My first three interviews were a series of highly fruitful conversations that touched on a variety of fascinating topics but also raised important unifying themes. My conversation with Carolina Arevalo took a very philosophical approach to craft, discussing the medium of textiles as a tool for storytelling, a natural accompaniment to bodily movement, and a cultural signifier that functions as art, artifact, and everything in between. Our conversation stressed the inherent interdisciplinarity of dealing with craft, as Arevalo intertwines comprehensive research with contemporary aesthetic sensibilities to create her thoughtful exhibitions. When I asked her about the implications of transplanting craft works from their original cultural setting to a contemporary art space, Arevalo proposed that with the correct research and methods of display, an artist’s community is never separated from their work; such is the enduring sense of community found in textiles and those who create them. On this same vein, we wrapped up the conversation by discussing the role of the internet in expanding the reach of oral tradition and certain traditional textile practices, enabling an uncertain, yet enduring future for craft. Speaking of the future of craft, my conversation with Marilyn Zapf very much centered on the here and now, as well as the ‘what’s next,’ of craft. We primarily discussed her role in Asheville’s Centre for Craft, which seeks to disseminate artistic and scholarly resources on craft to both a local and national audience. I was primarily interested in how institutions can serve craft art and craft artists, as well as looping the public into a subject that is often overlooked in the fine arts world. Zapf discussed the importance of generating conversations founded on the lived experience of its participants, heeding each individual’s cultural associations with craft while also welcoming cutting-edge interpretations of the medium. Once again, the subject of interdisciplinarity came up, as Zapf invoked the unifying nature of craft to describe research projects at the Centre that combine STEM and craft. We also discussed the ever-expanding definition of craft, and I particularly appreciated Zapf’s remarks on the handmade, the role of labor and production, and the idea that craft as a verb is just as essential to the conversation as the noun. Like Carolina Arevalo, Zapf also described the connection to community as essential to craft; we discussed how the universality of textiles could potentially bring in interested parties who didn’t quite understand the significance of craft art. Though we pivoted slightly away from craft art, I found myself drawing very strong connections between my conversation with Susan Bee and the larger themes of this course. We discussed the empowering communal nature of A.I.R. gallery and the natural tendency of marginalized artists to gravitate towards one another, creating collective artmaking experiences that often generate movement in the art world. We discussed the accessible metaphor of the sewing circle in relation to the creative processes intertwining at A.I.R.; how they both signify a shared history of knowledge and creativity that takes place in a designated space. Without having experience with craft art, Bee has significant scholarly knowledge on the subject, as well as interpersonal experience with some of the most prominent feminist craft artists of the 70s and 80s. We discussed how A.I.R. often loops in some of the values of craft art, values of slowness and handicraft that Marilyn Zapf and I discussed as well. 

 

The scope of these interviews spanned time and place; our conversations looped in ancient history in the same breath as the imagined future of the internet. I am beginning to formulate a story of craft art, one that acknowledges its multiplicity while also tracing themes of community, the mindbody, forms of knowledge, touch, and unspoken communication. From here, I am looking forward to expanding upon the global nature of craft, tracing the various connections through textiles found across the world. I also want to dig further into the themes of labor, value, production, and commodification that cloud and shape the world of women’s work. Furthermore, I am looking to push the definition of ‘women’s work,’ beyond the matrilineal, predominantly cisgender narrative. In an effort to commit to different forms of knowledge, I treasure the experiences of sitting with these three women, albeit virtually, and working through this subject together through conversation, in real time. Their expertise has proven to be nuanced and valuable, but their kindness and clear enthusiasm for the subject contributed just as much to the dialogue I am attempting to create.