I assume you are wearing clothes as you read this article. Take a moment to inspect the weave pattern, the stitching that closes the hem of your shirt. Textiles are so intricate, but because they are so common, we forget their beauty. New York Times journalist Julia Halperin wrote, “fabric is inextricably linked to the body… We wear it, we sleep under it, we are wrapped up in it when we are born and we are buried in it when we die.” Few other objects are so intimate with us. Textiles have been a core part of the human experience since the dawn of our creation. So why is fiber art not respected and cherished?
Fiber art, like any art form, is defined by the materials it uses: textiles, fabrics and fibers. It includes knitting, quilting, felting, crocheting, embroidery– which includes needlepoint and cross-stitch (yes, there is a difference)– and weaving. Fine art is defined as art without a function outside of aesthetics and includes painting, drawing and sculpting. Because of this, fiber arts traditionally have been excluded. The separation of fine art and decorative arts– art objects that are both functional and beautiful– began in 17th century Europe and became popular throughout the 19th century. This belief that some art was respectable because it only existed to be observed, not interacted with, was cemented in the Western art market by the early 1900s. Assigning higher or lower status to different art forms spans many cultures, but the European context is most applicable to Wilmore’s context.
Fine and decorative art are still unbending categories the modern art world uses to determine where art belongs. Fine art has the opportunity to be featured in museums. Decorative art is sold as a product and is not given the cultural respect that artwork garners. Princeton University Professor Joe Scanlan said, “The vastly expanded political and economic role of art museums and art fairs makes great claims on our understanding of exactly where art originates and how its cultural value is determined. This expanded role—and the assumed usurpation and dominance that is inherent to it—is what I call Classism.”
The value discrepancy this distinction creates is inherently classist. Because the distinction is based on the practicality of art, fine or high art is totally inaccessible to lower-class people. Poorer classes do not have the option to spend time and money to craft an object that has no function. For example, a grandmother who makes a beautiful quilt and a grandmother who makes a beautiful painting are not given the same title of artist. Both women expended effort and expressed their artistry. Lower-class people cannot express their artistic creativity unless it serves a purpose beyond décor, such as quilts.
Since we were made by a creative God, humans are inherently creative. He gave us that trait of his. Humans are skilled at imbuing mundane objects with beauty, like people putting stickers on laptops and water bottles, necessary items for college students. How much money someone has should not exclude them from being viewed as a legitimate artist. Being functional does not make a piece of art inherently less creative, beautiful or meaningful. Yes, being used alters an item, but why should that detract from its beauty?
There’s a Japanese aesthetic concept I’m fond of called wabi-sabi. It’s seeing and valuing the beauty of imperfection. A dress needing mending or a crack forming on a teacup adds to the beauty of the piece. If we adapted this position towards decorative art, it would become more valuable, meaningful and beautiful as time went on.
Circling back to fiber arts, the social and economic ways it is devalued affect independent knitters and crocheters trying to sell their work. They often get criticized for pricing their items too high. Both the time investment and the craftsmanship are underestimated or disrespected. Using a sweater as an example, from start to finish, it takes tens to hundreds of hours, depending on size, how complicated the design is and how experienced the maker is. If they are selling an original design, that adds even more time. In order to design a sweater that fits well, many partial drafts need to be made. Once the time is totalled up, the “high” cost makes sense. Even without that, fiber arts are worth the cost as they are wearable pieces of art.
Respect fiber arts or I’ll look at you funny
I assume you are wearing clothes as you read this article. Take a moment to inspect the weave pattern, the stitching that closes the hem of your shirt. Textiles are so intricate, but because they are so common, we forget their beauty. New York Times journalist Julia Halperin wrote, “fabric is inextricably linked to the body… We wear it, we sleep under it, we are wrapped up in it when we are born and we are buried in it when we die.” Few other objects are so intimate with us. Textiles have been a core part of the human experience since the dawn of our creation. So why is fiber art not respected and cherished?
Fiber art, like any art form, is defined by the materials it uses: textiles, fabrics and fibers. It includes knitting, quilting, felting, crocheting, embroidery– which includes needlepoint and cross-stitch (yes, there is a difference)– and weaving. Fine art is defined as art without a function outside of aesthetics and includes painting, drawing and sculpting. Because of this, fiber arts traditionally have been excluded. The separation of fine art and decorative arts– art objects that are both functional and beautiful– began in 17th century Europe and became popular throughout the 19th century. This belief that some art was respectable because it only existed to be observed, not interacted with, was cemented in the Western art market by the early 1900s. Assigning higher or lower status to different art forms spans many cultures, but the European context is most applicable to Wilmore’s context.
Fine and decorative art are still unbending categories the modern art world uses to determine where art belongs. Fine art has the opportunity to be featured in museums. Decorative art is sold as a product and is not given the cultural respect that artwork garners. Princeton University Professor Joe Scanlan said, “The vastly expanded political and economic role of art museums and art fairs makes great claims on our understanding of exactly where art originates and how its cultural value is determined. This expanded role—and the assumed usurpation and dominance that is inherent to it—is what I call Classism.”
The value discrepancy this distinction creates is inherently classist. Because the distinction is based on the practicality of art, fine or high art is totally inaccessible to lower-class people. Poorer classes do not have the option to spend time and money to craft an object that has no function. For example, a grandmother who makes a beautiful quilt and a grandmother who makes a beautiful painting are not given the same title of artist. Both women expended effort and expressed their artistry. Lower-class people cannot express their artistic creativity unless it serves a purpose beyond décor, such as quilts.
Since we were made by a creative God, humans are inherently creative. He gave us that trait of his. Humans are skilled at imbuing mundane objects with beauty, like people putting stickers on laptops and water bottles, necessary items for college students. How much money someone has should not exclude them from being viewed as a legitimate artist. Being functional does not make a piece of art inherently less creative, beautiful or meaningful. Yes, being used alters an item, but why should that detract from its beauty?
There’s a Japanese aesthetic concept I’m fond of called wabi-sabi. It’s seeing and valuing the beauty of imperfection. A dress needing mending or a crack forming on a teacup adds to the beauty of the piece. If we adapted this position towards decorative art, it would become more valuable, meaningful and beautiful as time went on.
Circling back to fiber arts, the social and economic ways it is devalued affect independent knitters and crocheters trying to sell their work. They often get criticized for pricing their items too high. Both the time investment and the craftsmanship are underestimated or disrespected. Using a sweater as an example, from start to finish, it takes tens to hundreds of hours, depending on size, how complicated the design is and how experienced the maker is. If they are selling an original design, that adds even more time. In order to design a sweater that fits well, many partial drafts need to be made. Once the time is totalled up, the “high” cost makes sense. Even without that, fiber arts are worth the cost as they are wearable pieces of art.