Woolly

Brace yourselves for some pure essence of Guardian, courtesy of Libby Brooks.

Amid the economic rubble, a revolution is being knitted.

I bet you weren’t expecting that.

Tactile and egalitarian, nourishing and slow, arts and crafts are enjoying a deserved revival in our recession-hit society.

The “nourishing” bit is a nice touch, implying as it does a wholesomeness and moral regeneration to offset all that “economic rubble” business. Yes, it’s true, home-made woollens will set us free and make us warmer, better people. Well, warmer possibly.

This week, the think-tank Demos published a collection of essays exploring the idea of “expressive life.” In the volume, US arts writer Bill Ivey - who coined the phrase - and Sandy Nairne, director of the National Portrait Gallery, tease out the prospect of a rebirth of the arts and crafts movement as part of the search for quality of life in a post-consumerist, recession-hit society.

Post-consumerist? Really? Care to bet on that, Libby?

At a moment when laid-off bankers are testifying to the benefits of basket-weaving, a reversion to the reformist aesthetic of John Ruskin and William Morris can feel suitably corrective.

Oh, there’s more.

The reasons for this resurgence are not hard to fathom: we are producers frustrated with never seeing the end product of our efforts; consumers weary of being bullied into buying stuff we don’t need, that is badly made or doesn’t fit.

I’m all in favour of craft. For instance, a professional columnist concerned with her craft, or with basic competence, might hesitate before filing an article in which she baldly asserts that “we” are “frustrated” and “weary,” dressed in ill-fitting clothes, and worse, “bullied into buying stuff we don’t need.” Who is this presumed “we”? How does Libby know what you or I need, or want, or how “bullied” and “weary” we are, if at all? Alas, dear Libby doesn’t reveal the secret of her preternatural knowledge. She does, however, tell us,

You cannot Twitter a cushion cover.

Before delivering the obligatory moral punch line.

Crucially, craft is egalitarian. While some in the Labour party appear bent on resuscitating the canard of meritocracy, which divides the gifted few from the unexceptional mass, craft reminds us of the significance of equality of outcome, rather than of opportunity. Everyone shares the capacity to develop a skill, based on decent teaching, application and time - not raw talent.

Ah. There we go. Equality of outcome, rooted in a knitwear revolution. Any monkey can be taught to knit or whittle, apparently, and this is reassuringly egalitarian, and therefore good. All “we” need is teaching, no “raw talent” required. Raw talent - like its more evil relations, giftedness and genius – is by definition unequally distributed, conspicuous, and thus to be frowned upon. And if Libby should, God forbid, be knocked down by a bus, I’m sure she’d welcome treatment by a surgeon whose skills are, at best, unremarkable. 

Comments

[R. Sherman]

One wonders whether she'd lampoon the "canard of meritocracy," if she were gifted a hand-crafted sweater with three arms.

Regards

[Karen M]

If I get knocked down by a bus I'd want my doctor to be one of the "gifted few". When I buy a book I want it to be well written, well printed and in a nice cover. I don't want a book that anyone could have written. The only stuff I don't mind being "unexceptional" is stuff that doesn't matter. And stuff that doesn't matter isn't going to change the world.

[Anna]

"craft is egalitarian… craft reminds us of the significance of equality of outcome"

Even this is bollocks. Craft isn't egalitarian unless you have no standards. Anyone can have a go - but so what? I can't knit to save my life. Maybe I could spend years learning how to knit badly. Does she mean a baggy jumper with uneven arms is just as good as one that fits?

[David]

“Craft isn’t egalitarian unless you have no standards.”

It seems to me any craft worthy of the name - as opposed to simple, repetitive manual activity - requires a little more than practice or egalitarian bloody-mindedness. The fact that you or I could, theoretically, knit for a length of time and get a little better at it doesn’t mean the results (or experience) would be remotely worthwhile.

But I’m not convinced Libby knows what she means.

[Rob]

"consumers weary of being bullied into buying stuff we don’t need, that is badly made or doesn’t fit."

I have never been 'bullied' into buying anything, whether I need it or not. The bourgeois left has such a sneering and patronising view of people.

[David]

Ah, but the devil made her buy that dress.

[Adriane]

Everyone should know how to weave rope and grow trees. Your application of these skills may vary ...

[JuliaM]

Wow!

And I thought Polly Toynbee's breathless appeal to fashion a new politics and attract voters with: "KT Tunstall and Billy Bragg sang, and Blur's drummer Dave Rowntree made a foot-stamping speech..." was the kookiest Friday offering today...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/10/vote-for-change-voting-system

[Chris S.]

"stuff we don’t need, that is badly made or doesn’t fit."

Is't that the very definition of Arts and Crafts?

[SG]

Knitting isn't going to improve my quality of life, even in a "post-consumerist, recession-hit society". Besides I'll be too busy sweeping up all that economic rubble.

[Wm T Sherman]

I know how to make sky rockets and explosives from household items. That's a craft, isn't it?

[Anna]

"One wonders whether she'd lampoon the "canard of meritocracy," if she were gifted a hand-crafted sweater with three arms."

Isn't Libby Brooks' employment proof that meritocracy is a sham? Looks like any old fool can write for the Guardian...

[John D]

"…she baldly asserts that "we" are "frustrated" and "weary," dressed in ill-fitting clothes, and worse, "bullied into buying stuff we don't need." Who is this presumed "we"? How does Libby know what you or I need, or want, or how "bullied" and "weary" we are, if at all?"

Spot on. It's so bloody arrogant and patronizing. If you've been bullied into buying stuff you don't need you’re an idiot. She obviously thinks we're all idiots too.

[David]

John,

“It’s so bloody arrogant and patronizing… She obviously thinks we’re all idiots too.”

That would be an obvious inference. What’s remarkable is how readily Guardian commentators in particular resort to the paranormal “we”. Oliver James relies on it in practically every article and TV appearance. Tanya Gold is another chronic user of the term, claiming “we” collude in her addictions, her psychodramas and her lack of self-esteem:

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/01/displacement.html

Madeleine Bunting uses it habitually, as for instance when telling us that “we” have succumbed to “hyper-frantic consumerism.” Like many of her colleagues, Bunting rarely misses an opportunity to tell us how *we* feel about things *she* doesn’t like:

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/12/an-insatiable-s.html

In a typically confused and presumptuous piece, Jackie Ashley tells us, “We have become less confident and optimistic about the future. Our increased material competitiveness has not made us happier. Our frenzied activity leaves us stressed…” And on she goes, telling “us” that on any number of issues “we” feel exactly as she does. The presumption is extraordinary.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/02/and-this-is-how.html

Obviously, the paranormal “we” crops up elsewhere – it’s a standard tool of tendentious opinionating. See, for instance, the blathering of Carolyn Guertin:

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/05/that-paranormal.html

But it’s pretty much a staple of the Guardian’s social commentary. And I think that tells us something.

[morbo]

Hahahah, guardianista wankery at its finest. It reads as if it was parody cribbed straight from The Onion and yet not only is it for real, its authors are a far too thick to realise they've descended into self parody.

"At Prick Your Finger, a wool shop in east London's Bethnal Green, Rachael Matthews is spinning a rolag of cashmere and alpaca, her right leg drawing rhythmic cadences from the wooden wheel's foot pedal. In tandem, her friend and business partner Louise Harries inventories their selection of nationally sourced yarns, from a high lustre Wensleydale to a tender Shetland. In the corner, a crocheted porcupine sports knitting-needle quills. Big jars of buttons wink on the shelf, while rainbow ribbons cascade from a drawer."

Hahahah, what a beautiful opening, a note perfect parody of well-heeled upper middle class lefty fashion-conscious name dropping with the air of their desperate pretention to appear all artistic and creative. And yet it is completely serious. Perfect.

[Paul]

Over the years, I've had quite a few benefits from joining the middle-class. There are a few things, however, that make me wish I'd never signed up. Arts and Crafts is at the very top of the list.

Arts and Crafts and everything associated with it - whether that's festivals, green politics, shit home-made birthday and Christmas presents (and cards), extreme smugness, nature fetishism, homemade wine, anti-capitalist 'politics', things made out of wood.... Brrrr.

[Karen M]

Morbo,

"It reads as if it was parody cribbed straight from The Onion"

Someone in the CIF comments linked to this…

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38861

[jones]

Having taken on board fully the implications of a post-industrial civilisation (hunger and deprivation with an associated Homo-Sapien cull) I feel there should be a government sponsored initiative to encourage the inculcation of fine art and craft skills to build in self sufficiency of a high order.

To this end it occurs to me ('one'?/'us'?/Royal 'We'?) that we should all learn to manufacture clothing out of rice-paper and when things get really tough in the supply chain we could all eat our pants whilst keeping warm through the chilly season.They would have to be bloody tough mind as I know how agricultural my own pants look and smell after having them on over only a weekend.

But hey, no-one said it would be easy for the lower classes.

[Andrew Zalotocky]

These absurd Guardian articles are actually very encouraging because they demonstrate the total intellectual bankruptcy of the "liberal" establishment. It has no new ideas and no serious thinkers. It has become smug, trivial, reactionary, self-indulgent and no longer capable of defending the ideas it claims to believe in. It has no future because it has nothing left to offer except rationalisations for its own power and privilege.

Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for "we".

[jones]

It might also be productive to manufacture garments out of the finest hemp for when the period of mushroom-shaped combustion occurs during the above mentioned cull.

Unfortunately animal rights will be reduced to 1;the right to be eaten and 2;the right to be worn which should, at least usher in a new era in liberal hand-wringing and angst at our collective guilt (collective as defined by....)

But hey, it'll be a brave new world for all who remain to enjoy.....

Invest in flint...

[TimT]

'Craft is egalitarian'.

Sure.

And we all make books like William Morris, paint like Dante Gabriel Rossetti, write poems like Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and fiction like Charles Dickens.

Nope, nothing hoity toity or elitist about that stuff. Anyone can do it!

[TimT]

Considering a revived arts and craft movement has been going strong since probably the 1960s, with the advent of movements such as DIY zinemakers, folk musicians, brew-your-own-beer, etc, The Guardian really is rather late in calling this revolution.

Ironically, this is being written at a time when a number of right-wing libertarians are choosing to 'opt out' of the American economy and become their own at-home basket weavers. Yep, the latest arts-and-crafters are gun-maniac rednecks.

[David]

“It has become smug, trivial, reactionary, self-indulgent and no longer capable of defending the ideas it claims to believe in…”

Brooks’ performance doesn’t exactly raise the bar on that front; though mediocrity may suit her egalitarian leanings. She joins the Guardian comment thread very briefly, accuses her readers of being cynical, then fails to defend her own claims against even the most basic criticism. For instance, on that line about “post-consumerist society”: “No, I don’t think we’re in a post-consumerist society, though we’re thinking about it like never before.” Again, note the “we” business. I don’t know anyone who’s “thinking like never before” about a “post-consumerist society,” and I don’t know anyone who’d be excited by the prospect. Maybe I mix in less enlightened circles. She then bolsters her comments on meritocracy with this: “Yes, I do think meritocracy is worth interrogating again… I think it’s a dodgy concept.”

Devastating stuff, I think you’ll agree.

[Spiny Norman]

“Yes, I do think meritocracy is worth interrogating again… I think it’s a dodgy concept.”

Oh really? I wonder how Libby would feel if the Grauniad replaced her with some passerby off the street because, well, just about anyone could write that adolescent drivel.

[AntiCitizenOne]

> brew-your-own-beer

With no tax and duty. I wonder do Grauniad reading home brewers voluntarily pay extra to make up the difference?

[David Gillies]

I've been out of academia for ten years now so it is with no small sense of nostalgia that I read these vignettes of Leftist groupthink. But this is occupies such a high-altitude plane of drivel that I got spots before my eyes. "A revolution is being knitted" Oh, my sides! I suppose it's also being street-performed by earnest dancers displaying all the signs of late-stage Huntington's Chorea.

[Wonder Woman]

"Everyone shares the capacity to develop a skill, based on decent teaching, application and time - not raw talent."

-- many hours spent in wood-carving, stained glass and scrapbooking classes with the creativity and coordinately deficient, are all the proof I need that if Libby has ever held a knitting needle, it was probably in her rectum.

It's a talent of a sort, I guess.