Unique Circumstances Report by Ismael Velo

Cover. Photography: Ismael Velo Model: Robbert Doelwijt

THE RESEARCH

ISM A EL V ELO FEIJOO M1.1

CONTENT CONTENT

Preface

The true meaning of craftsmanship

Leather: That obscure object of desire

The research methodology

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

30 31 32 34 38 42

Motivation Hypothesis Research question Design experiment Evaluation Conclusion: The generated knowledge

Experiment 2: The context of healthcare

46 47 48 50 54 56

Motivation Hypothesis Research question Design experiment Evaluation Conclusion: the generated knowledge

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

60 61 62 64 110 114 116 122 126 128

Motivation Hypothesis Research question Design experiment & craftsmen Evaluation Interview sample Questionnaire Conclusion: The generated knowledge Limitations and weak points Experiment 4: finally, the showroom

130 132 134 140

Motivation Research question Evaluation (The set up) Conclusion: The generated knowledge

142

General conclusions

146

Personal reflections

148

Reference list

PREFACE PREFACE

Why would someone with a broken a arm or a twisted wrist, not only use a functional item that heals, but something that also has the aesthetics? Such impersonal and unpleasant, even repellent artefacts that has more to do with the hospital than with the person, carry the healing but also the meaning. Driven by my appreciation for well crafted leather goods and the absolute ugliness of common orthopedic products, I asked myself: can the aspects of craftsmanship transform the symbolism of temporary orthopedic items, making the shift from anonymous aesthetics to personal and sympathetic, in a way that people also connect to them? Through this research I explore the idea of replacing those apparatus with exquisitely hand crafted, almost fashion-like therapeutic pieces. This exploration, poetic yet realistic, is somewhat a statement, a critique to the current state of the art touching, with not great touch, these “unique circumstances”. Thus, its focus is not so much placed in the functional side of the redesigned items, but in the chosen material and craftsmanship: leather. The study, half research half manifesto, blends both my motivation for working with leather and my vision on design for well-being. It confirms that even the more functional things can be made differently and they can have their value increased by touching upon some specific points. It also proves that “materials, just on their own, can create a certain feel for a product” (Kälviäinen,

2000, p.10) and that there is room for an aesthetic statement that goes beyond the response for a need, beyond the one size fits all, being the role of designers to “facilitate the consumer’s desire to imbue objects with qualities that are meaningful to them within the currency of the contemporary aesthetics of everyday life” (ibid., p.4). Alongside with that, the project “opens up new ways for society to engage with the beauty of crafts” (Tung, 2012, p.73), while offering the craftsmen new product lines for a new context, a context in which the inherent uniqueness, authenticity and individuality of their creations have a higher meaning for users craving for differentiation and self expression even under those “unique circumstances”.

This report constitutes a detailed overview of the research process. In it, I started by introducing the first contribution that the development of this project has offered to me: a better and deeper understanding of the concept of craftsmanship, followed by the reasons that brought me to dive into the leather craftsmanship, to finally put the focus on the principles of the research, its methodology and its outcome. From a position of a “reflective practitioner” (Schön, 1991) to the one of a facilitator, through the different experiments that constitute the core of the Constructive Design Research, the report illustrates, not only the final output and conclusions, but the separate yet related stages that led to them.

THE TRUE MEANING OF CRAFTSMANSHIP THE TRUE MEANING OF CRAFTSMANSHIP

Dave Gamache designer

The true meaning of craftsmanship

“Craftsmanship is doing what you love and doing it right. Craftsmanship is not a destination; it’s a life-long discipline. It is the quality of the work that makes it remarkable. It’s a passion for betterment, it’s experience. Craftsmanship is about quality, passion and experience. Make things that you want to show to others. Build things that will make you proud 10 years from now. Sweat the details and the final product will be something to be admired”

Marc Barros entrepreneur

The true meaning of craftsmanship

“The hardest part of craftsmanship is being vulnerable. Pouring your soul into your work is like opening your heart to be broken multiple times over. Recognizing they will spend their lifetime building, true Artisans aren’t in a hurry to move on. They are willing to open themselves up against the struggle of failure until finally they get it right”

Richard Sennett sociologist

The true meaning of craftsmanship

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Craftsmanship is the skill of making things well for its own sakeâ&#x20AC;?

Nithikul Nimkulrat artist

The true meaning of craftsmanship

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Craft is the application of skills and ideas. Not only a way of making things by hand, but also a way of thinking through the hand manipulating a materialâ&#x20AC;?

LEATHER: THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE LEATHER: THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE

Mark Evans artist

“Leather is ancient, but still remains ‘cool’. Leather has heritage, yet it is still rock ‘n’ roll. Leather just gets better with age. Leather is masculine… from gladiators to wild west gunslingers, but also leather is feminine and sensual. I’m drawn into a bakery by the smell of warm bread. Leather is like that, it has it’s own aroma that appeals to me. Kinda like good coffee, or grass-cuttings, the scent evokes something. Leather was once a living, breathing creature and in a plastic, synthetic, digital world, leather is authentic. It’s a world away from digital media. It’s real. It’s skin”

Figure 1. Parchment drawing, 2012 Drawings on goat parchment, by Francesco Zorzi for Formafantasma

Leather: that obscure object of desire

THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Even being this project a sort of manifesto, as it is stated in the introduction, it was still required a scientific research around it that could prove the accuracy of the statement, while putting out there not only questions but also answers. The chosen methodology for doing so is the one known as Constructive Design Research, an approach supporting the idea that “artistic and creative processes could be legitimately used as a research method” (Frayling, 1993 in Bang, Krogh, Ludvigsen,& Markussen, 2012). Among the literature on this topic, I have chosen to go into a more detailed exploration of the work from Bang, Krogh, Ludvigsen and Markussen (2012), as well as the work from Nimkulrat (2012) and her position in relation to practice-led research. Constructive Design Research (from now on CDR) or Research Through Design, is described as the “design research in which construction - be it product, system, space, or media takes centre place and becomes the key means in constructing knowledge” (Koskinen, Zimmerman, Binder, Redström and Wensveen, 2011). It considers and encourages the possibility of design research being carried out by creatively making products in order to gain knowledge, establishing “3 different contexts : field, lab and showroom” (ibid.) in which this research would occur. The CDR process (Fig.2, p.25) is therefore the framework that gives the structure to the entire research as well as to the different chapters in the report, as explained by Bang et al. (2012): Motivation: contains both the internal and external relevance of the research. It is much more than a simple field of

interest, it is a driving force, a “motivational context” in which different inclinations (ethical, political, empirical or technological, among others) attract or agitate each other. Hypothesis: it articulates the premise(s) under which any research work must be read and understood [...] delimiting the validity of the studies and framing the methodological landscape. It is the “steering tool”, the ground on top of which the research question is formulated. Research Question: a more detailed account of what is subject to study. It leads the research, and it is the question that the research will answer. Experiment: the actual concrete research activity. The object or environment created, around which the exploratory process turns. Evaluation: the assessment of the prototype or artefact in the context it is developed for, together with the data collected from it. (Koskinen et al., 2011). Knowledge: the conclusions and learning from the evaluation.

In Figure 3 (p. 27) I introduce the interplay between the CDR and the different sources from which data is collected, based on a similar graph found in the paper Voice of Material in Transforming Meaning of Artefacts (Nimkulrat, 2012, p.5). My intention is to emphasize the different variations of the same CDR methodology used for this study, in which the main source of knowledge shifted from my own reflections on

making to the answers from experts, the relevant literature and the feedback forms from users, combining in various cases some of these sources. The different experiments and the knowledge extracted after them simply contributed to a re-framing of the research question, which at the same time asked for a different evaluative framework and context over time. While the first step

of the research (Experiment 1) was almost exclusively focused on making and co-reflecting, the second (Experiment 2) combined making, reflecting and questioning. As a result of this second stage, a new strategy was taken (Experiment 3 and 4), changing also my role as a designer within the project, without abandoning in any of the cases the framework established by the CDR.

Figure 2. The experiment as drive wheel of constructive design research (Bang et al. 2012)

The research methodology

M O T I VAT I O N

KNOWLEDGE

HYPOTHESIS

E XPERIMENT

E VA L U AT I O N

RESE ARCH QUESTION

Figure 3. Interplay between the research approach, the documentation and the data collection adapted to my own process and sources (Nimkulrat, 2012)

The research methodology

Reflections

S ke t c h e s

S ke t c h n o t e s

Video Photographs

READING

MAKING

CONSTRUCTIVE DESIGN RESE ARCH

QUESTIONING E XPERTS

Writ ten comments

QUESTIONING USERS

Questionnaires

Photographs Videos

Writ ten comments Recordings

EXPERIMENT 1: THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER EXPERIMENT 1: THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER

Motivation “As a matter of definition, much constructive design research work stems from a foundation in design practice and is motivated by an artistic curiosity” (Bang et al., p.8). Indeed, this “artistic curiosity”, this interest and personal appreciation for small leather goods led the first undertake into the leather craftsmanship. Aware of the fact that thousands of hours are required in order to master a craft, I was nevertheless determined to soak in. Triggered by the charm of old elegant wallets, bags, cases, handles and covers, as well as the ateliers in which they were manufactured, I somehow needed to explore this magnificent material, not only to understand its properties and its technique, but also to find out which were the values that it had for me, to create a sort of personal understanding that I could eventually contrast with others.

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

Hypothesis “The designerly way of knowing resides in the designer’s action and experience of creating an artefact as well as in the artefact itself” (Cross, 1999 in Nimkulrat, 2012). My intention was to explore the act of making as a research approach, taking what is called by Schön “the role of a reflective practitioner” (Nimkulrat, 2012). Schön’s conceptions of “knowing-in-action” maintains that “practitioners’ knowing is tacitly embedded in their routine actions and their acts of touching the material they are handling”. Whether this interaction with the material could unfold a research problem was still for me something to be discovered.

Research question

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

Can the simple act of making lead, or at least spark, the organic growth of the research?

Design experiment Through a series of visits to the atelier of Jacomine Immink in Hilversum (see p.102), I designed and manufactured, together with her, my very first leather good. A medium size container that I was intended to use as pen case is the object that introduced me to the pattern making, the manual leather cutting, stitching and bevelling. The objective was to acquire at least a fundamental knowledge of the skills and the material. In a first visit, an informal conversation was held around leather and the values that her creations would have for the customers. In a second visit, the “master - apprentice” approach (Tung, 2012) was taken, giving as a result the aforementioned item. Throughout both visits, a sort of partnership was born: she seemed to enjoy transferring her knowledge and the language barrier did not pose a problem. Alongside with that, a full documentation of the creative process was required in order to help and support the reflection-on-action procedure, documentation that was accomplished through the recording of a video. “These documented actions can then become data for analysis [...] Analysing experiential data in connection with relevant literature can generate an understanding of the subject studied” (Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011 in Nimkulrat, 2012).

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

Figure 4. Sketches, a powerful tool for communicating and discussing the design with the artisan.

Figure 5. The leather pen case Concept and design: Ismael Velo Production: Ismael Velo , Jacomine Immink Photography: Ismael Velo Figures 6. Screen-shots from the video documenting the making of. From top to bottom: Me and the craftsman working hand by hand Using the sewing machine Using the leather hole punch tool Using the cutting tool

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

Evaluation Almost like a natural continuation of the act of making, I essentially inquired some people about the design outcome. This sort of open interview, also appropriately documented, helped steaming some unique characteristics that were perceived on the leather pen case. Next to that, and as it is said in the previous point, a profound personal retrospective reflection both on the action of making and the final design itself was made.

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Which qualities do you perceive, both in the item and the material?â&#x20AC;?

”The first thing it makes me think about is time… the time passed since this creature is gone. So I feel a sense of life in it”. “It is not about the material itself… it is the metaphor of it. It reminds me the tough stuff. Maybe this comes from my cultural background, because in China we don’t use leather so often. But western world prefers leather. And I think this is a result from a history of hunting and fishing”. “The quality of the reflection reflected on it is quite unique [...] it is much more smooth and emotional than metal or plastic”. “This is not an usual container […] It is a design work. It is quite personal” “Having a leather product makes a difference” Shaoting Gu

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

“I adore leather, I think is a great material. It often gives this kind of strong, everlasting feeling in a sense. And what I love about leather is that it looks better with time, it ages really well and that is just something really nice. Even the scratches, they give meaning to the item over time”. “I also like how it feels, it simply feels good. It is an original material, for where it comes from, and the animal kind of defines both the size of the items and the imperfections that you are going to get”. “In this case, both leathers are very different: while the black is glossier and quite sleek, the other has a more velvet-like feel, similar to suede. It is softer and warmer. I would choose this one if I wanted to have this kind of more intimate attribute”. “It is quite rustic and masculine. Simple actually, but still sophisticated” Bruna Goveia

Conclusion: The generated knowledge During the collaboration process, in which I approached the craftsmen from an apprentice point of view, I got to understand the opportunities and design problems surrounding the leather craftsmanship. When making with Jacomine, I first grasped some aspects that are key within the act of manufacturing leather goods. Unlike other types of craft-work, such as pottery for instance, in which the so called “way-finding” or “using the materials and tools to think with” (Bardzell, Rosner, & Bardzell, 2012, p.13) can lead the activity of a practitioner, leather craft-work operates different. Quite the opposite, as Jacomine said: “With leather, if you think while you are making, it is too late. You have to preview everything, think all the aspects in advance”. This is what Ingold (Bardzell et al., 2012) would call a “navigation” process, in which “following a map” is necessary. After having understood this, all the opportunities that could reside in the use of the craftsmanship for therapeutic issues were soon vanished. Craftsmanship, or the act of making with your own hands, having mind and hands working in concert in what is called “the embodied mind” has been largely used as a therapeutic method. As indicated by Perruzza & Kinsella (2010 in Riley,2013), “therapeutic engagement in creative arts and crafts can have a positive impact on mental health and well-being”. I had initially considered the eventual extrapolation of this use to the leather handwork, but right after experiencing it and discussing it with the craftsmen, who happens to be a former occu-

pational therapist, this option quickly seemed unsuitable. The nature of the material and the need of mastering several different techniques and tools to make use of it clearly indicated that this approach to well-being was not the correct one. Instead, other opportunities arose while reflecting upon my experience as a designer - maker and the feedback given by the two interviewees. The very special attributes of leather, the relation that people (including myself) have with leather items and the numerous associations that sparks in men and women’s minds when they have a leather item in their hands, made me think that both the physical and emotional characteristics of the material as perceived by the users constituted a much more fascinating path to explore. At this point I was starting to understand better the power of materials and their sensorial qualities as tools for driving the user’s appreciation for a product, and I soon understood that leather had an enormous potential in this sense. Quality, authenticity, personality, timelessly, warmth or intimacy were only some of the qualities that steamed form the co - reflections. Attributes that, seen both in the material and the piece made with it, appeared to be meaningful for me as a designer. So at this point I started asking to my self: “How can I benefit from this characteristics?”, “What is the expressive potential of leather and how can I use it to my purpose?”. But also “How much of this expressivity is in fact in the design and how much is in the material itself?”

Experiment 1: The reflective practitioner

This became then a turning point, probably the contribution that I was looking for by taking this first approach. I perceived at this moment that looking deeper into the attributes of leather as a material in order to understand how these could add value seemed like a stimulating way to go. At the same time, this very first approach to the subject meant also a sort of liberation for me. First, because

there was a certain satisfaction of working with my hands. Secondly, because I felt now more empowered to try and manufacture other small goods myself, specially after the artisanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s remark upon my quick learning process. Thirdly, because it was the confirmation that the act of making could not only guide the evolution of the research, but also provide the designer - maker with a tacit knowledge that can not be acquired through other conduits.

EXPERIMENT 2: THE CONTEXT OF HEALTHCARE EXPERIMENT 2: THE CONTEXT OF HEALTHCARE

Motivation Taking as a starting point the question: “what is the expressive potential of leather and how can I use it for my purpose?” I found in the practice-led research of Nithikul Nimkulrat and her paper Voice of Material in Transforming Meaning of Artefacts (2012) my main source of both motivation and knowledge about the topic of Materialness. Materialness is, as defined by Nithikul, “the concept showing that a material can lead not only a craft making process (as confirmed in the previous experiment), but also the process of viewing completed artefacts”. In this paper, she “attempts to unfold how materials can construct the tangibility of artefacts and simultaneously generate particular meanings to them”. I can stablish a clear connection between her research and the concept of materiality, the theory supporting the perceptive properties of the material that go beyond the physical, the intangible qualities within the tangible ones, the “materials as metaphorical beings” (Nithikul, 2012).

My initial temptation is to turn her research, focused on textile materials, into a similar set up with a focus on leather. Taking everyday life objects in order to remake them in leather, to find out later whether or not people provide them with new meanings, seemed like a reasonable articulation for the research. However, the lack of an specific context and the need of one makes me think back to design and well-being, very present in my personal development plan for the semester. As a designer, I could quickly point out different contexts or environments in which the qualities of leather that raised during the first of the experiments are conspicuous by its absence. But there was one in which the impersonality and lack of empathy was specially noticeable, and this was the one of the home healthcare devices. This products lack delicacy and aesthetic appeal, generating a feeling of disability immediately connected to the user and contributing to accentuate the social stigma of the patient.

Experiment 2: The context of healthcare

Hypothesis Leather as a material, through the values associated to it, can shape peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interpretation of orthopedic products, affecting the expressivity of those products, thus changing the meaning they have for the user and the viewer. The meanings that this natural material carries along with it can be transferred to the objects, thus changing their semantics and the way people look at them.

Research question

Experiment 2: The context of healthcare

How the intangible attributes of leather can contribute to break the stigma and support the well-being of people using orthopedic devices? Could this contribution be done only by changing the material used?

Design experiment The chosen objects for the experimentation are the following (see Fig.7-10, p.53), selected among a numerous amount of similar products within the catalogue of an orthopedic aids supplier. The reasons for choosing these specific products are simple: under my point of view, they are representative of the malady associated with them and quickly recognizable for the general public, even for those that never had to resort to them. This choice also embeds my interest on keeping the research somehow artistic and extreme, selecting objects that can in a way be recognized but would never be associated with leather, in order to generate a sort of clash to which people would eventually respond. Together with that, they seemed rather suitable for being remade or covered with leather, which was the main intention for the methodology. While the sling is remade in a combination of two different kinds of leather, the plastic glass for impaired people is wrapped with the very same material combination during a third visit to the atelier of Jacomine Immink.

Experiment 2: The context of healthcare

Figure 7. Anti spill cup Figure 8. Anti spill cup wrapped with leather Figure 9. Arm sling Figure 10. Arm sling remade in leather Concept and design: Ismael Velo Production: Ismael Velo, Jacomine Immink Photography: Ismael Velo

Experiment 2: The context of healthcare

Evaluation Nithikul’s research methodology, led by an artistic background, builds on art rather than science, thus matching excellently with one of the three context established for the CDR: the showroom. The focus of this approach to research, as mentioned Koskinen et al. (2011), is “to generate debate that makes people think” by creating a framework in which the high quality definition of the objects is as important as traditional research. As Nithikul’s work, it is about seeing poetry in ordinary things. Apart from the apparent suitability of this method to find the answer to the research question, it was at this point a procedure much more appealing to me than the one of the field or lab. Making people think by triggering debate through “radical design” is essentially on the basis of the showroom approach to design research, what would ultimately contribute to the critique I was intended to make against the state of the art concerning the looks of orthopedic devices. Seeking to simulate what it could be an eventual exhibition with more similar items, I decided to use the proposed activity during the mid-term demo days to test the viability of the exhibition approach as a validation procedure. With-

in this 20 minutes pilot, some people within the group discussed further with me the attributes of leather, in a sort of continuation of the first experiment carried out, while the other part of the group was asked to fill in a questionnaire in which they rated the remade orthopedic objects in comparison with their original versions, based on some intangible values of leather that I personally found more interesting. The intention of this exercise was to find out which aspects related with the orthopedic items changed more and how much more after being reconstructed in leather, as well as to find out whether or not the value-based questionnaire was a good approach for answering the research question. Through the same questionnaire, the group was also inquired upon personal connotations that the items had for them, as well as advices or referents regarding how to carry the intended research. Because of the small amount of people that I had available during the mid-term demo days, the results of the questionnaire are not representative. However, there was abundant valuable information underlying the answers to the open ended questions and the feedback.

Experiment 2: The context of healthcare

Conclusion: The generated knowledge The research problem on how the intangible attributes of leather could contribute to break the stigma and support the well-being of people using orthopedic devices wasn’t something that could be answered after the evaluation. Nevertheless, the interest shown by the majority of the participants on the topic seemed to be rather profound. Whereas some of them pointed out the “cheap” look of the standard orthopedics and considered the topic of the hospital devices to be “worth tackling”, others emphasized the “fashionable” look of the leathered items, comparing them with “accessories”. Although the quality of the final items remade in leather was far from the intended one (specially if we look at the finishing), values as expressivity, personality and uniqueness were repeatedly associated with them, what suggested that the intangible attributes of leather were somehow perceived regardless the details, being the most important aspect the fact of having them remade in leather. Whether it was the novelty of the experiment (several people pointed out that they had never seen or though about redesigning orthopedic items) or the characteristics of leather as a material, it seemed that expressivity, personality and uniqueness could also be characteristics associated to the research itself, making me conclude that there was certainly a room for such investigation. Nevertheless, a retrospective co-reflection together with coaches and group mates prompted that still some changes were necessary. The first thing that stood out was the lack of scientism when choosing the

values of leather that people would be inquired upon. Although the value-based questionnaire seemed to be a correct approach to find out where the difference was, as well as why and how (the attributes had changed, I wasn’t feeling very comfortable using a questionnaire based on attributes that only myself had come up with, without significant validation either from experts nor from previous scientific research. The second point was the quality of the prototypes. Although viewers of the items did show changes in their interpretation of the leathered products compared with the standard ones, a high-quality finishing of the items would be in any case imperative in order to meet the requirements of the showroom approach (Koskinen et al., 2011). If the product image was not consistent, it would give an uneasy feeling, indicating fake quality and automatically becoming a bad option, something to avoid for a set up based on the commercial roots of design. The last important point is associated with the findings on how the interviewees related to the items viewed. While everybody was able to recognize the sling and, to some extent, see the value of rethinking the look of it, it did not happen the same with the anti spill cup. This product, made to facilitate the act of feeding severely handicapped people, seemed to be too disconnected both from the public and the topic of the research, being the added value almost impossible to find. “The leather glass looks nice but it is not very practical. It gets dirty and I don’t think it will add any

Experiment 2: The context of healthcare

value to the user, whose main concern is getting food and drink”. The personal conclusions upon this point were that objects of this sort (meant for seriously handicapped users) did not play a good role in the research, since a very few people would connect or even recognize the original utility of the them. On the contrary, temporary orthopedic items such as the sling appeared to be recognizable, almost archetypal, good examples of an imposed hospital look to be used on a daily basis. On a more personal and experiential level, the making of the items allowed me to measure how much the nature and quality of the workmanship was dissociated from the simple awareness of the tools and techniques. Having made

the items myself, applying the recently acquired know-how, didn’t made for an even decent outcome, although a lot of care and attention had been put into the details. This was the evidence for me that “all material has its own unique quality”, and that “a good crafter recognizes that uniqueness in the material, respects it, and strives to convey and represent that quality in her/his work” (Bardzell et al., 2012, p.13, paraphrasing master potter Tseng Ming-naan). It turned out to be very difficult for me to convey with my choices (type of leather, colours, details) the identity, the essence that I could otherwise envision in my head for the redesigned leathered item. Proof maybe that, being a designer, was not enough in this case.

EXPERIMENT 3: FROM MAKER TO FACILITATOR EXPERIMENT 3: FROM MAKER TO FACILITATOR

Motivation In essence, the motivation for this 3rd and decisive research activity could be taken verbatim from the previous one. However, every experiment brings its contribution to the research, so that at this point some more aspects completed a driving force that was already strong by itself, and that led the research since the beginning. I was completely empowered at this time to turn the design research into an statement, to bring it further to a fairly firm critique to the state of the art concerning the look of orthopedic arm slings and, in general, of all the temporary orthopedic products. A remark against the neglection of the basic aspects of design in the name of pure functionality, omitting the empathy necessary to make this functionality complete. Taking as a reference the work of some other designers who, by choosing a severe censorious attitude towards similar topics, tried to raise public awareness, I was determined to open up the challenge to others, seizing the whole concept of leather craftsmanship for the first time during the research (as the union between the material, its technique, the maker and the values embedded in all of them).

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

Hypothesis “Hand-crafted items have a huge potential due to its unique personality and expressivity” (Kälviäinen, 2012). These sort of products are considerably popular nowadays, in a society that “lusts after craftsmanship […] offering quality over quantity” (McGuirk, 2011). Leather, alone or in combination with other materials, is often used to manufacture objects that keep the experiential and emotional relationship with the user (Kälviäinen, 2012). I believe that the leather craftsmanship and its characteristics, specially those related with its aesthetic appeal, can change the connotations of disability and illness associated with temporary therapeutic items, making the shift from anonymous aesthetics to personal and sympathetic, in a way that people feel better about wearing them. In addition, I presume that, form my position as a designer, I can add more value by adopting a critical attitude towards the state of the art concerning the appearance of temporary orthopedic items .

Research question

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

Which characteristics of the hand crafted leather items treated by craftsmen, can contribute to the willingness to use temporary orthopedic products, by transforming the meaning that those products have for the user?

Design experiment Diversification became then the road to generalization. Not only the idea of having a diverse set of items made by different craftsmen was appealing for its own sake, but it would eventually contribute to the generalization of the final knowledge, while being tremendously valuable for me, as a designer, in order to understand better where the secrets of the craftsmanship were. Ultimately, only those who dedicate their life to the craftsmanship could achieve the required quality of the finished products. A call for help was made, seeking for professional leather makers whose work and vision made them suitable and willing to collaborate with the cause. This became also a turning point for me, being the moment in which I shifted form an active makerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role to the one of a design facilitator. Although ideally I would have liked having more different items, those presented right after, together with the ones who made them, constitute the core elements of the third stage in this CDR project.

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

Figure 11. Arm sling made in leather Concept: Ismael Velo Design and production: Teheux Photography: Ismael Velo Models: Robbert Doelwijt, Bruna Goveia

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

The craftsmen Ingrid and Marcel Teheux manufacture exquisite leather bags from their home and atelier in sâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Hertogenbosch. Driven by quality and differentiation, they use the most exclusive natural tanned leather to produce their unique pieces.

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

Figure 12. Ingrid and Marcel Teheux Photography: Teheux

Figure 13. Details of the atelier Photography: Ismael Velo

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

Figure 14. Detail of the leather sling Figure 15. Detail of the atelier Photography: Ismael Velo

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

Figure 16. Hand brace made in leather Concept: Ismael Velo Design: Ismael Velo, Jacomine Immink Production: Jacomine Immink Photography: Ismael Velo Models: Bruna Goveia, J. Paulo Lamoglia

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

100

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

The craftsman Jacomine Immink is a former occupational therapist and teacher who decided to follow her passion for leather after she retired. From her atelier on the rooftop of her house in Kortenhoef Dijk, she now manufactures leather goods with the most delicate care.

102

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

103

104

Figure 17. Jacomine Immink Photography: Ismael Velo

105

Figure 18. Details of the atelier Photography: Ismael Velo

106

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

108

Figure 19, 20. Details of the leather sling Photography: Ismael Velo

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

109

Evaluation The final method to evaluate the determinants for people’s willingness to use hand crafted leather orthopedic items did not follow exactly the way anticipated with the previous experiment. Instead, it merged two of the three different context proposed in the CDR theory: the field and the showroom. Having both the arm sling and the hand braces made in leather by the different artisans, the next step was to go out and interview people concerning those items. 20 people were interviewed, ranging from 17 to 66 years of age. All of them were using or used, at some point in their lives, one of the standard orthopedic items (or a similar version of it). Although the need of real users for supporting the research question could be arguable, I was determined to look for them. The main point lied in the intention of directing this users to relate the current experience of trying out the hand crafted leather item with their earlier experiences (being those more or less close in time). Potential users were found through two main mediums, that were visits to physiotherapy clinics and calls for collaboration in social networks. Some of the interviews were carried out in the physiotherapy clinic in which the users themselves were being treated, placing the work in a medical frame far from the design one, while being the context a support of the reliability of the study. Other interviews were simply carried out in the university. Apart form the limited time, that did not allow for the set up of a standard exhibition, the intention of doing the interviews in context was to benefit from the main aspects of both settings. By bringing the showroom to

110

the field, I tried to: First, bring the debate out into the real world, take the critical work of the craftsmen along to the everyday life, “suggesting that the everyday as we know it could be different, that things could change”. This also allowed me to participate in dialogue about the meaning of my work (Dunne, 2007, p.10). Second, emphasize that it is a design, meaning that the artefacts can (and should) be actually used. “When the form of an artefact resembled that of a utilitarian object, but the material of it did not follow the usual material of the object, the artefact in that utilitarian form became representational”. By giving the item to the users so they could try it, this representational form became utilitarian again. In fact, every of the interviewees was encouraged to try out the product him or herself, something that everybody did, with no exception, sparking mostly personal comments about the feel of the object against the skin. Third, pro-actively look for more scientific data (both qualitative and quantitative) that supported the hypothesis built around the interpretation of the products that the craftsmen had made in leather. “Empirical research turns even very exploitative designs into research objects. However, for showroom researchers, fieldwork is typically not about issues around use but about issues like form” (Koskinen et al., 2011, p.100). Indeed, pretty much all the aspects in the questionnaire pointed the interviewees towards the look and feel

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

of the products rather than the functional side of them. “For instance, they may ask how static and visual notions of form are moving toward the performative and relational definitions”. As for the questionnaires used, they supported the interview by driving the collection of quantitative data together with more personal, qualitative one. Redesigned based on the feedback from the mid-term demo day and fine tuned after a set of pilot tests, the set included both open ended and close ended questions. Likert scales and semantic differential scales were used to assess the qualities of both the standard and the redesigned product, providing with most of the quantitative data (see p.118). In order to measure the preference for one or the other, comparison between both items (the standard and the leathered one) was proposed. By doing so, the standard version of the item became the extreme, and users rated the qualities of the hand crafted one and its importance based on what can be found on the market. The questionnaire did not only provide the user with an easy tool for assessing the items, but also with a platform to be able to project their opinions, questions and hopes. This way, the qualitative information helped supporting the quantitative one. Regarding the characteristics upon which the comparison was based, they were all selected from the paper The Significance of Craft Qualities in Creating Experiential Design Products (Kälviäinen, 2012). The list, initially too long for a feasible questionnaire, was trimmed

down to the most relevant attributes based on the opinion of the craftsmen collaborating with the project. They acted as filters to select the most relevant features that were present in their own work. Different craftsmen meant different lists, but due to the fact that most of this values were pinpointed by both makers and that the final list, summing up both individual lists, did not go up to 14 final characteristics, I decided to include them all in the final questionnaire. With regard to the relevance of this list, only mention that being one of the craftsmen a former occupational therapist (and therefore knowledgeable in the orthopedic field) and the other a design consultant (knowledgeable in the design field), both sources seemed rather pertinent. With respect to the dynamics of the interview, it started with an explanation about the intention of the research that included the exhibition of the items and its use by the interviewees. After a brief description of the questionnaire (see p.116), the very first question was answered. By doing so, the user would position him / herself regarding the willingness to use the temporary orthopedic item hand crafted in leather rather than the standard one, after what I would ask for the reasons that led the choice. At this stage a fluent conversation would arise, allowing the stream of many insightful opinions. Questions 2 and 3 were essentially intended for assessing the 2 different items (standard one and leathered) based on the list of attributes mentioned above. With question 4, and by choosing the most important characteristics for them, users

111

would link the qualities with their willingness to use the hand-crafted leather, ultimately answering the research question. Reasons for why they chose

112

these characteristics were given upon my request.

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

113

Interview sample - Ok! You can try it out.

right?

[...]

- Yeah! [laughs]. It also expresses a bit more, but if you would have to pay a lot extra, then I would just wear this one.

- Yeah! Nice! It actually fixes much more that the one I was using. - I have to try it myself! Fortunately I never had to use one.

- I don’t know actually because this (standard sling) is very expensive. It is pretty crazy when you look at the price and the quality.

- Oh! I broke a lot of stuff during my life! - Ok, you can take it out now. Because I have a small questionnaire for you to fill in. The focus is more on the feel and touch rather than the functionality, although this one (the sling) works well, you’ve even mentioned that it is more adjustable than the one you were using. - Yes, exactly. […] - Ok. I think the questions are understandable, but if you have any doubt you let me know. Here (the second part of the first question) I prefer that you explain me since I am recording and taking notes, it is much more fluent than writing down. - Yeah, ok. […] I would really like wearing this because it just looks like almost an accessory [smile]. It does not necessarily reflect that something is wrong with your arm. Well to some extent is obvious (that something is wrong with your arm) but at least it is not as medical as the other one. I wouldn’t actually mind wearing this every day. - Even if you haven’t broken your arm,

114

- Is it that there are just a few companies making it? - I don’t know. I think is just that nobody put a hand in there. It works, because probably is not going to break but… well. You’ve also mentioned expressivity, right? - Yes. I remember that I broke my arm for the first time when I was 7 or 8, and I could choose the colour of my cast, choosing orange and purple. […] But I really wanted to show a bit more […] so I got rid of the sling as soon as I could so I could show my purple plaster. […] - Ok, I think we can move to the next questions. There are a set of qualities, I think that understandable, but if not there is the opposite one which is pretty clarifying or you can just ask me. This list in the first page is for the standard one and the list on the second page is for the leathered one. […] Don’t think too much and go ahead. - Yeah, ok. [...]

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

- Good? Then you can also tell me, from those characteristics you have just read, which ones you appreciate more. Which ones would make you be more willing to use the leathered version of the sling? You have already mention expressivity before, but maybe you have other 3 that you would say: Oh, this is important for me, that’s why…” - I think for my situation back then I had to wear the sling for 8 weeks and the cast for 10 weeks, so it was quite a long time, so expressivity was an important aspect. High quality as well I guess, because it kind of becomes part of you.

[…] And then personal too. - In which sense? Personal because it becomes part of you? - Yeah. This (hand-crafted leather sling) just feels that someone has though about it more than this one (standard sling). And if you wear it for such a long time […] you can have multiple ones, match them with your clothes, shoes and bags! [laughs]. - Ok! Thank you very much. I appreciate your help.

115

Questionnaire Figure 21. Given the fact that you need to use a sling / hand brace for a period of time x, please express your level of agreement with the following sentence: â&#x20AC;&#x153;I would be more willing to use the hand-crafted leather version of the sling / hand brace than the standard oneâ&#x20AC;?

Figure 22. Please assess the standard sling / hand brace based on the following characteristics by ticking one circle per line. Decide spontaneously.

Figure 23. Please assess the hand-crafted leather sling / hand brace based on the following characteristics by ticking one circle per line. Decide spontaneously.

Figure 24. Which of the qualities listed above would contribute more significantly to the willingness to use the leather sling / hand brace? Please choose the 3 that are more important for you and explain why (Figure 25).

116

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

117

S T R O N G LY A G R E E

AGREE

N EU T R A L

DISAGREE

S T R O N G LY D I S A G R E E

118

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

22-23

HAND-CRAFTED

STANDARD

119

25%

55%

30%

25%

15%

40%

25%

10%

50%

15%

10%

120

“It is almost like an accessory”

“It is your design, your thing, your style”

“The scratches, the marks of use... It becomes more personal over time” “You choose your clothes every morning so why wouldn’t you choose a bracelet?” “The fact that is tailor made makes it unique and personal” “Not everybody has the same size of arm” “It it feels better on my skin” “It is very comfortable, and comfortability is the most important thing for me” “The leather itself makes it authentic”

“The authenticity relies on the material”

“You are making an statement by using this” “It says things about the person wearing it, about his/her style and personality” “The metallic details makes it look like a luxurious purse”

“Leather is warmer than cheap fabric, both literally and figurative” “The attention for the details raises the quality” “You feel is decent leather. It is not going to fall apart” “Leather feels more natural that nylon”

“It has a sort of second skin feeling”

“The smell of leather is always special”

“It smells so good!”

121

Conclusion: The generated knowledge The following pages, together with the ones before, show the results and conclusions of the research for the three products introduced in pages 66 to 109. Although I assume (based on the opinion of the craftsmen) that all 3 items shared the same characteristics related with the leather craftsmanship, my intention is not to generalize. It is obvious that three different items do not represent the whole family of temporary orthopedic, and aware of that, I want to make clear that from now on, when presenting the results and conclusions, I am not referring to the whole family of temporary orthopedics items, but to the set of three that were remade in leather and used for the research. Along with that, the results won’t necessary be equal or even similar for the aforementioned objects made in different kinds of leather or different materials. Worth mentioning is also that, due to the size and time scope of the research, I am not under conditions to state which characteristics of the leather craftsmanship contribute to the willingness to use temporary orthopedic items. I am conscious of the limitations that the research had and that the amount of interviewees is far from making them a reliable source of information. However, “they are real people, and anything I discovered is grounded in reality rather than fiction” (Dunne & Raby, 2001). The following conclusions show what I can personally discern after having carried the research, glimpses of what it can be like facing users with new opportunities. Small stories about their interests and feelings.

122

To start, the results show that 45% of the interviewees agreed that they would wear the hand-crafted leather product rather than the standard one given the circumstances, while 35% strongly agreed, 10% stayed neutral and only 10% disagreed. This means that up to 80% of the total amount of interviewees would actually prefer the hand crafted option. I could imagine by looking at this data that, if not the exact items proposed, users would at least appreciate having different options than the ones that can be found nowadays in the market. If we look at the reasons, we can find that the qualities that stood out the most from the interviews are those related with the personality and quality of the remade leather items. In fact, more that 50% of the users included them within the most important aspects of their choice, emphasizing the impersonality and lack of visual quality of the common orthopedics. “ This materials (referring to the standard hand brace) feel like really really cheap, although they might be technical and expensive” In the same line, various interviewees mentioned the “sense of disability you have” when wearing those items or the “hospital look and feel”, being labelled as a patient by the only fact of using one of them. On the other hand, the temporary orthopedic items presented as an alternative were often seen as “accessories”, emphasizing the uniqueness and expressivity of the products themselves as reasons for this statement.

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

“I would really like wearing this because it just looks like almost an accessory. It does not necessarily reflect that something is wrong with your arm. Well, to some extent it is obvious that something happened to you but, at least, it is not as medical as the other one. I wouldn’t actually mind wearing this every day!” Unique and expressive were attributes that often refereed back to personal, confirming the close relationship they have amongst them and with the identity that the user wants to maintain. As revealed in the questionnaire, 25% of the interviewees mentioned the uniqueness of the item showed to them as a main aspect driving their decision, being 40% the amount of them who chose expressivity. At the same time, all these four attributes (uniqueness, expressivity, personality and quality) were very often linked to the fact that the item was or could be tailor made. The hand crafted aspect meant possible customization, and therefore, opened a whole range of possibilities in their heads. “If you wear this items for quite some time […] you could have multiple ones, match them with your clothes, shoes or bags!” In general, I can say that the hand crafted aspect symbolized self expression, differentiation, and ultimately, individual identity, something that most people don’t want to loose in no way whatsoever, including the circumstances in which one is in need of using an orthopedic item. It deserves to be mention however, that among the two

participants who claimed not to prefer the hand-crafted option, both employed the very same concept of not standing out, being more willing to use a common hand brace “for not being noticed” or for “letting people know subtly that I have an injury”. While some people would defend that the hand crafted leather items take away part of the hospital look, thus making you feel less as a patient, the uniqueness and novelty of the proposed items could have the opposite effect, making the orthopedic products stand out and therefore, pointing out the circumstances in a different way. As for the leather as a material, it led most of the answers regarding the pleasurability and authenticity of the products. Pleasurability, mainly understood as comfortability, was an important aspect for all the interviewees, specially if we keep in mind that the standard items I am questioning with this research are strictly functional. I can say at this point that leather offered a big contribution to this aspect, specially due to its natural constitution compared to synthetic material . Without having tested the breathability in the long term, the touch and feel of the leather as proposed by the craftsmen was appealing for the big majority of the users, connecting it some of them with a sort of “second skin feeling” for the softness and warmth of the surface. Also the luxurious appearance was associated with the material, while the novelty of the product and the details typical from the bags (specially the buckles) emphasized this aspect even more.

123

Lastly, valuable and novel were attributes that, most probably due to its ambiguity, did not become decisive for users when deciding for one or the other option (none of the interviewees mentioned them as important aspects). In fact, valuable was often seen as an attribute very present in both the standard orthopedic products and the leather ones, associated with the healing function of the items rather than the value as a product itself, putting up the question of appearance as connected with functionality. Regarding the semantic differential scale (see p.119), they were meant to be a tool to find the differences in the qualities that related with the topic of interest, reason why all the set of qualities chosen for the comparison (validated by past research and experts) was strictly related with the crafts. The polarization of the scale is a confirmation of the scales is nothing but the confirmation the very different values embedded in both the items commercially available and the proposed ones. To finalize, and although all the data seem to reveal that there is a certain willingness to use the leather items over the standard ones, there are three important aspects that enormously condition this assumption: The first of this aspects is the context. As some of the interviewees mentioned, “you don’t wear the same at home than when you go to a restaurant”, stating that they would only use the hand crafted version of the items in special occasions.

talks, presentations… and I had to walk around with one of this ugly things! On top of my suit I had this crap, you know. So in that case I would have liked to have something like this (leather sling). Maybe not for daily use. I would still wear this at home (standard one) but if I had to go out to, I would wear the leather version for sure, because it feels nice” The second of this aspects is the price. Many of the interviewees appealed to the short term use of the items to state that they would not be willing to pay a significant amount of money more for the hand-crafted item. What strongly suggests that more options than the extreme one (beautifully hand-crafted leather item) would be appreciated. The third aspect is the personal style. Although more than half of the interviewees rated the leather objects as specially personal, they sometimes clarified that not all the items matched their personal taste, meaning that their willingness would be conditioned by the fact of being able to make decisions upon the type and colour of the leather. In conclusion, and under my opinion, it seemed quite clear that the expressivity of leather could change the meaning of temporary orthopedic items. But there is much more. Not only the material but many of the aspects related with its craftsmanship and the notion of quality embedded in it, appeared to be contributors to this shift. Even the collective imagination built around leather product along the history and emphasized by the fashion industry would ultimately play a role in changing the way people look at this kind of products.

“I worn it for 3 months and during that time I travelled quite a lot, I had to give 124

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

125

Limitations and week points As it has already been mention in the previous section, it is accepted that the methodology of the research for this final step (as for the previous ones) had some limitations. Although pilots were made and things were carefully considered with research experts in the department before being assumed and used, weaknesses still existed, constituting also points from which new personal knowledge radiated. It is already known for instance that my initial idea was to have a bigger variety of temporary orthopedic items in order to be able to generalize the conclusions. However, the strong dependency of the maker in this last stage of the research made it impossible to have more than the three objects introduced in pages x to x (two in reality, since the hand braces are only different versions of the same item). Its scientism can also be argued: 20 final interviewees does not seem like much people to confirm or prove anything through quantitative data, and the nature of the characteristics chosen for the assessment of the items could allow for some prejudiced considerations of the questions. Nevertheless, the value of the research was in the balance between the designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s statement and the peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinions about the topic subject to research, being the balance between purely statistic data and the emotional understanding of the users what aimed to be achieved. I accept also that the context of the interviews and the nature of the interviewees may have also affected the results. It is not the same discussing about orthopedic items with design students in the context of a design uni-

126

versity than with elderly users in the frame of an orthopedic clinic, even if all of them have used the items at least once in their lives. And the opportunities I finally had to carry out the interviews in the last of the contexts where rather few. Another point worth mentioning in this section is that the proposed hand-crafted artefacts offered in general visual pleasure but were limited in some aspects of their physical functionality, specially concerning the hand brace. Although the focus of the research was on the look and feel of the objects, the performance was inevitably an important aspect for users and it often appeared back when users chose their preferences for one or the other artefact, affecting this choice in some way. Along with that, the proposed items might not have an image that matched the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; personality, not reflecting the style of the interviewees and thus obliging them to imagine an hypothetical case in which colours, types of leather and size could be eventually changed. As for the set of qualities or attributes of the leather craftsmanship, some of them appeared to be confusing, while others where too similar or too obvious, leading to a very polarized semantic differential scale (see p.119). Since the intention was to find the differences in the qualities that related with the topic of my interest, all the qualities chosen for the comparison (validated by past research and experts) were strictly related with the crafts. The polarization of the scale is only the reflection of the nature of the study, that combined crit-

Experiment 3: From maker to facilitator

ical design and field work, comparing extreme versions of temporary orthopedic items with standard commercially

available ones.

127

128

EXPERIMENT 4: THE SHOWROOM EXPERIMENT 4: THE SHOWROOM

129

Motivation While the motivation for this fourth and final experiment draws from the same reasons than the previous one (in fact, the objects showcased were the same used for the evaluation with users), the motivation for a different set up lied in the aspiration I had for bringing the debate to its maximum through the showroom. I have already pointed out before in this report the aspects of the showroom approach that make it suitable for the kind of research I was intended to carry out, as well as the reasons that derived into a blend between this approach and the field approach. Now, I wanted to explore further the critical side of the project, within which I have explored first-hand for the first time the so called design for debate, and the exhibition at the final demo days was the perfect opportunity to carry out the research I had envisioned before and close the circle of the experience. The intention was to emulate the roots that the showroom approach has on critical design (Koskinen et al., 2011), by helping people question things as they are, in this case related with the topic of well-being.

130

Experiment 4: The Showroom

131

Research question

132

Experiment 4: The Showroom

133

The set up (Evaluation) “Showroom is about exposing, debating and reinterpreting problems and issues. Ambiguity and controversy belong to it, just as they belong to contemporary art [...] It relies on debate rather than statistics. It questions the way in which people see and experience the material world and elicits change through debate” (Koskinen et al., p.94). For its purpose,the exhibition format required not only high-quality finished prototypes but also photographs and other elements that support the commercial roots of design. For this reason, and together with the high quality objects used during the field research, a whole series of leaflets, flyers and exhibition catalogues were designed. Inspired by street shop windows, a set up was prepared, in which the items were showcased in a way that encouraged observation rather than interaction, trying to set a frame for discussion

134

based on the appearance rather than the use. By not showing the standard temporary orthopedic items, I tried to anticipate the experience of visitors to the exhibition, focusing exclusively in sparking their imagination and “drawing on their already well-developed skills as window-shopper and high-street showroom-frequenters” (Koskinen, 2011). By emphasizing the fashion-like look of the items through the development of a brand around the collection, the products suddenly became real commercially available options in the eyes of the visitor, which finally lead to questions such as “Can I try it out?” or “Where can we buy this?”. The intention was to measure how people read the meaning of the items and reacted upon what they saw. No feedback forms were handed, but I participated in the discussion myself and feedback was given to me in a free way.

Experiment 4: The Showroom

135

136

Figure 26. The exhibition set up Concept and design: Ismael Velo Photography: Ismael Velo

137

Figure 27. Details of the exhibition set up Concept and design: Ismael Velo Photography: Ismael Velo

138

Experiment 4: The Showroom

139

Conclusion: The generated knowledge As predicted by Nithikul (2012): “when attentive viewers of the exhibition recognized unanticipated features in an artefact whose form was common but material was not, they seemed to readjust their understanding, so that the artefact was no longer interpreted in the same way as the common object” […] the unusual material shaped the viewers experience and interpretation of the utilitarian forms in relation to their “fore-having”. Not always being able to quickly recognize the items as orthopedic products, most of the viewers showed a sort of enthusiasm when they discovered it, growing to interest the moment they were able to see the bigger picture and understand my point of view and the meaning of my work. This interest and enthusiasm does nothing but support me in the conclusion that, if not the exact items proposed, users would at least appreciate having different options than the ones that can be found nowadays in the market. Feedback also showed that the development of a visual identity around the

140

high quality products contributed for an even stronger image of commercial availability, which emphasized the showroom aspect and ultimately, the design statement. On the other hand, several remarks were given concerning the price of the items (not set by me but imagined by the visitors), pointing it out again as one of the key aspects for the future viability of this project. The experiment also proved the importance that the context has in the final outcome of the research. I observed that it was much easier for people to pick up the intention behind the work by looking at the projects in the context of an exhibition within a design school department than to do it in the physiotherapy clinic or even within the very same Wearable Senses department but out of the context of an exhibition. While viewers of the exhibition put their focus on the critique towards the state of the art, interviewees tended to talk more about the functionality or how the proposed items might have helped them.

Experiment 4: The Showroom

141

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

142

Envisioning new and better futures, while pushing the boundaries of quality further, is one of the main roles of designers. Is also their responsibility to educate society through good design, design that should provide with clarity and sympathy to a world of “artefacts that are not conceived to empathise or evoke meaning” (Carslon, 2012, p.7). This meaning, not close by the designer but by the user, might be exactly the missing element that our subconscious is lusting after. The study seems to be a confirmation that there is a growing niche in contemporary society for craft products symbolizing uniqueness, authenticity, identity and self expression, and that the health industry could benefit from those products to bridge the aforementioned missing element. Not only that, the research shows signs that not only medical items, but also many other products ranging from technological devices to low-tech products lacking some of the very basic values, could benefit from the qualities of craftsmanship. The project might also offer the leather craftsmen a completely new and untravelled path to take, another field to put their skills on that goes far beyond the fashion accessory, a field in which the qualities of the leather craftsmanship could have a huge potential providing “well-being”

“Like a medical placebo, the objects in this project do not actually remove or counteract the cause for concern, but they can provide psychological comfort” (Dunne & Raby, 2001).

Probably another big lesson learned with this project is how designers and craftsmen, working together, can also push the boundaries of their field of expertise in a way that they would never achieve by only working on their own. Through a collaboration that starts with a blurred beginning and ends with shared knowledge (see Fig.28 p.144), both designers and artisans walk across a series of steps in which they understand each other first and complement each other right after. While designers get to know the opportunities that the craftsmanship opens, craftsmen embrace designers’ way of thinking and together, they are able to reach unbelievable solutions. Although in the case of this research the proposal came from my side, it would have never been possible without their savoir faire and understanding to embed the products with the notions and emotions essential for the study. They are exactly this notions of quality that artisans physicalize in their products what contributes to “designer’s ability to perceive, understand and create quality” (Bardzell et al., 2012, p.11), and ultimately, meaning.

143

Designer does not posses sufficient knowledge in relation to the craft.

Master - apprentice approach

Artisan accustomed to applying their skills to traditional products.

144

General conclusions

Designer materializes design concepts. Co - creation approach

Artisans recognize design potential.

Figure 28. Co-creation process adapted to my own experience from crafts-design collaboration process proposed by Tung (2012, p.79)

145

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

The first thing I want to say about the research project presented by means of this report is that it wasn’t only a design research project but a research into my own identity as a designer. Being the first research project of my career, it wasn’t an easy endeavour. The challenge was to not only carry out a research, but to figure out what did research mean, and most importantly, what did it mean for me. I started knowing that I did not want to do a very scientific research: many new kinds of design appeared in front of my sight since I arrive to Eindhoven and I was determined to explore at least one of them during this semester. However, artistic-based research is not the kind of research practised in the department, so it was important to find the balance. At this point I can confidently say that the balance was achieved. While the research is still scientific and valuable, it has a certain component of artistic criticism. Criticism that not only throws out some questions about a topic but

146

that provides many answers about the why, the what and the how. And here is where I find the value this research is adding to the design field. With it, I am somehow showing that there is much more room for craft products than the merely decorative and superficial one. The poetic approach to healthcare is what brought me here to Eindhoven, so being somehow able to blend design for well-being and design poetry into an (I believe) meaningful solution that may eventually improve people’s lives, is a great satisfaction. Moreover, being able to develop a whole visual identity around the products did not only contribute to my development as a designer, but to the purpose of the research. Throughout semester I have confirmed to myself how much working with my hands and natural materials (say wood, willow or leather) feed my soul, I have learned new and diverse meanings of

the word “craftsmanship” and I have embraced roles that, as a designer, I had never taken before. I have discovered how much a research question is a blank paper that is in the hand of the designer to fill in with whatever interest he or she might have, and that the emotional understanding of people (stepping on their shoes and looking through their eyes) is the aspect of the research I am truly interested in. As I said before, I have discovered new and exciting types of design still to be explored and I have explored tools still to be discovered. I also set my first exhibition, which was a main satisfaction, specially after the visitors’ interest. After this semester I feel much more like a total designer, although I am more and more conscious about the aspects of design I want to explore and adopt. I also look at materials from a perspective that goes far beyond the mechanical properties. Materiality, sensoriality and haptic perception are tools that, as

a designer, I believe in and I want to use in my favour. Regarding the context of TU/e and Wearable Senses, I believe that this study adds some more wisdom to the know-how that the department has been accumulating through the past years. Although technology wasn’t applied this time, the knowledge generated could be perfectly extrapolated to technological devices and such. Personally, I assume that technology is a tool that, as many others, is there to answer people’s needs, hence I don’t believe in its random use. To finish, mention that I have faith in the future of the proposal. Judging people’s understanding and reception of the project, I believe there is room for development, being the contact with possible stakeholders and the test of the products on the long term some of the logic following steps.

147

REFERENCE LIST REFERENCE LIST

Bang, A. L., Krogh, P. G., Ludvigsen, M., & Markussen, T. (2012). The Role of Hypothesis in Constructive Design Research. Presented at the The Art of Research IV: Making, Reﬂecting, and Understanding, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved January 14, 2013. Bardzell, S., Rosner, D., & Bardzell, J. (2012). Crafting Quality in Design: Integrity, Creativity, and Public Sensibility. Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 11-19. Carslon, D. (2012). A Little Red Book about how to Make Design Matter. The Netherlands: BIS Publishers. Cross, N. (1999). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. Dunne, A. (2007). Frequently asked questions. In: Design interactions year-

148

book. London: Royal College of Art. Dunne, A. & Raby,F. (2001). Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Base, Boston, Berlin: Bikhäuser. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1-5. Ingold, T. (2006). Walking the plank: meditations on a process of skill. Defining technological literacy: towards an epistemological framework, Palgrave Macmillan, 65-80. Kälviäinen, M. (2012). The Singnificance of “Craft” Qualities in Creating Experiential Design Products. The Design Journal, 3(3), 4-15. Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen , S. (2011). Design Research through Practice – From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Morgan Kaufmann.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books. Mäkelä, M. and Nimkulrat, N. (2011). Reflection and Documentation in Practice-Led Design Research. In: Matthews, B. and Mazé, R. (Eds.), Nordes11 Conference: Making Design Matter. Helsinki: Aalto University School of Art and Design, Retrieved 6 March 2012. McGuirk, J. (2011). Craft Fetishism. The Guardian, 2011. [online] Retrieved at: <http://justinmcguirk.com/craft-fetishism> [Accessed February 2014]. Nimkulrat, N., (2012). Voice of material in transforming meaning of artefacts. In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference (DRS 2012 Bangkok), Chulalongkorn University,

Bangkok, Thailand, 1 - 5 July 2012, 14 pp. Perruzza, N., Kinsella, E.A. (2010). Creative arts occupations in therapeutic practice: a review of the literature. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(6), 261-68. Riley, J., Corkhill, B., Morris, C. (2013). The benefits of knitting for personal and social well-being in adulthood: findings from an international survey. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(2), 50-57. Schön, D. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Tung, F. - W. (2012). Weaving with rush: Exploring craft-design collaboration in revitalizing a local craft. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 71-84.

149

150