The document discusses the importance of history and tradition in craft. It argues that William Morris saw an understanding of art history as crucial for craftspeople, as there is much to be learned from past works. Morris believed the bond between history and craft was strong and inseparable. The document then discusses how some have viewed this retrospective aspect of craft negatively, as reactionary or against progress. However, it suggests this view has been perpetuated by misreadings between audiences and craft objects. With more people producing crafts through DIY culture and sharing skills online, it believes temporal closeness with history can be maintained.

1. Chapter 5 Temporal Proximity
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Historical awareness and a sense of tradition are central ideals of the Arts and Craft
movement and as such shape our understanding of craft to this day. Morris saw an
understanding of art history to be crucial in practicing art because there is so much to be
learnt from the past work of others ­ ‘Your teachers, they must be nature and history’ (Morris,
1878, p 27). Morris paints an enthralling image of the closeness to history that studying it can
create, using the mere breadth of a window pane to separate examiner and examinee ­ ‘those
who have diligently followed the delightful study of the arts are able as if through windows
to look upon the life of the past’ (Morris, 1878, p12). This closeness between the disciplines
of craft and their history was not only portrayed as positive but also immovable and
unquestionable, as is shown when Morris (1878, p11) declares ‘so strong is the bond between
history and decoration, that in the practice of the latter we cannot, if we would, wholly shake
off the influence of past times over what we do at present.’ Here we can take the term
‘decoration’ for crafted objects, it is clear to see that Morris saw crafts alway in the context of
what has gone before. Christopher Frayling (2011, p96) reinforces this, saying that craft is
‘standing on the shoulders of what’s been done before ­ starting with where what’s been done
before left off.’ The History of craft can therefore be compared to the practice of an
individual craftsperson; as a chalk artist learns collectively from each chalkboard she creates,
so do all present chalk artists learn from past ones and the history of art and design in general,
each generation collecting new knowledge, ‘for should not these memories be part of your
daily life?’ (Morris, 1878, p13). This is specifically applicable to the lettering aspect of
chalkboarding. There is a need to understand the different historical origins of certain
lettering styles to understand and manipulate the connotations of the designs you create. Not
only is this done theoretically, in researching the history of calligraphy and the like, but also
practically, learning calligraphy so you can form the glyphs in chalk properly and truthfully.
For example, Fig. 8 (Luke’s 2:9 Scripture, 2015) is a piece from the Lily and Val website,
done by Valerie McKeehan. It makes use of the line weight particular t copperplate
calligraphy. This is where a flexible nib is used that widens when pressed and so creates a
letterform with increased width on the downward strokes. The usual angle of such a pen
would mean that the forms would be naturally italicised but McKeehan has left out the italics
and flowed a flexible axis. This combines the associations of the regency era and classic
romance with a playful note, almost cheeky in its flouting of the grid​.
Although Morris (1878, p4) did not view this as a negative thing ‘I neither when I think of
what history has been, am inclined to lament the past, to despise the present, or despair of the
future’. Indeed ‘William Morris was a man who projected a vision of great fundamental
optimism’ (Gauntlett, 2011, p38). However, many do view this retrospective aspect of craft
as a negative, depicting craft as ‘standing against the ideas of progress and civilisation’
(Greenhalgh, 1997, p104). Greenhalgh examines the defining of craft as reactionary in his
essay ​The Progress of Captain Ludd, ​citing that ‘in an age of mass communication and

2. technology driven positivism, as a reactionary force’. He goes on to say that to define craft by
what it is not, is destructive. Frayling (2011, p61) sums up the resulting perception in one dry
statement ‘craft is trustworthy, microchips are not.’ This means that because they are seen as
a reaction to technological development, they are sometimes purely seen as comforting and
familiar, as opposed to new and exciting. This ‘depressing scenario’ (Greenhalgh, 2011,
p104) permeates the consumer world where ‘advertisers can rely on the word craft to relieve
for a moment the complex anxieties which these social and economic processes have
developed.’ (Frayling, 2011, p62). Imogen Racz (2009, p23) agrees, showing how this
negative identifier has been perpetuated by ‘Hovis advertisements, which, suggested the
trustworthy artisan working in an organic community.’ As such, just as Jameson shows that
we get separated from the nuances of a deep historical understanding, we get separated from
the nuances of meaning to be found in craft. Even Morris (1878, p11) identifies it in his own
practice, claiming that ‘forms that once had a serious meaning, though they are now become
little more than a habit of the hand’.
However, if examined, there is a trend to these negative ideas about craft: they always come
to the surface during the interaction between audience and object, as do the miss readings of
the object. These misreadings then pass to the designers as they tailor to the audience and the
cycle is perpetuated, ‘how can I ask working men passing down the street to care about
beauty?’ (Morris, 1878, p28). Morris’s question illustrates this cycle perfectly, if your
audience cannot read the historical references in design, then you work to what they do
understand, which may well not be accurate. Thus historical alienation and Jameson's
conclusions on pastiche are found. I believe the solution can be found in craft practice and in
a point I touched on in chapter 3. As technology advances and the producer/consumer nature
of online resources continue the DIY culture that David Gauntlett celebrates in ​Making is
Connecting ​will allow more people to produce and craft in their own small ways. As also
mentioned earlier (in this chapter) this making, allows a deep understanding of process and
origins, and so we, through uniting ‘craft’ (Frayling, 2011, p61) and the ‘microchip’ can have
a better, more historically aware audience. Social media will facilitate skill and knowledge
sharing and an educated audience of producer/consumers, is also and educated collection of
producers and craftspeople, perpetuating the temporal closeness.
Chapter 1011 Total 9689