Handwerk/Kunsthandwerk

Muthesius, Stefan

doi:10.1093/jdh/11.1.85

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the contrary, these types of trajectories are not compatible with labour organisation processes in France or Germany. When there is a resistance to the proletarianisation of labour by the strong cultural and traditional organisation of the middle class, a process of direct subordination to capital is developed in the way that small businesses sustain production of the population and maintain forms of symbolic organisation as a different class from the proletarians and bourgeois (ZARCA, 1993, MUTHESIUS, 1998. It is important to find this class situation as a basis of differentiation that allowed maintaining privileges within government policies, thus rising to a protection of the internal market by means of artisans and the continuity of production of goods and services necessary for the population (PERRIN, 2007).…”

Section: Direct and Indirect Subordination Of Craft Labourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creative Industries or Industrialisation of Creativity? Craft Labour and the Uneven and Combined Development of Capital

Torres

2019

PublicatioCi.Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this article is to demonstrate the spread of the classification of the so-called "creative industries" which conceals a neoliberal process of direct and indirect subordination of creative labour to capital. In this way, craft labour and its production and reproduction through the uneven and combined development of capital are used as an example of analysis. Consequently, in the first part the problematic is defined the neoliberal hegemonic term of creative industry, to differentiate it from a political and economic process of industrialisation of creativity, specifying the relationship with the craft labour. Then, the relationship of direct and indirect subordination of craft labour in Europe and Latin America is defined in a general way, in order to clarify their differences presented by the social division of labour. Finally, an analysis of the uneven and combined movement is made, to explain the relations and trends of distinction and equalisation between and within countries.

show abstract

Section: Direct and Indirect Subordination Of Craft Labourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creative Industries or Industrialisation of Creativity? Craft Labour and the Uneven and Combined Development of Capital

Torres

2019

PublicatioCi.Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the late nineteenth century, the non‐fine arts were typically called by such names as “minor,”“lesser,”“decorative,” or “applied” (Muthesius; Frank; Lavezzi). 3 “Crafts” only came into wide use after 1888 when a group of London architects, artists, and designers committed to restoring the “unity” of the arts, and frustrated at the exclusion of decorative arts from Royal Academy exhibitions, created a counter organization they named the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society.…”

Section: Strategies For Rethinking Craftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Blurred Boundaries”? Rethinking the Concept of Craft and its Relation to Art and Design

Shiner

2012

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Art world talk of “blurred boundaries” and “hybrids” between art and craft, suggests that the philosophy of art needs to rethink the concept of craft. This can best be done by adopting four strategies: first, distinguish between craft as a set of disciplines, and craft as a process and practice; second, keep in mind the differences among craft practices such as studio, trade, ethnic, amateur, and DIY; third, recognize that craft’s relationship with design is as important as its relationship to art; fourth, attend to the role digital design and fabrication are playing in craft and art today. At the core of the craft process are three contested characteristics found in most craft practices: hand, material, and skill, although these are better understood as body, medium, and mastery. After discussing a fourth contested characteristic of many craft and design practices, function, I show that none of the four characteristics is a requisite condition for artistic practice today, yet none are excluded from contemporary (fine) art, despite its current “post‐studio” or “post‐disciplinary” tendencies. I conclude that the boundary between art and craft conceived as a set of disciplines defined by materials and techniques has not become blurred, it has all but disappeared. On the other hand, I show through an analysis of some references to “mere craft” by Stephen Davies and Arthur Danto, that craft conceived as a process and practice can be understood as distinct from art, but in a non‐invidious sense.

show abstract

Handwerk: Crafts and Trades in Germany

Fjeldsted

2019

A Cultural Economic Analysis of Craft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handwerk/Kunsthandwerk

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Creative Industries or Industrialisation of Creativity? Craft Labour and the Uneven and Combined Development of Capital

Creative Industries or Industrialisation of Creativity? Craft Labour and the Uneven and Combined Development of Capital

“Blurred Boundaries”? Rethinking the Concept of Craft and its Relation to Art and Design

Handwerk: Crafts and Trades in Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About