Making Things & Creativity
Kathryn Lichti-Harriman
First, in thinking about the term craft and the practices of making that are often described with this term, it helps to look briefly at what the key thinkers within this world are saying about it before beginning to critically explore the term, the practices and the makers’ lives further.
Non-Conceptual Thought
As reported on the V&A’s website (2012), Mark Jones, director of the V&A draws attention to the fact that craft refers to a type of art – of expressive making practice – in which ideas are present but not necessarily verbal, or conceptual. Craft, from this perspective, is a realm of intuition or non-conceptual thinking, an idea also explored more critically by craft anthropologist Kathryn Lichti-Harriman (2010) who’s work looks at the way craft’s non-conceptual aspects can be harnessed as a way of engaging diverse museum-going publics with complex ideas.
As Jones points out, “not all ideas start with words” (V&A 2012, unpaginated), a fact explored by Darwinian aesthetic theorist Ellen Dissanayake (Brown and Dissanayake 2004; Dissanayake 1990, 1992, 2011). Dissanayake’s work explores the evolutionary background to human aesthetic and making practices. From this perspective it is argued that the basic impetus to make beautiful objects (or music, or dance, etc.) is innate – linked to neurobiology, emotions, and sociality – as well as culturally influenced; and thus it stands to reason that there is a fundamentally non-conceptual nature underpinning craft making practices.
Making Things
From another perspective “contemporary craft is about making things” (V&A 2012, unpaginated), as Rosy Greenless, Director of the Crafts Council (for England and Wales) points out. An observation that is not to be trivialised as it is the access to materials and markets that can often be seen as driving forces for makers using contemporary social media and other Internet resources in their practices (see current research on this project). Laurie Britton-Newell, curator, and Caroline Broadhead, practitioner, also point out the centrality of materiality and production in the class of objects and processes considered ‘craft’. These differ qualitatively/meaningfully from those of objects and processes deemed ‘art’ (Becker 1978, Lichti-Harriman 2010), and thus are worth exploring further in future research.
From another perspective, that of biological anthropology, Dissanayake (1990, 1992, 2011) draws on the convergence diverse academic disciplines to explore the fundamental, pan-human importance of craft. She draw the conclusions that it is vital for people to explore and understand the ‘origins’ of human art – in this case art is better understood not as a class of objects, but as processes of creativity and making more generally. This understanding, she argues, must go beyond studies of contemporary art or craft worlds (see Becker 1978, 1982) and look holistically at the intersections of human history, culture, biology and contemporary practices.
In the context of looking at the way online technologies are affecting, and affected by, craft worlds and individual craft practices, the implications of these perspectives are that the Internet and associated social networking are not perceived as an unusual set of phenomenon – watershed moments that are divorced from a larger human proclivity for sociality and making – but as integrated innovations that stem from these proclivities, and indeed contribute to their sustaining. Dissanayake (1990, 1992, 2011) also posits making as a fundamental human behaviour, and that has implications for the way in which future research questions in the field of craft theory and research are posed. If all humans are creative and biologically ‘hard wired’ to be ‘artists’ (or craft-makers), it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the exclusion and denigration of non-professional making practices from the discourse of craft research. Dissanayake (Brown and Dissanayake 2004), also addresses the issue of repetition, which many artists and professional makers use as a derogatory critique of non-professional craft, as a fundamental part of making practices.
Excellent craftsmanship, refers not to:
“the everyday fabrication of things, but a way of making that necessitates taking special pains, that is meticulous and careful. Fine craftsmanship is usually distinguished by a refusal to rely on accidental or aleatory occurrences […] Instead, the material is totally in the control of the craftsman.” (Metcalf 1987, unpaginated)[1]
Now, the central part of making is materiality, and from materiality arises questions about agency Agency and materiality crop up again in Metcalf’s (2004, unpaginated) observations about the intersection of craft practice with academic theory. In this essay on the intersections of evolutionary biology and craft.
“certain types of craft objects - especially objects designed to be used rather than just looked at - embody sympathy. Because craft objects are substantially handmade, traces of the maker's body and its movements often remain in the object: the potter's fingerprint; the silversmith's planishing mark; the stitches of the needleworker; the irregular from of a glassblower's vase. Such marks record the presence of a living person, who exists at one "degree of separation" from the user. Ordinary people recognize this intuitively, and they read a craft object as a symbol of human presence. As such, crafts stand in clear contrast to mass-produced objects, from which any trace of the human has been erased. It's the difference between a handmade bowl and a piece of Tupperware®, and it's not merely a semiotic difference. In an increasingly dematerialized world, these records of human presence become increasingly important to people.” (Metcalf 2004, unpaginated)
And, Gell (1998) in his discussion of hand-made objects (which he calls ‘art’), makes it very clear that the “sympathy” Metcalf discusses is indeed a driving force in the way that such objects circulate, are received, the social and psychological impact that they have, etc. However, rather than “sympathy,” Gell describes the moving force in such interactions (facilitated by hand-made objects) as agency and explains how it is a type of distributed personhood inherent in hand-made objects – Craftspeople see their production as a means of distributing an experience” (Metcalf 2004, unpaginated). Like Metcalf, Gell also contends that the impact of such agency as expressed through the material form of the made object is perceived intuitively.
Workmanship of Risk, Workmanship of Certainty
David Pye, architect and woodworker, wrote two seminal books in the 1960s and 70s detailing the aspects of workmanship: The Nature and Art of Workmanship (1968) and The Nature of Aesthetics of Design (1978). Though this work Pye critically examines the concept and process of workmanship and whether or not the outcome of a given act of making (or action) is fairly certain or if it contains an element of risk (which can be synonymous with skill). Pye’s work is useful for considering the interaction of digital technology with craft production in contemporary Craft as, in fact, the presence of automation does not necessarily guarantee a certainty of outcome particularly when a craft maker does not have full mastery over the tools and skills of digital image manipulation. Several makers who were interviewed for this study reported using Photoshop or other programmes in their work because they resulted in creating pleasant, but unpredicted, aesthetic results. This is clearly a workmanship of risk that deserves to be explored further.
Creativity
There is also no denying that, as David McFadden, chief curator and president of the Museum of Arts and Design in New York, points out: craft, like art and design, involves the profound engagement with materials and process that is central to creativity” (V&A 2012, unpaginated). To critically explore this issue of creativity, it can help to draw on cross-cultural analyses such as those produced recently by anthropologists such as James Leach (Aragon and Leach, 2008; Leach, 2004, 2007) and Liep et al (Leip, 2001), or earlier by Lavie et al. (1993). From a psychological perspective, creativity has been addressed by scholars such as Silvano Areti (1976) and Dissanayake (1990, 1992, 2011).
Deconstructing the European and American notions of what creativity is and to what class of objects (or, in this case, human behaviours) it should be applied to, James Leach has written on ‘Modes of Creativity’ (2004) which begins to clearly unpack the assumptions about creativity and individual genius that underpin Western art worlds. He also offers up a theory that creativity, like so much else that human beings to, is multifaceted and its expression comes in different forms which emphasise different values and social relationships between actors. Lichti-Harriman (2010) uses this approach as a jumping off point in the analysis of creativity and social networks in contemporary craft practice so that, when combined with Becker’s understanding (1978) of art and craft worlds being underpinned by fundamentally different aesthetic and social processes, she illustrates a mode of creativity peculiar to Scottish craft making – one in which sense of self and the materiality of making processes are imbued (or ‘distributed’) in wider social networks rather than taken ( or ‘appropriated’) from them, as in the case of art production.
[1] First published as a catalogue essay for “Craft as Content: National Metals Invitational,” Emily Davis Gallery, The University of Akron, Ohio 1987
First, in thinking about the term craft and the practices of making that are often described with this term, it helps to look briefly at what the key thinkers within this world are saying about it before beginning to critically explore the term, the practices and the makers’ lives further.
Non-Conceptual Thought
As reported on the V&A’s website (2012), Mark Jones, director of the V&A draws attention to the fact that craft refers to a type of art – of expressive making practice – in which ideas are present but not necessarily verbal, or conceptual. Craft, from this perspective, is a realm of intuition or non-conceptual thinking, an idea also explored more critically by craft anthropologist Kathryn Lichti-Harriman (2010) who’s work looks at the way craft’s non-conceptual aspects can be harnessed as a way of engaging diverse museum-going publics with complex ideas.
As Jones points out, “not all ideas start with words” (V&A 2012, unpaginated), a fact explored by Darwinian aesthetic theorist Ellen Dissanayake (Brown and Dissanayake 2004; Dissanayake 1990, 1992, 2011). Dissanayake’s work explores the evolutionary background to human aesthetic and making practices. From this perspective it is argued that the basic impetus to make beautiful objects (or music, or dance, etc.) is innate – linked to neurobiology, emotions, and sociality – as well as culturally influenced; and thus it stands to reason that there is a fundamentally non-conceptual nature underpinning craft making practices.
Making Things
From another perspective “contemporary craft is about making things” (V&A 2012, unpaginated), as Rosy Greenless, Director of the Crafts Council (for England and Wales) points out. An observation that is not to be trivialised as it is the access to materials and markets that can often be seen as driving forces for makers using contemporary social media and other Internet resources in their practices (see current research on this project). Laurie Britton-Newell, curator, and Caroline Broadhead, practitioner, also point out the centrality of materiality and production in the class of objects and processes considered ‘craft’. These differ qualitatively/meaningfully from those of objects and processes deemed ‘art’ (Becker 1978, Lichti-Harriman 2010), and thus are worth exploring further in future research.
From another perspective, that of biological anthropology, Dissanayake (1990, 1992, 2011) draws on the convergence diverse academic disciplines to explore the fundamental, pan-human importance of craft. She draw the conclusions that it is vital for people to explore and understand the ‘origins’ of human art – in this case art is better understood not as a class of objects, but as processes of creativity and making more generally. This understanding, she argues, must go beyond studies of contemporary art or craft worlds (see Becker 1978, 1982) and look holistically at the intersections of human history, culture, biology and contemporary practices.
In the context of looking at the way online technologies are affecting, and affected by, craft worlds and individual craft practices, the implications of these perspectives are that the Internet and associated social networking are not perceived as an unusual set of phenomenon – watershed moments that are divorced from a larger human proclivity for sociality and making – but as integrated innovations that stem from these proclivities, and indeed contribute to their sustaining. Dissanayake (1990, 1992, 2011) also posits making as a fundamental human behaviour, and that has implications for the way in which future research questions in the field of craft theory and research are posed. If all humans are creative and biologically ‘hard wired’ to be ‘artists’ (or craft-makers), it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the exclusion and denigration of non-professional making practices from the discourse of craft research. Dissanayake (Brown and Dissanayake 2004), also addresses the issue of repetition, which many artists and professional makers use as a derogatory critique of non-professional craft, as a fundamental part of making practices.
Excellent craftsmanship, refers not to:
“the everyday fabrication of things, but a way of making that necessitates taking special pains, that is meticulous and careful. Fine craftsmanship is usually distinguished by a refusal to rely on accidental or aleatory occurrences […] Instead, the material is totally in the control of the craftsman.” (Metcalf 1987, unpaginated)[1]
Now, the central part of making is materiality, and from materiality arises questions about agency Agency and materiality crop up again in Metcalf’s (2004, unpaginated) observations about the intersection of craft practice with academic theory. In this essay on the intersections of evolutionary biology and craft.
“certain types of craft objects - especially objects designed to be used rather than just looked at - embody sympathy. Because craft objects are substantially handmade, traces of the maker's body and its movements often remain in the object: the potter's fingerprint; the silversmith's planishing mark; the stitches of the needleworker; the irregular from of a glassblower's vase. Such marks record the presence of a living person, who exists at one "degree of separation" from the user. Ordinary people recognize this intuitively, and they read a craft object as a symbol of human presence. As such, crafts stand in clear contrast to mass-produced objects, from which any trace of the human has been erased. It's the difference between a handmade bowl and a piece of Tupperware®, and it's not merely a semiotic difference. In an increasingly dematerialized world, these records of human presence become increasingly important to people.” (Metcalf 2004, unpaginated)
And, Gell (1998) in his discussion of hand-made objects (which he calls ‘art’), makes it very clear that the “sympathy” Metcalf discusses is indeed a driving force in the way that such objects circulate, are received, the social and psychological impact that they have, etc. However, rather than “sympathy,” Gell describes the moving force in such interactions (facilitated by hand-made objects) as agency and explains how it is a type of distributed personhood inherent in hand-made objects – Craftspeople see their production as a means of distributing an experience” (Metcalf 2004, unpaginated). Like Metcalf, Gell also contends that the impact of such agency as expressed through the material form of the made object is perceived intuitively.
Workmanship of Risk, Workmanship of Certainty
David Pye, architect and woodworker, wrote two seminal books in the 1960s and 70s detailing the aspects of workmanship: The Nature and Art of Workmanship (1968) and The Nature of Aesthetics of Design (1978). Though this work Pye critically examines the concept and process of workmanship and whether or not the outcome of a given act of making (or action) is fairly certain or if it contains an element of risk (which can be synonymous with skill). Pye’s work is useful for considering the interaction of digital technology with craft production in contemporary Craft as, in fact, the presence of automation does not necessarily guarantee a certainty of outcome particularly when a craft maker does not have full mastery over the tools and skills of digital image manipulation. Several makers who were interviewed for this study reported using Photoshop or other programmes in their work because they resulted in creating pleasant, but unpredicted, aesthetic results. This is clearly a workmanship of risk that deserves to be explored further.
Creativity
There is also no denying that, as David McFadden, chief curator and president of the Museum of Arts and Design in New York, points out: craft, like art and design, involves the profound engagement with materials and process that is central to creativity” (V&A 2012, unpaginated). To critically explore this issue of creativity, it can help to draw on cross-cultural analyses such as those produced recently by anthropologists such as James Leach (Aragon and Leach, 2008; Leach, 2004, 2007) and Liep et al (Leip, 2001), or earlier by Lavie et al. (1993). From a psychological perspective, creativity has been addressed by scholars such as Silvano Areti (1976) and Dissanayake (1990, 1992, 2011).
Deconstructing the European and American notions of what creativity is and to what class of objects (or, in this case, human behaviours) it should be applied to, James Leach has written on ‘Modes of Creativity’ (2004) which begins to clearly unpack the assumptions about creativity and individual genius that underpin Western art worlds. He also offers up a theory that creativity, like so much else that human beings to, is multifaceted and its expression comes in different forms which emphasise different values and social relationships between actors. Lichti-Harriman (2010) uses this approach as a jumping off point in the analysis of creativity and social networks in contemporary craft practice so that, when combined with Becker’s understanding (1978) of art and craft worlds being underpinned by fundamentally different aesthetic and social processes, she illustrates a mode of creativity peculiar to Scottish craft making – one in which sense of self and the materiality of making processes are imbued (or ‘distributed’) in wider social networks rather than taken ( or ‘appropriated’) from them, as in the case of art production.
[1] First published as a catalogue essay for “Craft as Content: National Metals Invitational,” Emily Davis Gallery, The University of Akron, Ohio 1987
