"I said, early in this essay, that hand-work might always be known from machine-work; observing, however, at the same time, that it was possible for men to turn themselves into machines, and to reduce their labor to the machine level; but so long as men work as men, putting their heart into what they do, and doing their best, it matters not how bad workmen they may be, there will be that in the handling which is above all price: it will be plainly seen that some places have been delighted in more than others—that there has been a pause, and a care about them; and then there will come careless bits, and fast bits; and here the chisel will have struck hard, and there lightly, and anon timidly; and if the man's mind as well as his heart went with his work, all this will be in the right places, and each part will set off the other; and the effect of the whole, as compared with the same design cut by a machine or a lifeless hand, will be like that of poetry well read and deeply felt to that of the same verses jangled by rote. There are many to whom the difference is imperceptible; but to those who love poetry it is everything—they had rather not hear it at all, than hear it ill read; and to those who love Architecture, the life and accent of the hand are everything. They had rather not have ornament at all, than see it ill cut—deadly cut, that is."
Graeme, thank you. Yes, Ruskin. As you know, there has long been an opposition to the machine, modernity, and the like. The industrial revolution immediately spawned its critics. Often such criticism is expressed as craft vs. mass production, as here by Ruskin. The Victorian I mentioned was in East Aurora, home of the Roycroft campus, Elbert Hubbard, who founded Roycroft, was influenced by Ruskin. Roycroft was also very tied to the Arts & Crafts movement in England, and influenced Frank Lloyd Wright . . . And, in our discontent with technology, social media swamp, LLMs, usw. usw., we of course worry very much about the relationships between our humanity and our technology.
But something else is also going on here. The opposition that struck me is not the familiar one between human and machine, a tension with which I'm frankly obsessed. At the NQM, the key opposition is between craft, which is to be fled, and "art," which does not reject the machine. Indeed, these quilts are made on computerized machines; they are not pure hand works. They are not "rough," the quality that Ruskin associates with craft and the human.
This opposition hinges on utility, between craft (as a thing to be used, you know, a blanket) and art (as object to be admired on the wall, contemplated, thought over). I'm all for art, but sometimes you need a blanket, too.
What I'm trying to suggest is that the social prestige of "art" (and I'm guilty) might have had the perverse consequence of immiserating our daily lives.
Again, thanks for the kind words and the excellent quote.
Thank you David and yes, having re-read, more carefully this time, I see your point! Also had a look at Wessie du Toit's writing via the link you provided - very interesting, so thank you for that as well.
The George Washington University in Washington, DC houses the National Textile Museum. For years, I have known of this museum, one of countless others in Washington, but affirmatively had little or no interest in entering it. Then, a few months ago, my college alumni chapter arranged a tour of the museum (the director of which is an alumnus of my college). To my surprise, the displayed textiles were works of art as well as craft. They were beautiful and quite interesting too. I realized that my bias toward “beauty” and “artistry” and actually against seemingly “mundane” textiles had ignorantly deprived me of experiencing (and admiring/appreciating) the creativity expressed in the design and craftsmanship of products (mostly useful) made of thread. [This experience was a recent bonus of the liberal arts education I had the privilege and opportunity to be exposed to decades ago.]
The quilts made by members of my family are interesting as well as beautiful and functional. They also are part of interesting stories. A museum of storytelling, as well as interesting and beautiful, quilts would be a great place to visit.
I know the National Textile Museum. It's fantastic. A thousand years ago, Cleary Gottlieb (where my wife practiced) gave one of those very nice events for summer associates, and I played trailing spouse.
Good to read, as ever, David. The reference to denigration of craft made me think of Ruskin. For example -
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35898/35898-h/35898-h.htm
"I said, early in this essay, that hand-work might always be known from machine-work; observing, however, at the same time, that it was possible for men to turn themselves into machines, and to reduce their labor to the machine level; but so long as men work as men, putting their heart into what they do, and doing their best, it matters not how bad workmen they may be, there will be that in the handling which is above all price: it will be plainly seen that some places have been delighted in more than others—that there has been a pause, and a care about them; and then there will come careless bits, and fast bits; and here the chisel will have struck hard, and there lightly, and anon timidly; and if the man's mind as well as his heart went with his work, all this will be in the right places, and each part will set off the other; and the effect of the whole, as compared with the same design cut by a machine or a lifeless hand, will be like that of poetry well read and deeply felt to that of the same verses jangled by rote. There are many to whom the difference is imperceptible; but to those who love poetry it is everything—they had rather not hear it at all, than hear it ill read; and to those who love Architecture, the life and accent of the hand are everything. They had rather not have ornament at all, than see it ill cut—deadly cut, that is."
Graeme, thank you. Yes, Ruskin. As you know, there has long been an opposition to the machine, modernity, and the like. The industrial revolution immediately spawned its critics. Often such criticism is expressed as craft vs. mass production, as here by Ruskin. The Victorian I mentioned was in East Aurora, home of the Roycroft campus, Elbert Hubbard, who founded Roycroft, was influenced by Ruskin. Roycroft was also very tied to the Arts & Crafts movement in England, and influenced Frank Lloyd Wright . . . And, in our discontent with technology, social media swamp, LLMs, usw. usw., we of course worry very much about the relationships between our humanity and our technology.
But something else is also going on here. The opposition that struck me is not the familiar one between human and machine, a tension with which I'm frankly obsessed. At the NQM, the key opposition is between craft, which is to be fled, and "art," which does not reject the machine. Indeed, these quilts are made on computerized machines; they are not pure hand works. They are not "rough," the quality that Ruskin associates with craft and the human.
This opposition hinges on utility, between craft (as a thing to be used, you know, a blanket) and art (as object to be admired on the wall, contemplated, thought over). I'm all for art, but sometimes you need a blanket, too.
What I'm trying to suggest is that the social prestige of "art" (and I'm guilty) might have had the perverse consequence of immiserating our daily lives.
Again, thanks for the kind words and the excellent quote.
Thank you David and yes, having re-read, more carefully this time, I see your point! Also had a look at Wessie du Toit's writing via the link you provided - very interesting, so thank you for that as well.
The George Washington University in Washington, DC houses the National Textile Museum. For years, I have known of this museum, one of countless others in Washington, but affirmatively had little or no interest in entering it. Then, a few months ago, my college alumni chapter arranged a tour of the museum (the director of which is an alumnus of my college). To my surprise, the displayed textiles were works of art as well as craft. They were beautiful and quite interesting too. I realized that my bias toward “beauty” and “artistry” and actually against seemingly “mundane” textiles had ignorantly deprived me of experiencing (and admiring/appreciating) the creativity expressed in the design and craftsmanship of products (mostly useful) made of thread. [This experience was a recent bonus of the liberal arts education I had the privilege and opportunity to be exposed to decades ago.]
The quilts made by members of my family are interesting as well as beautiful and functional. They also are part of interesting stories. A museum of storytelling, as well as interesting and beautiful, quilts would be a great place to visit.
I know the National Textile Museum. It's fantastic. A thousand years ago, Cleary Gottlieb (where my wife practiced) gave one of those very nice events for summer associates, and I played trailing spouse.