I am always interested in how museums categorize objects they display. Paintings and sculpture and photographs are pretty easy, although you certainly can make a case for sculptures that are really about painting [think Robert Arneson or Viola Frey] and paintings that are sculpture [Red Grooms, Ellsworth Kelly].
Utilitarian objects are a different story. Consider the pieces displayed in the four recently installed cases near the light court of the Art Institute of Chicago’s Rice Wing,
which contain a lot of virtuous objects. Among those I liked the best: a coffee pot designed by the recently departed Eva Zeisel,
as well as a group of pieces by Russel Wright,
a fantastic clock designed by Paul Frankl,
a great vase that I thought was a piece of Lalique but was designed by Reuben Haley,
and a footed bowl by Gertrud and Otto Natzler
for which, if you’ve seen my collection of studio pottery bowls, you’ll understand my love.
When I started thinking about the groupings in the cases, I wondered how the museum would classify them: are they “Decorative Arts?” Or are they “Design”? It’s always an interesting debate, and you can’t always make a bright-line distinction between the two — especially at an institution like AIC, which has made a pretty big deal about perception of the Architecture and Design department on the same level as the other curatorial areas.
Turns out the museum classifies these objects as neither — they’re under the more general heading of “American art.” I’m guessing that, because AIC’s decorative arts department is technically “European Decorative Arts,” and all the items displayed here are American.
I like their categorization as “art” because, well, I think many designed objects are works of art — even production pieces like most of what’s displayed here. As a practical matter, I guess most people just think anything in an encyclopedic art museum like AIC is “art,” so the distinction is something not a lot of people think about.
But if you do care about such niceties, while classifying them as “art” might seem elitist and exclusionary, I think it’s actually populist and democratic, because it validates as “art” the objects in many “ordinary” collections. You are much more likely to acquire a Zeisel coffeepot or a Wright celery plate for your personal use than you would be, say, ceramic pieces by Robert Arneson or Viola Frey. So even though you might use the objects on a semi-regular basis, thinking you are that much closer to “art” is an affirmation. And if you are someone who appreciates them as “design,” it’s a bonus.
