Particles, Waves, and Plus Size Art: The Dual Nature of Quilts, originally published on December 20th @ quiltblock.tumblr.com.
Hi Everyone! Happy Tuesday. Happy holidays.
I breezed through San Francisco for a couple days, and managed to squeeze in a visit to The de Young (the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco). But unfortunately failed to hit the new SFMOMA. Big sigh there....
Images: from the Frank Stella retrospective currently on display at The de Young Museum.
Worth noting is the Frank Stella retrospective currently on display, which is also surrounded by three, somewhat small, seemingly tertiary, exhibits on textiles. And while the Stella show had a couple of bright moments, the conversation taking place in the satellite galleries - that which was woven, dyed, quilted, knotted, embroidered, painted, printed, and pieced - felt considerably more dynamic and culturally influential.
Images: Woman’s skirt panel, collected in 1979, Senegal; Amish Quilt, 1900, United States, Indiana, displayed alongside a piece of indigo dipped banana fiber by Hiroyuki Shindo, 1984; Wrapping Cloth, 20th century, Korea.
Also, somewhat distracting, was how often the associated text throughout the galleries felt compelled to remind me of their position on art vs. craft, at times as if on loud speaker. As if to say: Don’t forget Aimée - for all that is holy, esoteric, and intellectual - these textiles, this Amish quilt among them, are not works of art - they’re craft. They’re beautiful pieces of well designed cloth, certainly - some made decades if not centuries before Stella’s ‘post-painterly abstraction’ or Duchamp’s toilet, which we believe largely created the philosophical standard for what constitutes ‘legitimate’ art. But because these pieces were intended for everyday purposes - you know, things like sacraments, prayer, sex, commerce, commemoration, and so on - they are what inspire art. Sure, there’s some debate about this. However, you’ll notice that the way we describe these objects doesn’t shine too bright a light on the debate beyond this preface. So it’s best not to confuse the two, until there’s some consensus. Because real art is premeditated. And real art is made primarily by men - white men. Which these are not. Nevertheless, don’t touch these textiles because they’re extremely valuable. Artist refer to them, quite often. Oh, and flash photography is prohibited.
Examples of this type of pseudo-intellectualism were everywhere. The picture above is text from one of the three textiles exhibits. While the pic below, is one of several quotes from the Frank Stella retrospective. As a result, the effort to deemphasize the intentions of makers vs. artists felt nascent in its understanding, childish even.
It’s perfectly natural and even appropriate to think that one’s intention for creating something shapes its context, and therefore its classification. What remains disappointing however, is how much value is placed on objects intended for a such a skinny dress size as the modern ideals that support western art - significantly prized above all other intentions and contexts of meaning.
So, why bring it up? Why post about this, when previous editorials here on BLOCK have expressed disinterest in general discussions of art vs. craft? Because this will continue to have implications for quilts.
We’re familiar with how often curators describe certain works of art as ‘quilt-like.’ And yet it’s still a stretch to ask for a substantive discussion about quilts from art museums. Exceptions are made, of course, for those quilts that reflect an aesthetic ‘resembling’ abstract art. But even this loose association with ‘real’ art doesn’t reflect a foothold in the realm of art couture. Quilts remain an outlier. Quilts remain a craft - a by-product of lived creativity. But art?
MoMA’s own Glossary of Art Terms, for example, illustrates the point. The online learning resource does not currently recognize quilts or quilting as an artistic medium or process. From letters A-Z, the letter “Q” is missing altogether, with ‘quilt’ and ‘quilting’ outperformed by such key artistic vocabulary as ‘ball bearing’ and ‘screw.’ Which means, there's still considerable unwillingness to formally acknowledge that quilts are enormous influencers upon art, let alone an art form all its own. Or, perhaps even more accurately, that quilts are a significant craft, with higher-order artistic traits that classify it as both - like ‘light’ in the realm of science, which is both a particle and a wave, and therefore a conundrum for parts the science community to deal with.
The dual nature of quilts means that the genre isn’t a member of the blank-slate club of painting, sculpture, and photography, whose members (still primarily boys) like their art skinny, royal, and predominantly intended for the gallery and for the gaze. Quilts, of course, will continue to get some credit for their designs. And curators will continue to be delighted by it, when ‘real’ artists make them. But as a genre, quilts are still a plus size genre - a dual object of meaning - a by-product of the home that can never so easily be removed from its original context (unlike an industrial toilet, I suppose).
And aren’t we glad for it? Isn’t that what’s so fascinating about them to begin with? That yes, they are quilts, but they’re simultaneously and increasingly something else altogether.