Aesthetics of Craft Producn -India

8/12/2019 Aesthetics of Craft Producn -India

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aesthetics-of-craft-producn-india 1/21

Checking your Typeset Proof

Multi-Authored Papers

In the case of multi-authored papers, authors are advised to collaborate when checkingthe typeset proof. One author should be nominated to either accept or submit corrections

on behalf of all of the authors of the paper.We can only accept one set of revisions, or one acceptance of the typeset proof, from the

nominated author. Once an author approves the typeset proof further revisions may not berequested.

Replying to us

After you review the typeset

then need to select the appropriate option to proceed.

Option 1: Accept Typeset Proof

To be selected when your paper is ready for publication- Please thoroughly check the typeset proof before accepting it. You will not have

further opportunities to make additional changes after the typeset proof has been

accepted.- Once you have accepted the typeset proof of your paper it will be ready to be

published. You will be notified when your paper has been published and given

instructions on how to access the published version.

Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset ProofTo be selected when your paper requires corrections

- - The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the

corrections have been completed you will be notified of the availability of arevised typeset proof for your approval.

Bibliographical Details

Please note that full bibliographical details (issue and page numbers) will not be availableuntil final publication of your paper. Once your paper has been published you will be able

to obtain these details. We will notify you as soon as your paper is published.



Checklist for Reviewing the Typeset Proof

We recommend that you print the typeset proof and proofread it slowly and with greatcare. Request that a colleague also proofread your paper as they may notice errors that

you may miss due to your familiarity with the content.

Remember to check your typeset proof for:- Completeness: inclusion of all text, figures, illustrations and tables

- Correct title and subtitle- Correct authorship and order of authors

- Current affiliation details- Heading levels

- Position and size of illustrations and figures

- Matching of captions to illustrations and figures- Position of tables- Presentation of quotes

- Presentation of equations- Footnotes and footnote numbering

- Inclusion of acknowledgements- References and reference style

- Typesetting or conversion errors

Please check the Journal Standard Style prior to requesting changes to style as we adhereto standard presentation requirements for all papers to ensure consistency throughout the

Journal.

It is important that all of your corrections (and those of your co-authors if applicable) aresubmitted to us in one communication.

Please note that careful proofreading is solely your responsibility.



Journal Standard Style

Order of the Paper:1. Cover page

2. Copyright/imprint page3. Paper: title/subtitle; author names with affiliation; abstract; keywords; body of

paper; acknowledgement (if applicable); reference list; appendix (if any); aboutthe author section

4. Journal colophon

Journal Standard Style:

Paper title/subtitle and all headings appear in Title Case whereby only definite

appear in lower case.

No italics in titles and subtitles.

Affiliation of the author will include only the name of the author, university or

organization name and country. Honorifics are not included.

Abstract will appear in italics as a single paragraph.

No italics included in the keyword list.

No footnotes attached to title/subtitle, authors or the abstract.

The first paragraph of the paper will appear in floating style - first three wordsappear in capital case and bold.

Footnotes within tables have separate numbering to that of the footnotes withinthe paper.

Hyphenation cannot be altered.

No underline will be included.

Figure captions are centred below the figure. The figure number and caption

appear on the same line.

Table titles appear above the table, left justified, in bold. The table number and

table title appear on the same line.

About the Author section: The honorific will reflect in this section. Contactdetails such as email addresses will not be included.



Documenting your Corrections

Changes to the Abstract

If you wish to make changes to the abstract of your paper please provide the revisedabstract either as a Word document (if there are also changes to the text), or by entering it

in the text box provided when you select Option 2.

Additional Authors

If you need to add a co-author we require the following information for each additional

author to be added:1. Name of the co-author

2. Affiliation details

3. Email address of the co-author (Mandatory)4. Short Biography (limit of 30 words)

5. Long Biography (limit of 200 words one paragraph only)

Corrections to Text

If you have changes to the text please complete these in the Word version of your paper

available at the link where you downloaded this PDF (or an existing word version). Youcan then upload the revised document for typesetting by selecting Option 2.

Corrections to Style:

You will need to clearly indicate all corrections in the following manner:

1. Page Number - paragraph number - line number - correction to be made

eg:1. Page 4 - last paragraph, line 4, please put a comma after Tom in the sentence Mary,

Tom, Jane and her friends...

The page number is the actual page of the PDF. As the paper has not been paginated yet,no numbers appear on the pages.

Submitting Corrections

available at the link you downloaded the

typeset proof from) and select Option 2.

Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof- Please upload the corrected Word document, or add your instructions for

corrections in the text box provided- Note that you can only upload one document, and this document must contain all

of the corrections (and those of your co-authors if applicable).

The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once thecorrections have been completed you will be notified of the availability of a revised

typeset proof for your approval.



I n S o c i e t y THE ARTS

www.Arts-Journal.com

JOURNALT H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L

In SocietyTHE ARTS


JOURNALT H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L

of In SocietyTHE ARTS


JOURNALT H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

of

Volume 6

Aesthetics of Craft Production: With Reference tothe Culture Industry Proposal by UNESCO in the

Context of India

Ravi Shankar Mishra



THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETYhttp://www.arts-journal.com

First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USAby Common Ground Publishing LLCwww.CommonGroundPublishing.com

ISSN: 1833-1866

© 2011 (individual papers), the author(s)© 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticismor review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may

be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Forpermissions and other inquiries, please contact<[email protected]>.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY is peer-reviewed,supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitativecommentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highestsignificance is published.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichanneltypesetting systemhttp://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/



Aesthetics of Craft Production: With Reference to the

Culture Industry Proposal by UNESCO in the Context

of IndiaRavi Shankar Mishra, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi,

India

Abstract: In the backdrop of the UNESCO’s endeavor to promote cultural industries in Asia-Pacic

region, India’s enthusiasm can be conspicuously seen in hosting the symposium which nalized the

background document for a holistic development of the sector. The agenda set by this document is

multipronged; however, ‘income generation’ and ‘wealth creation’ appear to be more signicant.

This document has identied different slots for different markers of culture amongst which ‘crafts’ are

also marked as a separate slot. However UNESCO’s proposal cannot ignore Frankfurt School critiques.

Overall, there has been a critique of over-administered culture that promises an ‘integral freedom’ but gets fragmented into high art and products of culture industry that never sum up to what they

promise (Adorno, 1991). Cultural sociologists have taken a neutral stand and analyze them just as

other important institutions, engaged in creative processes of cultural production (Santoro, 2008).

Nevertheless, the critiques of culture industries remain relevant. Culture industries dene themselves

on the criteria of ‘creativity’, ‘cultural knowledge’ and ‘intellectual property’. They will have to be

accommodated with each other on these issues and explore other kinds of relationships that pertain

to art, communities and religion rather than only to the pecuniary ones. In crafts communities, art and

religion are very signicant, yet we have modern knowledge and technology which have been posing

as challenges to be reconciled. Aesthetics of crafts are a mélange of the above mentioned forces, and

the neglect of even a single phenomenon would be an injustice to the crafts at large.

Keywords: Aesthetics, Crafts, Creativity, Culture Industries, Communities

Preface

THIS PAPER IS mainly concerned with the crafts that we know as artistic objects

such as ornaments or decoratives, but it also has an allusion towards the crafts of our

daily life-that is our respective eld of operation in knowledge and relationship.

The term ‘craft’ etymologically seems to denote skill. According to the Encyclo-

pedia of Irish and World Art “the term craft denotes a skill, usually employed in branches

of the decorative arts or in associated artistic practices”. Yet another intriguing homologous

adjective to it is ‘crafty’, meaning “clever at getting what you want, especially by indirector dishonest methods or something that is deceptive”. The purpose of bringing this term in

association with craft is for its often-construed image where in layman language some people

imply- “it’s all about decoration, deception, drudgery and is worst in durability”.

The International Journal of the Arts in Society

Volume 6, 2011, http://www.arts-journal.com, ISSN 1833-1866

© Common Ground, Ravi Shankar Mishra, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]



Understanding of Scholars/Aestheticians/Intellectuals

Some scholars have made explicit distinctions between crafts and art. For them, aesthetics

is about art while craft is about skill (Collingwood, 1938). Its manual counterpart, that is,

handicrafts for many scholars are about drudgery and forced labor, and hence disagreeablethough attractive and remunerable (Kant, 2000). Yet, for some scholars crafts are endeavors

of collectivities (or communities) that cannot be separated from the considerations of beauty

and taste. It has also a great moral role in enriching community experience (Morris, 1889;

Gadamer, 1975). For Coomaraswamy, craft was almost an art in ancient India and is getting

degenerated with ‘aesthetic’ which is just about sensation (Coomaraswamy, 1909, 1946).

For him craft “was an art for and understood by the whole people” (Coomaraswamy, 1909:

28). So, he meant that craft had connection with agriculture. Yet for the champion of non

violence- Gandhi, Khadi (which can be the best example of handicraft for Kant and could

have been worst kind of imposed labor) was the symbol for the spiritual emancipation of

mankind (Bhattacharya, 1997).

The Perspective

It is my view that craft should never be segregated from art and aesthetics (except for the

conceptual purposes as done by Collingwood). My purpose is neither to investigate the

highest philosophy of art nor the highest principle of aesthetics, yet excellence in the eld

needs to be strived while craft is incorporated as an agenda for the culture industry proposal

advanced by UNESCO1

.

UNESCO’s proposal on culture industries has given different slots for different markers

of culture such as music, theatrical production, operas, advertisement, literature etc., amongst

which crafts are also marked as a separate slot. The notion of industry based on culture mayseem to be somewhat excessively controversial. In fact, Frankfurt School theorists have

critiqued it for the huge gaps between the promises they make and the actual delivery.

Overall, the over-administered culture has been critiqued as it promises an ‘integral freedom’

but gets fragmented into high art and products of the culture industry that never add up to

what it promises (Adorno, 1991: 2).

The Cultural Perspective and cultural sociologists, having taken a neutral stand, look at

them as important institutions/organizations to analyze creative processes of cultural produc-

tion (Santoro, 2008). Nevertheless, the critique by Frankfurt school on culture industries

still remains relevant. Especially, in the given document an explicit privilege is given to the

economic categories such as ‘cultural assets or capital’, ‘knowledge based goods and services’

etc. Though the document (see footnote; 1) asserts that the social and cultural impact needs

to be investigated before implementation of any of the projects, it appears that it is governed

by the monotone of monetary concern at the cost of art and other kinds of relationships are

mere means or a supplement to attain the former.

1See in Background Document of the Senior Expert Symposium: “Asia-Pacic Creative Communities: A Strategy

for the 21st Century”(2005) (also known as ‘Jodhpur Consensus’)

Also refer Website: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/cultural_industries

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY



Art and Culture Industry

Aestheticians and philosophers have approached art through the experiences that it produces

not only on the creators, but also on those spectators who enjoy the works of art. So art is

about an ‘integral whole’ to which both the theories of ancient aesthetics and modern aes-thetics aspire. In fact modernist art is itself a commodity for exchange for the high class,

and the masses remain excluded. The Frankfurt School argues that culture industry also

promises this unity, but it delivers the aesthetic sublimation in fragments thus destroying

what is art in its purest form. Therefore they do not add up to the ‘integral freedom’ towards

which Adorno draws our attention (Adorno, ibid). Yet, there is an agenda to streamline the

artistic endeavor and to unify culture through culture industries.

In spite of all these truths, I would like to envision culture industry in the light of what

John Ruskin declared about the intimate connection between industry, art and life- “life

without industry is about guilt and an industry without art is brutality” (Ruskin, 1887: 119).

True, this declaration is motivated under a pre-conceptual category of morality; but in the

aesthetic judgment where morality has been deliberately left out by Kant to explore autonomy

(Kant, ibid), one can still smell an indirect connection with morality. An explicit declaration

of morality is not always subject to appropriation or harmful, but can be a guide for taking

action provided they are not distorted and misappropriated. So, morality can be given a

chance neither for indulgence nor for misappropriation, but for its effective manifestation

in the spheres of art, industries and relationships.

Culture Industry and Crafts

Crafts may be thought as a vulnerable sector to this appropriation but the same is applicable

to the other elds of art and science. In India, this sector has been identied as the secondlargest employment sector, so the attitude towards it, either of sympathy or charity, or the

attitude that “it also contributes …”, will not be appropriate to attain excellence in the eld.

True, crafts are associated with communities. But we need to understand how communities

function and are conceptualized in the contemporary situation. Soumhya Venkatesan in her

study has analyzed that craft communities are neither pre-modern nor merely constructed

or reied by the discursive processes, policies or actions of states. She has provided a picture

of how these communities while living in locality, kinship and shared occupation pursue

their individual goals while responding to the development interventions (Venkatesan, 2006).

Thus the agency-both of individual and collective-is important, and it is not just the craft

sector which recognizes this but also the other sectors of culture industry.

Culture industries which dene themselves on the criteria of ‘creativity’, ‘cultural know-

ledge’ and ‘intellectual property’, will have to accommodate with each other on these areas

and explore other kinds of relationships that have to do with art, communities and religion

rather than only to the pecuniary ones. In craft communities, art and religion are very signi-

cant, yet we have modern knowledge which has been posing as a challenge to be reconciled.

Hence the issues of creativity, knowledge and technology and intellectual property are to be

properly assessed. However, the present paper will just focus on artistic creativity, knowledge

and technology.

RAVI SHANKAR MISHRA



Creativity and Culture Industries

“Creativity is the ability to produce work that is novel and appropriate”

- (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999)

The culture industry proposal is based on the plank of creativity. But the question is whether

what they produce is really ‘novel’ and ‘appropriate’. Adorno has denied it this question of

reexivity for he argues that its ‘instrumental rationality’ turns against the reasoning subject

(Adorno, ibid). Surely Adorno cannot be ignored for the kind of disclosure he has provided

with regard to creativity and cultural industries. To understand creativity and its changing

meaning and extension in the various sectors of industries, reexivity is therefore essential.

Socio-psychologists have recognized the social content of creativity (LaChappelle, 1983).

The notion of creativity thus assumes a much broader dimension than the individualistic

model where creativity is located in individuals. Concurrently, ‘social creativity’, ‘collabor-

ative creativity’ and ‘organizational creativity’ exist as variable forms of creativity (Watson,2007). Cultural industries as an organized effort seem to be operating within these constructs.

It seems that the meaning of creativity has itself changed over the years. While the tradi-

tional meaning of creativity was associated with some divine order of God or with an ‘intu-

itive revelation’ (Coomaraswamy, 1946), modern society considers it as a capacity to resolve

problematic situations (see, e.g., LeChappelle, ibid). Thus the concept of creativity seems

to have broadened with the expansion of creative activities and the number of people engaged

in creative acts. This is favorable for the culture industry to appropriate and establish itself.

However this becomes a double edged sword for creativity cannot be everything and nothing.

Further, a creative act is not simply a novel or original response but a response to be valued

(LaChappelle, ibid.). Thus creative responses are to be judged on the criteria of ‘good’ or

something desirable that are valuable for individuals, groups and societies. However creativityin a highly differentiated society has become highly variable as the different groups subscribe

to different sets of values and norms. For example, the Pata paintings from Bengal are based

on narratives, and carry forward the old tradition; however new techniques of using chemical

colors for such practices sometimes become quite conicting with the original essence. Yet,

there are some crafts such as Phoolkari of Punjab in which geometrical motives are the op-

erational principles. Further, the craft from its traditional importance of a token of love for

the bride from her mother has assumed commodity meaning in the modern context. The

judgment of creativity thus seems to be contextual and conicting.

The various competing elds of creative pursuits thus seem to be conicting in their

standards and values in art or aesthetics. In spite of these mutual hostilities, all the creativeelds continue to get inspired from art and humanity which set ‘precedence’ for them (see,

e.g., Mukerji, 1978). Craft are one of these elds.

Problematic of Aesthetics of Craft

Craft is about skill and industry; hence the aesthetic dimension of this sector is very often

distinguished and separated from art proper. Kant and Collingwood keep them outside the

purview of any aesthetic consideration as for them aesthetics is about experiences or con-

sciousness exclusive for the art proper (Kant, ibid; Collingwood, 1938). Becker has tried to

set some functional aesthetic standards, such as- ‘function’, ‘virtuoso skill’ and ‘beauty’.




By function he means usefulness of object, by virtuoso skill he means control on materials

and techniques, and for criteria of beauty he has broadly taken folk characteristic of art (see

Becker, 1978). The criteria for beauty thus seem to be complex and based on cultural spe-

cicities. There seem to be problems in setting universal parameters for crafts, especially in

India, where we have always associated crafts with community and traditional knowledge.

In India, the aesthetic dimension of craft has always been analyzed from this dimension.

Coomaraswamy’s views on art and craftsmen appear nowhere a reality in today’s time and

his theories have not only found no support among the development-concerned sociologists

and activists but are also seen as problematic by the aestheticians of modern times. However,

there has not been any attempt to construct a new repertoire of art or aesthetic in the craft

sector except for some elaborate/extensive demand by some anthropologists and activists to

promote and preserve the craft communities.

Promotions from Government of India and NGO’s involvement have helped preserve

these communities. However we have not proceeded beyond the attempt of preservation and

promotion that halts at revival. In the rapidly growing economy and necessity to competein the global economy, our attempt seems to have succumbed to the narrow logic of market

rationality and mass production.

The proposal to promote craft sector within the larger program of UNESCO’s endeavor

of setting up of culture industries in the Asia-pacic region is novel but full of dangers.

Either to follow the neo-liberal model where culture is merely treated as capital or to take a

protectionist measure where culture is just treated as a sanctuary of tradition would be my-

opic and lethal if operated/administered in an arbitrary combination of both. The recent

projections of the crafts in the Commonwealth 2010 as not only commodity par excellence

but what Baudrillard would call ‘simulacra’2 are some of the instances of this compulsion

and haste.

In India we have a huge range of craft products from small sculptures, decorative or orna-

mental art to woven or quilted products with different characteristic features specic to their

respective folk denition. Therefore the aesthetic parameters may also vary and will be

culture-specic. However they have to compete for excellence and rise to universal aesthetic

parameters. Therefore there is a need for a repertoire based on a new aesthetic as well as on

the old aesthetic.

Old aesthetics means what is related to religion or mythology and hence was inspired by

a divine inspiration to experience art as an integral whole. However, the ip side to this was

that it was removed from materiality. Benjamin identied it as an attempt by the high class

to keep the masses mesmerized by its ‘aura’, thereby depriving them from the reality, and

Adorno meant it as an attempt by the elites to ‘alter reality’ (Adorno, 1991; Benjamin, 2008).Thus modern aesthetics was envisioned with a promise to break this articial aura. It was

meant to celebrate autonomy and the breakdown of this romanticized homogeneous experience

through its characteristics of producing discord in the senses and breaking the illusion of the

‘integral’ unit. While Benjamin hoped for raising aesthetics to the level of politics by

breaking the articial ‘aura’ based on religion and myth through the mechanical means of

2By simulacra Baudrillard means that it is simulation of that which does not exist at all. He uses this term to mean

that present world is a world of consumption of images or symbols; hence what is not true becomes true. For e.g.

Baudrillard says that the entire America is just recognized by its Disney land or Casino’s of Las Vegas for the

people abroad. (See Baudrillard, 1994; 1)

RAVI SHANKAR MISHRA



reproduction (Benjamin, ibid), it still continues to linger in its modern counterparts-such as

in the ‘special effects’ manipulated and produced by the culture industry. The culture industry

promises the masses these enchantments and keeps them mesmerized (See, e.g., Shull, 2005).

Adorno has critiqued this manipulation by culture industries in the context of the excessive

commoditization of art.

A Proposal to Overcome this Impediment

Despite the criticisms above due to the delusionary effect of the modern aesthetics, they are

seen as revolutionary by the aesthetician for the discord that they have on the senses through

which every viewer can analyze the experience and become a critic of the art (e.g., cinematic

experience in this case, see Jaaware, 2009; Benjamin, ibid). Further, the modern aesthetic

of ‘measurement’3 holds a huge possibility and can provide us a blueprint for the actual op-

eration in the eld of crafts also, that is not explicit in the old aesthetic. For instance, some

crafts involve the principle of molding and remolding. Yet some involve patterns based onmotifs or basic elements of designs that are repeated to form a pattern. Thus, there is a

modular addition or subtraction of the motifs in various sizes in accordance with the area

that they have to cover. Some crafts of traditional India are also based on these intricate

designs which can not only serve to approach the aesthetic of its making in a new way, but

also be informative of the social structure of the time these respective crafts are a part of.

Crafts which are not just of a stagnant past but of continuity, therefore, need to construct a

new repertoire of aesthetic by incorporating the new aesthetics of measurement. However,

this appears to be neglected in the Indian context and it is subjected to mass production

where it is applied.

Morris’s effort in the midst of the nineteenth century high capitalism of England can serve

us as an impetus where the problem of genius and community/collective spirit can be recon-

ciled (Morris, 1889). In his model, there is a master craftsman who is a source of inspiration

for his fellow craftsmen and work as camaraderie with them to achieve the best result rather

than to involve in an arrogant disposition of unequal power relationship of manipulative

exchange. Gadamer provides further a scope for ornamental and decorative art to be con-

sidered as a work of art. According to him, they cannot be just a substitute or add-on to art

proper but are a part of aesthetic experience where “the mode of being of work art itself”

can be explored (Gadamer, 1975: 102).

Aesthetic of crafts can thus be explored beyond the subjective aesthetic consciousness in

the play of labor (manual as well as intellectual) of both creators and the spectators. Also,

the dimension of measurement which may or may not be exclusive of meaning can be explored. Up to now, the aesthetic exploration in craft has been based on the interpretation of

meaning of the myth or the stories that these crafts encompass. Therefore it would be inter-

esting to explore this new dimension of aesthetics based on measurement. However, the old

aesthetics based on the interpretation of myths and stories can neither be ignored nor become

redundant altogether, for they have an indirect way of revealing the harshest of the truths in

the absence of which there has been a total disrespect for or indifference to everything. The

3Aesthetics of measurement means use of calculation or geometry in the work of art. Aesthetic questions pertaining

to measurement have been raised in recent inquiry in case of architecture in India (For detail, see, Sanil, 2009).

Also, much earlier, Alois Riegl, while tracing a history of ornaments observes a rhythm and harmony of geometry

in ornamental art (see, Riegl, 1992)




excessive individualism of modern man is guided by these narrow meanings of manipulation

and pretension where others do not exist.

Creativity, Culture Industries and the Aesthetics of CraftThe relationship between creativit y and work, and the values the craft sector as a cultural

industry is expected to create thus assume signicance, given the problematic and the wide

ranging aesthetics considerations that it demands. For Marx, work is inherently creative as

it is through work that man comes to recognize his powers and capacities as real and objective

and is thereby liberated (Marx, 1975). Though he recognizes truly non-instrumental work

such as those producing artwork as truly creative, he also opines that purely economic

activity is also a self-realizing activity and end in-itself, hence cannot be left out of the purview

of creativity and innovation. However Marx sees alienating work, which is also a product

of modern industries, as dehumanizing drudgery as it is external to the worker and his labour

is not voluntary but forced (Marx, 1975; Sayers, 2003).Creativity in an industrial set up thus becomes a cumbersome process. Industrial production

is often characterized by mass production or mere repetition of monotonous act and crafts

which are also becoming a part of large capital based organizations are no exception. The

recent projections of crafts as commodity spectacles in commonwealth 2010 are some in-

stances of this compulsion.

Crafts that seek to attain excellence cannot afford to be mere multiple copies with slight

variations that Adorno detested for the standardized or formulaic production in the culture

industries (Adorno, 1997). True, an art work is also an imitation but they are not ‘counterfeit’

as Coomaraswamy has meant for their degenerate form (Coomaraswamy, 1946). They imitate

and participate in what they represent. Thus likeness does not mean that they are identical

but they have adequate meaning and are themselves an adequate symbol of what they repres-

ent. Crafts as a work of art cannot afford to be merely repetition or copy but have to be

‘knowledge of the essence’ (Gadamer, 1975: 114). That is, they are ‘revelatory’ of an ‘essen-

tial relation to everyone for whom the representation exists’ (Gadamer, ibid). Thus craft is

like a play in which its creator participates through presentation and representation and which

is inclusive of its spectators, provided it is not repeated and merely commoditized for status

display.

Crafts need not have to pretend as art; they are the work of art in themselves. The work

of art presents itself through the rituals of ‘representation’ and ‘presentation’ in the crafts as

well. Crafts are about skillful shaping of the matter that involves rituals of representation

and presentation through ‘willing participation’. It is not due to the weakness of privatecondition where one gets absorbed in the work out of indulgence, but one experiences it out

of his total of existence. Rituals are emancipatory, they are necessary for invoking discipline

and ne-tuning of skill, but if ritualized they are sites of drudgery and destitution, whether

they are of religion or of any modern organizations. The same is true for the crafts when

they become an enterprise for shameless prot making and mass production. The labour is

forced and the joy of work is missing. Then community also seems to be alien whether it is

of the same caste, same religion or of the same trade. The ‘instrumental rationality’ which

Adorno (ibid) detested is not just unique to the culture industry but to culture at large that

is administered and over-administered through its monotonous rituals, whether they are of

religion, state or of modern organizations.

RAVI SHANKAR MISHRA



Crafts are not deception but truth revealed due to the masking of the years of illusions.

Crafts are not necessarily about tradition-old and obsolete, but can be truth concealed under

the rashness of civilization. Crafts remind us of the potential forgotten over the ages. They

uncover the hidden labor that does not have to be imposed but gushes forth making way

between the gaps of the rituals of the incarcerating civilization.

True, creativity in craft is never explored in an individual even if the best of the works

come out of an individual. The aesthetic of craft is not to curb the autonomy of the individuals

but to realize the fruits of ‘sensus communis’ (Gadamer, 1975). By sensus communis, I

neither mean a common sense of subjectivity that Kant would have stressed nor an empirical

agreement of senses that he rejected. Yet, it is not governed by some rigid pre-conceptual

rule of moral imperative that he detested (Kant, ibid). But it is the fruit from which the

genius arises through the spirit it generates and the constraints that it imposes through its

conspiracy. Thus, the genius is celebrated not for its dissension but the moral intention

within its dissension that sets the rule for the art in craft. Craft is celebration of this moral

community. However, it gets dispersed and desecrated the moment the master is recognized,gains accolade and lured to shift her/his place from the community where her/his creativity

originally sprouted.

The modern times which are notoriously known for its disaggregated individuals of dis-

placed identity are painful if the people work as indifferent individuated beings with manip-

ulative exchange. Yet they have meaningful existence, if they operate through an inter-sub-

jective exchange thereby crafting a sensus commuis that is rooted in morality though may

not be explicitly stated. Kant’s sensus communis was about this subjectivity which was not

derived from morality but implicitly appealed towards it. Crafts in modern times are successful

in this meaningful exchange where the skills and labor are effectively utilized in the produc-

tion of something that is novel yet valuable.

Gadamer’s attempt to trace its political and moral content is to draw out this meaning

which is often lost in the blindness of preoccupation with ‘self’, where ‘others’ do not matter

at all. Crafts (of any kind whether it is the crafts of material production or crafts of imper-

ceptible things such as knowledge and relationship) cannot ourish under these narrow

constraints, where there is not only a division between high art and cultural products of

culture industries that Adorno (ibid) has abhorred but where the disciplinary divide is also

deeply entrenched. This division permeates deep into the manual and mental labor which

was not only delineated by Adorno but was also highly unwanted by Gandhi. While Gandhi

wished away this divide by advocating the principle of ‘ sarvodaya’ which meant- “benet

for oneself is in benet for all” (Gandhi, 1929), the modern man seems to have an urgency

for an individualized daily work out at gyms chasing the targets of some magical ‘vital stats’or the inscrutable ‘six-packs’ to compete in the personality market.

If crafts are not to be made just commoditized spectacles and community experiences are

not to be just museumized, we have to really think of a new repertoire of aesthetic in craft

production which speaks about luxury and novelty and not just revival. By luxury, it is not

to mean that they are to be manufactured for rich people’s luxury or for people who can afford

luxurious ways of living. It is about that richness of consciousness-that Kant calls ‘sublime’

(ibid) and Gadamer as ‘self-forgetfulness’ where the viewer’s attention is directed in a way

that she experiences the work of art through the whole of its existence. (Gadamer, ibid)

Yet, it can also be the ‘surplus of consciousness’ that Tagore sought through his communion

with nature (Tagore, 1964) and Coomaraswamy called ‘spiritual’ (Coomaraswamy, 1946),




however this has to be qualied through actual operation in the matter. The modern man as

a subject experiences nature by shaping it not in its own form, but by representing it as object.

That, however, does not diminish the spirit of inquiry to reveal something as Heidegger

would have argued famously for technology (Heidegger, 1977). Crafts are no exception for

it reveals the spirit in the material form. As Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay puts it “… craft is

an expression of the human spirit in material form” (Chattopadhyay, 1976: 1).

So, there is a play of spirit that gets manifestation in material form and one does not exclude

the other. There is a quest for discovering something new as one operates on the matter,

whether it is a ‘divine inspiration’ of Coomaraswamy (ibid) that nds an immediate rejection

in the all pervading secular vocabulary of the modern man or the spirit working in tandem

with imagination, understanding and judgment as Kant stated. For Kant, spirit is “the talent

to express what is unamenable in the mental state in the case of certain representation and

to make it universally communicable, whether the expression consists in language or in

plastic art-that requires faculty for apprehending the rapidly passing play of the imagination

and unifying it into a concept” (Kant, 2000: 195). However, culture industries seem to beintimidating to deprive us of the spirit as such. Weber’s prediction of this meaningless mass

production in the modern capitalism seems to come true where he states- “specialist without

spirit and sensualist without heart…” (Weber, 1930: 182).

Technology and Aesthetic of Crafts

Most crafts are hand-based and in India the use of technology with respect to crafts has been

minimal. The reason for this can be again traced to their genealogy with tradition. Further

large numbers of communities are still dependent on rudimentary technology. So, unlike

other complexities, the question concerning technology in craft assumes complexity of much

larger proportion.

Technology is not merely means to an end. It is an expression of the creative potential of

mankind. Heidegger reveals this dimension of technology by assigning it a liminal status,

where, at one hand it is full of ‘danger’ and on the other hand a way to creativity (Heidegger,

1977). Thus, he does not disdain technology or consider it as the only cause of devastation

of human life. Nor would Gandhi be called an opponent of technology for making charkha

a symbol of swaraj much to the displeasure of Tagore who saw in this endeavor an attempt

of privileging the Charkha as the means of production par-excellence, thereby negating the

potential of other means of production and suppression of creativity as such (Bhattacharya,

1997). However, Gandhi did not reject technology; rather he connected the concern of swaraj

with the symbol of technology even though it was of a rudimentary kind.Crafts are an effective expression of technology and physical labour. Nevertheless it is

true that the explicit use of one at the cost of the other would have different effect. For ex-

ample, a craft revealed through machines would have a clean nish and would mark the

precision of machines calculated by men. On the other hand, a handcraft will always carry

the mark of human imperfection. While Ruskin and Tolstoy would have lamented this for

the increasing use of technology that deprives one of the reexivity through which one re-

cognizes one’s imperfection and aspires to attain perfection (Ruskin, 1887; Tolstoy,1899),

technology is in itself a mark of human imperfection; hence danger lies where also lies cre-

ativity or the ‘saving power’ (Heidegger, 1977).

RAVI SHANKAR MISHRA



However, it is a truth that injudicious use of technology in craft sector would affect the

lives of many. This approach of control in technology would be taken as a technologist ap-

proach and would not be reective of the essence of technology. True, technology can be

neither inhibited nor blocked till the creativity is in a perennial ow. Yet, the issue of tech-

nology which is not in itself a problem remains persistent, how much of it can be accommod-

ated when the relationship is unable to respond? Gandhi’s concern was respect for physical

labour and he was assured that it cannot be supplanted by machines. Above all, it was a

moral concern which was inspired by a desire to encourage the toiling poor not to succumb

to the hardships. Thus, he saw a spiritual emancipation through manual labor. Yet there is

a huge gulf between the two and the paradox is that the realm of technology most often

clashes with the realm of relationship. His concern for the weakest of the weak was an ex-

ploration in the realm of relationship and morality; and technology was not merely a means

but can also be considered as an essence to enrich this exchange. Technology as an application

also cannot ignore this dimension though as an essence it may continue to explore the saving

power.

Conclusion

Given the above problematic of aesthetics (in craft production) that operate under a variety

of forces which further vary culturally in Indian context, the Culture Industry proposal must

promote craft beyond the rhetoric of monetary gain in the development of diverse repertoires

of aesthetic that are product of community dynamics.

Craft is about an aesthetic which involves creativity, spirit, measurement, technology, and

relationships which cannot exclude moral concern. Craft is a not a hodge-podge of all these

forces but a mélange of relations between these aesthetic parameters. Promiscuous relation

between any of these parameters can lead to a degenerate practice which will be nothing

about craft but all that is “crafty”.




References

Adorno, Theodore W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass culture in J.M. Bernstein

(ed.). London: Routledge.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Horkheimer, Max. 1997. ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as MassDeception’ in Dialectic of Enlightenment . Verso Classic.

Baudrillard Jean. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Becker, Howard. (Jan., 1978). ‘Arts and Crafts’, in The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No.

4: pp. 862-889. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bhattacharya Sabyasachi (ed.). 1997. The Mahatma and the Poet: Letters and Debates Between Gandhi

and Tagore, 1915-1941. India: NBT.

Chattopadhyay, Kamladevi. 1976. Handicrafts of India. Delhi: Indian Council of Cultural Relations.

Collingwood, R.G. 1938. ‘Art and Craft’ in The Principles of Art . London: Oxford University Press.

Coomarswamy, Ananda K. 1909. The Indian Craftsman. London: Probsthian.

Coomarswamy, Ananda K. 1946. Figures of Speech or Figures of Thought: Collected Essays on the

Traditional or Normal View of Art . London: Luzac & Co.Gadamer, H. 1975. Truth and Method . London: Continuum.

Gandhi, M. 1938. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahemdabad: Navajivan Trust.

Gandhi, M. 1929. The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Ahemdabad: Navajivan Trust.

Heidegger, M. 1977. ‘The Question Concerning Technology’, in The Question Concerning Technology

and Other Essays, pp.3-35. New York & London: Garland Publishing INC.

Jaaware Aniket. 2009. ‘Disarticulating the Senses: A Speculation on a Scientic Discovery and Cinema’

in Amiya Dev (ed.) Science, Literature and Aesthetics. Volume XV, Part 3. Centre for

Studies in Civilization for the Project of History of Science, Philosophy and Culture.

Kant Immanuel. 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment . Paul Guyer (ed.). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

LaChapelle, Joseph R. 1983. ‘Creativity Research: Its Sociological and Educational Limitations’ in

Studies in Art Education. Vol. 24, No. 2: pp. 131-139. National Art Education Association.Marx, Karl. 1975. ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844’ in Early Writings, Harmonds

worth: Penguin.

Morris, W. 1889. The Arts and Crafts of Today, (See in http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/

1889/today.htm.

Mukerji, Chandra. (Sep., 1978). ‘Artwork Collection and Contemporary Culture’, in The American

Journal of Sociology. Vol. 84, No. 2: pp. 348-365. The University of Chicago Press.

Riegl, Alois. 1992. Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of Ornament , trans. by Evelyn Kain.

Princeton University Press.

Ruskin, John. 1887. Lectures on Art . Kent: Georg Allen.

Sanil. V. 2009. ‘The Diagram of Vastu Purusa Mandala: From Meaning to Measurement’, in Amiya

Dev (ed.) Science, Literature and Aesthetics. Volume XV, Part 3. Centre for Studies in

Civilization for the Project of History of Science, Philosophy and Culture.Santoro Marco (a). 2008. Volume 2(1). ‘Culture As (And After) Production’ in Cultural Sociology,

pp. 7–31. SAGE Publications.

Santoro Marco (b). 2008. Volume 2(1). ‘Producing Cultural Sociology: An Interview with Richard A.

Peterson’, in Cultural Sociology pp. 33–55. SAGE Publications.

Sayers, Sean. 2003. ‘Creativity Activity and Alienation in Hegel and Marx’ in Historical Materialism.

Volume 11:1. Pp.107–128. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden.

Shull K. K . Fall 2005. ‘Is the Magic Gone? Weber’s “Disenchantment of the World” and its Implications

for Art in Today’s World’, in The Culture Issue, Anamesa. Fall 2005, Volume 3, Issue 2:

pp.61-73. (Refer, www.anamesa.org).

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. 1999. ‘The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms’, in R. J.

Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity, pp. 3–15. New York: Cambridge University Press.

RAVI SHANKAR MISHRA



Tagore, R. 1964. ‘The Religion of an artist’, in Vision of India, pp.4-17. Indian Council for Cultural

Relation.

Tolstoi, C. L. N. 1899. What is Art? New York: Thomas Y Crowell & Co. Publishers.

Venkatesan, Soumhya. 2006. ‘Shifting Balances in a ‘Craft Community’: The Mat Weavers of Patta-

madai, South India’, Contributions to Indian Sociology. 2006; 40: pp. 63-87.Watson Elizabeth. December 2007. ‘Who or What Creates? A Conceptual Framework for Social

Creativity’, Human Resource Development. Review Vol. 6, No.4: 419-441. Sage Publications.

Weber, Max. 1930 [1904]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. by Talcott Parsons

with a forward by R.H. Tawney. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

About the Author

Ravi Shankar Mishra

Ravi Shankar Mishra is a graduate from National Institute of Fashion Technology, New

Delhi. He has done his MA in sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Heis working on ‘Aesthetics of Crafts Production’ and ‘Modernization’. His focus is to invest-

igate the sociological dimension of old aesthetics and new aesthetics.




EditorBill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Editorial Advisory BoardCaroline Archer , UK Type, Birmingham, UK.Robyn Archer , Performer and Director, Paddington, Australia.Mark Bauerlein, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., USA.Tressa Berman, California College of the Arts, San Francisco, USA;

UTS-Sydney, Australia.Judy Chicago, Artist and Author, New Mexico, USA.Nina Czegledy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;

Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.James Early, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA.Mehdi Faridzadeh, International Society for Iranian Culture (ISIC), New York, USA,

Tehran, Iran.Jennifer Herd, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.Fred Ho, Composer and Writer, New York, USA.Andrew Jakubowicz, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Gerald McMaster , Curator, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, Canada.Mario Minichiello, Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, Birmingham, UK.Fred Myers, New York University, New York, USA.Darcy Nicholas, Porirua City Council, Porirua, New Zealand.Daniela Reimann, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology KIT, Institute of Vocational and

General Education, Karlsruhe, Germany; University of Art and Industrial Design,Linz, Austria.

Arthur Sabatini, Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA.Cima Sedigh, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, USA.Peter Sellars, World Arts and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.Ella Shohat, New York University, New York, USA.

Judy Spokes, Arts Victoria, South Melbourne, Australia.Tonel (Antonio Eligio Fernández), Artist and Art Critic, Havana, Cuba.Marianne Wagner-Simon, World Art Organization, Berlin, Germany.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Arts-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.



The Arts in Society CommunityThis knowledge community is brought together around a common shared interest in therole of the arts in society. The community interacts through an innovative, annual face-to-face conference, as well as year-round virtual relationships in a weblog, peerreviewed journal and book imprint – exploring the affordances of the new digital media.Members of this knowledge community include artists, academics, educators,administrators, advocates and policy makers, curators, researchers and researchstudents.

ConferenceMembers of the Arts Community meet at the International Conference on the Arts inSociety, held annually in different locations around the world in conjunction with globaland local arts events.

The inaugural Conference was held in conjunction with the Edinburgh Festivals,Edinburgh, Scotland in 2006, and in 2007, in collaboration with the Documenta12,

Kassel, Germany. In 2007 an International Symposium on the Arts was also held duringthe Armory Show in New York and in co-sponsorship with the Center for Art and PublicPolicy, Tisch School of the Arts, New York University. In 2008, the Conference was heldat the Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, Birmingham City University, Birmingham,UK, with a special theme of Art and Communication. In 2009, the Conference was heldat Venice, Italy in conjunction with the Venice Biennale. In 2010, the Conference washeld at University of Sydney, Sydney College of the Arts, Australia. In 2011, theConference was held at Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities,Berlin, Germany. In 2012, the Conference will be held in Art and Design Academy,Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.

Our community members and first time attendees come from all corners of the globe.The Conference is a site of critical reflection, both by leaders in the field and emergingartists and scholars. Those unable to attend the Conference may opt for virtualparticipation in which community members can submit a video and/or slide presentationwith voice-over, or simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication inthe Journal.

Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.

PublishingThe Arts Community enables members to publish through three media. First by

participating in the Arts Conference, community members can enter a world of journalpublication unlike the traditional academic publishing forums – a result of theresponsive, non-hierarchical and constructive nature of the peer review process. TheInternational Journal of the Arts in Society provides a framework for double-blind peerreview, enabling authors to publish into an academic journal of the highest standard.

The second publication medium is through the book series The Arts in Society,publishing cutting edge books in print and electronic formats. Publication proposal andmanuscript submissions are welcome.

The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news

updates from the Arts in Society Community, as well as major developments in thevarious disciplines of the arts. You can also join this conversation at Facebook andTwitter or subscribe to our email Newsletter .



Common Ground Publishing Journals

AGING Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal

Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/

ARTSThe International Journal of the Arts in Society.

Website: www.Arts-Journal.com

BOOKThe International Journal of the Book

Website: www.Book-Journal.com

CLIMATE CHANGEThe International Journal of Climate Change:

Impacts and ResponsesWebsite: www.Climate-Journal.com

CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENTThe International Journal of the

Constructed EnvironmentWebsite: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal

DESIGNDesign Principles and Practices:

An International JournalWebsite: www.Design-Journal.com

DIVERSITYThe International Journal of Diversity in

Organizations, Communities and NationsWebsite: www.Diversity-Journal.com

FOODFood Studies: An Interdisciplinary JournalWebsite: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/

GLOBAL STUDIESThe Global Studies Journal

Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

HEALTHThe International Journal of Health,

Wellness and SocietyWebsite: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal

HUMANITIESThe International Journal of the Humanities

Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com

IMAGEThe International Journal of the Image

Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal

LEARNINGThe International Journal of Learning.Website: www.Learning-Journal.com

MANAGEMENTThe International Journal of Knowledge,

Culture and Change Management.

Website: www.Management-Journal.com

MUSEUMThe International Journal of the Inclusive Museum

Website: www.Museum-Journal.com

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITYThe International Journal of Religion and

Spirituality in SocietyWebsite: www.Religion-Journal.com

SCIENCE IN SOCIETYThe International Journal of Science in SocietyWebsite: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com

SOCIAL SCIENCESThe International Journal of Interdisciplinary

Social SciencesWebsite: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

SPACES AND FLOWSSpaces and Flows: An International Journal of

Urban and ExtraUrban StudiesWebsite: www.SpacesJournal.com

SPORT AND SOCIETYThe International Journal of Sport and Society

Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal

SUSTAINABILITYThe International Journal of Environmental, Cultural,

Economic and Social SustainabilityWebsite: www.Sustainability-Journal.com

TECHNOLOGYThe International Journal of Technology,

Knowledge and SocietyWebsite: www.Technology-Journal.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNINGUbiquitous Learning: An International Journal

Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/

UNIVERSITIESJournal of the World Universities ForumWebsite: www.Universities-Journal.com

For subscription information please contact [email protected]

Documents

Aesthetics of Craft Producn -India