily. As the developing technology and industrialisation makes people’s life more convenient in many ways, the global community has been helpful to crafters to get together as a group and work on political issues; however, the mass- produced product has a tremendous negative and overwhelming influence toward the individuals. Betsy Greer argues that some Craftivists fought to bring the attention back to the personal and daily aspect, and emphasise the political value of every single person in the world (craftivism.com, 2014). On the popular online craft community, Etsy.com, there is an amount of craftsmen who intend to show their work with specific political or environmental concern in their names. From this perspective, the promoted idea that personal creativity could improve the world reveals Craftivism is the activism that allows people to voice their own opinions toward their causes, and actively supports people instead of banners.
Moving from personal to a more public scale of Craftivism, some craftivists’ protests challenge capitalism, cultural violence, war and environmental issue through having their events in public space. Jane Jacobs is a well-known pioneer who utilises open spaces in cities to bring out the concern of characteristics of general area which is different from buildings with the specific use of business and economy. Her projects invited individuals and groups to knit on certain grounded objects in parks. The action was to remind people that unlike permanent constructions, public spaces are changeable and flexible (Bratich & Brush, 2011). Another example is the thread in nontraditional spaces, or ‘yarn bombing’. The project began in Texas by Magda Sayeg and opened a new dialogue among pedestrians, art in public space and city appearance. A similar project appeared in London later on. Craftivists knitted and let the fabric cover trees, statues and post boxes to change the face of their city. Instead of a bully-type political protest, Craftivists in these activities prefer a more Situationist approach to make the world change from public space with their smiles and words on craft works (Pohl, 2011). Marianne Jørgensen’s tank blanket is another remarkable piece represents the gathering power from citizens to argue a common political cause. While her country has been involved in the Iraq war with America, she began to knit a pink cover and wrap a real military tank. With the information of her progressive work shared through the Internet, many people came and worked with her to complete those pink squares which form the tank’s cover. The work is regarded as a symbol against the pointless war by softening the hard material with soft pint blanket which symbolises home and family.
Moving from personal or specific causes to a broader aspect, Craftivism works as a procedure of collective empowerment: the stereotype of seeing craft as women’s work and a hobby has been a cause that Craftivists focused on. The PussyHat Project in 2017 has emerged as a remarkable emblem of Women’s marches that grew with such momentum through the collective vision to against Donald Trump’s unsuitable language and behaviour. Besides the success of attracting people’s attention around the globe, the event did not gain universal agreement. A denigration and criticism claimed that feminists should reject knitting and other traditional women crafts which symbolise the oppression of the old society instead of liberation. However, the criticism was unable to admit different feminine art forms and to engage various methods of women’s ability to make craft as political tools of empowerment. The argument made the Project more valuable because it led people to rethink about feminism with another aspect.
Conclusion
To sum up, Craftivism is a bridge that links between art, life, others and politics. Derived from Arts & Crafts movement, Craftivism has been regarded as the radicalised craft’s resurgence, although there was a gap made by World Wars and different ideological trends. From Betsy Greer, Craftivism started to have its official definition. Craftivists they highlight the dialogues of different causes through their creative thinking and creative craft pieces to bring up people’s awareness and make the world a better place. Acording to those practices mentioned in this essay, there is apparently neither a fixed form nor a scale restriction of Craftivist’s works. The common element is there must be a personal concern or social causes in their practices such as anti-war, gender equivalence, environmental care and so on. As Betsy Greer’s advice for those who want to start as a Craftivist, Craftivism is all about exploring both craft and activism at one’s own pace and one’s concern.
Bibliography
Boler, M. & Ratto, M., 2014. DIY citizenship. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]: MIT Press, p.10.
Brattish, J. Z. & Brush, H. M., 2011. ‘Fabricating Activism: Craft-Work, Popular Culture, Gender’. Utopian Studies, 22(2) Special Issue Craftivism, pp. 233-260. Available at:<http:// http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/utopianstudies.22.2.0233> [Accessed 15 April 2018].
Buszek, Maria Elena (2011) Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art, Duke University Press Books.
Corbett, S., & Housley S., 2011. ‘The Craftiest Collective Guide to Craftivism’. Utopian Studies, 22(2) Special Issue Craftivism, pp. 344-351.
Craftivism.com, 2014. Craftivism the art of craft and activism Q&A with editor and craftiest Betsy Greer. [pdf] Craftivism.com. Available at:<http://craftivism.com/blog/wp-content/ uploads/2014/01/BetsyGreer_Q&A_CRAFTIVISM.pdf.> [Accessed 17 April 2018].
Greer, B., 2007. Craftivism. Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. London: Sage.
Greer, B., 2014. Craftivism. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press. Available at: <www.craftivism.com.blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ BetsyGreer_Q&A_CRAFTIVISM.pdf> [Accessed 17 April 2018].
Kristen, W. A., 2011.’Old Time Mem’ry’: Contemporary Urban Craftivism and the Politics of Doing-it-yourself in Postindustrial America. Utopian Studies, 22(2) Special Issue Craftivism, pp.330-320. Available at:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/utopianstudies. 22.2.0203> [Accessed 15 April 2018].
Metcalf, B., 1999. Contemporary Craft: A Brief Overview. In: Johnson, J. ed. 2002. Exploring Contemporary Craft. New York: Coach House Books.
Pohl, N., 2011. Special Issue Craftivism. Utopian Studies, [online] 22(2), pp.396-402. Available at: http://www.jastor.org/stable/10.5325/utopianstudies.22.2.0396 [Accessed 19 Feb. 2018].
Simpson, M. C., 2012. Review. Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art edited by Maria Elena Buszek. Woman’s Art Journal, 33(2), pp.48-49. Available at:<http:// http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/stable/24395291>. [Accessed 15 April 2018].