Evolution of Craft by Tom Becker

evolution of craft

evolution of craft How has craft evolved?

Tom Becker A dissertation presented at Northumbria University for the Degree of BA with Honours in Design for Industry, 2014

contents

Introduction

Chapter One The Rise of the Machines: What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution on Craft?

Chapter Two The Godfather of Craft: What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution on Craft?

Chapter Three The Rise of the Machines: What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution on Craft?

Conclusion

List of Illustrations

Bibliography

Introduction

‘One of the great empowering things about learning craft is that it is almost a physical manifestation of “I can change the world!”’ 1 Crafted objects offer distinct and intriguing glimpses into the lives and minds of their creators. Whether we create out of necessity, to make our lives a little easier or more comfortable, or even simply for our own entertainment, it is part of human nature to make things and for most of our history we have been doing so by hand. Occasionally archaeologists find objects which appear to have no function, such as the Swimming Reindeer, Fig A, found in Montastruc, France. Carved from the tip of a mammoth tusk some 13,000 years ago, depicts two reindeer swimming, one behind the other. The piece has no obvious purpose, though many believe that it may have had some religious or spiritual value. It certainly demonstrates a phenomenal level of skill – whoever made it must have spent years learning to carve. As well as its beauty, it does have a purpose for us today: as evidence that for thousands of years human beings been taking from the environment and creating. Making is what makes us human. It civilises us, allowing us not only to be more comfortable and happy but also providing a medium through which we can express our feelings and thoughts. Martina Margetts, Senior Tutor of Critical & Historical Studies at the Royal College of Art, has written that:

Grayson Perry, quote in Craft Matters, a report by The Craft Council [Online]. Available at: www.craftscouncil.org.uk (Accessed: 4th January 2014)

Introduction

Fig. A Unknown Maker, Swimming Reigndeer, approx. 13,000 years old, From the rock shelter of Montastruc, Tarn et Garonne, France, Late Magdalenian. The piece is of two swimming reindeer, a female in front and a male behind. The presence of antlers on both animals and the characteristics of the female coat show them as they appear in autumn when they cross rivers on migration to their mating grounds and winter pastures. The sculptor carved the reindeer from the tip of a mammoth tusk. The skilfully made piece has no practical use and we do not know what the reindeer meant to its maker or the community which saw it. Palart.550 ÂŠ Courtesy of The British Museum, photograph by A.Becker

Introduction ‘…making is a revelation of the human impulse to explore and express forms of knowledge and a range of emotions; an impulse towards knowing and feeling, which shapes human action and hence the world we create. The reward of making is the opportunity to experience an individual sense of freedom and control in the world.’ 2 It has been argued that craft as such did not exist until after, or at least during, the Industrial Revolution. Glen Adamson, Director of the Museum of Arts and Design in New York, explains:

‘When I argue that craft was invented in the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Europe and America, clearly I do not mean that artisanal work had not been done before that, or was not being done elsewhere. But before the industrial revolution, and outside its sphere of influence, it was not possible to speak of craft as a separate field of endeavour – from what would it be separated?’ 3 In the following paper I have therefore used two different terms: artisan for Pre-Industrial Revolution and craftsperson for PostIndustrial Revolution. The paper is a brief study of how making by hand has evolved to suit cultural, political and economic changes.The first chapter considers the impact that the Industrial Revolution had upon artisans, the changes that occurred and how they affected hand-making as a whole. The second chapter looks at William Morris’s ideological vision for craft was and how successful he was at achieving it. The final chapter examines the craft of the 20th century onwards, from Modernism through to the current Makerism movement. Covering such a large period of time, from the medieval guilds system to the today’s craft movement, this paper is of necessity, an overview rather than a detailed exploration. Nevertheless, I hope the reader feels it does justice to its subject. 2 3

Margetts, M (2011) Action Not Words, The Power of Making. London: V&A Publsihing Adamson, G. (2013) The Invention of Craft, London: Bloomsbury Academic

1 The Death of the artisan What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution on Craft?

The death of the artisan Can the industrial Revolution be blamed for the decline of skilled manufacture? ‘On every hand, the living artisan is driven from his workshop to make room for the speedier inanimate one. The shuttle drops from the fingers of the weaver and falls into iron fingers that ply it faster.’ 1 At the start of the nineteenth century England was in the midst of a dramatic socioeconomic, technological and cultural shift which saw the replacement of the artisan’s steady hand and skilled eye by the inhuman, relentless machine. The workshops of old were closed and replaced with towering factories and ‘dark satanic mills’

that

produced faster, cheaper and with a great deal less care. Such is the view of the Industrial Revolution that we are familiar with. In this chapter I will examine its actual effect on craft and if it is fair to blame it for the decline of skilled making. However we must first understand what this traditional form of manufacture involved. Before mechanisation manufacturing was done by hand. Artisans would learn a specific trade, specialising in making one type of object. Starting at a young age, apprentices would serve under a master of their chosen craft for a number of years (often seven), living, working and studying alongside him before graduating to become a journeyman. Journeymen could be employed by masters and would charge a wage by the day but were unable to employ people or take on apprentices. They would wander from town to town, gaining experience of different workshops and therefore of different manufacturing techniques. 3

Carlyle, T. (1829) ‘The Mechanical Age’, Signs of the Times Victorian Web [Online]. Avaliable at: www.victorianweb.org (Accessed: 20th December 2013). 2 Blake, W. (1804) Jerusalem, Preface to Milton a Poem, Poetry Foundation [Online]. Available at: www.poetryfoundation.org (Accessed: 20th December 2013). 3 See page 8. 1

The death of the artisan In order to become a master, a journeyman would need to have several itinerant years of experience, offer a donation of money and other goods (although this was often overlooked for the sons of masters) and produce a masterpiece which would need to demonstrate the skills learned and gain the approval of all the current masters of the guild, and which would often be kept by the guild. From the Middle Ages guilds had become increasingly powerful. Having received a charter or letters patent (the predecessor of today’s patent and trademark systems) by the state or ruler of the city in which they operated, they had a monopoly on the trade of their craft; it was forbidden by law to operate any business if you were not a guild member. In fact it was ‘illegal to practise any craft without having served an apprenticeship of seven years’ 4 as declared in 1563 by the Statute of Artificers and Apprentices. 5 Guilds not only controlled production, labour and knowledge of their crafts but also the welfare of their members, with funds to support the elderly, infirm, widowed or orphaned which gave them the edge. The guilds would also provide a “tramping” allowance to the travelling journeymen. If a craftsman could not be trusted by his peers with the secrets of his trade, he would find it incredibly difficult to advance through the ranks of the guild.

This served as an unofficial way of communicating new methods and techniques between the guilds. The travels of a Journeyman could be Europe-wide. It is also important to note that the rules for each guild would vary; in some guilds an apprentice could graduate straight to a master, skipping the journeyman stage, in others another rank of Craftsmen existed between being an apprentice and a journeyman. It depended entirely upon the trade and the region in which the guild operated. 4 Sharpe, J. (1997) Early Modern England: A Social History 1550-1750. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 5 In the countryside, however, freedom existed for individuals to set up cottage industries, allowing them to produce goods on their own premises. They would often be funded by early capitalists, who would in turn take a stake in the profits. As rigorous training was not required, the quality of these goods was often much lower than that of the guilds. 3

The death of the artisan By the eighteenth century the guilds were increasingly resented for their great power, their opposition to free trade and their careful control of trade secrets, all of which were a hindrance to technological innovation and business development. The political economist Adam Smith, who in 1776 published The Wealth of Nations, widely regarded as the one of the first examinations of a nation’s economy, was one of the biggest critics of the guild system:

‘It is perfectly natural that the professional guilds should try to expand their markets and limit the competition – and thereby promote their own interest against that of the general public. Unfortunately, they have been aided in this by the law, which grants them special privileges.’ 6 Smith believed in a free market, unfettered by governments or corporations, allowing supply and demand to rule the economy. To this end he had an idea which he explained as The Division of Labour – to increase production by separating a manufacturing process into a number of basic tasks – an idea which many believe was the beginning of the end for the guild system and would result in the mass de-skilling of the workforce. It proposed that the skilled work of a single artisan should be done by a group of people, each repeating a simple part of the production line, therefore reducing the handling of different parts and tools as well as eliminating unnecessary movement. This not only reduced the amount of time objects took to make but also meant that artisans could be replaced with lower paid, unskilled workers, resulting in lower production costs and so cheaper goods. It was the start of mass production. Smith, A. (1904) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 5th Edn. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. The Adam Smith Institute [Online]. Available at: www.adamsmith.org (Accessed: 20th December 2013).

The death of the artisan Smith believed it represented a key development in productivity leading to economic progress. That said, he also had reservations:

‘The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same … has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties.… He … generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.’ 7 Other great thinkers including Karl Marx, Harry Braverman, Matthew Crawford and Richard Sennett have concurred, all believing that division of labour was not only detrimental to the spirit of the worker but would inevitably lead to the loss of skills. However, this is not necessary true.The separation of a manufacturing process was not an original idea, but had already existed in many industries and workshops. Fine furniture manufacture, for instance, needed the input of many different artisans, each doing a small, yet highly specialised and skilled part of the piece. For example, the writing desk in Fig. B might require the contributions of a veneer specialist, a carver, a gilder, a jappaner and a turner. Given the wide range of skills required, it is a fair assumption that without the division of labour it would have been impossible to create such an intricate piece to the required high standard. Although some artisans (such as those involved in furniture) were able to continue their manufacturing techniques relatively unchanged, few were immune to another form of modernisation and another unforeseen effect of specialisation. Smith, A. (1904) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 5th Edn. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. The Adam Smith Institute [Online]. Available at: www.adamsmith.org (Accessed: 20th December 2013).

The death of the artisan

Fig. B George Brookshaw Side Table, ca. 1785, London, England. Softwood mounted with stove-japanned copper plaques, and partly painted (on the wood); turned, carved and gilt softwood legs; cast and gilt composition; brass feet; the frame constructed with mortise-and-tenon joints, half-lap joints, and screws. V&A 349-1871 ÂŠ Victoria & Albert Museum, London

The death of the artisan ‘The various trades of the Cabinet Maker, Chair Maker, Japanner, Gilder, and Lackerer [sic], are so intimately connected, that there is scarce a handsome piece of furniture where the combination of their joint efforts is not necessary … it is almost universally the case, that a workman in one branch is entirely ignorant of the methods used by another.’ 8 In Das Capital Karl Marx wrote extensively about this lack of integration across the trades. He was acutely aware of the continuing importance of the work of the artisans, although less concerned with de-skilling (even on the factory floor). His key concern was the shift in control over the manufacturing process. He believed that division of labour created the condition that, coupled with the lack of communication between the different trades, would allow the easy hiring and firing of the workforce to match the rise and fall of demand for a product. Marx also felt that machines represented a real danger to the wellbeing of their operators.

‘Factory work exhausts the nervous system to the uttermost, it does away with the many-sided play of the muscles, and confiscates every atom of freedom, both in bodily and intellectual activity. The lightening of the labour, even becomes a sort of torture, since the machine does not free the labourer from work, but deprives the work of all interest… it is not the workman that employs the instruments of labour, but the instruments of labour that employ the workman.’ 9 Although we view the mechanisation that of the Industrial Revolution as suddenly sweeping across every industry, it was simply not the case. Even in the few industries which saw mass mechanisation there were some hands-on skills which machines were unable to replace. Siddons G.A. (attributed) (1830) The Cabinet-Maker’s Guide. London: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper. 9 Marx, K. (1887) Das Capital. Vol. 1, Chp 15 (Machinery and Modern Industry) London. (Originally published in German, 1867) 8

The death of the artisan The mechanisation of industries was entirely dependant on the suitability of the materials. Industries such as wool spinning and weaving saw the most intense mechanisation due to the fact that huge looms could be built which could weave a vast piece of cloth. Although the automation of these industries did see the decline of hand skills within them it is important to remember one obvious fact: the machines had to be made. So while mechanisation did signal the decline of hand weaving, it also instigated a rise in the skills of metal workers. 10 Another important point about the mechanisation during this period is in that often machines could not produce the same quality as the artisans. A good example of this is the hand finishing of metals, which was then in high demand. A report delivered to Parliament in 1853 discussing the manufacture of interchangeable parts for firearms noted:

‘Whenever we want great perfection of parts we must do it by hand labour’ 11 Maxine Berg points out that the British financial system in 1851 was based not on mechanised industries but on agriculture and manufacturing which had been unaffected by mechanisation. She explains that it was the subdivision of the traditional systems of skilled manufacture, rather than the automation of these industries, that craft historians should concern themselves with as it was this which ultimately led to the demise of craft in this period.

‘Machinery did not displace labour. Rather, it differentiated this labour by dismembering the old craft.’ 12

In previous centuries the value of metal had out-weighed the value of the labour put in to an object, therefore incredibly intricate objects requiring vast amounts of skill would be melted down to be re-used. By 1800 this had changed and for the first time the value of the labour was higher than that of the metal. 11 Hounshell, D. (1980) From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932 Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press 12 Berg, M. (1980) The Machinery Question and the Making of Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10

The death of the artisan In the above I have examined the various effects that the Industrial Revolution had upon hands-on craft. So, in conclusion, was it to blame the industrial revolution for the decline of skilled manufacture? It appears that we cannot convict the Industrial Revolution for the death of the artisan but perhaps we can find it to be an accessory after the fact. The machine’s advantages of quantity and therefore cost outweighed the quality and the skill of the artisan, resulting in his decline and ultimate demise. By the turn of the twentieth century the traditionally trained artisans who had been displaced by mechanisation and who had re-skilled to make the machines of the revolution had in turn been replaced. The industries which had been problematic to mechanise initially had almost all been automated and the guilds had all but vanished.

‘In handicrafts … the workman makes use of a tool, in the factory, the machine makes use of him.’ 13

Marx, K. (1887) Das Capital. Vol. 1, Chp 15 (Machinery and Modern Industry) London. (Originally published in German, 1867) 13

2 The godfather of craft What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution on Craft?

The godfather of craft What impact did William Morris have on craft? Idealism and craft are intrinsically linked.Wishful thinking has been a source of inspiration for craft throughout the ages and has prompted the creation of a huge number and variety of objects. Craft inspires and delights and there are many different reasons why people create. Some practise craft for utopian ideals, looking to creativity as a centre around which to build new communities or societies. Others turn to craft for more personal motives, believing that it can improve and better the self. There is also counter-cultural craft-making to show society and the prevailing culture just what’s wrong. Finally, there is aesthetic craft: the pursuit of beauty for no other reason than the very fact that it is beautiful. The ideas and ideals behind craft can be as diverse as the crafts themselves and we should not assume that the reasons for making can’t and don’t blend and overlap. There is one school of thought on craft which was driven by all of the ideals outlined above and which was a direct response to and a criticism of the industrialisation of Britain discussed in the previous chapter. It is a movement that defines today’s understanding of craft and would prove to shape our culture for decades. I am of course referring to the Arts & Crafts movement of the second half of the 19th century. There is one man who was its spearhead, the personification of the movement and its idealism to such an extent that ‘If William Morris had not existed it would have been necessary to invent him.’ 1

Adamson, G (2010) The Craft Reader, 1st Edn. Oxford: Berg

The godfather of craft William Morris was a poet, socialist and critical essayist; he was however, above and before all of these, an artist. For him this involved being a designer, entrepreneur and craftsman all in one; the three were indistinguishable. In 1861 a design firm and workshop with the artists Edward Burne-Jones and Dante Gabriel Rossetti where they would conceptualise objects for craftsmen to create. His piece The Revival of Handicraft which was published in The Fortnightly Review outlined his fundamental principle:

‘… production by machinery necessarily results in utilitarian ugliness’ 2 To Morris, style had adapted to suit the manufacturing process instead of the manufacturing process suiting the design of the piece. He argued that this degradation had reached a point where the majority of people could no longer identify beauty, but did have the capacity to observe ugliness.

‘It is common now to hear people say of such and such a piece of country or suburb: “Ah! it [sic] was so beautiful a year or so ago, but it has been quite spoilt by the building.”’ 3 His reaction was to find inspiration in nature. His work was organic, fluid and often depicted intricate plants or animals. Fig C shows how incredibly finely detailed his work was; it was designed to demonstrate the skill and merit of the hand-made. Although he took his inspiration from nature, he understood and was wary of the inherent danger of attempting to replicate it; he didn’t want to fall into the trap of trying to reproduce millions of years of evolution. Morris, W. (1888) The Revival of Handicraft, Fortnightly Review. Marxist Internet Archive [Online]. Available at: www.marxists.org (Accessed: 13th November 2013). 2&3

The godfather of craft

Fig. C William Morris, Acanthus Wallpaper, ca. 1875. London, England. This wallpaper was printed for Morris’s company by the London firm Jeffrey & Co., who specialised in high quality ‘Art’ wallpapers. It required thirty wood blocks to print the full repeat, and used fifteen subtly different colours (more than any previous design by Morris). ‘Acanthus’ was issued in two colour combinations - one in shades of green and the other in predominantly reddish-brown tones. V&A 496-1919 © Victoria & Albert Museum, London

The godfather of craft He was not only concerned with the aesthetics. Like Karl Marx, he also cared about the mental and physical wellbeing of the worker.

‘… so long as man allows his daily work to be mere unrelieved drudgery he will seek happiness in vain. I say further that the worst tyrants of the days of violence were but feeble tormentors compared with those Captains of Industry who have taken the pleasure of work away from the workmen.’ 4 Morris felt that the antidote to this sickness in society was for the re-establishment of the guild system of old. He believed that the unity of political and aesthetic reform would result in not only a more beautiful but also a fundamentally happier and more productive society.

‘We do sorely need a system of production which will give us beautiful surroundings and pleasant occupation, and which will tend to make us good human animals, able to do something for ourselves, so that we may be generally intelligent instead of dividing ourselves into dull drudges or duller pleasure seekers according to our class’ 5 In some respects (and in his own opinion) Morris failed in his aim. Far from leading a making revolution, which took society back to the glory days when skilled craftsmen in their rustic rural workshops whittled away at slabs of oak to produce honest chattels for all; Morris’s work was the preserve of the rich. The majority of his clients were the affluent of society who were supportive of his ambition. The problem was that his work could not be produced cheaply enough to compete with the machine he hated with such passion. His work was not affordable for the masses and therefore could never be adopted by mainstream culture. Morris was well aware of the ‘… face

Morris, W. (1888) The Revival of Handicraft, Fortnightly Review. Marxist Internet Archive [Online]. Available at: www.marxists.org (Accessed: 13th November 2013). 4&5

The godfather of craft of the gigantic fabric of commercialism’ 6 that he was up against and obviously knew that society would have to take a vast step backwards in time for his vision to be realised. Although his revolution never took place, his aesthetic ideas and style did catch on, becoming edgy and fashionable; the fact that Morris’s work was broadly unattainable served only to add to its desirability. By the 1890s the Arts & Crafts movement had spread internationally as artists in other countries identified with Morris’s beliefs and adopted his inspired-by-nature style, and the eventual result was the Art Nouveau movement. Morris’s aesthetic success and the affluence of his customers led to craft being considered somewhat “art-like” 7 Indeed, still today many of us only ever encounter craft in museums or galleries, for within an industrialised capitalist economy it can only ever be a minor form of production. The art-like status which Morris unintentionally nudged craft towards bestowed on it an inherent value for the very fact that it was attractive, desirable and somewhat the preserve of the elite. It became aspirational, with the machine-made being “for the proles” – something which would have horrified Morris who, as a socialist, wanted the handmade to be accessible to all.

Morris, W. (1888) The Revival of Handicraft, Fortnightly Review. Marxist Internet Archive [Online]. Available at: www.marxists.org (Accessed: 13th November 2013). 7 Such a classification is inherently wrong and is actually harmful to craft, as outlined by Glen Adamson in The Craft Reader. To try and categorise craft at all, he argues, is nothing short of disguising the fact that it is engaged in all forms of life, many of which have nothing to do with aesthetics. Wrong as it may be however the majority of us undeniably associate craft with art. 6

The godfather of craft As seems inevitable when something becomes fashionable, then popular, it becomes diluted, losing its originality and integrity. Morris is now often regarded as little more than a talented decorator, even as something of a Luddite, instead of the forward-thinking political revolutionary he was. Morris has had a profound and lasting legacy on craft, art and design. And as well as being a major influence on a host of architects and designers, including Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Edwin Lutyens and Charles Voysey, the Arts & Crafts movement was an active, ambitious, political counter-culture which questioned and analysed the mechanical world that craft was being engulfed by. William Morris brought craft and making by hand to the forefront of people’s minds. He asked them to question the new technology, analyse its worth and make up their own minds.

‘…it may be said that though the movement towards the revival of handicraft is contemptible on the surface in face of the gigantic fabric of commercialism, yet, taken in conjunction with the general movement towards freedom of life for all, on which we are now surely embraced, as a protest against intellectual tyranny, and a token of the change is transforming civilisation into socialism, it is both noteworthy and encouraging.’ 8 Genius rather than Luddite, William Morris was the godfather of craft as we know it today. Perhaps he is best remembered for a maxim which has inspired generations of designers:

‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful.’ 9

Morris, W. (1888) The Revival of Handicraft, Fortnightly Review. Marxist Internet Archive [Online]. Available at: www.marxists.org (Accessed: 13th November 2013). 9 Morris, W. ”The Beauty of Life,” a lecture before the Birmingham Society of Arts and School of Design (19 February 1880), later published in Hopes and Fears for Art: Five Lectures Delivered in Birmingham, London, and Nottingham, 1878 - 1881 (1882). 8

3 The dawn of a new age What is the shape of craft in the modern age and what does the future hold?

The dawn of a new age What is the shape of craft in the modern age and what does the future hold?

Since the Industrial Revolution, when machines took over the majority of production, craft seems to have been somewhat sidelined. To many people today, craft represents a retrospective way of creating. From the extensive collections of the Victoria & Albert1 Museum to crafted beers and artisan breads, the word craft is often attached to traditional and high-quality items. Recently, however, craft has found a new niche. Instead of being a nostalgic method of making primarily luxury goods, it is becoming forward-looking and excitingly counter-cultural once more. Craft has always been in a state of evolution; the artisans of the guild were forced to adapt their processes to suit their changing world, and William Morris looked to craft as a tool for political and social reform. How then, in the modern age, is craft evolving and adapting to meet new challenges? As briefly outlined in the previous chapter, there is one dominant problem that craft faces: that of cost-effectiveness. As a form of production craft can’t ever be mainstream in an industrialised economy. In order for hand-made goods to be produced in the volume necessary for a price that can compete with the machine-made, low wages and sweat-shop style conditions are required.

In The Power of Making, a book which accompanied an exhibition at the V&A of the same name, Daniel Miller, Professor of Material Culture at University College London writes: ‘The original title of this institution was not the Victoria & Albert museum, but the Museum of Manufacturers. … The museum was meant to educate it’s audience, but also encourage a more democratised participation in design and technology.’

The dawn of a new age Although large-scale economic forces can have a negative impact on craft, they can also create opportunities. Dr. Suzanne Seriff of the University of Texas describes:

‘...a kind of recycling in which yesterday’s newspapers are transformed by hand into tin trunk liners; empty food cans become kerosene lanterns; and old tires are refashioned into spouted water vessels or bracelets for body adornment.’ 2 Nathan Silver and Charles Jencks celebrated such forms of improvisation in their 1972 book Adhocism,3 an observation of informal crafts where necessity is the mother of invention. They examined circumstances where poverty and geography can put people in a position where they have little alternative but to re-purpose objects by hand. They also championed the idea, pointing out that if those of us in developed modern societies were to adopt the same attitude, we would find ourselves in a more sustainable and diverse environment. As

our

cultures

ecological

understanding

developed, the

environmental advantages of the informal, amateur craft of Adhocism became more and more persuasive. Today this form of craft is not only alive but more popular than ever, even in the developed, western world. The buzz word of the moment, up-cycling, is the attempt to rejuvenate what seems like waste into something new and valuable. Postmodern design was a reaction to the failed utopian vision that Modernism had become; it focused on detail and creativity, rejecting the search for a “pure form”. Fig D demonstrates the playfulness and humour of the Postmodernist approach. Much of Postmodernist design was created by hand. In his book The Hot House the Italian architect and designer Andrea Branzi wrote extensively on Postmodernist attitudes towards craft production. Seriff, S. (1996) ‘Recycled, Re-seen: Folk Art from the Global Scrap Heap’, African Arts 29(4), pp. 42-94. 3 Silver, N & Jencks, C (1972) Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation, Massachusetts: MIT Press 2

The dawn of a new age

Fig. D. Andrea Branzi, Axale Sofa, ca. 1988. Leather charcoal grey frame, steel feet, back crosshatch of fine steel rods. Naugahyde seat. Manufactured by Cassina. Image found online at www.designboom.com/interviews/andrea-branzi

The dawn of a new age ‘Handicrafts can be viewed, then, as a major experimental instrument…Possession of this instrument became, toward the end of the seventies, indispensable to the renewal of the culture of design.’4 Branzi and his peers took a small-batch approach to their work. They viewed the difference between their work and crafts largely as a matter of description. They would make by hand in order to explore and test new forms, materials and ideas. This attitude of using craft as a form of experimentation was not altogether new. Ironically, the Modernists (that the Postmodern movement was a reaction to) had had the same idea. Even at the founding of the most celebrated Modernist design school, where we might expect the machine aesthetic to be at its height, we find the following.

‘Architects, painters, sculptors, we must all return to the crafts!’5 Walter Gropius’s proclamation in the first Bauhaus manifesto shows that he considered making by hand to be absolutely crucial to design knowledge and education. Craft proved to be not only a useful tool for the designer but an essential one. Perhaps then this is the function of craft today: as a means by which designers can test their forms and ideas before committing their creations to the machines to be produced. There is however, another completely different manifestation of craft which began in the late 20th century and which has gathered momentum in the 21st. It is a form of craft which requires a modern view of machines and electronics – as tools, not enemies.

Branzi, A. (1984) The Hot House: Italian New Wave Design, Massachusetts: MIT Press Gropius, W. (1919) Manifesto of the Bauhaus, Bauhaus Online [Online]. Available at: www.bauhaus-online.de (Accessed: 7th January 2014).

4 5

The dawn of a new age

This idea seems perverse, for surely if we accept machines into part of craft then it becomes something other than craft? Machines however, are nothing but tools. They simply automate part of the process, and programming a machine often requires as much skill as doing the job by hand. The fiercely logical David Pye, Professor of Furniture at the Royal College of Arts, pointed out that the definition of craft does not exist in the tools used to make it, but rather in the process of making itself:

‘If I must ascribe a meaning to the word craftsmanship…it means simply any kind of technique or apparatus, in which the quality of the result is not predetermined, but depends on judgment, dexterity and care which the maker exercises as he works. The essential idea is that the quality of the result is continually at risk during the process of making; and so I shall call this kind of workmanship “The workmanship of risk”: an uncouth phrase, but at least descriptive.’6 Craft has always been something that exists between the maker, the tool they use and the material they use that tool on. If we accept machines as tools, craft is suddenly opened up to a whole new world. David Pye was perhaps the most popular craft theorists of the twentieth century. He observed that the reason we create things in order to affect change. Although he rarely wrote about his beliefs, he did allow one modest hint of his personal thought process to enter his written work, remarking that the diversity that occurs as a result of ‘The workmanship of risk’ 7 is itself inherently pleasing.

6&7

Pye, D (2007) The Nature and Art of Workmanship, Oxford: Berg

The dawn of a new age In 1996 a digital design specialist named Malcolm McCullough wrote Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand, in which he too outlined an argument for the acceptance of new technologies into craft. He pointed out that although there are obvious differences between the typical craftsman in his workshop and the graphic designer in his studio there are also a number of similarities. Although the motions of the hand differ, comparisons can be drawn between the small, quick, repetitive and crucially skilled movements of both disciplines.

‘...traditionally it is in interpretation that we have used the word “craft” most broadly: the writer’s craft, the actor’s craft, and the conductor’s craft join those of the cobbler and carpenter. What all such crafts share is not just technique or hard work on form but also a probing of their mediums capacity, a passion for practice, and moral value as an activity independent to what is produced. Is there any reason to expect these in our electronic realm? We must make them our goal.’ 8

McCullogh also identified that the increasing availability and power of digital design and fabrication tools would make smallshop production economically competitive with mass- production techniques. Developments since 1996 have done little to disprove him. When this new acceptance of machines is combined with Adhocism a whole realm of new opportunities is revealed; every aspect of industrially produced goods has the potential for hacking, remaking, repurposing or up-cycling. From furniture to consumer electronics, the name of this new movement is Makerism. In 2001 a collaboration between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Centre for Bits and Atoms, the National Science Foundation and the Grassroots Invention group resulted in the world’s first Fab Lab.

McCullough M (1996) Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand, Massachusetts: MIT Press

The dawn of a new age The Fabrication Laboratory was set up as a social enterprise, creating “hubs of craft” to offer access to professional tools and equipment and to provide design, engineering and making experience to those in the community who would not otherwise have the opportunity. In an interview for The Power Of Making, when asked if he saw Fab Labs as counter to craft Professor Neil Gershenfeld, the Director of MIT’s Centre for Bits and Atoms, said:

‘Haystack School in the US is a temple of arts and crafts. …glassblowers blow and paper-makers make paper… We brought a temporary lab... And what happened? Half the people thought it was long overdue, and half thought “This doesn’t belong here. We don’t do computers.”…but the computer wasn’t really involved in the design process. They were designing with traditional media and then using the lab to turn their designs into what they wanted to make... The lab was like a medium converter. It was full of computing, but the computing wasn’t used to design. It was used to map things from one media to another.’ 9

Since 2001 Fab Labs have grown exponentially and the idea has been adopted and reproduced globally.There are now open workshops in major cites across the world, providing access to everything the modern craftsperson might need, from traditional woodworking tools to some of the latest computer-controlled machinery. The internet has also proved a key resource for the artisan of today, offering invaluable websites such as the distribution network Etsy, through which makers can sell their wares online, and Kickstarter, which allows users to crowd-source funding for their making project.

The Making Revolution, Professor Neil Gershenfeld in conversation with Daniel Charny for The Power of Making. (2011) London:V&A Publishing.

The dawn of a new age Also, thanks to the world wide web, it is now easier than ever for the craftsperson to find the right type of crochet hook or the perfect bit of oak to re-purpose. The global village has embraced the creativity and variety that craft can offer. At first, modern technology seemed to stand against and threaten craft, especially in its traditional definition. However if we allow our definition of craft to evolve, we could be on the verge of the making the revolution envisioned by William Morris and Karl Marx. We may just see the death of the consumption machine, the decline of mass manufacture and a rise in the individuality, creativity and playfulness that making inspires.

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The future of Making is in hacking the post-industrial milieu.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; 10

Sterling B (2011) The Future of Making, The Power of Making London: V&A Publsihing

Conclusion

‘Craft can easily become a vehicle of nostalgia, whose primary purpose is not just to remind us what we have lost, but thereby to imply that we are diminished in our very humanity.’ 1

Making is part of what it is to be human. It gives us a platform to express, explore, play and innovate.We all do it in our own way, for our own reasons. In this paper we have looked at the guild system which, by taking care of their members and the knowledge of their craft, controlled their trade and manufacture for hundreds of years. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution the guilds went into steep decline and artisans found themselves making the new machines which in turn would replace their fellow workers. However, machines did allow the production of cheaper goods, and so gave the new upwardly mobile classes the opportunity to realise dreams of ownership. Although William Morris acknowledged this benefit, he was sceptical that mass production could ever make people happy, fearing that it would force us into:

‘…dividing ourselves into dull drudges or duller pleasure seekers according to our class. … We do most certainly need happiness in our daily work, content in our daily rest; and all this cannot be if we hand over the whole responsibility of the details of our daily lives to machines and their drivers.’ 2

Miller, D (2011) The Power of Making, The Power of Making. London: V&A Publsihing Morris, W. (1888) The Revival of Handicraft, Fortnightly Review. Marxist Internet Archive [Online]. Available at: www.marxists.org (Accessed: 13th November 2013).

1 2

Conclusion Morris sought a new society, with the hand-making of old at its heart, producing the useful and beautiful for all. He dreamed of a socialist utopia, similar to that of Karl Marx. He was not, however, unaware of the huge reform that this would entail and never saw his dream realised. Morris wanted us all to examine the world and to question the new technologies that emerged. Today we find ourselves in a world quite different from that of Morris and Marx. Machines and computers are so integrated into our daily lives that the rejection of them seems impossible; perhaps a new approach is necessary. Modernist & Postmodernist designers used making by hand as a means of experimentation, a platform to test forms and ideas before sending them to be manufactured, either by hand or by machine. This crucial aspect is an essential part of the design process. Adhocism identified innovation arising from necessity, giving defunct objects a new lease of life by creating from them useful items with a different purpose. As ecology has grown in international importance, the ad hoc mentality has become more and more relevant. The recent rise of Makerism demonstrates this. People are adapting, customising and re-inventing the objects that they find around them, whether re-covering granâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s old chair or adapting an old fashioned record player. The founding of open workshops worldwide has made previously professional-level tooling and knowledge available to everyone. Which means we can all now have a go: DIY has moved beyond re-painting the lounge.

Conclusion Craft has now found itself at a yet another point in its evolution; by embracing modern technology, we democratise the processes by which we create, thus giving everyone the opportunity to make bespoke objects for themselves and the potential to become smallscale producers. This allows a delightful variety of products to become available, with the internet providing international supply and distribution chains that were previously available only to large corporations. Perhaps by accepting as tools the new technologies into our lives, with the new spirit of making we can bring about the changes to society envisioned by Morris?

‘The folk-art of our Network Society will last as long as our ‘network society’ itself lasts - until our passing age is gathered unto the bosom of it’s ancestors, the Space Age and Atomic Age. The roots of folk-art will persist - ever ready to sprout, spread and grow and no more frail than the grass that covers all.’ 3

Sterling, B (2011) The Future of Making, The Power of Making. London: V&A Publsihing

List of illustrations

Fig. A

Unknown Maker, Swimming Reigndeer, approx. 13,000 years old, From the rock shelter of Montastruc, Tarn et Garonne, France. Palart.550 © Courtesy of The British Museum Photograph by A.Becker

Fig. B

George Brookshaw Side Table, ca. 1785, London, England.

Fig. C

William Morris, Acanthus Wallpaper, ca. 1875. London, England.

Fig. D

Andrea Branzi, Axale Sofa, ca. 1988.

Image found online at www.designboom.com/interviews/andrea-branzi

Bibliography Adamson, G. (2007) Thinking Through Craft, 1st Edn. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Adamson, G (2010) The Craft Reader, 1st Edn. Oxford: Berg. Adamson, G. (2013) The Invention of Craft, 1st Edn. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Alfondy, S. (2005) Neocraft: Modernity and the Crafts, 1st Edn. Halifax: NSCAD Press. Berg, M. (1980) The Machinery Question and the Making of Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Blake, W. (1804) Jerusalem, Preface to Milton a Poem, Poetry Foundation [Online]. Available at: www.poetryfoundation.org (Accessed: 20th December 2013). Branzi, A. (1984) The Hot House: Italian New Wave Design, Massachusetts: MIT Press Carlyle, T. (1829) ‘The Mechanical Age’, Signs of the Times, The Victorian Web [Online]. Available at: www.victorianweb.org (Accessed: 20th December 2013). Craft Matters, a report by The Craft Council [Online]. Available at: www. craftscouncil.org.uk (Accessed: 4th January 2014) Dormer, P. (1994) The Art of the Maker, 1st Edn. London: Thames & Hudson. Gershenfeld, N. & Charny, D (2011) The Making Revolution, The Power of Making, London:V&A Publishing. Greenhalgh, P. ( 2002) The Persistance of Craft: The Applied Arts Today, 1st Edn. London: A&C Black. Gropius, W. (1919) Manifesto of the Bauhaus, Bauhaus Online [Online]. Available at: www.bauhaus-online.de (Accessed: 7th January 2014). Hounshell, D. (1980) From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932 Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press Margetts, M (2011) Action Not Words, The Power of Making. London: V&A Publishing.

Bibliography Marx, K. (1887) Das Capital, Vol. 1, Chp. 15 London. (Originally published in German, 1867) McCullough, M. (1996) Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand, Massachusetts: MIT Press Morris, W. ”The Beauty of Life,” a lecture before the Birmingham Society of Arts and School of Design (19 February 1880), later published in Hopes and Fears for Art: Five Lectures Delivered in Birmingham, London, and Nottingham, 1878 - 1881 (1882). Morris, W. (1888) The Revival of Handicraft, Fortnightly Review. Marxist Internet Archive [Online]. Available at: www.marxists.org (Accessed: 13th November 2013). Pye, D. (2007) The Nature and Art of Workmanship, Oxford: Berg Seriff, S. (1996) ‘Recycled, Re-seen: Folk Art from the Global Scrap Heap’, African Arts 29(4), pp. 42-94. Sharpe, J. (1997) Early Modern England: A Social History 1550-1750. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Siddons G. (1830) The Cabinet-Maker’s Guide. London: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper. Silver, N. & Jencks, C. (1972) Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation, Massachusetts: MIT Press Smith, A. (1904) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 5th Edn. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. The Adam Smith Institute [Online]. Available at: www.adamsmith.org (Accessed: 20th December 2013). Sterling, B. (2011) The Future of Making, The Power of Making London: V&A Publsihing.