Symposium Session Review: Connection and misconnections: The benefits and pitfalls of craftivism. A review of Session 6C, Individual Papers: Craftivism

by: Emily J. Oertling, Student/New Professional Award Recipient 

The individual papers presented in Session 6C: Craftivism shed light on the complexity of crafting for a cause. The presenters’ critical perspectives revealed connections formed through craft practices and the issues inherent in using craft as a form of protest. Examples of craftivism highlighted the complexity of creating to contribute to a movement.

Architectural designer Zenovia Toludi presented artwork that celebrates political movements and quiet moments. Toludi’s presented her work, titled “Mutant Moving Room,” alongside that of other artists whose works showcase unseen history. These works looked at the parallels between the mundane, like the disposable coffee cup, and the massive—global migration. Her presentation sought to question which actions—all a part of history—should be celebrated. Her presentation also provoked questions about access to the art world.

Hinda Mandell’s historical research also centers around access. Mandell’s presented on a dispute between the Freemans Aid Society (FAS) and the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society (RLASS). These organizations sold goods at handicraft bazaars to raise funds. Julia Griffiths, who was one of the founding members of the RLASS and against interracial relationships, gained control over the bazaar—preventing FAS access. Mandell’s findings questioned whether the needle was indeed a unifying tool and reminded the audience that mending does not erase the tear.

Crafting for a cause was brought to the current moment by Alesia Maltz. In the wake of the migration crisis, her small community created welcome blankets for families new to the United States. She sought to document the discussions between people from different backgrounds, uniting around a cause using craft. In times of tremendous fragmentation, she considered if picking up the needle could help plait weak ties.

Julie Hollenbach expanded this conversation and questioned if craftivism benefits anyone other than the privileged maker. Hollenbach explained that white, middle-class females dominate craftivism. Craftivism is far too often a feel-good process that permits those with the greatest access to the public sphere space not to disrupt structures in society silencing others. Craft is a gentle and pleasing form of protest. Her examination of self-defined craftivists gave greater context to this discussion and recognized that the creation of objects–like the pussy hat–supports a more extensive capitalist system.

Catherine Dormor’s presentation acknowledged the relationship between the thread, craft, and female existence. She put forth the idea that craftivism products, like the pussy hat, are a global symbol for collective action. There is uncertainty if these acts are enough. However, in a world where stitching and knitting are often dismissed as women’s work and women’s work is still perceived as lesser, craft, per Dormor, invites closer inspection of the cause.

Not all crafters, artists, or designers who create political works are craftivist. It is a title that does not easily resonate with those most affected by social, political, and cultural realities. Activism and craft require time. Whether for women’s equality, immigration, or working conditions, creative protesting is reserved for those with the greatest access to platforms, resources, and power in society. 

Emily J. Oertling is a PhD Candidate at Kansas State University.