I D E A S
S o m e A s s e m b ly R e q u ir e d
F i n e a r t i s t s a r e i n c r e a s i n g l y t u r n i n g
t o s k i l l e d c r a f t s p e o p l e
t o h e l p t h e m r e a l i z e t h e i r w o r k s .
M
i c h a e l P e t r y t a l k s t o u s
a b o u t
T h e A r t o f N o t M a k i n g .
i n t e r v i e w
b y
J u U e K .
H a u u s
W H A T C O U L D I
- A N E D I T O R A T
a craft m agazine - have to talk
about w ith the author o f a b o o k
titled
T h e A r t o f N o t M a k in g ?
P len ty, as it turns out. T h o u g h
M ich ael P e try approached
his latest b o o k project, quite
naturally, from his background
as an artist, curator, and the
d irector o f the M u seu m o f
C o n tem p o ra ry A r t , L o n d o n ,
he has assem bled a volum e that
addresses issues at the cru x
o f the conversation b etw een
art and craft.
In the b o o k ’s lushly illus-
trated 200-plus pages, P e try
has ch ron icled a rising m o v e -
m ent o f artists w h o have real-
ized , as he puts it, “ I don’t have
to k n o w h o w to pour bron ze
to m ake a w o rk in b ro n ze ” -
and the craftsp eop le, artisans,
and fo u n d ry w o rk ers w h o help
them do it. B rillian ce? B las-
p h em y? T h e r e ’s a w h o le lot
m ore to the conversation.
A n d it’s one that P e try - w h o
exudes energy and good hum or,
even o ver the phone from his
studio in L o n d o n - is m ore
than w illin g to spark.
T h e A r t o f N o t M a k in g
starts
from the observation th at, in
recen t y ea rs, th e fine art w o rld
has returned to a “ highly craft-
ed aesthetic” — and, in m any
cases, is relyin g on craft artists
and/or artisans to realize it.
W h a t ’s d rivin g this shift?
L o ts o f things. O n e is that
[fine] artists are interested
in objects again. A t the sam e
tim e, they feel they have - and
I w o u ld say th ey do have - the
freedom not to have [special-
ized] skills, but to w o rk in a
d irectorial w ay, to garn er and
gather those skills to produce
objects. So the im agination o f
artists is exp an d in g, or at least
g ro w in g , in a n e w w a y - w ith
n e w m aterials, n e w m ethods
o f presentation.
T h e m useological space,
for b etter or w o rse, is also v e ry
interested in spectacle, w h ich
requires bigger kinds o f w o rk s,
w h ich are alm ost never m ade
b y one person. So y o u ’re get-
ting w o rk s lik e the C harles
R a y
F ir e tr u c k .
It’s a m assive
piece - it’s the size o f an actual
fire tru ck - w h ich in the past
w o u ld not have really found a
place w ith in a traditional
m useum . It w as actu ally
parked outside the W h itn e y
for the 1993 biennial; it w as
too big to go inside.
S o classic craft m edium s, such
as glass, are appearing in a fine
art context — but the authors o f
the w o r k s didn’t p h ysically
m ake them . D o es that blur tra-
ditional boundaries betw een art
and craft — or heighten a m aker
versu s not-m aker divide?
I hope it’s d issolvin g bo u n d ar-
ies, because th e y ’re artificial
in the first place. A lot o f the
w o rk that I m ake, I m ake in the
general sense: I produce it in
m y studio. I d on ’t produce the
glass because it’s a highly
specific kind o f object-m aking.
A n d I th in k th at’s fairly true
for a lot o f artists.
K ik i Sm ith m akes her
draw ings, her paintings - but
she d oesn ’t m ake the glass,
because she d oesn ’t b lo w glass.
W e ’re also seeing people like
D ale C h ih u ly, w h o m akes
w o rk from that poin t o f v ie w
o f craft. H e d oesn ’t m ake an y-
m ore because h e’s been blinded
in one eye, but even before
that, he w as design in g things
and had huge team s o f people
m akin g them . So that line is
bein g blurred from both sides
o f the traditional boun dary,
w h ich I th in k is a goo d thing.
A t the end o f the day, the
question should be: Is it a good
piece o f w o rk ?
Is the question ever “ W h o s e
w o r k is it” ?
I did a lot o f in te rv ie w in g w ith
artists, but also w ith people
w h o w o u ld be considered arti-
sans, about this m akin g p ro -
cess. A ll the m akers felt that
the w o rk th ey w e re asked to
m ake for som eone else w as not
their w o rk . G en era lly the o th -
er artist w as asking them to do
things com pletely not in their
realm o f co n cep tu alization
around “ I [personally] w ou ld
like to m ake th at.”
A t the end o f e v ery m ovie,
you have a huge list o f credits
o f all the people w h o did all
the d ifferen t things. B ut it’s
still a M artin Scorsese film ,
or an y other d irecto r’s film ,
because w e understand w h at
that m eans - it’s their vision.
A w o rk b lo w n for K ik i Sm ith
is still a K ik i Sm ith piece.
T h a t’s a great m etaphor — but
does the average m useum or
g allery visito r understand
th at’s w h a t’s goin g on?
N o , no, not at all. T h a t’s w h y
I w ro te this b o o k , because o f
the num ber o f tim es people
have said to m e, “ O h , h o w do
you b lo w glass?” I w o u ld n ’t
k n o w ; I d on ’t actu ally do it.
I’m there, I ’m overseein g, and
I have som e real understand-
ing on the intellectual level,
but I h a ven ’t actu ally done it
- and I h aven ’t actu ally felt
the desire to do it. B ecau se I
absolutely understand h o w
difficult it is.
W h a t I w a n t people to
k n o w is, yes, this w as by this
artisan, w e collaborated on
this, this is the end result.
W h a t I am alw ays talkin g
about is try in g to find h on esty
in labeling. I can ’t th in k o f a
case w h e n an artist w o u ld say,
“ D o n ’t say I didn’t m ake that.”
In a catalog I alw ays put [w ho
w o rk ed on ap iece].
Y e t m useum s often seem
reluctant to put that [inform a-
tion] out there.
Som etim es even in yo u r book
that inform ation is not avail-
able. It’s m ysterio u sly, even
fru stratin gly anonym ous —
“ used the services o f expert
craftsp eop le,” for exam ple.
T h a t’s w h ere the [artist, m use-
um , or gallery] could not p ro -
vid e the inform ation. W h e n
I did the first installation art
b o o k [in 1994], so m uch in fo r-
m ation w as m issing. People
104
america craft
aug/scp 11
