I've been discussing art with our daughter and her sjgnificant other over the past few days. We've specifically discussed where the line of demarcation lies between function and art. I wrote the following this morning after posting the previous message.
The quilt, in terms that we currently understand quilt, was originally functional; it provided warmth and coverings for one’s bed. But even when that was its purpose, quilters took pride in their technique and use of color to produce a functional object that was also good to look at. However beautiful though, quilts were to be functional first.
Men have likely always quilted. Those men who were without women for whatever reason had to be able to mend and sometimes construct their own clothes and coverings. I know anecdotal stories of men in the early 20th century who quilted from necessity , along with, perhaps, boredom, during long spells of being alone with their thoughts.
At some time, quilts began to separate from their function and be viewed as art, purely to be appreciated by the viewer with no concern or intent to be functional. I’m not positive when that began, but today quilts exist separately as both art and function. Some quilts are both, being used as bed coverings and admired as art. Quilts are as likely, however, to be originally made for display on walls of offices, hospitals and homes, as bed coverings.
Often we think of mid-eighteenth century and earlier quilts as having been made by poor folk from necessity. Actually, many of the quilts that survive were made by much more wealthy families. Only the wealthy could afford the fabric and dyes. Quilts that were constructed from scraps were used to the point of exhaustion. Some have survived, but they are, I believe, the exception. I have one. Its blocks were constructed from scraps of mens shirts by my maternal grandmother before 1914. I pieced them and had them quilted. While originally intended to be purely functional, it is now functional art.
I'm told that many Native American and African languages do not have a word for art. That which outsiders, primarily European, label as art was originally functional. Today, I see artifacts being sold that are functional, but bought as art. I'm thinking of some baskets on the Carolina coastal islands that people buy solely as art, never intending to use them to contain anything.
I read portions of a book ["indigeno: Contemporary Native Perspectives in Canadian Art", edited by Gerald McMaster and Lee-Ann Martin, 1992, Canadian Museum of Civilization] today that was written by Native American artists. These are all Native Americans who attended the finest art schools and have used their heritage to influence the kinds of art they do. Their work is art even by their own definition, whether or not their culture has a word for it.
The question I will be thinking about for a what is art, who decides, and responsibility to cultures whose functional works are appropriated as art. But, that's it for this evening.