I can't recall where that wonderful phrase came from but it sums up British craft furniture. Having been a sucker for this you may say, who am I to talk? but having abandoned lecturing many years ago for having become disillusioned with the way students were being taught, also for being asked to do it when I was too young, I find it may be time to bring what I now know to the colleges. Other students who studied with me went on to teach in universities who knew less than me and it never stopped them, yet I couldn't continue having lost all faith in the model I was employed to promote. The way the world of furniture was presented to me as a student was hugely flawed. We find ourselves in a serious crisis. More than we may know. Capitalism, our faith in the cult of the individual, even a spiritual turning point where we must readdress what we thought we knew.
We were taught that emphasis should be on innovation, self expression and the individual. We aspired to exhibit our work. To get a name for ourselves. Students who had not yet grasped the basics of proportioning and structure were encouraged to go on flights of fancy. Many graduated who could barely make or design but had strayed from the generic furniture forms in to ugly, ill considered monsters yet because these were new they were applauded. When we think of the scandinavian approach we think of simple and beautifully designed furniture. We may not think of any individual names but we know the standard is good. British craft furniture is the opposite. A handfull make it as stars and a lot are disappointed, usually making increasingly load pieces, desperately hoping for some attention. The overall standard is not so good. I argue that our belief in the cult of the individual has followed the wider culture where a few celebrities rule but the standard is one of poverty..
We need to get away from ingrained ideas that hinder our progress as a society. Work should not be considered a competitive activity. It should be seen as a communal activity. In our search for individualism our custodianship of the craft of furniture is suffering. In the current banking crisis we have seen our cultural instinct is to ask for Bob Diamonds head on a plate. As if one individual is responsible. The idea of a rogue journalist and our jump to believe in this nearly stopped what has been a revolution in the media world. We need to accept that a hideous, individualist culture has corrupted banking yet it is the whole culture that needs addressing not the sacking of one man. The same celebrity, face orientated model has undermined craft furniture. Craft as a concept depends on the family of knowledge. We stand on the shoulders of giants and this is our strength.
Much of this problem stems from the shifting classes from which our makers come. At one time the craftsman was a manual, working class individual, apprentice trained. Now that woodcraft is no longer such a viable means of manufacture no one in working class areas can make a living doing it. Unless they can make contact with middle class, moneyed people. As he will not meet them socially his options are none community based. He must exhibit, advertise. Once a practice has no economic niche it becomes of interest to those who are not constrained by economics. The designer maker colleges attract a middle class student who sees himself as at a tangent if not at odds to societies trends. Often you find people training to change away from previous careers, often escaping from the ratrace. These middle class types do not want the family feel of anonymous working class trade but an opportunity to feel special. Many will not take on work that they have not designed themselves feeling that their ego will be lost in the process. Sadly, the shared values and common proportioning that enbody a cultures beauty become lost in the proccess as individuals seek to shout the loudest.
This shift has been from a communal artisanal community to a competitive, individualistic movement. The effects of this process on society are many. As we moved from a class based society toward a more meritocratic one there was a dark side. Meritocracy sees the best minds of poorer communities plucked away leaving sink estates. Once the heavy industry came to an end until the present day the best politicians have offered is the chance to escape. With the best will in the world not everyone can escape. The process doesn't benefit poorer areas, it has the opposite effect.
There is, of course a less inovative, straight furniture craft world of reproduction but this is often nostalgic. A deep reverance for antiques, the belief that the past was a better time is a dangerous one. Furniture has carried on its' evolution and at the top is better now than it has ever been.
After the war heavy industry provided a place for working class pride. The miners and ship builders were heald in high regard as we were dependent on them for power and maintaining empire. They were pillars of security to society. Now, huge parts of the country are struggling to find self respect and identity. In Scandinavian countries, in Germany we see something different. Complex engineering sees apprentice trained workers with self respect and purpose. Rather than a communal family of knowledge we have colleges trying to produce designer makers from scratch in three years. This is not possible and disrespects tradesmen who have spent years developing their skills. You can teach someone a single way of doing something quickly but to learn to achieve the same results from different means takes years. There is no quick way. A surgeon may be trained to undertake an operation in perfect conditions in a year but the countless variables in experience that can only be gained by operation after operation can not be fast tracked. Under the apprentice system that still exists in Germany a craftsman becomes steeped in a culture giving him a sense of security in their ability to undertake any task. In our celebrity obsessed, fast track, individualistic system we produce makers who can only do their own thing. They lack the knowledge to do anything else. This is fine for the few who make it, you know the names but it is bad for our culture as a whole and a poor thing to pass on. The security and sense of purpose that bids communities together has been thrown aside for the egos of a few. Furniture craft has been passed on to us and we shall pass it on. We are not more special than those before or after us. We are custodians.
The language used says a lot, races, competitions, ladders, hierarchies. All of destination, none of journey. Awards, competitions, guildmarks, none raises the standard, only the quality of the elite. At its best our furniture is great. At the middle very weak. One reason I gave up art to do joinery was that there were unquestionable values. With art I never felt sure if an unmade bed was just an unmade bed. We have drifted to subjective values. Who can say that our cutting edge work is understood and liked by the public. Are we to do as the artworld does and tell the public they are heathens, uneducated? I have a chair by one of our best designer makers but these days I feel lees inclined to jump to its defence when visitors point out its faults. The name we have chosen for ourselves is not the name of a look or how the work may be seen from the outside but a description of what we do .Designer maker; it is looking out from inside not looking in. Our prime show, Cheltenham, whilst a fine display of woodwork is not for the public. Rather than an attempt to meet the public half way, to suggest what they might understand it has more in common with the car meets. Car meets where people who like pimpimg up their rides display their creations to each other in peacock like displays. Furniture makers produce these pieces to compete with each other. Most would accept that details go over the heads of none makers. How could they understand finer points of making skill. Design becomes a means to bend function in displays to other makers. We have lost sight of the public. In our need to be among the best in our field we have entered in to a competitive game beyond the understanding of anyone wanting furniture.
I fell in to this trap where my validation, even my self worth came from the aprouval of others. Being in the right shows, being in magazines became something other than advertising but an end in itself. I was asked to lecture off the back of this, asigned the task of encouraging others down the same path. After a while I could not feed students this myth. The odd one might make it but most wouldn't. Even those who do are never happy. The most successful makers I know are always looking up at the shows they didn't get in, prizes they didn't win. Unless you become the most successful artist in the world that route leads to a miserable life. It was the fantastic within the mundane that got me interested in joinery. The everyday snippets of wonder.
I heard that a lecture is taking place soon by a designer maker, a well known name who has made virtually nothing over the last few years. He is fortunate by chance of birth to not need to. And as far as I know he will bwe talking about the same stuff he did when he came to my college when I was a student. My advice to him is to go back to the workshop, make some things and if you are going to encourage students don't train them to think its like the x factor. You are not special, you are just another maker.
No comments:
Post a Comment