Reading 1

Selvage, Nancy. "Art Versus Craft: The Issue of Craftsmanship in Twentieth-Century Art." Ceramic Millennium:             Critical Writings on Ceramic History, Theory and Art. Halifax, N.S.: Press of the Nova Scotia College of  Art and Design, Garth Clark ed. 2006.

Yanagi, Soetsu, Bernard Leach, and Shōji Hamada. The Unknown Craftsman: A Japanese Insight into Beauty. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1989. Print.

Pottery As Personal Lifestyle and Cultural Tradition

            “The contemporary American potter, like all fellow artists, is an educated individual, self-conscious of personal identity and capable of certain choices of lifestyle. Being a potter, as does being an artist, involves aesthetic choices, commitment, and risk.”    –Nancy Selvage

           As an Independent Study student, dreaming big dreams of future plans while still trying to hold onto the reality of the decisions and choices I continue to make in my artistic pursuit, I was very moved by this concise statement made by Selvage. She presents the idea that to make art is to not just learn aesthetics, skills, or what makes things work, but to adopt art as a personal lifestyle. Although art is a mode by which we learn important personal things (such as what time of day we work best, how we research, and how our ideas develop), it requires a full-time desire to not only hone the skills that we have so greedily collected but to transcend beyond our own wishes and ideas. To commit to embracing who we are, sharing a piece of that with others, and always looking over and beyond what we know. It poses the question: who do we make art for? Is art the constant pursuit of beauty? Is it more of a hobby or practice? Selvage then closes with the notion of our society as “an accessible cultural sandwich,” hinting to the bigger overlying structure presented by culture that we are then called to find our place in, no matter how “diverse [the] visual imagery” has become. The personal enters the public through art. Our adopted lifestyle is reflected onto the society we live in through the things we create and share.

           This is a nice leeway into the Yanagi article, which is a loud call for the reclaiming of the “age of the hand” in craft and cultural tradition. It interests me that at times when there existed higher social regulation tradition was easier to follow. There was such clear focus. How does tradition link us to truth in art?  I also enjoy the idea of bringing craft into our daily job/work. What would life look life if we treated everything as craft?  It seems that although open-mindedness is an important tool for expanding art, we have become too accepting of non-beautiful things. Now, I am not saying that we need to go out and destroy all “ugly” things, but rather that we need to re-evaluate and cultivate the terms we use to translate and therefore experience art. Perhaps this is what Yanagi sees as embracing religion or a type of artistic belief system. This leads back to the Selvage article, calling us to endless hours of education, self-pursuit and more time spend experiencing and contemplating great historical works of art.  We must pursue pottery and work to understand its relationship with tradition. And yet, while there is a certain romance to that of the “hand-made” there still remains satisfaction and beauty in the efficiency of the machine. To be able to participate in the act of creation through art is a beautiful process, but so is embracing technology and the brilliance of the human mind to think, problem solve, and create machines/systems that advance beyond what the human hand is capable of. 

Molly Post

Reading 2

I had to re-read this article in most parts to get a good understanding of what the author was conveying. The point they were making were really interesting and to me felt pretty new. It was definitely good perspective to gain on ceramics and objects as a whole. In the beginning of the reading the author made the distinction between things operating in space as an unlimited environment or using space as content or as enclosure. This is where the idea of potters space came from. This distinction helped me to understand the rest of the reading more and also think about the work being made in our studio. The author talks about the transformation of material in the making process and how when we create something it doesn't really turn into one thing, but into more of a "complex of sensuous analogies". Even when we make a cup, it seems as though it exists as more than a cup. This makes me think of what we all experience when our work is out on a table in critique or wherever it is displayed and how vulnerable it is to an endless amount of analogies and associations, many of which are dependent on the environment the work is in. I also found what the author was saying about historical and cultural context very interesting and the influences of in on trends and standards withing art. The author gives an example of ceramics being compelled by fashion and the transformation that occurred in the forms created becoming part of the norms established for artists after the fact. Technique, the way we evaluate work, what we make all seems to be subject to this building and layering context of what has been done and accepted before. This also reminded me of how important it is that we understand the context of what we find inspiration from. I appreciated what the author said about "potter's space" and "that the very act of containing creates a special kind of cell or focus in space which is extra-ordinary, maybe even timeless."

-Dehmie

Reading 2 Spring 2014

In Phillip Rawson's book, Ceramics, he discusses the history of sculpture as well as how many cultures have shown the use of the "potter's space." From his examples of Japanese and European ceramics, I have come to understand that what he means by "potter's space" is the 2D surface of the clay held within a 3D realm. This space has many possibilities through true metaphor or conceit. Does the artists want to fool the eye, expand on what could be there or does the artist create the shape of a vessel to invoke something deeper? Through his explanation of how the space around the sculpture, the surface of the sculpture, and the form of the sculpture all create a visual language that can only be achieved through the art of ceramics.
When applying "potter's space" to my own work, I think about the form and the space around it. The surface gets lost to me. When Rawson talks about the centerpieces that invoke more of a vessel and create a movement around the table to engage the viewer, it is done with the surface of the piece but also the form. I forget how much the surface means to the actual form. It completes the message that is trying to be said, whether it be the type of clay that is being used or the images that speak of whether the sculpture is a metaphor or a desire to be more like the Greek vases that show perfection in man. Through reading this excerpt of Rawson, I thought about Ken Price. His work has environment around the objects but also the surface themselves create an interest and depth. Where most things look like they rest on the surface, his work looks like its growing from within. His use of the potter's space is about engaging the viewer to not think about the clay being a medium but the clay being the subject.

Reading 2

        Metaphor and conceit were the themes that ran through this reading. Higby articulately examines how these two ideas manifest in the ceramics world and relate to the traditions of potters. The areas I was most drawn to were when Higby talks about how potters can create forms that live in “high-style” that are then reproduced and taken as norms in the pottery community. I think that this idea plays out today in contemporary ceramics and the “root pot” can easily be traced. I think this then relates to Higby’s idea of the “potter’s space”. 

For me, the ‘potter’s space’ is an area I am trying to explore in my own work. I use the pot as a jumping off point for ornamentation and transformation. I am trying to, as Higby states, “...advance [a pot] towards the point where it ceases to be a container of its own space and becomes simply a clay medium for a sculptural image, which may both ‘exist’ in its own symbolic space,”. I think it is important to recognize, however, Higbys notion that all things that are made out of clay inherently have a reference back to the pot. Any for that creates internal volume finds its thread in pots. I try and not hide this occurrence in my work, but rather give it significance in my handling and manipulation of the forms. 

Reading 2

After reading this article there were obviously two key points, metaphor and conceit.  Metaphor trying to portray an idea and conceit trying to be an idea¬  I thought it was in interesting idea that the ‘Potters Space’ comes from the step of giving a pot its decoration and by doing so giving the pot a presence of its own.  I thought the examples in the article were fitting and looked up more on my own on the Internet.  I liked that Picasso was included as a contemporary example of funerary jars and Betty Woodman came to mind when reading the part on Ceramics and Total Environment, “…when an extravagance of metaphor overwhelms an entire artistic style”.  Betty Woodman I think has an ability to transform a room with her contemporary wall hangings, which pull from the Baroque style.   The playing that Betty woodman is able to do in the playing between her wall hangings that are decoration but still make the mind scream out that they are pots is really interesting.  Thinking of metaphor and conceit and trying to figure out the point where a pot stops being a metaphor and becomes a conceit it gets very confusing.  I think there is a definite decision that is made when making a conceit, what I understood or gathered is that there would be no more reliance on being a pot but a dependence on the material essence of the object that is trying to be “copied”.  There is an obvious cultural difference between the ceramics mentioned in this article and how I feel a lot of the time I may write off decoration on a vessel as being pretty or interesting but when cultural context is added it brings upon analogies that you wouldn’t have known until told (like how in the Chinese culture a dragon on a jar represent Yin and Yang). 

Reading 1

    The articles, "Art Versus Craft: The Issue of Craftmanship in Twentieth-Century Art", and "Towards a Standard of Beauty" are both historical in nature. The first article talks about pottery's shift between art and craft, how pottery fit in with industrialization, and how Zen Buddhism changed pottery.  The second article refers to the opening of the Folkcraft Museum in Japan, its contents, and the beauty of handmade vs. machine made.  Industrialization and the opening of Japanese trade were two events common to each article.

    Pottery went through various movements with industrialization of forms being the impetus beginning in the early 1900's with the invention of the automobile.  Futurists praised the machine and denounced handicraft.  It was implied that because the potters wheel was a machine and clay was a "cheap industrial medium", pottery survived.  The Bauhaus melded the schools of fine arts and industrial designers, producing classical and industrial forms.  Potters began to look beyond the functional form.  With the opening of trade with Japan, and the introduction of Zen Buddhism, irregular forms and Japanese painting on pottery began emerging.  This brought about self expression, which then led to abstract expressionism in pottery.  With abstract artists like Peter Voulkos, Miro, Picasso, and Robert Arneson, pottery transformed into an art.

    In Japan, industrialization through trade made its way.  It threatened the beauty of handiwork and folk craft.  Standardized products and the profit margin mentality degraded the hours of hand making, creating far superior products,  meant to last and be passed down.  Handmade products conveyed warmth and beauty from the heart.  Machine made products were cheap, standardized, and cold.

    Both methods of creating product had limitations.  It was suggested that hand work and machine work could work together, each overcoming their shortcomings.  The handmade items in the Japan Folkcraft Museum would serve  as inspiration for hand made crafts of the future.

  Side Note:  Article one stated that Soetsu Yanagi, Shoji Hamada, and Bernard Leach toured
                     the U.S. promoting folk pottery.  Article two was written by Soetsu Yanagi.  Yanagi
                     and Hamada built the Japan Folkcraft Museum. 
   

   

   

Reading 2

It's interesting to think about the different shapes and overall end product an artist might make and how it is just a metaphor. Rawson explains how even though the artist might make and manipulate a piece of clay to make it look like a bamboo figure but nevertheless it will still be a pot. Another example of a metaphor is the porcelain box that has been shaped to look like an apple with the handle being the same shape and size of a caterpillar, it still has the same purpose of a box. Then Rawson goes on and explains how in the mid 18th century in South Germany and France porcelain was a huge hit and that Westerners just took it for granted. Porcelain was everywhere, in decorating interiors to intricately be made for tea-sets. It still lingered even after the austerity of Neo- Classicism had eliminated it.
It never came to mind how pots were perceived. Especially centuries ago how a simple pot depending on its coloration and painting would symbolize worship or as a funerary vessel to contain ashes of the dead. And not only pots but just abstract clay figures and the "potter's space" they contain. And how they are either painted, decorated, or their shape alone. It is interesting to know that pots have two kinds of significance when they are given some kind of symbolic or figurative plastic projection into actual space. One of them being emblematic, how such emblems refer to ideas, but not to concrete facts which can enhance the ideas they symbolize with their own existential density. Then there are the non- emblematic developments of the ceramic container which takes the direction of sculpture.
Over all it is pretty interesting to know about the history of ceramics in a way and everything that has developed since the beginning.

Reading 2

I personally think that this article is very relevant to contemporary artists in its statements about how artists, current or historical, imbue their works with meaning. Art essentially transforms raw materials, which have their own merit, into new entities. In doing so, it often creates a new space or makes a statement about a concept. The article makes a distinction between work of conceit and work of metaphor as two methods of achieving this. The difference between the two, as I read it, is the difference between illusion and allusion. A work of conceit embodies one idea and assumes it fully, taking on that identity with unwavering conviction, and is essentially a work of illusion. It takes a concept or image at face value and tries to recreate it. A work of metaphor, on the other hand, may allude to its surrounding environment or aspects of the human experience but ultimately retains its material identity (i.e. as a pot) while referencing these external influences and interpreting them. For instance, a metaphorical pot may be a vessel that alludes to a concept through imagery or form, but doesn’t try to altogether recreate it. 

The work of a metaphor interests me more than the work of conceit. To me, a metaphorical work exists in the larger context of the world around it, like the Chinese dragon vase which, through allusion to cultural iconography, makes a statement about cosmic balance, sexuality, and the human experience. It interprets and exists within a larger cultural context. This is more compelling to me than works that essentially try to become something else altogether, like the porcelain box that precisely imitates an apple or Rococo figurines which strive to create an isolated environment and exist in the enclosed area like a stage. Contemporary artists can still use these principles to imbue their works with meaning to a greater or lesser degree of impact. The most powerful contemporary work, in my opinion, exists in the open space of metaphor and can address existing social mores, ideas, and contexts without making an absolute, literal representation. While good art can have aspects of the conceit--for instance it may create a surrealist or fanciful alternate reality--it almost always has some connection to the world of the artist and viewer. 

I think conceit and metaphor are also important to consider when referencing historical art forms or even contemporary influences. Modern potters, for instance, create better pots when they look at historical forms and draw conclusions about them and then allow this influence to inform their own ideas about form and content. A potter who strives to recreate historical vessels word for word, or even copies the work of another contemporary artist verbatim, is less successful in the space that they make with their own art.  

Reading 2

The Philip Rawson reading discussed the ideas behind ceramic sculpture.  One of the first thing addressed was the three dimensional and “fictional” space of ceramics in general.  In all forms of ceramics, there is not only the space the created object takes up, but there is also the hollowed space inside.  Rawson refers to this interior space, weather it’s a vessel or a hollowed ceramic sculpture, as “potter’s space”.  This secondary special environment is something unique to the medium.

Rawson describes art as “the transformation of materials”.  He then discuses the way the intended purpose of an object can change the feeling of it.  A ceramic sculpture is a representation of another thing, where as a vessel containing the ashes of a loved one is not only utilized but also holds meaning in what it contains.

Though the reading was geared toward ceramic sculpture, I like that it explained how and why all ceramic forms are interconnected purely because of the medium.  There are certain processes that every ceramic artist uses to manipulate the material, subject aside.         

Reading 2

I think one of the ideas I was most drawn to after reading this extremely philosophical text, appeared in the very beginning as it describes the blurred line offered by fine-ware ceramics. That idea of dabbling both in the functionality and utilitarianism of the pot, as well as in the pure aesthetics of the work. I think to explore that concept, it is also crucial to understand that every art form has evolved over human history from form/aesthetics, technique and process, and of course the contexts associated with the medium and the work produced. In the case of ceramics, we have moved from the basic, functional vessel, to maybe more decorative functional ware. From there we embraced the connection between the person and the rawness of ceramic creations and began to give our pottery context and significance and the evolution continues to where we are today. It really becomes an existential philosophy in that sense- something so long enduring through our history that we continually adapt to meet our cultural needs but also our human and spiritual needs.

So at what point does a pot become more than just a pot? Is it in the process? The context? I believe it simply is in the consciousness of the maker as they nurture the clay to its adulthood where it will exist throughout the tides of time. That eternal quality, I feel is one of the appealing things in pottery. As people we have trouble accepting our mortality and often forget our insignificance in the grand scheme of life. The notion that something we create can last "forever" is somewhat sublime and humbling and I think that quality of the sublime is crucial in the ceramic lifestyle.

Reading 2

This chapter introduces the idea of conceit in ceramic sculpture as being the act of making something that looks like another object but is not actually that thing.  A pot that mimics an apple with a caterpillar on top is in the end a pot, not an apple.  There are cases explained where the representation of an object in other materials can be both representational conceit and metaphor when the object being represented is significant on multiple levels. 

The reading also highlighted different types of space, as ceramics exists within it. The first was the total environment, in which ceramic decoration and sculpture were arranged in a way that they become the environment.   Potters space is described as the space which a pot or vessel contains literally as well as metaphorically.   It becomes something of use but also representative of spiritual meaning that is associated with its specific use. 

I was most interested in how Rawson talked about ceramic sculpture being the point where a pot-as-vessel moved away from being a “container of its own space and becomes simply a clay medium for a sculptured image”.  A ceramic sculpture in this case still has “potters space” but also carries metaphorical weight.  It is interesting to me that all dimensional ceramic forms will maintain a relationship to the vessel simply because the material requires them to be built hollow.  This inner volume continues to be “the basis for and image of sculptural ‘life content’”.  It almost gives ceramic forms metaphorical content automatically simply because they are part of a very meaningful ceramic history. 

In his conclusion Rawson is very optimistic.  He mentions that potters should explore meanings that “have no basis in immediate life needs” and assures that elements of pottery will remain important even if pots are made of other materials.  He encourages potters to look to ceramic history and borrow from past ceramic achievements to develop those ideas in new and radical ways. 

The thing that stands out most to me in this reading is the idea that the entire history of pottery has an input into how work now will be seen.  It is impossible to remove your work from this history and ultimately the history informs the way that someone will approach your work.  I think it is important to be able to see how your work might sit within this history; what association will be made between your work and historical ceramic traditions.  

Reading 2

Philip Rawson. and Wayne Higby. Ceramics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984. pp. 188-206

It is interesting to know how art historians or critics evaluate the concept of the space in 3 dimensional art and especially the way Rawson contrasts the space between Chinese Art and European ceramic sculpture in 18-19th century within the unlimited or enclosed space dichotomy. He also suggests that this space- dichotomy derives from the distinction between “the metaphor in the formal meanings of pots communicated as allusion” and the conceit (imagination) to “imitate a single natural object to the extent.” For Rawson, the true sculpture would “contains a multitude of many valued metaphorical suggestions in the inflection of its forms” even in a naturalistic sculpture. It seems too art history-oriented and a rigid academic view to explain contemporary postmodern diversity.

However, his concept of Potter’s Space bestowed an “extraordinary, maybe even timeless” value on pots. A pot-the act of containing creates a special kind of cell in space and defines its own space. Even when a pot ceases to be a container of its own and contains a spiritual substance, the Potter’s Space based upon formed inner volume plays a sculptural role like the Peruvian Mochica head vessels.

Rawson thinks this inner volume in Chinese ceramic sculpture is continuous in the environment of unlimited space. This Chinese idea of space as a fluid medium is also recognized in Chinese painting in which the white void is not absence but an actual space. On the other hand, European ceramic sculptures, for example, 18th century Meissen’s works, are made as a part of complete table setting and isolated into enclosed space defined by Rococo interior. Instead, they define its space by gestures, all the implied movement, variety of surface modelling, brilliance of enamel colors and nervous exhilaration, etc. He adds Clay bozzetti (small scale studies) as a special European mode of ceramic space that starts to exploit the possible qualities and textures of clay material and searches the way to true sculpture.

 

  

Reading 2

The idea that I found the most interesting in this reading was that of the human need to assign meaning and significance to objects.  This is something we do all the time, not just in the art world.  We often project feelings onto objects, associate them with a specific memory, or even personify them.  I don't think this is a bad thing, but it's interesting that people all over the world in every culture do this.  Is it human nature to to want to make everything more personable?  While reading about the importance we put on vessels such as urns or idols, I kept thinking about Ibeji the wood carvings that the Yoruba culture in Africa make to house the soul of a dead twin.  To them this becomes so much more then a sculpture, it literally becomes that person.  They take care of it, making sure it is clothed, fed, and loved as part of the family.  This existential idea of an object containing something may be why we feel such a connection with  vessels.  Because they move beyond aesthetics into the realm of function we can see them as more personal.  For example the way a cup feels in your hand can produce in you such a real emotion.  While other art forms such as painting or photography can elicit an emotional response, I think the act of touching the object, and knowing that it serves a function that pertains to humans gives it something that other art forms cannot posses.

Reading 2, Logan

Again I can't help thinking about the subjective quality behind critiquing, analyzing, and classifying art. Through out this reading ceramics was either this metaphorical object or this conceit object, but I would argue these objects hold no current meaning to use as artist/people, or that is to say they don't hold nearly the same meaning to us as they did to the culture or civilization they derived from. Yes, from a technical perspective historic pottery provides us with techniques/styles, glazes, clay bodies, tricks of the trade, etc... but this metaphorical or conceit meaning truly only held value to those current civilizations at the time. Specific purposes within ceramics like funerary jars or spiritual figures were only relevant to those who believed in them, artist may have learned specific glazes, clay bodies, or application processes from this historic art, but in no means does it carry the same meaning. People create and have created ceramics to fit their cultural needs, and those cultural needs have significantly changed through time. To keep these metaphorical or conceit ideas pinned to ceramics through history is silly to me, simply because they are subject to just as much change.  I'm more interested in artist writing about art, rather than writers writing about art. Writers have different prerogatives in life when compared to an artist. Artist that write about art share those selective skills therefore are more able to write about the topic more specially in an educational and factual manner.

Re-Reading 1, Logan

"Art Versus Craft: The Issue of Craftsmanship in Twentieth Century Art"

After reading both articles i found it quite funny when the word "craft" came up and its relationship to modern ceramics and historic ceramics. on the one hand critics describe historic pottery as having more of a connection to this idea of craft and the hand made, where as today the term craft has been diluted by these ideas of mass production and mechanical processes. but when i really think about it, humanity has always been driven by technological developments threw time. we are subjects of the tools we use, find, and develop. For Example, the potters wheel, which has been around for quite some time, has shaped the way ceramic artists have worked for centuries. Those historic craft potters from korea of japan were utilizing all the technological developments of their time, which included the potters wheel. The wheel was a form of mechanical creation combined with the ideas of craft, yet for some reason those historic potters were more connected to "Craft" where as current potters are not. in my eyes we are doing the same exact thing just at a different time, we utilized the tools around use to further develop the world around use.

Re-Reading 1, Logan

"Towards a Standard of Beauty"

why do people or critics strive so hard in explaining the unknown? After reading this article i felt a little crossed and disappointed, while art has been and will always be in an constant flux of change, why try so hard in finding the answers. may be their are no answers within the world of art, may be the answer is far more simple than we make it out to be. personally i feel art is an outlet or a means of expressing individual experiences through out that individual life. within the article this term "craft" kept bouncing back and forth within my head, i mean really, does craft have to be made solely by the hand, an artist can still put meaning and soul within art countless different ways, so why do we make things out to be so black and white. its either craft, its either fine art, its either modern art....... rather than looking at the beauty or even enjoyment behind a piece of art we are too busy trying to classify it, or understand it.

Personally i envy korean and Japanese ceramics, but to say things have died off is a bit too much, yes we are in a world of new technological developments but in no means does that mean craft has died. It has changed!!! like in the passed things developed and change over time, experience, practice, and development. we need to stop looking at modern art with the same eyes we have perceived all forms of historic art, like different cultures we may need to learn a different language in order to understand the world around us.

Reading One 2014

     I really appreciated both of these readings. They were comfortable and interesting to wrap my head around and definitely seemed to be good for discussion. In the Towards a Standard of Beauty, I was really interested in what the author was saying about beauty and beholding as a focus and natural determination and the result of this in society and how it should carry us in life. It does seem peaceful to think and believe that aspiration helps society to he held onto by the embrace of what is promised in the future, when such an intentionality occurs. "I wish that everyone would realize that until recently beauty in things was commonplace and that it is our responsibility to demand that of the future." I've never heard it but quite like this, pretty powerful statement. Another point that the author made that really hit me was when they were talking about craftsmen and individual artists and the importance of pondering or learning from and respecting artwork. The author was expressing that an artists work is poor when they are dismissive and arrogant, she says that craftsmen stay away from this by loving and respecting folkcraft. It was interesting to hear about the eyes an artist/craftsmen should have.
     In the Art Vs. Craft article it was interesting to think about how we have approached achievements historically in the art world and in general. We are always after new frontiers or progress it seems. It's interesting to think that at one time machines, or industrialization was a new, promising frontier (which is still true just in different or more advanced ways maybe) as the handmade became less of a focus. And now I kind of feel like the handmade and the connection and experience there is a new new frontier. We are approaching it a diving into it from a different angle. Without the handmade first we never would have found the power of machines. I think that there is a beauty that can be and had been found in the connection and use if the machine and the handmade together, one enhancing the other. It is true that one may threaten or jeopardize the other at times or in certain ways but this may be because both are full of endless possibilities and so much potential can clash or harmonize.

-Dehmie

Reading 1

            Both of the readings discussed the debate of art versus craft.  To me, art and craft are not black and white.  I believe a lot of things, including ceramics, can fall under the category of both. 

            In “Towards a Standard”, by Soetsu Yanagi, there was a lot of emphasis on the importance of the quality of handmade objects.   Also, the creation and appreciation for usable things that are well made, functional, and also decadent and beautiful.  As a ceramic artist, I think about this a lot.  Not everything I create or other potters create is functional. Now days, the discipline is so wide in range, anyone can walk into our studio and see that.  I think what I connected with most in this reading is the idea that as our world is becoming more and more mechanical; we start to lose appreciation for the handmade and beautiful everyday functional objects. 

            In Nancy Selvage’s writing, she pointed out that even while crafting a functional piece of pottery, the person behind the potter’s wheel is faced with many aesthetic decisions. This idea also connects back to the concept of handmade.  Anything that is handmade leaves the mark of the creator.  I believe the most important thing to remember is that the artist or crafter is reflected in every handmade object.