Cultural Identity, Development & Craft

CULTURAL IDENTITY, DEVELOPMENT & CRAFT Eduardo Hernรกndez Villalobos Design Strategy & Leadership 28.05.18

“He who is different from me does not impoverish me, he enriches me. Our unity is constituted in something higher than ourselves: in man, for no man seeks to hear his own echo, or to find his reflection in the glass.”

- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942) Flight to Arras (Pilote De Guerre)

Executive Summary Craft-making has been practiced all around the globe for hundreds of years, mainly as a production method for creating everyday items.

Parallel to this utilitarian function craft allows for personal and communal expression, becoming a material manifestation of values, needs, traditions, history, and identity.

In the context of developing economies like Mexico, craft collaboration enables designers to work with artisans in the creation of new manifestations of cultural identity as a path for linking the traditional knowledge of the past with aspirations for the future.

This mix results in cultural hybrids that can enhance the understanding among members of different cultures within a region, country or at a global scale.

The aim of this report is to provide answers to the following questions: What is the role of design in collaborating with craft in development contexts, especially for cultural identity?

What are the implications for the development of both designers and craft-makers including marginalized groups?

What constitutes a fair practice of design + craft? And how to choose between the different possible design engagements?

The combination of Design and Craft can be an alternative to industrial means of production in economies where access to a job market for creatives is deficient.

This practice can allow both parts to develop and grow both personally and economically.

But it can also create complications due to the inequalities within a society.

There is a widespread tradition of programs aimed at empowering people through the collaboration of design and craft in Mexican and Latin-American contexts, the objective of these efforts is to allow development for both parts. But if steps are not taken in ensuring a fair partnership, inequality issues can be exacerbated.

Inequality is present in many different forms and it manifests at different scales, it is necessary that design professionals take into consideration ethical implications and define practices that allow both artisans and designers to develop successfully and in their own terms.

This thematic investigation looks into the implications of joint work between artisans and designers.

1

Executive Summary In order to understand these implications, the report presents an overview of a few different approaches to development from a historical point of view, and the evolution of the theory around it.

It also looks at three definitions of craft relevant to contexts of practice analyzed in the report and looks at the concept of ‘cultural hybridation’ from the perspective of different authors.

After establishing the relevant concepts, an analysis using ethnographic observation, direct participation, and interviews with professionals of three different design + craft practices is presented. The analyzed practices are: 1. Design + Craft practice in Mexico 2. Design + Craft practice, Aalto LAB Mexico 3. Design + Craft practice, JICA Knowledge Co-creation Program The practices are mapped and explained in terms of relevant stakeholders, objectives of the collaboration, context of collaboration, duration of engagement, funding, processes and materials, and type of design engagement.

A brief overview of the analysis methodology, characteristics of each practice, and a brief list of pros and cons is provided for each case.

The closing chapter opens with a discussion of the implications of design + craft practices in the Mexican context, from the perspective of critical transculturalism.

Based on a discussion of the concepts of development, craft and cultural hybridation, and the analysis of the practices in Mexico; three aspects to consider are recommended when choosing a design engagement strategy: a) The context of collaboration is key. Long-term ethnographic observation and cultural research are helpful tools to understand the context. b) Fair participation of stakeholders needs to guarantee (1) egalitarian reciprocity, (2) voluntary self-ascription, and (3) freedom of exit or association. c) Processes and materials are an important factor for most definitions of a craft.

When considering technological fixes, urbanization and access to services must always be examined.

2

Executive Summary d) Selection of appropriate design engagement and objectives of collaboration must consider the ethical implications and power dynamics of the local context.

Finally, a reflection on the limitations of the study is presented and possibilities for further study are explored.

Final closing remarks emphasize the relevance of collaboration between craft and design for cultural understanding, empowerment of marginalized social groups, and the preservation of traditional craft traditions.

Previous research & ethnographic observation in Mexico and Japan

Research on development, cultural identity, craft & cultural hybrids

Analisis of 3 different practices of Design + Craft

Figure 1 - Methodology and analysis process

3

Conclusions and sugestions for aproaching Design + Craft collaboration

Introduction BACKGROUND RESEARCH 1. Context 1.1 Craft Production and Cultural Minorities 1.2 Craft Production and Design

Contents

2. What is development?

2.1 Inequalities within multicultural societies 3. What is craft?

3.1 Craft as an object of consumption 3.2 Officially designated traditional Japanese crafts 3.3 Craft in the Mexican context 4. Cultural Hybrids 4.1 Hybridation, Mestizaje and Cultural Imperialism 4.2 Critical Transculturalism ETHNOGRAPHIC OBSERVATION 5. Ethnographic observation 5.1 Main stakeholders in Design + Craft 5.2 Design + Craft practice in Mexico 5.2.1 Methods of analysis 5.2.2 Characteristics of the practice 5.2.3 Pros and cons 5.3 Design + Craft practice, Aalto LAB Mexico 5.3.1 Methods of analysis 5.3.2 Characteristics of the practice 5.3.3 Pros and cons 5.4 Design + Craft practice, JICA Knowledge Co-creation Program 5.4.1 Methods of analysis 5.4.2 Characteristics of the practice 5.4.3 Pros and cons CONCLUSIONS 6. Conclusions 6.1 Design + Craft practices in Mexico 6.2 Recommendations 6.3 Limitations of the Study 6.4 Final remarks SUPPORTING MATERIAL 7. References 8. Appendices 8.1 Appendix 1 - Interview with Herminio Menchaca 8.2 Appendix 2 - Interview with Claudia GarduĂąo 4

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

“A craft technique might be on the brink of disappearing and design can provide a way to preserve it. Now I understand better the reasons why a technique might go extinct and the things that you can do to improve that situation and provide a better future.�

- Herminio Menchaca Mexican Designer About Design + Craft collaboration in Mexico Interview, May 16 2018

Introduction Mexican contemporary culture is characterized by hybridation and mestizaje [13], product of global forces that act on a country that has not achieved a social structure with the sufficient tools for engaging modernity: a high literacy rate, economic stability, investment attractiveness, industrial know-how, accessible communication technology, human and technological infrastructures, efficient transportation, real political democracy, among others. [14] Hybridity and inequality are both present in many of the cultural manifestations of the country, including popular art and particularly craft.

The multitude of messages of both modernity and historical past clash in the manifestations of contemporary Mexican design, designers use craft as a vehicle for personal expression and perpetuation of a link to the historical past and ambitions for a better future. [2] In the collaboration of craft + design Mexican designers find an outlet and an alternative for design practice. But the implications of misusing the work of traditional craft-makers, many of them members of ethnic and indigenous groups at disadvantage, with no regard for their personal development and expression is an ever-present risk of these collaborations.

What are the reasons behind the extended use of co-design and collaboration between craft and design in Mexico? Is there a more ethical way of collaborating with local craft-makers?

What are the driving economic forces that are involved in the practice and that create the conditions for this phenomenon? Is the main motivation one-sided economic benefit or preservation of traditional craft techniques?

The present thematic investigation tries to answer these questions through the analysis of the main factors related to the collaboration in case: cultural identity, development, and craft, and a critical observation of different ways to approach it in Mexico and Japan.

5

“Craft production in Mexico represents 13.5% of the GPD of the culture sector in the country, more than the combined contribution of design, creative services, editorial industry, and music production.”

- National Institute of Statistics and Geography INEGI (2013) Cuenta Satélite de la Cultura de México.

1

Distribution of indigenous population by main economic activity

These functions are not only relevant for the craft-makers, but also for the Mexican product designers who rely on craft techniques as means for design practice due to the lack of demand for design services from local and international industry. This is evident by the high rate of professionals who studied design and work on unrelated fields: 40.4% according to the Mexican Observatory of Occupation (OLA) [15].

To establish the relevance of craft as an economic activity in Mexico, it’s possible to look at statistics provided by the National Fund for the Promotion of Crafts (FONART) and the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), these results give an overview of craft production in terms of its contribution to overall economic activity in Mexico and contribution to cultural production in particular.

The most up to date results are found in the Satellite Count of Culture in Mexico (CSCM) and the National Survey of Cultural Consumption of Mexico (ENCCUM).

The first relevant result presented by the ENCCUM points out that by 2012 the number of people who takes part in craft making (above 12 years of age) is estimated at 12 million or 10.3% of the total population of the country. [19] According to the CSCM (2016), this

Commerce

Crafts

Sales and services in public ways

Construction

Others

Domestic or personal services

Men

Women 18.2%

24.0%

25.1%

45.9% 2.2%

15%

3.3%

6.2%

0.2%

4.4%

12.9%

10.4%

25.3%

6.9%

Context Craft production in Mexico accomplishes a dual function: as a manifestation of cultural identity and as a way for communities to make a living.

Agriculture

Table 1 - Indigenous Population Economic Activity 1 [16]

represents 13.5% of the GPD (Gross Domestic Product) of the culture sector in the country, more than the combined contribution of design, creative services, editorial industry, and music production.

[20][18] This represents 0.4% of the National GDP. Equivalent to 83,184 million Mexican pesos, or about 358 million Euros. [20] 1.1 Craft Production and Cultural Minorities Craft making in Mexico is practiced at very different scales, from small family-owned companies to medium-sized enterprises. The inequalities within the country play a big role in how and why craft is practiced.

Sometimes craft can be linked to the cultural identity of ethnic minorities with century-old traditions. There are 68 recognized indigenous languages or language groups spoken in Mexico [16], it’s estimated that 21.5% of the total population identifies as indigenous [21].

Within these groups, 15% of indigenous women and 6.9% of men practice craft as their main economic activity [Table 1]. It’s also worth noting that 10.7% of women and 4.1% of men work in craft as a non-monetary economic practice [Table 2]. In most cases, these groups can be at a disadvantage in terms of access to basic services, healthcare, and social welfare. [16] 1.2 Craft Production and Design There is no statistical information that shows how pervasive the collaboration 6

between craft and design is in Mexico, but several programs and initiatives in the country, including the practices observed and analyzed in this report, point at a widespread adoption.

This tradition of joint practices between craft and design in Latin-America dates back to efforts initiated during the 70’s by Ángel de Chavarri in Colombia with the backing of the United Nations Development Program, with the aim of developing the artisanal sector and the “need to implement new designs for craft”.

[6] There are many arguments in favor and against combining craft and design, especially when cultural minorities are involved, in the next chapters we’ll discuss some of the implications of development and multiculturalism and what can be understood as 'craft' in order to clarify some of the challenges.

The intention of this work is not to look comprehensively at all the existing literature related to development, design, and craft, but rather to provide a glimpse of the existing theory in order to have a theoretical frame to compare and analyze three different and relevant practices of Design + Craft.

Percentage of unpaid family workers by productive activity Unpaid family worker Women

Men

23.8%

15.9%

Domestic or personal services

4.0%

1.4%

Construction

6.5%

1.5%

Crafts

10.7%

4.1%

Agriculture

Commerce

15.6%

5.9%

Sales and services in public ways

9.0%

3.2%

Other activities

7.1%

4.1%

Table 2 - Indigenous Population Economic Activity 2 [16]

“The relationship with the community is the most important thing, they define it as a friendship, something that goes beyond an institutional collaboration.”

- Claudia Garduño Mexican Designer About Collaborating with local communities trough Aalto LAB Mexico Interview, May 16 2018

2

Photography: Unkown

What is development?

Development can be understood from many different perspectives, historically there has been a main discourse focused on the rationalist western paradigm [8], that relies on the duality of developed and underdeveloped, the “West and the rest”, or “Center and periphery” [12] [4].

The United Nations Human Development Programme (UNDP) has been a driving force in defining the goals for development in the “underdeveloped world”, including Latin-America, towards modernization [12] with the goal of economic growth and backed by neoliberalist practices for most of the 20th century. [7] In recent decades, the UNDP has focused its efforts on sustainability and universalism, recognizing that some social groups have been left out of the human development process, including ethnic minorities and indigenous people.

[24] This discourse is more valid than the initial efforts by the UNDP, but it still fails to recognize that economic growth and development shouldn’t be the only goals for improving people’s lives.

Parallel to this narrative, non-western critics have pointed out the possibility of a theory of post-development, decolonization [7] and social design practices [12] that aim at “relying less on the knowledge of experts and trusting on the efforts of common people to build better and more human worlds, that are also cultural and ecologically viable” [7] But this narrative fails to recognize in

most cases that the “local [contexts] are also configured by relationships of power”.

[7] 2.1 Inequalities within multicultural societies In the case of the collaboration between design and craft in the specific context of Mexico, the relationships of power include the inequalities between craft-makers, if we consider those who have access to basic services as electricity in contrast to those that are more connected to urban centers. It’s also necessary to consider that some craft practitioners are organized into companies, or may just practice craft as a way of basic subsistence using only traditional or handmade production.

It is also important to take into account that for designers in Mexico access to technology for production of design objects might be limited, and this creates inequality when compared to the opportunities available to designers in the “developed” world. This circumstance is one of the main reasons why many of them see collaboration with craft as a good alternative for design intervention.

This creates a paradox when collaborating with cultures that might be within the same national or local context while trying to “engage with and represent other cultures whilst trying to understand and move away from its own historical roots in Western rationality and the commitment to ‘progress’” [3].

Culture is constituted in many different levels and what might be a viable 7

development goal for a Mayan of Mexico might not necessarily be the same as it is for an industrial designer from an urban setting.

This idea aligns with the UNDP notion of cultural liberty and the challenge of “forging national unity amid this diversity” [23] and doing so in a way that accommodates and respects the visions of many.

When and how to create strategies for development and intercultural dialogue in terms that consider the plurality of ideas of development is the main challenge when collaborating with craft-makers.

“[A hybrid is] a product that retains identity traits, a result of a mixture of techniques, materials, decorations and symbolic reinterpretations in objects made with handcrafted processes that combine aspects of cultural dynamism and globalization” - National Fund for the Promotion of Craft FONART (2015) About Craft Hybrids Manual de diferenciación entre artesanía y manualidad

3

Photography: Eduardo Hernández

What is craft?

Another important matter when trying to establish parameters for successful collaboration between craft and design is precisely the definition of “craft” itself.

On a surface level it would seem that craft should be clearly definable, but depending on cultural, political or economic factors, craft can be classified in many different ways.

The main aspects to consider when defining craft are: • Methods of production and materials (e.g. handmade vs machine made, use of traditional and local materials) • Cultural relevance and traditional value • The context of use (e.g. everyday functional items or artistic objects) • Cultural dynamism and evolution process (how the craft evolves, reflecting changes in a society) Defining what makes up craft and to what degree innovation in methods, materials or cultural identity are allowed, will also determine the possibility for designers and craft-makers to gain access to government incentives and subsidies from certain institutions.

To define craft in terms relevant for the craft and design practices analyzed in following chapters, we will look at definitions from three different sources.

First, from a contemporary (and western) consumer culture standpoint, and then as defined by two (non-western) governmental institutions in charge of encouraging and preserving craft production, one from Japan and one from Mexico.

3.1 Craft as an object of consumption The Journal of Consumer Culture, in an article titled: The Craft Consumer, defines craft as follows: “The term ‘craft’ is used to refer to[...] an activity in which the ‘product’ concerned is essentially both ‘made and designed by the same person’ [...] motivated by a desire for self-expression.” [5] This definition is narrow and restricts craft production to practices that don’t allow for collaboration. This notion is not valid even when considering century-old practices such as the production of craft in Japan, which is known for its reliance on a series of steps done by different artisans that specialize in narrow processes (such as: wood turning, lacquer painting or lacquer decoration) and collaborate to accomplish a final craft object.

It will also restrict the possibility of collaboration between design and craft or the creation of cultural hybrids that integrate elements of different cultural identities. An inflexible model like this carries the risk of cornering craft production into a state of stagnation.

3.2 Officially designated traditional Japanese crafts The Association for the Promotion of Traditional Craft Industries (DENSAN) in affiliation with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan (METI) “actively promotes Japanese Handicrafts on a global scale and contributes to their market expansion” [22], according to their guidelines, in order for a craft technique to 8

be officially recognized it needs to follow these criteria: “1. Articles must be used routinely in everyday life.

2. Articles must be primarily manufactured by hand.

3. Articles must be manufactured implementing traditional techniques at least 100 years old.

4. Main materials used have remained unchanged for at least 100 years.

5. Manufacturing should be regionally established to a certain scale.

(All criteria must be fulfilled)” [22] This definition, while still narrow, recognizes the possibility of ‘craft industries’ meaning that craft production is made by more than one individual.

While it opens the possibility of collaboration, it’s very restrictive in terms of the evolution of craft and focuses more on preserving tradition and regional production of everyday items. One of the risks of such criteria is the possibility of traditional crafts not having continuity when craft objects stick to traditional uses that might be out of touch with contemporary contexts.

It’s especially important to mention that the fifth point that requires certain regional scale, will deny access to those craft-makers who are the last practitioners of a technique in a particular region without access to benefits from DENSAN.

What is craft?

3.3 Craft in the Mexican context As part of the development efforts to provide aid to ethnic and indigenous groups in Mexico, the [Mexican] National Fund for the Promotion of Crafts (FONART) provides aid and benefits to craft-makers who adhere to their guidelines for what constitutes craft.

FONART defines craft as: “An object or product of cultural community identity, made by continuous manual processes, aided by rudimentary implements and some mechanical means that ease certain tasks.” [17] This definition focuses mainly on cultural relevance, communal identity, and the use of manual processes as the criteria for defining craft. This is a reflection of the efforts made by the UNDP to foster cultural diversity as a part of its development strategy.

interesting as it signals the widespread collaboration of craft with contemporary and global culture. Cultural hybrids as objects of craft are important because they allow for the evolution of a technique, the expansion to new markets, and the possibility of intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding.

Nonetheless, this creates a complicated issue when defining ethical criteria for the co-creation of cultural hybrids. The goal of this research is to go deeper into the implications of this practice for the cultural and economic development of designers and craft-makers.

In the next chapter, we will analyze what constitutes a cultural hybrid and why it is relevant to understand this concept when co-creating crafts or collaborating with groups in contexts of inequality.

The most interesting characteristic of the definition of craft in the context of Mexico is that it also allows for “craft hybrids”, and it defines hybrids as: “The product that retains identity traits, a result of a mixture of techniques, materials, decorations and symbolic reinterpretations in objects made with handcrafted processes that combine aspects of cultural dynamism and globalization, but do not become consolidated as community cultural products… In some cases, in its evolutionary process, it becomes traditional craft.” [17] The consideration of hybrids in the context of Mexico is particularly 9

“Within the brutally unequal socio-structural realities of Mexico, the cultural hybrid is an especially fruitful means for understanding not only modern cultural transformations, but historically-situated relations of social power and potential as well.�

- James Lull Hybrids, fronts, borders (1998) The challenge of cultural analysis in Mexico European journal of cultural studies

4

Photography: Eduardo Hernández

Cultural Hybrids 4.1 Hybridation, Mestizaje and Cultural Imperialism An important concept for understanding cultural evolution at a global scale is cultural hybridity. Hybridity is the process of active exchange that leads to the mutual transformation of two cultures.

[13] We will understand culture as “the issues around values, traditions, languages, lifestyles, communication means and symbolic forms” [14] characteristic of a context. All of these are present in traditional craft practices.

In the case of Mexico, cultural hybridation is not a new concept, it is part of its foundational myth through the idea of mestizaje. “Mestizaje was an attempt to mitigate tensions between the indigenous populations and the descendants of Spanish colonists by posting the new nations as hybrids of both worlds” [13], explaining that most of the inhabitants of contemporary Mexico belong to a “cosmic race” [26], a hybrid of Spanish and Indigenous people.

Mestizaje functions as a way to make sense of the sociocultural fusions in the Americas, but it fails to account for the complex interactions of gender, class, and nationalism in the region [14]. This includes the marginalization of minorities and local indigenous groups from the process of modernization and the inequalities that this entails up to this day.

Cultural Imperealism

Cultural Pluralism

Cultural Transculturalism

Conception of Culture

Holistic

Pluralistic

Synthetic

Conception of Global Culture

Monoculture

Multiculture

Transculture

Central Trope

Dominance

Resistance and/or Adaptation

Hybridity

Site of Agency

Structure

Individuals and/or Community

Social Practice

Scope of Agency

Structure

Local and Contextual

Translocal and Intercontextual

Empirical Focus

Material/ Institutional

Discursive and/or Textual

Material, Discursive and Contextual

Relationship between Structure and Agency (Process)

Dialectical

Dialogical

Dialectical and dialogical

Relationship between Structure and Agency (Outcome)

Determinism

Interaction and Intertextuality

Articulation (Lopsided)

Media Focus

Production and Distribution

Reception and text/message

Production, Text and Reception reproduction

Relationship of State to External Forces

Too weak

Too strong

Mediator/ Referee

Table 3 - Critical Transculturalism in Comparative Perspective Source: Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization [13]

During most of the 20th century, and as explained in the chapter dedicated to development, a critique of the dominance of western culture (Eurocentric views or 10

Cultural Hybrids the cultural dominance of the US in the region) over alternative ways of living has been part of the social sciences discourse around “economic-cultural-media imperialism” [14] in Latin America.

This historical reading perpetuates a notion of eternal victimhood [13] [14] where the only escape is breaking away from the dynamics of hybridation by empowering cultural groups in disadvantage. Sociologist James Lull [14] posts the question: “Is there no exit from domination in Latin America?”

Or in other words: Is cultural hybridation perpetuating imperialistic practices at a local scale when designers from different contexts intervene in local practices and create cultural-craft-hybrids?

4.2 Critical Transculturalism Many of the recent approaches to development such as Universalism (UNHDR 2016), cultural development (Schech, S. & Haggis, J. 2000) (Radcliffe, S. 2006) and empowerment of marginalized groups, focus on a positive view of global cultural diversity. This view might not be sufficient since it does not account for power dynamics existent in all the dimensions of cultural interaction (local, national and global).

It is also important to consider that cultural evolution, by nature, is a dynamic process. Ethnical or national identities are not always being destroyed by globalization, they are reconstructed in a “globalized process of intercultural segmentation and hybridation”. [14] [9] "Critical transculturalism advocates doing

away with the view that cultures are stable and autonomous units. The value of […] hybridity resides in the extent to which it emphasizes human agency.” [13] Hybridity, as understood by both cultural imperialism and cultural pluralism, fails to recognize the power dynamics of inequality. A more critical approach considers that the opposition between “tradition” and “modernity” contributes to our understanding of social dynamics [9].

The Table 3 provides a more detailed explanation of the differences between cultural imperialism, cultural pluralism, and critical transculturalism.

Based on the critical transculturalism approach, the role of design should be to mediate the interactions between tradition and the evolution of craft, and take a critical stance that considers the ethical implications of power dynamics when collaborating with local craft practices.

The goal is not to stigmatize collaboration with craft, but to take into consideration the implications of these practices when selecting or designing an appropriate and fair course of action for collaboration with craft-makers, especially with groups at disadvantage (e.g. marginalized ethnic groups).

Careful examination of the context and issues of inequality could provide guidelines for co-creation that allows freedom of agency to all the participants involved in the collaboration.

To better understand these dynamics, the next chapter looks at three different approaches to craft + design collaboration relevant to Mexico and analyzes the implications of each of them.

11

ETHNOGRAPHIC OBSERVATION

5

Ethnographic Observation International Context National Context

Local Context

5.1 Main stakeholders in Design + Craft This map shows the main stakeholders involved in the collaboration between design and craft in the context of Mexico.

Design Studios

Craft Companies & Communities

Consumers

The map is divided into three different contexts: local, global and international.

Different stakeholders can be part of more than one context at the same time.

Craft Makers

Designers as craft makers

Designers

Universities

NGO’s

Main participants are craft-makers, designers, and consumers. In the present report (and due to time constraints) the role of the consumer won’t be analyzed.

Government Institutions

The map also considers the possibility, in theory, of designers working as craftmakers, since it was mentioned in the interviews done during research. But the implications of this stakeholders are not part of the scope of this thematic investigation.

Figure 2 - Map of main stakeholders in Design + Craft Collaboration

Funding and project initiation can come from the private, public or academic sectors.

12

“Design practice in Mexico is to collaborate with people who have craft skills. These designs are a self portrait of Mexican culture as interpreted by us [designers].”

- José de la O Mexican Designer About Design + Craft collaboration in Mexico Interview: El Nuevo México - Diseño Mexicano https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxY4IVsi28U&feature=youtu.be

5.2 Design + Craft practice in Mexico Map of design engagement

Objective of the collaboration Profit

Development Cultural (Optional) Understanding (Opt.)

Mexican

Context Local & National Organizations (Optional) Local Context

Collaboration or Co-Design

Craft-Makers

Institutions (Optional)

Context of the collaboration

T

Local CraftMakers

Designers

Local Craft Makers + National Designers

INPU

INPUT

National Designers

Stakeholders involved

Duration of engagement Short Term

&

Long Term

Funding CULTURUAL HYBRID

Private

Local and National Government (Opt.)

Traditional Processes

Technological fixes (Optional)

Collaboration

Co-Design (Optional)

Processes & Materials

Type of Design engagement Figure 3 - Map of the design engagement for most common Craft + Design practices in Mexico.

13

Non-Traditional Materials (Opt.)

Photography: Eduardo Hernández

5.2 Design + Craft practice in Mexico 5.2.1 Method of analysis

5.2.3 Pros and Cons

Analysis of the most common design + craft collaboration practices in Mexico through reflection of self-practice, interviews with design practitioners [Appendix 1] and observation of existing material [2].

+ Limited run production can yield better profits for all parts involved.

5.2.2 Characteristics of the practice This practice is usually self-initiated but can be backed by funding from government, universities or NGO’s.

The objective is usually to create new cultural hybrids with the intention of producing objects of everyday use, development and cultural understanding and preservation can also be part of the objectives of the collaboration.

Design engagements usually take place when designers from Mexico immerse in collaboration or co-creation with local craft-makers. The scale of the craft production can be anywhere from small businesses to large craft-companies. The size of the craft-company and the prestige of the designer are determining factors of the power dynamics of the collaboration.

+ Preservation and evolution of craft techniques through collaboration. + Bilateral learning process and cultural understanding. + Insertion of traditional craft in new markets (If desired).

- Practices are usually unregulated and this can lead to unfair collaboration and uneven retribution.

- Technological fixes can lead to increased inequality in local contexts, especially in marginalized communities.

- Use of craft-production as a substitute of industrial means of production (exploitation).

- Possible cultural appropriation if the context is poorly understood or if credit is not properly given.

The engagement can be short or long-term, but it’s common to establish a continuous collaboration if the initial results are satisfactory for the participants involved.

Traditional processes are preferred but technological fixes and new-materials are not uncommon, it’s important to consider the implications if the objective is to preserve traditional techniques.

14

“The idea is that if we learn together how to make this design process, eventually they won't need us, and if a new problem appears in the community[...] they will be able to do the process from the diagnosis of the situation to the implementation of possible solutions.”

- Claudia Garduño Mexican Designer About Collaborating with local communities trough Aalto LAB Mexico Interview, May 16 2018

5.3 Design + Craft practice, Aalto LAB Mexico Map of design engagement

Objective of the collaboration Development & Sustainability

International Context

Mexican International & Context National Universities, Organizations & NGO’s Local Context International & Mexican Experts & Designers

Stakeholders involved Craft-Makers

Co-Design

Added value to existing craft through Cultural Brand

ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION

Transdisciplinary Private & Experts Public Institutions

Context of the collaboration Local Craft Makers + International & National Experts

T INPU

T PU IN

Local CraftMakers

Cultural Understanding

Duration of engagement Multiple Short Term Interventions

Long Term Engagement

National & International Universities

Crowdfunding

Traditional Processes

Technological fixes (Optional)

Co-Design

Social Design

Funding

Processes & Materials

Type of Design engagement Figure 4 - Map of Aalto LAB Mexico’s design engagement.

15

National & International Government

Photography: Aalto LAB Mexico

5.3 Design + Craft practice, Aalto LAB Mexico 5.3.1 Method of analysis Desk research of available sources documenting the practice [10] [1] and an interview with Claudia Garduño [Appendix 2], facilitator of Aalto LAB Mexico and author of the doctoral thesis Design as Freedom, which documents the process of developing and implementing Aalto LAB Mexico [10].

5.3.2 Characteristics of the practice

establishment of a cultural brand, with the goal of increasing income and guarantying access to healthcare in the community.

The practice is done through a series of short-term co-design engagements by different multidisciplinary teams of local and international experts, continuity and implementation are executed by the community and subsequent teams of experts.

The practice is a continuation of an initiative started by Aalto University in Shanghai, China. It’s funded through several means, including University funds both in Mexico and Finland, crowdfunding campaigns, and support from governmental institutions both in Mexico and Finland. There are plans to expand the funding capabilities by starting an NGO that facilitates access to local funding.

Traditional processes are preferred, direct intervention in the design of craft is discouraged, and technological fixes are possible after critical analysis of implications.

The objective is to collaborate in a long-term co-design engagement, through a learning process where international experts work hand-in-hand with the local community of “El 20 de Noviembre”, located in Calakmul, Campeche. The main goals are: decrease social injustice, raise awareness of cultural values and improve environmental sustainability. Cultural hybridation is not a goal and direct intervention in craft design is avoided.

+ Bilateral learning process and cultural understanding.

The initiative is an umbrella for many projects aimed at improving local conditions, based on the interests of the community. One of these is “Artesanía para el bienestar” an improvement to the margin of revenue of the local craft production by adding value through the

5.3.3 Pros and Cons + Freedom of agency and self-driven sustainable development of the community as the main goal.

+ Allows for critical consideration and democratic participation when choosing a preferred course of action (e.g. implementing technological fixes or not). + Long-term engagement and transdisciplinary approach allow a better understanding of the context.

- It is not exempt from a degree of influence from the external participants. This clashes with the project's goals of cultural autonomy and freedom of agency.

- Preservation of craft techniques is not assured or incentivized, unless it’s part of the interests of the community.

- Possible stagnation of craft techniques due to protectionism of tradition.

- Funding is the main risk factor. Excessive reliance on external stakeholders increases dependence.

16

“I wanted to bring something from Japan to Mexico, and try to understand how the transition happened from traditional objects to objects aimed at new markets and sectors and how this allowed techniques to survive.�

- Herminio Menchaca Mexican Designer About Design + Craft collaboration in Japan Interview, May 16 2018

5.4 Design + Craft practice, JICA Knowledge Co-creation Program Map of design engagement

Mexican Mexican Government Designers

INPUT

Mexican CraftMakers

Japanese Context Japanese CraftMakers

Collaboration or Co-Design

Cultural Understanding

Development

Mexican Designers

Japanese Craft-Makers

Stakeholders involved Mexican & Japanese Institutions

Context of the collaboration Mexican Designers in a Japanese Context + Japanese Craft-Makers

T

Mexican Context

JICA and Japanese Universities

INPU

International Context

Objective of the collaboration

Duration of engagement Long Term

Funding CULTURUAL HYBRID

Japanese & Mexican Governments

Processes & Materials Possibility of future Craft + Design Practice in Mexico

Traditional Processes

Technological fixes (Optional)

Collaboration

Co-Design (Optional)

Type of Design engagement Figure 5 - Map of JICA’s knowledge co-creation program design engagement.

17

Non-Traditional Materials (Opt.)

Photography: Herminio Menchaca

5.4 Design + Craft practice, JICA Knowledge Co-creation Program 5.4.1 Method of analysis Deep involvement and self-reflection of participation in ethnographic research and craft collaboration in Japan (2015) [11], and interview with program participant [Appendix 1].

5.4.2 Characteristics of the practice The JICA Knowledge Co-creation Program in Modern Design and Traditional Culture and Craftsmanship [11] is a partnership program between Mexico and Japan that aims at providing technical training and deep cultural understanding of Japanese culture and the collaboration between design and craft. Funding is provided mainly by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and to a lesser extent by the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT).

Participants are selected through an online application process, and if chosen to participate would be granted a 10-month research scholarship, including 4 months of Japanese language and cultural training, and 6 months of research and collaboration with Japanese universities and traditional craft-makers.

The objective is to create new cultural hybrids of modern design and traditional craft and Mexican + Japanese culture, with the intention of producing objects of everyday use.

Development of the designer’s collaboration skills and cultural understanding between Mexico and Japan are the main goals.

Design engagements start with a deep immersion in Japanese culture and craft in order to understand the context, followed by self-initiated long-term collaborations between Mexican designers and Japanese craft-makers.

The scale of production is limited to short runs of hand-crafted objects, but the designers are encouraged to initiate as many collaborations as wanted.

Traditional Japanese craft processes are the starting point of collaboration, but the use of technological fixes and new-materials is encouraged, social relationships between craft-makers and designers are the main factor for the successful establishment of a collaboration.

The final goal is to provide tools for collaboration between design + craft that are applicable also in the Mexican context.

5.4.3 Pros and Cons + Development of the Mexican designers as change-agents in the preservation of craft and its evolution through cultural hybrids. + Cultural understanding is incentivized by using long-term ethnographic observation. + Ethnographic research practices have a direct application in local Mexican contexts.

- The inequality conditions of Mexico are not present in the collaboration of design + craft in Japan.

- The focus is placed on “modernization of craft”. Without critical analysis, this can result in unfair and exploitative practices.

- Long-term engagement and research of this nature is difficult to apply in Mexico without proper funding.

- Technological fixes can lead to increased inequality in local contexts, especially in marginalized communities.

18

CONCLUSIONS

6

Conclusions 6.1 Design + Craft practices in Mexico Unequal development and disadvantages in Mexico permeate all aspects of society.

Inequality is so common that both designers and craft-makers (including those from ethnic minorities and indigenous groups) can be at a disadvantage when engaging in micro-economic activities.

The discourse of transculturalism is usually driven by economic interests and masked under the pretense of cultural celebration and recognition. [13] Design + Craft practice should aim at being non-exploitative. Critical transculturalism can be a framework for redefining “cultural fusion from its earlier definition as an economic matter with commercial implications, to a social issue with human implications”. [13] Careful consideration must be given to cultural, ethical and economic aspects.

And special emphasis made on the awareness of power unbalances while avoiding the “[projection of identity] by powerful social agents onto others who are less powerful”. [13] [14] Protectionism and romantic views of autonomous culture are also risky since they perpetuate a perspective of victimhood [14] in non-western societies.

6.2 Recommendations Based on the analysis of the three different engagements of craft-design and social practices for development, and considering the implications of

hybridation from the perspective of critical transculturalism, it’s relevant at this point to suggest guidelines for a framework of collaboration between craft and design.

To choose an appropriate design engagement, it’s advisable to consider: a) The context of collaboration is key.

Long-term ethnographic observation and cultural research are helpful tools to understand the context and the “lopsided articulation” [13] between structure and agency. Or in other words, the power dynamics of local environments.

Co-design and participatory practices should be used when ethnic minorities need to “reclaim a sense of agency that is less dependent on the financial power they don't have” [13], and to avoid cultural appropriation.

Funding is critical for researching the context in the long term. Many options are available, from private investment to (local and international) government incentives for craft + design production, to crowdfunding strategies.

Designers should function as a bridge for communities at a disadvantage to access craft funding. b) Fair participation of stakeholders needs to guarantee (1) egalitarian reciprocity, (2) voluntary self-ascription, and (3) freedom of exit or association.

[13] Governmental and private institutions such as NGO’s can be helpful in generating these conditions. And in return, 19

provide funds to sustainable and fair design practices.

But the main responsibility still lies in the designer’s ability to consider the ethical implications of unfair collaboration.

Considering the prevalence of craft collaborations in the country, design educators in Mexico need to emphasize ethical practices. c) Processes and materials are an important factor for most definitions of a craft. When considering technological fixes [12], urbanization and access to services must always be examined.

If unequal conditions are present in the community, technological fixes might exacerbate the uneven power dynamics of the local context. [12] New technologies can be used when the means of production belong to local groups and are easily used by craft-makers with proper training.

It’s also important that technological fixes can be successfully replicated in vulnerable communities without creating inequalities.

Material selection should follow sustainable and ecological considerations above protecting traditional uses that are harmful to the environment. d) Selection of appropriate design engagement and objectives of collaboration (e.g. co-design for development or collaboration for profit) must consider the ethical implications and power dynamics of the local context.

Photography: Eduardo Hernández

Conclusions The objective should always be to level the field of participation and empower craft-makers from marginalized social groups.

to give voice to the concerns of groups at disadvantage in the country.

This does not mean that collaboration between craft and design for profit should be avoided. But it’s better suited when working with craft companies that already have significant financial power and want to improve their products or profit through access to new contemporary markets.

There is power in collaboration, dialogue, and co-creation for a better understanding, and inclusive future of craft + design interaction.

6.3 Limitations of the study The present report draws its conclusions mainly from the practice of design + craft in the contexts of Mexico and Japan. As stated before, proper ethnographic observation and consideration of local power dynamics are important in order to choose an appropriate design engagement strategy. There is no “silver bullet” for application in all contexts.

Due to the time constraints of the course, a comprehensive research and analysis of the existing literature on development, cultural identity and craft were not possible. There is still an opportunity to further study these topics and to review the conclusions found in this report.

Logistic considerations also made it difficult to gain access to interview and observe the practices of craft-makers from indigenous communities in Mexico.

6.4 Final remarks

The relevance of craft lies on the richness of its meanings that expose a deep understanding and interpretation of the world, based on the work of many generations that work with century-old traditions.

Cultural understanding can help us to become more open, receptive and empathic human beings that can find the positive and rich aspects of those who seem different and distant from us.

Hybridity is, indeed, the “cultural logic of globalization” [13]. But because of its very nature, it’s not a process that can be easily stopped.

It is up to us, designers, to decide if we want to engage in practices that perpetuate the negative impact of globalization, or if we want to become change-agents towards a fair and ethical translocal exchange, that allows for a plurality of voices and a “complex cultural dialogue”. [13]

Most of the experiences presented in this report are based on collaboration with craft-makers in urbanized or semi-urbanized settings.

Further ethnographic research could help 20

SUPPORTING MATERIAL

33

7

References 1. Aalto LAB Mexico. (2018) Website. Retrieved 24/05/2018 from: https://aaltolabmexico.wordpress.com/ 2. ADN Opinión. (2014) El Nuevo México - Diseño Mexicano. Interview with Mexican designer José de la O. Retrieved 23/05/2018 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxY4IVsi28U 3. Arce, A. and Long, N. eds. (2000). Anthropology, development, and modernities: exploring discourses, counter-tendencies, and violence. Psychology Press.

4. Bonsiepe, G. (1985). El diseño de la periferia: debates y experiencias. Gustavo Gili.

5. Campbell, C. (2005). The Craft Consumer: Culture, craft and consumption in a postmodern society. Journal of Consumer Culture. Vol 5, Issue 1, pp. 23 – 42 6. De Chavarri, A. (1971) Proyecto Col – 310 – 043 –TA. Bogota, Colombia. United Nations Development Program 7. Escobar, A. (2005). El "postdesarrollo" como concepto y práctica social.Políticas de economía, ambiente y sociedad en tiempos de globalización. Caracas: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad Central de Venezuela. pp. 17-31.

8. Escobar, A. (2012). Notes on the ontology of design. Retrieved 23/05/2018 from: http://sawyerseminar.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/12/ESCOBAR_Notes-on-the-Ontology-of-Desig n-Parts-I-II-_-III.pdf 9. García Canclini, N., (1989). Culturas híbridas: estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad. México.

10. Garduño Garcia, C. (2017). Design as Freedom. Aalto University publication series DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS. 11. JICA Mexico. (2017). Programa para la Formación de Recursos Humanos en la Asociación Estratégica Global México Japón. Retrieved 25/05/2018 from: https://www.jica.go.jp/mexico/espanol/activities/becas02.html 12. Kang, L. (2016). Social design as a creative device in developing Countries: The case of a handcraft pottery community in Cambodia. International Journal of Design, 10(3), 65-74.

13. Kraidy, M. (2017). Kraidy, M., 2017. Hybridity, or the cultural logic of globalization.

Philadelphia, USA. Temple University Press.

14. Lull, J., (1998). Hybrids, fronts, borders: The challenge of cultural analysis in Mexico.

European journal of cultural studies, 1(3), pp.403-418.

References 15. Mexican Observatory of Occupation, based on figures from the National Survey of Occupation and Employment, third trimester of 2017. (2017). Diseño en Nacional. Retrieved 23/05/2018 from: http://www.observatoriolaboral.gob.mx/#/carrera/carrera-detalle-nacional/5214/33/Dise%C3 %B1o/Nacional/ 16. National Commission for the Development of Indigenous People (CDI). (2015).

Indicadores Socioeconómicos de los Pueblos Indígenas de México, 2015. Mexico. Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas.

17. National Fund for the Promotion of Craft (FONART). (2015). Manual de diferenciación entre artesanía y manualidad. Mexico. Fondo Nacional para el Fomento de las Artesanías 18. National Fund for the Promotion of Crafts (FONART) and National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). (2018). Artesanos y artesanías, una perspectiva económica. Mexico.

Fondo Nacional para el Fomento de las Artesanías.

19. National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). (2012). Encuesta Nacional de Consumo Cultural de México (ENCCUM) 2012. Retrieved 23/05/2018 from: http://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/proyectos/enchogares/especiales/enccum/default.html 20. National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). (2013). Cuenta Satélite de la Cultura de México. Retrieved 23/05/2018 from: http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/cn/cultura/default.aspx 21. National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). (2015). Panorama Sociodemográfico de México 2015. Aguascalientes, México. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.

22. The Association for the Promotion of Traditional Craft Industries. (2018) About DENSAN. Retrieved 23/05/18 from: http://www.espacedensan.com/information 23. United Nations Development Programme. (2005). Human development report 2004: Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World. New York, USA. UNDP 24. United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano de los Pueblos Indígenas en México. Mexico. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo en México.

25. United Nations Development Programme. (2017). Human development report 2016: human development for everyone. New York, USA. UNDP 26. Vasconcelos, J., (1993). La raza cósmica. CESLA, Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos, Universidad.

8

Appendices

8.1 Appendix 1 Interview with Mexican designer Herminio Menchaca JICA Co-creation Program participant (2015) and participant of Craft + Design practices in Mexico About Craft + Design collaboration in Mexico and Japan May 16, 2018 1. What is the relevance of learning from craft in Japan from your personal perspective?

Learning about craft traditions and techniques existing in Japan, since it's not the same way to use colors, or glazing in ceramics; getting to know more about the history, the role of craft in the sociocultural context. It's also interesting to know more about the purchase implications in a country like Japan, a country that is highly consumerist and high-tech but that also keeps traditions alive at the same time. I wanted to bring something from Japan to Mexico, and try to understand how the transition happened from traditional objects to objects aimed at new markets and sectors and how this allowed techniques to survive.

The techniques can disappear when there is no continuity in keeping the tradition or updating to the present needs. In a way design can help to save and preserve traditions by updating them.

I like to feel useful as a designer when presented with a craft technique and provide alternatives for new markets and products, for example even by using leftover materials from their existing processes and combining them with new materials and processes. But this can be tricky when taking into consideration if the use of new materials still constitutes traditional craft, this is something that is very common with neo-craft makers who mix new materials and methods of production that aren't neither fully artisanal nor industrial.

2. Who are this people you call Neo-craft makers?

I would say some of the people we met in Japan, for example those working in Kaikado and Hiyoshiya (two Japanese companies combining old traditions and contemporary design) and other craft makers that work with studios as Nendo or others.

There was a very interesting research I found about how Magewappa (Japanese woodworking technique) could be used in new daily use objects like mirrors or cloth hangers.

The traditional techniques usually focus on very narrow uses that might not be so relevant today.

Neo-craft makers for me, are those who are willing to approach new things.

3. How has this experience changed your relationship with craft in Mexico?

It changed my way to see the development and management of a product, looking more at the possibilities of the material, not trying to over-complicate it. Keeping it simple reduces time and investment costs. Learning how to make a product at a low cost, without too many complications, that is also attractive.

Also how to establish a relationship with the craft-maker, because if you already have some previous knowledge and research about the technique, they are more open to collaborate.

I think is different the way it's done in Japan and Mexico, in Mexico sometimes you just come and ask: "hey I want you to do this, how much?", and in Japan it was different because you might approach a craft-maker and they will look at your idea and disagree with it and they will say they don't have time or might not even be willing to do it, regardless of how much you are willing to pay for it. So I gained knowledge in how to contact the craft-maker, explaining what I want to do in a clear way that is convincing for them.

4. What is your approach to collaborating with crafts people?

In Mexico it depends, I can start from the technique and think what I can do with it or start with the product and then look for a technique, in both cases I would then look for a craft-maker who has good quality and is open to do new things, then I will approach him/her

and ask for a price for manufacture or an opportunity for collaboration, maybe we will split a percentage of the sales.

If I start with the product, then I will first look for an appropriate technique, since in Mexico we have many techniques but some of them I don't consider craft, but handicraft.

5. What advantages do you see in this approach?

It depends, it might be a kind of cultural rescue and I like to be a change-agent, obviously no one works for free and they also need an income. It's important that the collaboration is sustainable.

Appendices

On the other side when I use my brand (www.hiperobjetos.com) I will define my objectives and the way I want to approach cultural identity. In that case it should be more aligned to the requirements I define for the project.

These are two different goals: social or cultural rescue and economic income (for the craft-maker) or not caring so much to help, because I might be wanting to work with someone that doesn't even need my help, some people might have a huge production and they don't care so much about my project.

6. And what about the challenges?

Quality, among many other aspects. I feel that the artisanal production in Mexico has this thing, it's supposed to look like it was made‌ "a la ahí se va" (expression meaning something is made hastily). I understand there are existing aesthetic concepts like wabi-sabi (Japanese philosophy centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection) but sometimes we over do it, we don't find the balance, this is not in all cases of course, there are some craft objects that are really well made.

Also the time and commitment, in some cases they (craft-makers) ask for an advanced payment and might not deliver in time.

7. What do you think is the role of design in the collaboration with craft makers in Mexico?

Being a change-agent, I think is very good and if you can make money also, even better. If things are handled appropriately it can be a business for both, but there's also this washing of things "made in Mexico with artisanal techniques", there are examples of brands that make things in this way by using symbols out of context, like a shirt with a "sacred deer" or an "eye of god" (spiritual symbols of the Wixarika people of central Mexico) and I think there has to be some sort of synthesis not just copying.

I think we have such a vast richness in craft techniques that it's also part of the range of options for Mexican designers. I also think we are limited because it's difficult to use other techniques like a plastic injection production or glass, since the costs for molds or others might be outside of our possibilities, on the other side producing a small run of ceramics will be cheaper, this helps designers to have access to lower cost production methods with decent quality. Promoting craft is also important 8. How was this different in Japan?

In Japan it would be difficult to say since I was a sort of "guest designer", for local designers they just get exposed to the work with craft and they might end up working with it or not. In Japan it's possible to make a living as a designer that turns into a craft-maker by mastering a technique, some designers do this also in Mexico, for example there is this new program at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara called Bachelor's of Design and Craft, they will become neo-craft makers with knowledge of both design and craft, and even some bussiness.

But there's a risk, for example I remember some designers from this Bachelor's working in a technique called Madera Taraseada, and they were making a desk chair and the price was ridiculous, I think designers should make products that are made with craft techniques, for a

modern reality and accessible to a wider audience.

9. What do you think is the impact of this kind of collaboration in cultural identities?

Cultural identity enriches a product, but sometimes you don't know if the identity is taking center stage or working in harmony with the design. For example I remember this project of Vans using the Wixarika or Huichol techniques and motifs, and I wondered if those shoes are purchased for the design or for its meaning. I think some people might say: "both" but I feel that in those cases there's not that much thought in terms of meaningful added value and innovation. And some of the meanings are lost.

I feel that is not very good. As a designer you shouldn't make use of such a huge cultural value to justify your product as "artisanal design" in my opinion that is not a successful design, I can't see that in a design shop.

Appendices

10. What do you think are the benefits for crafts people when working with designers?

Some craft-makers might be of advanced age and in a lot of cases new generations don't want to get involved with craft, in those cases there is not an impulse to take a new direction and innovate, that is were designers can open a new path and show the craft makers that this might be a good option, I know artisans that enjoy even just talking to designers and getting a new perspective.

11. How do you define a fair compensation for the craft-maker's creative input and work?

There are several models. For example you can approach small businesses that use traditional craft technique, that doesn't necessarily mean they are craft makers. In those cases they might not even care who the designer is, they just want to sell, and they give you a fixed price for production, this works for me in some cases because I don't need to consider giving anything else in return, in this case they just function as a supplier.

In other cases you engage in conversation with a craft-maker and define something like: if you don't charge me for labor then I don't charge for creative input or construction drawings, models, etc., but for every product that we sell we get a percentage, or I might ask for different amount of pieces at different moments and they can charge me depending on the amount or work load that they have at different times.

We can also collaborate and agree on things like for example: I give design input and you can sell certain variations of the design exclusively, or certain finishes, colors, etc., for example I will sell mine in black but they might want to make a variation on red or something like that.

Some designers are hired for their creative process when they work with large craft companies.

12. In retrospective, what has been the impact of participating in the JICA Knowledge co-creation program in your design practice?

To know how to filter which techniques might prove fruitful for new products. Learning how to approach collaboration with small companies or individual craft-makers, since both cases are very different, and to understand the background history and importance of each company or the legacy of a craft technique since some of them might be on the brink of disappearing and design can provide a way to preserve them, now I understand better the reasons why a technique might go extinct and the things that you can do to improve that situation and provide a better future.

8.2 Appendix 2 Interview with Mexican designer D.A. Claudia GarduĂąo Funder and facilitator of Aalto LAB Mexico About Craft + Design collaboration in Mexico May 16, 2018 1. How would you summarize what Aalto LAB Mexico is?

It's a collaboration, a longitudinal process of co-design, a learning process where both the people in the community and the designers don't know how to design the projects for the benefit of the community in a sustainable way. it has been a long and slow process where at the beginning we had the bigger participation (the visitors or outsiders of the community), and we have tried to involve the community more each time, to reach a point where we will not longer be needed.

Appendices

The idea is that if we learn together how to make this design process, eventually they won't need us, and if a new problem appears in the community or if there's something that we didn't solve throughout all this years, they will be able to do the process from the beginning, from the diagnosis of the situation to the implementation of possible solutions.

1. How is Aalto LAB Mexico funded?

That is one of our main issues. The first time that we organized Aalto LAB it was through scholarships provided by Aalto University, those no longer exist. Also through universities in Mexico, specially Tec de Monterrey provided funding. It was a sort of institutional crowfunding, while in Mexico we will try to find out if some institution could provide the meals for the first day and other institution might take care of transportation, and so on.

There has been other efforts like crowfunding campaigns and at one point we obtained funds from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (and the equivalent in Mexico), and today we have some time without funds. The participants, specially the Finns have obtained funds from other governmental institutions in specific areas like water development and others.

We also just recently created an NGO in Mexico, and the idea is to look for private and public financing through it, since there is no other way to legally obtain funds and so far everything's been done through Universities.

3. What are the main achievements of the project?

The relationship with the community is the most important thing, they define it as a friendship, something that goes beyond an institutional collaboration. And the students look at it in the same way, there are people that were students when we started and now they are working, and they use their holiday to work with communities. I think that is the most valuable and lasting thing.

And they are also interested in seeing everything being implemented, so everybody is stubborn enough to say: "We will continue doing this".

4. What are the main challenges now and in the future?

Some of them we have been able to overcome. It was a very naĂŻve project when we started and it was a challenge to come to someone and say: "Hey we need funds to go and do something in a community in Mexico, I don't know which. We are gonna do something, but we don't know what yet", that was the most complicated part. And to gain the trust of this external actors, the Universities, so that they could see that we were for real.

A few years later there's a lot of documentation, there's the thesis and other documents that show that the project is serious and that We have accomplished things, and now is easier to show new people what and how we do things. To tell them: "these are the kind of projects that we do, this is how we generate them and this is our vision towards the future". Of course we still need a lot of funding, that is the most immediate challenge, we need much more funds than we have ever received to achieve the implementation of all the projects. But I do

want this to happen, because this was the a pilot case, and now there are two additional communities in Mexico that We want to include in the project.

5. Why focus in craft production as one of the Projects in Aalto LAB (ArtesanĂ­a para el bienestar)?

All of Aalto LAB's projects begin from the context, we do a first diagnosis to find the areas of opportunity, what is missing and what can be accomplished in the future. I have always been exceptical or even against direct work with crafts-people. The way I see it, the fact that the University gives me a diploma as an Industrial Designer doesn't put me above hundreds of years of tradition, I will never go and command over a community that has been working on their craft for hundreds of years, because I don't have the authority to do that.

Appendices

Interfering directly into the artisanal process seems a bit controversial to me. But since our first visit it's evident that in El 20 there's a lot of craft, not all of it comes from thousands of years ago, some of it is more contemporary. But more than working with the crafts directly, we observed that the community does this kind of work out of passion for it, and at the same time they have a lot of needs that could be alleviated if the craft production was managed in a different way. So, if they could be able to manage their craft production in a different way and earn more money and use those resources in different ways, they could gain access to health, welfare and other benefits, which is something that is missing in the community.

So, instead of intervening in the product itself, we address the service or system of craft in the community.

6. Why work with a team of international designers from both developed and developing backgrounds rather than local designers only?

First of all, because Aalto LAB is an initiative from Aalto University, initial funding came from the University and it was a requirement. Of course I could have also done it with Mexican designers only, but they are not Mayans either, so in any case there is still an external perspective.

But I do not consider participants as "the Finns" but as the experts representing the different disciplines needed. What we are doing is an exchange of knowledge, the people living in the community are experts in the many different things that happen in their town but they didn't go to the University, so they have a lack of knowledge of all this know-how that is created in collaborative ways at Universities in a global scale. The community is not necessarily against the development of new technologies, if you ask them they'll tell you they would like to have a lot of technological advancements as long as it is green technology. They don't love waste since they are very pro environmental management and respecting nature.

They are very interested in new technologies that don't damage the environment but they don't have access to it. So, bringing experts that know about it is something that they see as valuable.

7. What would you say are the main things that make Aalto LAB different from other Social Design projects?

For example SGT (Sustainable Global Technologies Programme at Aalto University) has a lot similar case studies in other parts of the world, but they don't have such a close collaboration with the local community. We work hand in hand and collaborate with each other, which is a big difference. Many other projects of so-called "interdisciplinary design" work with designers, architects and other disciplines within design, but they don't work with biologist, humanists, anthropologists, and others as We do. I think we are more interdisciplinary than other initiatives.

Another factor is time. We have been working for 7 years now in this community. Some other Universities as the MIT change the regional focus each year. The project might remain under a local agent and they only perform a one-time intervention, which is not our case.

8. Is it possible to transfer the knowledge acquired in the community of El 20 to other places?

And, How do you understand the new contexts?

We have tried to replicate the process, there's no point in redoing a solution that was done in China in the context of El 20, everything comes from the context, we have been perfecting our techniques and how we get involved with the local context to find out how to proceed and what can be done.

But of course, when you are in similar region and you have similar circumstances some things might be applicable but not so directly. For example Uxuxubi (community in Quintana Roo, Mexico) might benefit from an strategy like ArtesanĂ­a para el bienestar, but they don't have craft-production practices, so, if it's done in that way is necessary to start from the perspective of showing them how to practice craft-making, which is a completely different starting point. It could be valid since it's true that they also live outside of the social welfare system.

Appendices

I think it depends, and it changes, but some knowledge like: understanding the public policies, can be applied.

9. In retrospective, what has been the impact for the community of el 20?

We are going slow, the larger impact will happen when every planed intervention is implemented. Right now it's a little bit of a dream. But there has been some changes, and the community is more aware of some things, the people that have been closely involved with the project have the conviction that there's a lot that can be done.

The clearest example of that is the construction work happening in the community. Right now it takes only a ninth of the available space, but that project was co-created and ideated with the community, the ideas came from them, they are involved in making and reviewing the design, they have control over what can or can't be done, and they are the builders. They experience the process of going from drawing to building. This is the first involvement in this kind of projects for them, usually what they would do is: divide into groups of around 4 people each day and the team that goes the next day might build upon previous construction work, or destroy the previous work and start something new from scratch. So, no one really knows how the project is going to look in the end.

I think this new design and construction process was a really good example of how they can plan beforehand and execute according to that plan, the people involved in the process are now aware of how to do this and this is a way of showing them how to do things in a different manner. Now they know how long the process is, and what it involves, but also what they can get from planning.

9. What has been the impact for you and the other designers involved in Aalto LAB Mexico?

For most of us is a huge impact, it is a "life changing experience", not in a basic way, but for real. All sorts of things have happened, for example, one of the guys realized that in the community they play football every afternoon, and he noticed that playing used to be an important part of his life, and that he stopped doing it because of the demands of the city life.

From that moment on he said to himself: "I don't care! I'm gonna play football every week because it's something that I enjoy doing", and up to this day he's doing great in his own design office, but at the same time he plays football at least once a week. Or even small things like Finns that realize that they were not involved in taking care of their extended family like nieces and nephews, and they see how in the community taking care of children is a task for everyone and now they are very active in that.

For other people they have decided to aim their studies in Human-Centred Design, or even a girl who decided to study a second master's degree in development studies in Geneva, Switzerland. So it can become a life changing choice, and that's the case for me, with the NGO that We have now the objective is to dedicate my life to this type of projects. Today I couldn't see myself working at a design office.

Eduardo Hernåndez Villalobos Design Strategy & Leadership Master’s Programme in Collaborative and Industrial Design School of Arts, Design and Architecture - Aalto University Helsinki, Finland. 2018