Not "lce" at all, but I couldn't resist...
On Sep 25, 2005, at 17:15, Aurelia Loveman wrote:
Well, on Friday I learned something I didn't know (happens to me all the time). Friday's Wall St. Journal (yes, those $$ types are interested in art too)
From bits and pieces people have been sending me from the Wall Street Journal, it seems to be not only the "most all around" but also the "best ballanced" US daily publication at the moment. I wish I lived in a bigger town, where I could have it easily available (on top of the NYTimes and the Wash Post) *and* could afford it too :)
By the way, some spiders have been referring to "art vs. craft." Somebody even remarked with pride about "lowly" craftsmanship. I don't think there's any "versus" about it. Arts and crafts belong to each other;
It wasn't me who made the original distinction but I strongly support it...
Historically, "arts and crafts" *combination* is younger than "art" and "craft" used individually, and - as a linguist - I can't help but wonder how much of the "watering down of the import" is due to the simple dfference between the singular and the plural form, as well as to the "bundling"... The moment you "bundle" two elements - "arts and crafts" in this instance - the import of *each* of the elements is halved. And, every time you pluralise a noun, it gets "watered down" - "Art", by itself, is usually spelled with a capital, "craft" is not; when you use them in plural, instead of lifting "craft" up, "Art" loses its status and becomes "arts". You may not be aware of it, since it always precedes "crafts" and is likely to be in the position where it has to be capitalised, but that's *so*, all the same :) It's a bit like a mesaliance marriage - you hope that the upper class partner will drag the lower one up, but it almost never happens.
IMO - and I'd be happy to start an informed debate to the contrary on the subject - the plural (arts, crafts) lowers the status of each by half. Bundling them, in plural form - "arts and crafts" - *quarters* the value of each.
Me, I'll stay with my "craft", and accept whatever value the "market" assigns to it. Since I don't get paid for any of my lace in any way, and don't even insure it when I mail it off for photo-ops, my "market" is the pleasure people get (or don't <g>) from my published designs/patterns. If someone makes up my - craft - design and choses to call it "arts" or even "Art", I may think it pretentious, but I have no objection :)
Why else do accomplished and experienced lacemakers take workshops and buy books and devote themselves to minutiae of study?
Speaking for myself? To be able to *give*, to other - perhaps less accomplished and experienced - lacemakers an opportunity of personal achievement. Possibly even *creative achievement*, if they "meddle" with the design I've given them - I've had some very exciting reports of changes people had done to some of my desgns, resulting in more interesting lace than I had conceived of originally.
If I can supply them with more ideas, or ideas more clearly presented (allowing more people to follow them without trouble), I'll continue to attend workshops and buy books for as long as I can afford it, and for as long as my two remaining brain cells continue to function. Surely, there's no mystery in that motivation?
I don't give a flying duck about "appreciation" or "thanks". I care even less about having what I do called "art" or "Art". I do what I do for an entirely selfish reason - I hope to give pleasure to others, to *serve*. Not to be overly pompous, but it seems to me that we (in US) *need* people like that at the grassroot level, given that the top is... well... "over the top"? in its self-congratulatory, but vicious nevertheless, circle?
Yours, off the soap box, Pamela (or virtue rewarded, as illustrated by Richardson)
-- Tamara P Duvall http://t-n-lace.net/ Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
