I make a distinction between the com-
mercial art world and what | call the real
art world. The former is what ] have been
describing as what is held to be maln-
stream: Ube lalier is made up of artists.
critics, curators, and even some collec-
tors, who fee] strongly that there is a
higher function to art—or crafts—than
merely making money for investors or
inflating the egos of social climbers.
That function is spiritual. This is the
Teal art world to which the crafts, in
many ways already belong, for we have
at certain points tn the Nineteenth and
Twentieth Centuries in Europe and the
Americas emphasized personal devel-
opment and human service as key In-
Bredients of the crafts vision.

I certainly do not hold it against any
craftsworker who is taken up by the
commercial art world. Even the art world
could be transformed, though caution is
advised. In many ways moving into the
art world or, if you will, the largely
imaginary mainstream merely means
switching markets and market strate-
gies, Freedom is never guaranteed.

1 don’t know if what [ cal! the real art
world can provide the critical and insti-
tutional support needed by crafteworkers
and olher so-called marginal artists.
The first step, however, is to realize that
the real art world has always existed
and continues to exist; itis quite sepa-
rate from the highly publicized commer-
Cial art world. We simply need to be
more conscious of what unites us with
others who are blowing the whistle on a
mainstream that reduces artworks to
toys or commodities.

In the meantime, the craftsworld iteelf
may try to provide an alternative: other-

wise it will be absorbed by this anartistic
mainstream or become a small-scale
mirror image of it. The crafls have a
mission, which is the improvement of
the quality of everyday life—no mean
task—through the exercise, develop-
ment, and celebration of spiritual val-
ues as transmitted or created by the
crafisworker's aesthetic transformation
of matter. If. Ike most painting and
sculpture, the crafts become merely a
tool af egotiam and/or begin to serve
only the rich and powerful, they will
indeed have become art—art of the worst
kind: art without sol.

John Perrault is an ert critic. and recently
appointed as Sentor Curator at the
American Craft Museum,

Wizard of ld By Brant Parker and Johnny Hart

“TLL GIVE You FIVE HUNPRED

MATHIEU WORKSHOP

(Contd)

History kinds of things. The following
day he showed us slides of the work of
some af his friends from Montréal and
talked about their various influences
and What appealed tohim. His work now
gained further perspective from context.

By Monday, | found myself trying out
some of his “simple” techniques, think-
ing no detail in Itself is 50 Unusiaal, but
somehow in the coming together of many
details a style emerges. Paul Mathieu
would say be is stubborn, or worse
perhaps, about the way he 1i8 and the
way he works. [ think however he Just
notices what he must be particular
about. | found him honest, lmaginative
and unpretentious while still being
sound about the serious side of his
creation. His individual pieces evolve
gradually, their problems being worked
oul in the process as he goes. There are
Variations om familiar forms. Neither
forms nor functions are really laaues, It
seems. The final conception is not there
oppressively insisting on its own harsh
details ahead of time. The amount of
time required to finish a plece, or a
group of pieces, seems immaterial. His
productivity is not to be counted on the
number of pieces either, Painting on
pots has allowed him much more di-
mension than what could be done on
flats of canvas, and he enjoys this. The
ceramic multifiring, gradual processes
that depend somewhat on # succession
of results also set up their own condi-
tions. His many colours are all made
with numerous stains in a single base
glaze. What a simple approach—one
colour simply brushed beside another.
It's quite alright to indulge in very time-
consuming, personally satlafying and
challenging pieces. Right!

Davie Loyd

March, 1901