THE HIDDEN HAND AND THE FLUID OBJECT: CRAFT IN THREE SITES OF REPRESENTATION

Donald William Ellis, Dip.T. (Art), B.Ed., M.Ed.

A thesis submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Education, Division of Education, Arts and Social Science

University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia

June, 2004

Table of Contents

Table of Contents…………………………………………………........i

List of Figures………………………………………………………....iv

List of Plates…………………………………………………………..iv

List of Tables…………………………………………………………..v

Abstract………………………………………………………………..vi

Candidates Declaration………………………………………...........viii

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………ix

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..1 WHAT TO EXPECT………………………………………………….4 SECTION 1: Self, motivations and others……………………………9 CHAPTER 1: Self, the meandering pathway - the researcher’s journey………………………………………………………………….10 CHAPTER 2: Motivations - why this thesis……………………………..20 CHAPTER 3: Other(s) hands and other(s) objects- craftspeople, critics, theorists, commentators, educationists,

writers, and industrialists et al have their say........................................24 CHAPTER 4: The jewellers hand/the jewellery object……………….55

SECTION 2: Theories, methodologies, maps and guides……………60 CHAPTER 5: Theories, methodologies, methods – the experts with their data working tool boxes…………………………61 CHAPTER 6: Maps and guides – an assemblage of sites, problems, arguments, questions, resources and methods…………………………………………………………………73

i

SECTION 3: The research venture – assembling and operating on three sites of craft representation……………………….82 CHAPTER 7: Craft sites of representation, a craft organisation, an academic jewellery workshop and an exhibition……………………………………………………………….83 Project 1: Craftsouth – a case study of a craft organisation…………….86 Part1: The evolving organisation, an analysis of a selection of Craftsouth’s President’s and Executive Director’s Reports 1980 – 2000……………………………………………………………..89 Part 2: What’s in a name? Positioning Craftsouth: an analysis of craft organisation titles and introductory statements…………………105 Part 3: The Public texts: an analysis of Craftsouth’s publicly disseminated texts……………………………………………115 Part 4: The accreditation document: Craftsouth’s selection criteria…..125 Part 5: The masterpiece: the medieval guilds, Craftsouth and objects of management…………………………………………………126 The evolving thesis: reflections so far…………………………………136 Project 2: The academic jewellery workshop………………………....138 The Workshop Makes Objects: a socio/technical narrative set in an academic jewellery workshop……………………………………154 The Workshop Research: the overall approach……………………….193 Application 1: Institutional paperwork and workshop objects………...197 Part 1: Before the course: institutional paperwork and student objects……………………………………………………198 Part 2: About the course: student response to the institutional paperwork questionnaire……………………………..201 Part 3: During the course: student journals……………………………205 Part 4: After the course: the 250 word essay…………………………..207 Application 2: Workshop assessment: assessment paperwork, workshop objects and the examination…………………..209 Part 1: Analysis of institutional assessment paperwork………………..210

Part 2: Assessment theatre: performing assessment…………………....212 ii

Part 3: Individual reviews: (student, teacher, object)…………………….216 The rewritten texts: institutional assessment paperwork and student reviews………………………………………...221 Project 3: Triptych: the jewellery exhibition…………………………..225 Introduction: Craft and the exhibition Triptych………………………..225 Methodology: ANT as a translator of interests…………………………….227 Problematisation: The exhibition: what? where? whom?.......................230 Interressment: The exhibition: in whose interest…………………………234 Enrolment: The exhibition: making a team…………………………….236 Mobilisation: Putting differences aside: the exhibition as a network….245

SECTION 4: Reflections: with professionalism, institutionalisation and marketing in mind……………………………….251

CHAPTER 8: Revisiting the sites of representation, the Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object and the Masterpiece……………252 Revisiting the sites of representation……………………….……………..252 The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object: targets of research/tools for research…………………………………...263 The Masterpiece: a fluid tool of management………………………….265 Appraising ANT: the pros and cons……………………………………266 Adding to the literature pool…………………………………………...267 Summary……………………………………………………………….269 Postscript……………………………………………………………….269 REFERENCES………………………………………………………..271

iii

List of Figures Figure 1 Evolutionary diagram…………………………….104 Figure 2 Die diagram………………………………………144 Figure 3 Saw blade/die thickness diagram………………...145 Figure 4 Socio/technical relations diagram………………..175 List of Plates Plate 1 Labelling………………………………………….240 Plate 2 Jewellery in boxes………………………………...242 Plate 3 Jewellery sample 1………………………………..244 Plate 4 Jewellery sample 2………………………………..244 Plate 5 Jewellery sample 3………………………………..244 Plate 6 Triptych opening………………………………….249

iv

List of Tables Table 1 Title Analysis…………………………………………….109 Table 2 Introductory statement analysis………………………….111 Table 3 Craftsouth title analysis…………………………………..112 Table 4 Craftsouth introductory statement analysis………………113 Table 5 Craftsouth title and introductory statement analysis……..113 Table 6 Humans of Craftsouth……………………………………118 Table 7 Objects of Craftsouth…………………………………….119 Table 8 Actions of Craftsouth…………………………………….122 Table 9 Teacher's word use……………………………………….166 Table 10 Interaction of, and relations between, the four

institutional texts…………………………………………200 Table 11 Student response and institutional texts………………….203 Table 12 Student comments on continuous paper work and researcher observations of journal entries…………...206 Table 13 The relationship between institutional texts and student essays………………………………………….....208 Table 14 Humans, non-humans and actions in institutional assessment texts…………………………………………..211 Table 15 Student main concerns……………………………………214 Table 16 Student concerns and teacher comment…………………..215 Table 17 Shared key words, teacher + student……………………...217 Table 18 Student only key words…………………………………...217 Table 19 Teacher only key words…………………………………..217 Table 20 Shared key words + student key words…………………..218 Table 21 Shared key words + teacher key words…………………..219

v

Abstract

Craft's role in its traditional sites is changing. Its management in the form of

professionalism, intellectualism and marketing is now in the hands of authorities

whose interests challenge grass roots craft leading to its apparent invisibility in

these sites. Nevertheless, without the overt representation of the skilled hand and

material object, craft sites lose contact with their core operations, practices and

ancestry. This loss of semiotic and material connection allows interests that should

be subservient to craft to obscure the primary roles hands and objects play in the

visual arts and material culture. With this in mind texts and practices from three

sites - a professional craft association, an academic workshop and an exhibition are

explored for their representations of craft.

Actor-network theory (ANT), the tool employed to excavate craft in these sites,

seeks all the seemingly unconnected actors and their relations when things are

made. By disputing the distinction between humans and non-humans, ANT permits

insights easily overlooked when human action is considered in isolation. Networks

of humans, non-humans and their actions are sought in the three sites of study.

In the craft organisation, the hand and the object, although submerged, are found to

underscore its current operations and practices. The hand and the object remain as

assumed entities to link the organisation’s past and present operations and practices.

In the teaching institution, the hand and the object are appropriated to fulfil other

interests such as the academic requirements of a university and the "creative"

mandate of an art school. In the exhibition, the hand and the object are appropriated

to market the arts institutions sponsoring the exhibition as attractive to students,

funding bodies and the public.

Although craft remained in the operations and practices in the sites of

representation, it was separated from its traditions and reconfigured as a malleable

device to generate, but not necessarily appear in, the construction and display of

concerns such as professionalism, cultural capital and the market. It is argued that

the status of craft as represented in these sites is exemplified by the appropriation of

the hand and the object for purposes that simultaneously depend on and subvert

their presence in these sites.

vi

The outcomes of the research, summed up by the finding the Hidden Hand and the

Fluid Object, suggest strategies for the reformation of practices and education in

craft organisations, university workshops and exhibitions by highlighting and

reminding them that craft is the basis for both their present and future existence.

However the findings are not confined to the three sites in the study, other sites in

education, industry, the arts and academia will benefit from the research.

The thesis also tests, and expands the applications of Actor-network theory as a

conceptual tool in sites not necessarily related to its roots in science.

vii

Candidate's Declaration

Thesis/Project Title: The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object: craft in three sites of representation Candidates name: Donald William Ellis I declare that this thesis is the result of my own research, that it does not

incorporate without acknowledgment any material submitted for a degree or

diploma in any University and that it does not contain any materials previously

published, written or produced by another person except where due reference is

made in the text.

Signed ___Don Ellis_____________________________

Date ___17/11/04______________________________

viii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors: Pat Thomson whose knowledge of the

discipline of thesis writing and firm hand eventually got me started, Vicki Crowley,

for her insights into the management of a seemingly unwieldily beast and her

unfailing encouragement, and Marie Brennan, who found time in an overwhelming

workload of organising and running a huge department in the midst of change to

show how a thesis should be finished and prepared for examination.

I am grateful for the unfettered freedom offered by Andrew, Rik and the students of

Jewellery Production Techniques during my stay in the jewellery workshop.

I would also like to thank the staff and fellow post graduates in Education C

building for the enjoyable social and intellectual environment they proffered, the

good memories will linger for a long time.

Finally special thanks to my dear friend Margie for riding the highs and lows of

thesis writing with me over the last four years, I hope it was not quite as bad as we

thought it might be.

ix

. .

INTRODUCTION

This thesis is inspired and maintained by three things, reflections on a lifetime as a

maker, the perceived loss of primary human contact with everyday objects and,

significantly, the dilemma of the art/craft debate.

Craft's alliance with the visual arts is problematic and strained. Although craft is

considered a strand of the visual arts its role is ascribed merely as a dispensable

vehicle for making ideas visible while its objects are categorised as utilitarian and

thus disqualified as mediators of aesthetic or intellectual interest. These contentions

ignore two matters which warrant a research project. The first is the notion that the

making process in all visual art, the craft, is far from just a means to an end: craft

inevitably adds intellectual, sensory and utilitarian ingredients to the process which

remain embodied in the finished artwork (Higby, 1999). The second is that the

material object does not evaporate when the making is over - it too lingers as both

testimony to the making and as an object for contemplation independent of the

artist's intention and her/his claim for its dissolution. Art objects cannot be made

without craft and craft cannot be deleted from the finished artwork.

Hence it is argued that if craft adds to and remains in visual art objects, it must also

be available for contemplation independent of the artist’s intention. If craft and the

material object is available for contemplation independent of the artist’s intention,

why not works which communicate predominantly from the craft process and the

craftsperson's intention.

To explore these contentions Actor-network theory (ANT) as a

theory/methodology/method is employed because it refutes the notion that craft

processes can be eliminated or rendered insignificant when things are made. In fact

ANT seeks out and validates all the seemingly unconnected actors and their

relations and connects them as a network. A network is a chain of indispensable

actors who transform an idea into an object to become the network - the network is

an entity, the network is craft.

The word network indicates that resources are concentrated in a few places - the knots and the nodes - which are connected with one another

1

. .

- the links and the mesh: these connections transform the scattered resources into a net that may seem to extend everywhere (Latour, 1999, p. 180).

By disputing the distinction between humans and non-humans when networks are

constructed or analysed, ANT allows insights which are overlooked when human

input is disconnected from other actors in the network. According to ANT, craft is a

symmetrical network of humans and non-humans in environments of work and

consumption. Thus the socio/technical symmetry of ANT is ideal to explore craft in

the visual arts, or anywhere else for that matter, because craft is a socio/technical

pursuit, it employs technique to manifest human passions and desires. It is not easy

to keep secrets from ANT, it pursues all actors in a network, including those in

what Latour (1999, p.2) calls a black box. ANT opens black boxes and reveals the

taken for granted, seemingly indisputable facts beyond reach, but indispensable to

the network.

ANT is activated in this context by critical and interpretative discourse analysis,

historical references, "thick description" (Geertz, 1973, p.3) and the sociology of

translation.

If, as argued, craft both remains in visual art and functions as a discrete entity, it

should also remain and function in organisations, institutions and events which

claim to represent it in spite of "new" social, technological and economic forces

colliding with its traditional roles and leading to its apparent invisibility. The sites

must maintain a connection with craft and contact with their ancestry even when

the overt representation of the hand and object has disappeared from view. A loss

of semiotic connection such as this allows interests which should be subservient to

craft to obscure the primary roles hands and objects play in craft sites. This unease

lurks behind a thesis which seeks craft in sites that claim to represent it. The tactic

is not to look directly at practitioners, users or teachers but rather in sites which

influence and interact with their practices. In order to consider these questions, texts

and practices from three sites - a professional craft organisation, an academic

workshop and a craft exhibition - are explored for their representation of craft.

Latour referred to such sites as "centres of calculation".

2

. .

Any site where inscriptions are combined and make possible a type of calculation. It can be a laboratory, a statistical institution, the files of a geographer, a data bank, and so forth. This expression locates in specific sites an ability to calculate that is too often placed in the mind (Latour, 2000, p.304).

Although the standing of craft in the visual arts triggered the research, it is apparent

that the importance of craft in other spheres can be affected by the changing

interests of "centres of calculation". The “centres of calculation” selected for

research, although connected with the visual arts, can be generalised as examples of

where, and how, craft can be explored in other sites of material culture. Thus the

research encompasses social, cultural, industrial and economic realms beyond the

esotery of craft in the visual arts.

Simmering under the surface of this seemingly dispassionate approach to research

is a political disquiet fuelled by the disparity between the working class

tradesperson and the art/craft craftsperson. Paradoxically when craft was essential

to industry and the home it was assigned a lowly socio/cultural status but when

apparently irrelevant in these spheres it is taught in universities, linked with “high”

culture, supported by the state and corporations and makes some craft workers

media stars. Nevertheless the essential craft of the past and its contemporary

counterpart share a common feature, in both contexts they exist because they are

made by networks of actors relevant at the time of construction. If the networks are

valid for the time and place craft lives on.

The impetus, concerns, interests and knowledge behind the thesis and the search for

strategies to satisfy them are predicated on the passions, joys, tensions, disruptions,

barriers and meetings experienced as a craft practitioner and teacher. Experiences

and contacts during an engineering apprenticeship, working as physics laboratory

technician, practising as a jeweller and teaching in a workshop are particularly

important to both the provocation and survival of the thesis.

3

. .

WHAT TO EXPECT

But how can the impetus, concerns, interests and knowledge be organised into a

homogenous and coherent study. First a team of thesis makers needs to be

assembled, humans and non-humans, with the right experience, knowledge and

skills to make a thesis about craft. The team is made up of a researcher with a craft

back ground and the desire to write about it, others with diverse knowledge(s) and

interest(s) in the field, their partner technologies and experts with the tools to

divulge craft’s secrets. Later sites have to be found and motivations and guides

acted upon in the search for craft in sites of representation.

The thesis is set out in four sections and eight chapters.

SECTION 1, personifies the researcher with a craft back ground and the desire to

write a thesis, and introduces others with interests and connections in the craft field.

Chapter1 traces a meandering pathway as a metaphor, to sort out the craft history

of the researcher as subject, maker and teacher in search of opportunities to

practice, teach and avoid a career. This experiential knowledge of craft inspired the

thesis, maintained its momentum and added to its research toolbox. But the journey

was not taken alone; each stopover on the pathway, saturated in its own cultural,

social, technical and economic particulars, contributed conceptually to the journey

and added to the motivation to write a thesis on a nebulous entity called craft.

Chapter 2 outlines the concerns which stimulated the researcher’s desire to write a

thesis on such a touchy subject as craft. In this chapter questions are posed and

arguments presented to defend craft’s indispensability in the visual arts, as a basis

for understanding craft everywhere and as the impetus for writing a thesis. The

thesis is grounded in a recurring encounter in the meandering journey, the status of

craft in the visual arts, the art/craft debate. Although the art/craft debate keeps the

fires burning and is an opportunity to acknowledge the presence and importance of

craft it is a touchstone rather than a blueprint.

Chapter 3 is a literature review organised around four concepts: the making and

using body, academic craft education in/and the visual arts, craft’s public

performance and craft writing.

4

. .

Chapter 4, uses the embodied jewellers hand and jewellery object to write an

experiential rendition of the body makes and the body uses, academic craft in/and

the visual arts and craft’s public performance.

SECTION 2, considers the theories, methodologies, methods, maps and guides used

as analytical tools and thesis directives. Theories, methodologies and methods are

the experts and the maps and guides are the sites, problems, arguments, questions,

resources and methods used to scrutinise craft in sites of representation.

Chapter 5 describes and validates actor-network theory (ANT), the main

theory/methodology/method used in the thesis. It discusses ANT’s ancestry in the

philosophy of science, its link with the researcher’s experience in a university

physics laboratory and its applicability to a study of craft. Other

theories/methodologies/methods which resonate with ANT are also discussed in

this chapter. Experts such as these are needed to peg out common ground for the

diverse interests and concerns the thesis brings together.

In Chapter 6, the assemblage of sites, problems, arguments, questions, resources

and methods used to map and guide this thesis are outlined and discussed for the

way they organise and direct the thesis. The maps and guides are in the form of site

selections, problems, arguments, questions, resources and methods.

SECTION 3, assembles, discusses and analyses the research subjects, the craft sites

of representation. The three sites are a craft organisation, (Craftsouth) an academic

workshop, (jewellery studio in a university), and, Triptych, (a craft exhibition).

In Chapter 7, three projects contextualise, describe and analyse the practices and

operations at each of the craft sites of representation. Each project is tailored to suit

the nature of the site and the mode of data collection.

Project 1, a craft organisation, Craftsouth, explored using publicly disseminated

texts is broken into five parts. Together they construct a multi-faceted depiction of

Craftsouth including its development over time, its international context, its

relations with its members and the community, its member selection criteria and its

5

. .

fit with organisations of the past. Its development is explored with an analysis of a

selection of President’s and Executive Director’s reports, its international context

by comparing its title and statement of intent with craft organisations in other

countries, its relations with its members and the community by analysing its

publicly disseminated texts, its member selection criteria through an analysis of its

accreditation document and its relations with its antecedents by a comparative study

of Medieval guilds.

Craftsouth is selected because it represents craftspeople members on several levels

of accreditation and craft in the wider community.

The Evolving Thesis is a bridging statement which reflects on the outcomes of the

Craftsouth research and its possible effect on the research to follow. Two outcomes

found during the organisation research were 1) the hand and the object are useful

but oft obscured tools to seek and explore craft sites of representation and 2) the

function of objects is not limited to their shape and form as material entities.

Project 2 is set in a university jewellery workshop. The notion that institutional

texts are rewritten when students make workshop objects is explored in two

applications. Application one, in four parts, analyses student responses to

institutional texts and application two, in three parts, analyses institutional

assessment criteria and student response during assessment. To ground the formal

research applications in the world of the workshop an ongoing socio/technical

narrative on workshop life is written around them by casting the workshop as a

living organism. The results of the analyses are considered by the degree the

assessment criteria is “rewritten” when students make objects for themselves and

institutional assessment.

Project 3, is a one part analysis of the researcher’s personal experience of team

exhibition making. Memories and a collection of meeting agendas, minutes and

newspaper and magazine cuttings were used to recount a jewellery exhibition,

Triptych, as a formal research project.

The exhibition was a joint production between three separate institutional jewellery

courses and their sponsor, the Helpmann Academy, an umbrella organisation set up

6

. .

to bring them together for this event. The development of the exhibition is followed

as the institutions, the organisation and their human representatives juggle self

interest and the common goal of promoting state institutional jewellery education.

To help understand how both separate and shared concerns are brought together,

ANT’s translating interests is mobilised as a mediating tool.

SECTION 4, reflects on the research projects, their outcomes and the new

knowledge about craft and its sites of representation they generate. The section also

reflects on both the suitability of Actor-network theory as a

theory/methodology/method in the context of the research and contemplates on the

broader applications of the study.

Chapter 8 Revisits the sites of representation, explores the notion of The Hidden

Hand and the Fluid Object and the Masterpiece, appraises ANT as a research tool

and speculates on its addition to craft literature.

First, the now opened sites of craft representation, Craftsouth, the academic

jewellery workshop and the exhibition Triptych, are revisited and reflected on for

their contribution to organisation and craft knowledge.

The first, Craftsouth, found craft and its affiliates, the hand and the object, to

remain as submerged entities which led to the notion of the “Masterpiece” as the

basis for a comparative study of Craftsouth and medieval guilds.

In the second site of craft representation, the academic jewellery workshop, it was

found that workshops have ambivalent relations with institutional texts; workshops

and their human inhabitants have interests and desires which do not always adhere

to institutional requirements.

At the third site of representation, the exhibition Triptych, it was found that

exhibitions are more than venues for the display of objects; they have inbuilt and

imposed trajectories which both defy and manifest the varied interests and concerns

of their makers. The material identity of craft objects is usurped both by the

exhibition itself and the objectives of the exhibition makers.

7

. .

A significant research finding summarised in the thesis title as The Hidden Hand

and the Fluid Object was found beneath layers of contextual interests, meanings

and socio/political/economic concerns. This important finding, a consequence of

the research, is also a useful approach to other projects where ideas are mediated

into objects. Importantly it acts as a hedge against a universal definition of a

nebulous and contentious entity such as craft.

Another significant outcome, the Masterpiece, was found as a fluid tool of

management rather than a discrete material object. This notion of the Masterpiece

was an ideal tool to study assessment, testing and accreditation procedures. The

Masterpiece is not merely a material entity but a fluid construct used for the

manifestation of local interests.

ANT is reflected on for its applicability for the task of exploring craft in sites of

representation and its ability to expose the making process when ideas are mediated

into objects.

Finally the research is considered as a contributor to craft and the ANT literature

pool and summarised as making a link between the contemporary issues in craft

sites of representation and the traditions of making and using objects. The thesis

was encapsulated as a challenge, to the researcher, to craft, to the sites of

representation and to Actor-network theory.

The next phase is the researcher’s journey traced as a meandering pathway and

negotiated through the researcher’s experiences as a craftsperson, student and

teacher and his confrontations with the diverse worlds of craft.

8

. .

SECTION 1: Self, motivations and others

The researcher’s identity as a maker and teacher, portrayed as a meandering

pathway, his motivations to write a thesis argued within the art/craft debate and

interactions with influential fellow travellers such as other makers, theorists, critics,

writers and philosophers provide the background for the thesis. Together they set its

boundaries and contribute to its atmosphere.

9

. .

CHAPTER 1: Self, the meandering pathway – the researcher’s journey

Summary

The chapter examines experiences which both instigated and directed the thesis.

These experiences asserted the inevitability of a study of craft to a degree that any

other topic was out of the question.

This meandering pathway which led to a thesis imbued craft with a moral and class

dimension in a working class home and during trade training, marginalised it in the

science laboratory workshop, and swamped it with aesthetics and “meaning” in the

visual arts. However these experiences led to satisfying experiences as craftsperson,

teacher and student.

The meandering pathway is neither straight nor stable, not made by deliberate

decisions but directed by opportunities and diverted by obstacles as they arise. The

course is set by early experiences in the home and continues as one opportunity to

"hand make" leads to another, sign-posting all other pathways as dead ends.

At Home with the Makers: The Growing Craftsman

Summary

Growing up in a working class home is examined for the way it shaped attitudes to

hand making and as an initiation into working class culture.

I was raised in a family of makers. My mother, a tailor by trade, incessantly made

clothes for her family and friends and my father, a plumber, was a passionate sheet

metal worker. During my childhood I did a bit of both. Later the memories of

working these materials were recalled in jewellery objects which I made.

There were always things to be made, kites when there was wind, model aeroplanes

when the thermals appeared and vehicles, weapons, and machines the year round.

These were all crafted with care but used with abandon; the notion of in the making

was set at an early age. A "natural" consequence of a childhood of making was an

apprenticeship in a mechanical trade.

10

. .

Learning the Trade: The Apprentice

Summary

Trade training is explored in terms of the social, political, class and gender

positions it engendered. Acquiring hand skills and mastering tools and machinery

during trade training is enmeshed in concepts of work, notions of masculinity, class

stratification and workplace culture. Learning a trade was bilateral, it made a

skilled tradesperson and a working class male.

The country town in which I lived absorbed school leavers into the workforce

according to their educational level and social contacts. In my case three years of

high school and a neighbour with a supervisory position in a power station were the

right mix for an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner - a felicitous outcome, as fitting

and turning in the 1950s was a craft based activity; objects were still made with,

and fitted by, the skilled hand.

I transferred to the city to finish the apprenticeship in the company's workshop

school. It was an intense learning environment where skill and precision were

combined with speed. Significantly this furnished a skill base I later drew upon as a

metal craftsman and jeweller.

The apprentice school was a simulated workplace where hand and machine skills

and tool making connected the skills of the tradesperson with the notion of work. It

was a workshop programme that integrated trade skills and workshop behaviour

and discipline prior to working with the men on the shop floor. Many of the skills

no longer used in industry were taught as valuable exercises to hone hand-eye

coordination, to connect the apprentice with the roots of the trade but more

importantly, to cultivate attitudes to work. The idea that work can be tedious,

arduous and mindless but had to be done was an important part of trade training.

“To file pieces of metal day in and day out as engineering apprentices had to

do……” (Dormer, 1994 pp. 40-41).

Craft in the apprentice school assimilated the skills of the trade and attitudes

appropriate for the work place. But trade training was more than this; it was

preparation for working class life.

11

. .

In the 1950s learning a trade for young males was a rite of passage. Intending

apprentices left high school early, usually between years eight and ten, to continue

their education in the workplace and mature as men in the care of a benevolent

employer.

The responsibility for the care of the apprentice was bound in a formal contract

between employer, apprentice and parents. Ostensibly the employer's mandate was

to teach the trade but their obligation went beyond the development of skills and

knowledge; it was assumed that males between the age of fifteen and twenty

needed supervision, discipline and a moral dimension in their lives. In fact there is

provision in the indenture document to dismiss the apprentice on moral and

behavioural grounds but not on his inability to learn the trade. Point four of The

Indenture of Apprenticeship states:

In case the apprentice be at any time during the said term wilfully disobedient to the commands of the employer or be habitually slothful or negligent or otherwise grossly misbehave himself the employer may discharge the apprentice from his service. (Apprentices Act, 1950)

Similarly the apprentice in medieval times swore on oath “to be industrious and obedient, and to work for no other master” (Renard, 1918 p. 11).

The moral dimension was environmentally constructed; that is, workshop etiquette

and the divinity of trade skills were means as well as ends, in a sense, mediators for

concepts of work and notions of masculinity in a working class culture. They were

enforced and reinforced by initiation rites, violence, cajolery, exclusion and

arbitrary disciplines such as never being allowed to sit, lean or chat during working

hours and long, mindless repetitive tasks such as filing and sawing. Dormer's

description of the rigour of the traditional British apprenticeship also applied to

apprentice training in Australia in the 1950s:

Many people would like to acquire skills, but the long and arduous years of apprenticeship are a deterrent. To file pieces of metal day in and day out as engineering apprentices had to do, or to devote several hours a day to practising the movements of classical dance, may be compared to equestrian dressage. Both self-control and, to some extent, physical and intellectual subjection are needed (Dormer, 1994: pp. 40-41).

12

. .

Although attitudes to skills and workshop practices were important - such as pride

in the quality of the finished work, speed, the care of tools and deference to those

more highly skilled, it was the umbrella notion of work itself that constructed a

moral perspective. Although working hard was a highly valued attribute, and

working with the body (especially with the hands) the epitome of the measurement

of work, outworking others and being over worked by the boss was not condoned.

The presumption was that there must always be work because without work life is

without discipline. Australian apprenticeships, based on British models with their

roots in Victorian times acceded to the intrinsic value of work. A quote attributed to

the Victorian Christian Socialist Charles Kingsley summed this up succinctly:

Thank God every morning when you get up that you have something to do that day which must be done, whether you like it or not. Being forced to work, and forced to do your best, will breed in you temperance and self-control, diligence and strength of will, cheerfulness and content, and a hundred other virtues which the idle never know (Kingsley, 1991, p. 86)

Peter Dormer (1994, p.41), commenting on the working life of knife and cutlery

makers in the 1960s, also expressed this relation between work and trade skills in

industrial England when he wrote:

They knew how to do their work but it remained a discipline that they forced out of themselves every day.The men 'policed' themselves constantly. This is far from machine-like, it is not 'merely mechanical.

Influenced by both its roots in British work place culture and transported by a wave

of post-war migrant tradesmen, the relations between work and skills in Australian

industry had a decidedly British flavour.

The culture of apprentice training in the 1950s mirrored working class life in

general: craft was the basis for industrial production, the main source of household

income and the means of enhancing the material resources in the home. Hand skills

and hand made objects were more than cultural, sensory and marketing signifiers.

These experiences and conditions not only seeded a lifelong desire to craft but they

also kept the idiosyncratic world of contemporary art/craft in check by not letting it

forget its roots in past industrial and domestic spheres.

13

. .

In the evening and at weekends to complement the rigor of the workshop, I started

to read and draw; pursuits which led to part time art studies in drawing and painting

at an art school hence establishing a life time pattern of part time study. Art school

was a sanctuary and an alternative to a future in industry; although at the time I did

not realise that my industrial and working class background could never be

jettisoned, I would always protect and defend them. Art school opened up an

alternative but discordant social world: managing discordant social worlds also

remained as a lifetime pattern.

Nevertheless I still needed a day job so I applied for and was accepted for a position

in the physics department workshop in a university as an engineering technician.

An engineering tradesperson could choose from a range of work options at a time

when hand and machine skills were the basis for employment. However there was

little variation in the type of work offered as the lowly status of the tradesperson

limited involvement in anything but the sale of skills and knowledge of the trade.

When tradespeople changed jobs it was often to relieve boredom by changing work

environments, pursuing better work conditions and meeting new co-workers.

Dormer (1994, pp. 14-15) tagged this as the “dumb artisan”, the worker who

obligingly applied his/her skills and experience to tasks set by others.

The Physics Workshop: The physics laboratory technician

Summary

First hand experiences as an engineering tradesperson in a science laboratory are

explored as a basis for the argument that the indispensability of laboratory craft to

science can validate craft’s indispensability to art.

The job as an engineering technician in a university physics department was ideal

for a craftsperson. Working in a pristine workshop, not tethered to particular

machines or tasks, the complete production of the object was entirely in the

craftsperson’s hands. Each object was unique and required precise calibration.

Often kinetic, some sat within the ambit of the modernist notion of machine

sculpture. This workplace was an organic site, driven by the fluctuating fortunes of

research staff and students.

14

. .

Prior to computer modeling, hypotheses were tested with objects: objects were

made to prove or reject a hypothesis. Research was dependent on the construction

of objects in order to "advance"; a hypothesis was tested by exposing it to objects it,

in a sense, designed and the role of the craftsperson was to develop objects which

gradually closed in on a hypothesis.

There is a downside for a manual worker in a university workshop: complete

engagement with the object is frustrated by the division between academics and

craftspeople, in spite of their tacit agreement that craft makes research possible.

Although the researcher and the craftsperson worked together to make science, an

invisible line drawn between the intellectual and manual worker kept them apart:

the first taste of social/educational/cultural divisions marked out on shared ground

by unequal power bases and incommensurate objectives.

However scientists knew how important craft was to research. They not only

carefully selected technicians from the trades to craft their experiments they could

not resist the desire to be involved themselves. Although their clumsy attempts

were often misguided and disastrous, their conception of craft as fundamental to

science was, at least, reassuring for the technicians. Latour (1999, p.156) observed

that they “are like helpless nestlings while the adults are busy building the nests

and feeding them”.

The craftspeople, although marginalised were acknowledged by the scientists as

important: science and scientists demanded first hand contact with the craft they

knew to be indispensable. Latour (2000, p.191) wrote:

“Technical skill” and “technical personnel” apply to those with a unique ability, a knack, a gift, and also the ability to make themselves indispensable, to occupy privileged though inferior positions which might be called, borrowing a military term, obligatory passage points. So technical people, objects, or skills are at once inferior (since the main task will eventually be resumed), indispensable (since the goal is unreachable without them), and, in a way capricious, mysterious, uncertain (since they depend on some highly specialised and sketchily circumscribed knack).

If laboratory research is a craft based practice and advanced through the production

of objects can this be the basis for a dismantling the art/craft dichotomy?

15

. .

Laboratory experiences positioned craft as an indispensable mediator in the

production of science, a position which could be applied the art/craft debate. Craft,

as an indispensable element which remains embodied in the outcomes of science

research must also remain as an indispensable element embodied in the art object

rather than craft and art occupying separate territories. The two positions, that of

the artist who abandons the craft which makes art and the craftsperson who claims

the craft that makes the object, share common ground because both are dependent

on craft for function, meaning and aesthetics. The problem is not the differences but

rather the socio/cultural forces which initiate and maintain the differences.

Reflections on laboratory workshop experiences in the early 1960s made possible a

challenge to the accepted status of the craftsperson. Rather than an insignificant

underling in the research process, their role in the laboratory was that of an

indispensable mediator without which research could not be carried out. Thus a

significant shift in the understanding of the status of craft is proposed. The

indispensable role of the craftsperson in the laboratory questions the inferior

positions they were said to hold.

Teaching and Studying: The Teacher and Student

Summary

Experiences as a high school art teacher are explored for the impact they had on

later opportunities to study, practice and teach.

I left the physics workshop to become a high school art teacher thanks to the 1960s

teacher shortage. My teaching methodology was based on the dissatisfaction I felt

with my own short high school experience which, incidentally, did not include art

in the curriculum. In retrospect this may have been a good thing. I at least thought I

knew how not to treat teenagers and art was a passion unspoiled by past learning

experiences. In a short five-year career as a high school teacher I think I was

successful. A mentor at that time said that "direct entrants" made the best and the

worst teachers. I think I was the former; I seemed to instinctively know how to

teach. I was fortunate enough to be posted to a boy’s technical high school in a

large team of art teachers, in effect, a mini art school. Although I had completed a

substantial part of an art school diploma and exhibited a little, I had no teaching

experience or qualifications. But teaching qualifications were necessary if I was to

16

. .

stay in the job and qualifications meant a teachers college course and my first taste

of academic work since my truncated high school years. A lifetime love of learning

and teaching had their roots in my teachers college days. I continued at art school in

the evening and attended teachers college in non-teaching periods and at late

afternoon lectures. My first taste of academic work since high school was totally

invigorating; I loved it and did well in spite of an extremely heavy workload. I

continued to paint and exhibit and had my first one-person show during this time.

The reviews were positive and I now had a social world where issues of art and

culture could be discussed. Becoming a teacher also meant shifting my art school

study programme from visual art to art teaching which included a course called

Craft. One of the craft options was jewellery making using simple tools, found

materials and base metals to make objects for the body. Past skills and pleasures of

working with metal and mechanics were revived by this turn of events. Initially I

used found objects and later adapted my engineering hand skills to traditional

jewellery making techniques.

The Jeweller: Making jewellery/teaching jewellery making

Summary

Experiences as a jeweller and teacher are explored as a direct influence on the

instigation, and shape of, the thesis.

Why Jewellery

My jewellery education was enhanced by access to a state funded craft collective

consisting of an administrative centre, gallery and training workshops set up in a

disused factory in the city, with overseas master craftspeople as workshop heads. I

was offered and accepted a place in the jewellery workshop as a trainee under the

tutelage of a master jeweller. This was to be a seminal experience in my career as a

jeweller and craftsperson. I now had access to good jewellery tools and equipment

and a master jeweller who brought the traditions, standards and theories of

European jewellery making to the city.

Nevertheless jewellery making was not a conscious career choice. Rather it was a

"natural" outcome of training and working in a metal trade, experience as a

laboratory technician and education and practice in the visual arts. It brought with it

both benefits and misgivings. The benefits include the role jewellery plays in

17

. .

human communication, its use as a mediator in social ritual, the pleasure of

mastering its intricate techniques and processes, its potency as a personal signifier

and its value as an educational tool. The misgivings include its use as an insidious

marker of social and economic stratification, as packaging for "valuable"

investment commodities, and the ecological and human outcomes of extracting

many of its raw materials from the earth.

A jeweller has two options for professional practice, the commercial trade or the

visual arts. Choosing the visual arts brought two sets of values into conflict, the

socio/cultural elitism of the visual arts and the working class values of trade

training. The disparity between these ideals isolated the craftsperson in a ghetto

where they have to pander to the trade with their skills and convince the art world

of their disinterest in them.

Practising, Lecturing and Studying: The Craft Professional

Summary

The accumulation of lifelong experiences finally makes the craft professional. It is

now possible to alternate between, and combine the roles of practitioner, lecturer

and student.

Other than secondary art teaching, craft camp and summer school tutoring,

“serious" teaching began with a position as a visual art lecturer in an art/craft

programme. This launched a career as a teacher of adults; the pleasure experienced

during this period remained throughout a long career as teacher. Teaching became a

part of private practice and scholarship, a classic trilogy for a craft jeweller.

During this period I discovered how to teach jewellery making in a workshop. I

assimilated theory and practice by bringing to the teaching workshop ideas which

theorised the act of making and used it as a basis for curriculum construction. This

was in part stimulated by an interest in trade/craft while working with a colleague

from the manufacturing industry. By combining his knowledge and approach with

the spirit and risk of “art/craft” we constructed a curriculum based on the nature of

workshop life. Together we built a workshop and a programme from the ground up,

shaping a learning environment which produced graduates who were successful in

both fields.

18

. .

My interest in the interface between education and craft theory from a workshop

perspective rekindled a desire to return to study. As a result I formally pursued my

interest in craft theory and education which grew into full time work on a doctoral

thesis.

Although lifelong attitudes toward object making were formed in a domestic

environment and as an engineering apprentice, the research is predicated on

experiences as a physics laboratory technician, art/craft jeweller and workshop

teacher. Particularly influential was a career as a jeweller and workshop teacher

which began in the earthy soil of the 1960s and blossomed during the relatively

benign developments in technology, theory and education into the late 1980s.

Cracks opened up and shook the foundations of the romantic world of the

craftsperson during the 1990s with the advent of computer technology, the

commodification of education and the reconceptualisation of the visual arts.

Prior to these experiences the primacy of craft, internalised during a childhood

where hand making objects not only constituted a living and added significantly to

the character and aesthetics of domestic life but also evoked memories of past times

and events. Importantly the socio/economic status implicit in this lifeworld fostered

a political position that to this day remains as a nagging tension between working

class ideologies, the elitism of the art/craft world and the isolation of academia.

However a return to the days of an idyllic childhood and the primacy of the hand

made object in domestic, industrial, and cultural realms is not imminent: those

times have long passed.

The messages evoked by tracing the meandering pathway are encapsulated in the

art/craft debate, the motivations behind the thesis. The art/craft impasse came to

view with the growth of the researcher as a craft professional which exposed

disjunctions and barriers between what is considered art and what is not. Art

defined itself as a platform for meaning and aesthetics, relegating the notion of

human skill and innate material qualities to the margins and excluding craft from

the category of art. Craft wanted to be in there as an equal, arguing that human skill

and material qualities can also produce and disseminate meaning and aesthetics.

This, it is argued, is the core of art/craft debate, the status of craft in the art object.

The following chapter explores this argument as the motivation for the thesis.

19

CHAPTER 2: Motivations – why this thesis

Summary

This chapter expands on the impetus for the thesis, the status of craft in the

visual arts. The art/craft debate presents an opportunity to encapsulate the

motivation for the research and recognise the importance of craft generally.

Four questions are posed to assist in understanding craft in art and from these

an argument which “logically” forms craft both as a discrete entity and

indispensable mediator in art.

This image is included in the print thesis available from the University of

South Australia Library.

“Signs to ignore”

Cartoon in a university newspaper (UniSANews April 2003)

The search for a place for craft and art to share as equals is the stimulus for the

research and the driving force which keeps it going. The following semantic

argument pitched prior to the empirical study supports the researcher's belief in

the efficacy of craft as both an indispensable macro mediator and a discrete

entity. Support or refutation of the belief will, of course, finally depend on the

reading of the research conclusions.

The binary, art/craft, is usually expressed hierarchically with art on the left and

craft on the right. In this chapter it is capitalised and the order reversed to

Craft/Art. Capitals are used to denote Craft (or Art) as a discrete entity and non-

capitals when it is used as a macro mediator.

. .

Although craft is generalisable across a wide range of human activities, a

discussion about its relationship with Craft/Art is useful if the perception of its

status and role in the visual arts is to be explored. An exploration of craft in

Craft/Art is premised on three assumptions - it locates craft in the visual arts, it

asserts the importance of craft in cultural, social, industrial, economic and domestic

fields and it is an exploration which supports the rationale of the thesis.

But can, in fact, the Craft/Art debate be used in this way, or is it based on a set of

socio/cultural beliefs beyond the realm of "rational" argument? In an attempt to

extract the argument from the socio/cultural mire four questions are posed, analysed

and used to argue a case for Craft and craft.

Questions can perform a language game; alter a single significant word and

meanings change direction. For instance the meanings of the following four

questions are altered in ANT terms by a change of mediator represented by four

words “enlisted, enrolled, significant and indispensable”. The questions are:

1. Is craft enlisted in the process of making Craft/Art? If so, where and

how is it enlisted in the process of making Craft/Art? How can an

analysis of craft in sites of representation be used to affirm a role for

Craft in Craft/Art?

2. Is craft enrolled in the process of making Craft/Art? If so, where and

how is it enrolled in the process of making Craft/Art? How can an

analysis of craft in sites of representation be used to affirm a role for

Craft in Craft/Art?

3. Is craft significant in the process of making Craft/Art? If so, where

and how is it significant in the process of making Craft/Art? How

can an analysis of craft in sites of representation be used to affirm a

role for Craft in Craft/Art?

4. Is craft indispensable in the process of making Craft/Art? If so,

where and how is it indispensable in the process of making

21

. .

Craft/Art? How can an analysis of craft in sites of representation be

used to affirm a role for Craft in Craft/Art?

The four questions are posed as possible starting points for the search for craft in

art, the original motivation for the research. Each word, enlisted, enrolled,

significant and indispensable, alters the question and the nexus between craft and

art. Although each word connects craft to art only indispensable forms an

immutable bond.

The word enlisted suggests that craft can be brought in if necessary; craft would be

useful but optional and voluntary in the process of making Craft/Art. Enrolled

suggests craft can be an advantage to Craft/Art, optional although under some

coercion. The word significant suggests craft has a place in the process of making

Craft/Art but not essential or compulsory whilst indispensable suggests that craft is

essential and neither optional nor voluntary. While the words enlisted, enrolled and

significant connect craft to Craft/Art the tenuousness of the relationships preclude

them from the following argument. Thus it is the question “Is craft indispensable

to the process of making Craft/Art?” which deserves a more detailed discussion in

a story titled “Finding the Craft in Art”.

Finding the Craft in Art

The simple title Finding the Craft in Art highlights one of those enigmas that beset

much contemporary nomenclature for both craft and art. Before craft can be found

in art a workable definition for craft and art must be agreed upon. Something can

only be found if it can be recognised and recognition can only be legitimated if the

definition is agreed upon by a critical mass. If a “universal” definition for craft or

art is contested territory how can the quest Finding the Craft in Art be warranted?

The only recourse is to admit is that it cannot. A watertight definition that would

satisfy all stakeholders is highly improbable. Nevertheless others must have or

imply a definition because the use and manifestation of the names in both informal

and formal settings is widespread and, to an extent, is the basis for dispensing

resources, power, privilege and status. Art schools and Craft organisations are

examples where the terms are used. Art schools and Craft organisations are active

producers of objects and practices that go out into the world to represent a notion of

22

. .

Craft and Art. Before the research begins the notion of the indispensable craft in art

is explored in words as a quasi-algebraic story titled The Story of big “C” and little

“c”.

Craft could be seen to occupy two positions represented by big “C” and little “c”:

big “C” represents craft as Craft, as a discrete form of Art, and thus a discrete entity

and little “c” craft represents craft as an indispensable mediator in all practices and

events where ideas are made into objects.

If big “C” craft as a discrete form is represented by the indispensable little “c” craft,

and little “c” craft represents craft as an indispensable mediator (in a theatre,

laboratory, workshop, studio etc.) in all practices and events that are produced by

little “c” craft big “C” Craft is validated by the role little “c” craft plays in all these

practices and events.

If it is established that little “c” craft is indispensable in all practices and events its

indispensability must also apply to Art.

If its indispensability applies to Art, indispensability is a justification for proposing

big “C” craft, like Art, as a discrete entity for contemplation.

Thus the evidence for big "C" craft as a discrete form is sought in two realms,

within the claims of the autonomy of big "C' and outside big "C" where little "c", as

an indispensable mediator, influences the form of all (including Art) objects.

The contribution little "c" makes to the form of big "C" is sufficient to create a

discrete entity and a field of study, practice and education in its own right.

Nevertheless the search is unsubstantiated empirically and must continue, but with

help from outside the esoteric world and apriori assumptions of the researcher.

The meandering pathway was not taken alone nor were the motivations self

constructed: others met along the way invite relationships, form pacts and cause

disruptions although their differing views do not prevent them from sharing a

concern for craft. Said called this a "filial relationship" (Rowley, 1992, p.167).

23

. .

CHAPTER 3: Other(s’) hands and other(s’) objects – craftspeople, critics,

theorists, commentators, educationalists, writers and industrialists, et al have their

say.

Summary

The literature review frames the research interests of the study. It explores a

number of sites inhabited by craft and listens to practitioners, critics, theorists,

commentators, educationalists, writers, industrialists, et al as they have their say.

The hand and the object although nested in these texts relies on written language as

a representing agent inevitably separating them from the material world in which

they belong and supplanting them as resources for theories, ideologies and

opinions.

Where now for craft: Johnson (1997, p.292) introduces the discussion with

questions which both highlight the craft dilemma and underpin the argument for

this review.

At the close of the twentieth century, the crafts are surviving when, apparently, they ought not to be. What does it mean, at this time, to have the desire to make? What is implied by the desire to acquire or to view the handmade object? Where do we locate the handmade within what Baudrillard calls the hyper-reality of mass electronic culture?

For the crafts to survive “when, apparently, they ought not to be” new partners had

to be found to keep them going in a continually moving socio/technical

environment. The review argues that the four partners are 1) the making and using

body 2) academic craft education in/and the visual arts 3) craft's public performance

and 4) craft writing.

The first partner is craft organisation which supports the making and using body by

presenting the traditions of craft in a post industrial environment for a

contemporary audience. The second is academia and the visual arts where craft

education in/and the visual arts is repackaged as an intellectual and aesthetic entity.

The third partner is an amalgam of the various ways craft performs in the public

domain. Finally in a communication saturated environment (and in this thesis) craft

is often produced, constituted and critiqued as written text.

24

. .

Craft and the body deals with two issues: craft practice (the body makes) and craft

function (the body uses). The opportunities to craft objects in contemporary society

are placed in the light of the theorised social body and how it appropriates craft.

Academic craft education in/and the visual arts explores craft education and

training and its shift from industry to university, its link with the visual arts and its

demise in secondary schools. Craft’s public performance looks at ways craft is

employed in contemporary society from three standpoints: in material culture as a

social/cultural/economic signifier, at work as a design and research tool and at

leisure for pleasure and to personalise living environments. Finally in a language

mediated society it is argued that the craft of writing and writing on craft both

informs others about the state of craft and influences those who “make” craft. These

concerns and interests frame the thesis.

Exploring the world of craft inevitably snares more than the above concerns and

interests; everything from the reproduction of archaic skills, the integration of new

technologies and influential socio/cultural formations are picked up along the way.

This is partly brought about by craft having its roots in the past and current

practices in the present. But moving across time and place is inevitable; the desire

to make now is enhanced by both traditional craft knowledge and new

technological, socio/cultural and economic formations.

Although the need to simultaneously modify and adapt to new environments and

satisfy lingering desires is manifested in, and confounded by, new states they

eventually become the norm in turn to be confounded ad infinitum by following

states leaving the question of what is craft open for revision in perpetuity,

especially the nexus between the maker and the user. Fry (1992, pp.256-257) sees

this mutable nexus as an outcome of a general process of dematerialisation

The specification of post industrial culture is immaterial" as "its aim is to accelerate the demise of the material relations of production and consumption.

He sees dematerialisation gradually weakening the connection between maker and

user as it "moves much nearer to taking on a far greater life and logic of its own".

Although makers and users of craft objects are decreasing in number: only a few

specialists are needed in both mass and niche manufacturing and craft "one offs"

25

. .

are too expensive and arcane for the mass market, the desire to make and use

lingers.

The desire to make and use is further upset on a macro scale as new technologies,

socio/cultural formations and economies oversee the shift from an industrial to a

post-industrial era. Craft, stripped of its primary role in industry and the home is

usurped by the state and in institutions, organisations and corporations where it is

now merely a cultural novelty and marketing ploy. Human desire has been

transplanted in the computerised minds of robots.

The diminishing opportunities for craft in industry, the home and community can

also be traced through the history of industrialisation, the mutability of worker's

organisations and the movement from industrialisation to post-industrialisation. In

this context subsistence craft was superseded by the establishment of small

factories and guilds, which led to large-scale industrialisation and formal trades and

unions, later to be replaced by automation and multi-national corporations.

Automation and multi-national corporations heralded the end of traditional trade

training, a process which began, according to Williams (1981, p.113), with the

industrial revolution.

Apprenticeship, as a form of professional initiation and training, began to diminish in the transition that occurred between the traditional and the newly rising industrial society. The industrial revolution altered attitudes toward training. Machines were creating a large need for unskilled workers, and there was a diminished interest in apprenticeship training.

Craft not only supported a working, domestic and community life but it also helped

meet the desire to control, shape and individualise living environments. The

aesthetic, sensual and corporeal satisfaction that individuals, families and

communities found in the production and use of hand made objects was gradually

taken over by professional designers and robotic production.

But the desire to make withers slowly. Direct human involvement in the designing

and making process, frustrated by macro forces can, in fact, promote hand making

by consumers. They attempt to reclaim and control the conditions of, and

individualise their environments by modifying and personalising consumer objects

26

. .

allowing the consumer, in a sense, a space to "(re)make" left vacant by

consumerism.

Although corporations and robotic production have neither eradicated the crafts or

the desire to make, they are marooned, searching for a place in a society where

commodification, consumerism and economics are now the benchmarks of value.

The above issues are covered in Johnson’s questions on craft survival and expanded

on in the Making and Using Body. Her questions "what does it mean, at this time,

to have the desire to make?" and "what is implied by the desire to acquire or view

the handmade object?” starts the ball rolling.

The Making and Using Body

The body and the hand are central to craft: without the body and the hand,

imaginary or corporeal, craft would not exist. The body and hand are there for

objects both in the "magical" process of making and the "spiritual" act of using. A

study of craft is also a study of the body and the hand as they are configured and

reconfigured by regular conscious or un-conscious acts and representations of

making and using.Thus craft has two important allies, human desire and the human

body. The current awareness and interest in them is stimulated by, among other

things, feminism and the resurgence of the mind/body debate. The body is thus

revealed as an available site for inscription and craft objects as available body

inscribers. Unlike visual art objects they are not autonomous; they want to work

with their human hosts as the body is inscribed for its everyday dramatic and

relations with the world. Mood, occasion, surveillance, body image, etc. are

dramatic relations in which the craft object has a place. The body's performance as

Gaten's (1996, p.35) sees it, is an "imagery body as other":

This body image is a double of sorts which allows us to imagine and in our present situations - to be in a sense our own 'other' - but it is also involved in what allows us to project ourselves into future situations and back to past situations. We can be objects, for ourselves and to ourselves: recipients of our own sadism/masochism; esteem/disdain: punishment/reward; love/hate. Our body image is a body double that can be as 'other' to us as any genuine 'other' can be.

27

. .

Grosz (1994, p.142), located this contention in cultural terms when she wrote of

body inscriptions as a means of fulfilling cultural requirements thus:

Not only does what the body takes into itself (diet in the first instance) effect a "surface inscription" of the body; the body is also incised by various forms of adornment. Through exercise and habitual patterns of movement, through negotiating its environment whether this be rural or urban, and through clothing and makeup, the body is more or less marked, constituted as an appropriate or, as the case may be, an inappropriate body, for its cultural requirements.

As the craft object shares the body and body space and as we all have a body with

which to work the processes of inscription could be seen as both empowering and

democratising. Gatens (1996, p.viii) expanded on this notion of the body as an

imaginary construct:

I am not concerned with physiological, anatomical, or biological understandings of the human body but rather with what will be called imaginary bodies. An imaginary body is not simply a product of subjective imagination, fantasy or folklore. The term 'imaginary' will be used in a loose but nevertheless technical, sense to refer to those images, symbols, metaphors and representations that help construct various forms of subjectivity.

The unique craft object is a means available to the individual to make their body in

a unique form. "Inscriptions on the subject’s body coagulate corporeal signifiers

into signs, producing all the effects of meaning, representation, depth, within or

subtending our social order." (Grosz, 1994, p.141)

Furthermore if expanding the notion of making the body by inscription to include

not only what is on or in the body but what the body interacts with, craft is

everywhere. According to Hacking (1998, p.239), Foucault proclaimed that

"Couldn't everyone's life become a work of art"? However, couldn't everyone's life

also become a work of craft?

Nevertheless there is always a risk of inscribing the body and the space it occupies

according to contexts, motives and interests of others. Sawchuk (1987, pp.62-63)

warned of fashion (if we take fashion as a compliant behaviour) when she claimed

that, "Fashionable behaviour is never simply a question of creativity or self-

expression; it is also the mark of colonization". Nevertheless, the "made" body

28

. .

ultimately shows to the world a fusion of human and object. The unique craft object

is one player in the drama which expands the possibilities for everyday corporeal

inscription in which we can see "the subject and object becoming and fusing

through making". (Fry, 1992, p.263)

If the craft object is a mediator which inscribes the body for the world to see, then

transforming raw materials into craft objects by the body of the maker inscribes the

body of the maker. The maker is made (and remade) by the processes of

transforming raw materials from formlessness to form, from form to function, from

visual neutrality to "beauty" and from socially inert to socially active. The maker

inscribes the materials with his/her body to inscribe the body of the user with the

craft object. Dissanayake (1995, pp.41-42) sees this exchange as a joyful

experience for both maker and user.

Bachelard (1994, p.xxxvii-xxxviii) looks beyond the material form, function, site

and the space occupied by objects to their psychological and philosophical

significance. He confers on them poetic connotations. They could, for instance,

produce such things as comfort, intimacy, fear, desire or peace. No less, objects

from and on the body can inscribe it with significance by their capacity to translate

the prosaic into the poetic.

Nevertheless the body, important as it is in material culture, is tended by the hand.

The hand not only organises and grooms the body but it also makes objects for the

body.

Where would we be without our hands? Our lives are so full of commonplace experience in which the hands are so skilfully and silently involved that we rarely consider how dependent upon them we actually are (Wilson, 1999, p. 3).

Hands manage the pleasure of making objects. They not only work but they know,

they send out and receive knowledge, they define space and organise the objects

which occupy it. “Thus far we have concentrated on the features of hand that act on

the world. Hands, clearly, have an important role also in receiving the world”

(Murray, 1992, p.3). Objects made by the hand for the body signify both unification

and separation; the hand unifies objects with the body of the maker and separates

29

. .

objects from the maker’s body for unification with user’s bodies. The hand

intellectualises the body by bringing together the other senses for object making.

The hand is also used as a symbol of social and economic discrepancies, between

the menial and the intellectual and between labour and capital (Morris, 1888).

Hands are divine instruments; they facilitate prayer and channel spirits. It is

claimed that “there are more than 500 references to hands in the bible” (Johnson,

2000, p. 1). They refer not only to the hands in prayer but also hands as signs and

symbols of embodiment and disembodiment. Hands are a means of responding to

the tactility of the world, hands make objects – objects without the imprint of hands

are alien to human use. Paz made the connection between hand and object thus:

Since it is a thing made by human hands, the craft object preserves the fingerprints – be they real or metaphorical – of the artisan who fashioned it. These imprints are not the signature of the artist; they are not a name. Nor are they a trademark. Rather, they are a sign: the scarcely visible, faded scar commemorating the original brotherhood of men and their separation. Being made by human hands, the craft object is made for human hands: we can not only see it but caress it with our fingers (Paz, 1974, p. 21)

Hands are in themselves beautiful objects, they can articulate wishes, feelings,

moods, and serve occupations, hands act on and receive the world.

This capacity and desire to make objects with the hand and body has not been

erased because the socio/technical world has changed. The coordinated relationship

between the hand and other technologies (from simple tools to the computer)

remains as a significant edge humans have over other animals to make objects. This

does not mean that other animals do not make but the dexterity enabled by forceps

grip, agile fingers and hands, binocular vision and a capacity for imaginative

problem solving means that humans are perfectly endowed to transform raw

materials into objects. As McCullough (1996, p.32) observed:

Hand-eye coordination distinguishes humanity as the maker of things: homo faber. It is our talent to bring a mass of raw materials into conformity with a vision. We fashion tools and coax materials. Under visual guidance, what would otherwise be brute grasp grows into specialised skill.

30

. .

Wilson (1998, p.18) claims the dexterous hand with its pincer grip as responsible

for humans as toolmakers and toolmaking responsible for the development of the

unique human brain. Follicon (1989, p.157) saw “hands as almost living beings”

and as “Eyeless and voiceless faces that nonetheless see and speak”. The "magic"

of this relationship is being neglected; it must be re-routed to produce outcomes not

obtainable through artificial intelligence and robotic production. Press (1998, p.30)

advocated this when he referred to the "well educated hand" as a research tool to

enhance both traditional and computer based research methods.

If the use and function of the body, hand and object are to be exploited sites have to

be found for them to practice. In spite of these well-tested talents, the hand, body

and material object still face redundancy as new technologies, economic

imperatives and social structures seem determined to substitute them with

simulations and abstractions. Craft, no longer simply a response to primary survival

needs, has to look elsewhere to validate its existence and organise itself. Computers

and the visual arts are two options. Johnson (1997), contemplating the human desire

to touch, sees its apparent loss to digitised technology and the visual arts as

openings rather than impediments. Others also argue that the rapid development of

digitised technologies opens rather than closes new vistas for craft practice, for

example McCullough (1996, p.87) presented possible futures for craft in a world of

computerisation by positing that operating a programme with a mouse or keyboard

is an act of craft. Blauvelt, Wrensch and Eisenberg (1999, p.1) materialised this

notion as a two way street in their research on "Integrating Craft Materials and

Computation" claiming that:

The advent of computation both enhances the expressive capabilities of existing materials, and supports the development of "intelligent materials that form the basis of entirely new branches of craftwork. Perhaps less obviously, on the computational side, a focus on craft materials can lead to a re-evaluation of some of the basic concepts of traditional computer science: a "computational crafter" may well begin to rethink the very ideas of programming languages, software engineering, computer architecture, and peripheral devices.

Craft makers have also found a practice in some of the vacant spaces inadvertently

created by, and in, new technologies and socio/cultural formations. New

technologies have kindled an interest in traditional craft through the Internet and

31

. .

other broadcast mediums, and post-modernism has freed craft from constricting

theories such as modernism. In a critique of craft practices in "art" spaces, Johnson

(1997) explores traditional craft territory by positing that the disinterest in skill,

materials and processes by the visual arts has opened up spaces for craft practice

and asserted the fecundity of its material foundations.

Other spaces are opened up in craft organisations, schools and universities, state

and private galleries, the media, and as curators in the burgeoning craft and art

bureaucracy, careers on the periphery rather than the centre as practitioners.

In spite of these new opportunities and craft's inadvertent post-modernism, Metcalf

(1993, p.41) observed reluctance by those in power to give ground:

Postmoderns might admire strategies like appropriation and social engagement, they remain reluctant to admit a potter or a weaver into the Whitney Museum Biennial. - All the old prejudices are intact, and those prejudices are inherent in the theory of Modernism.

Although Metcalf claims post-modernism does not create opportunities for craft in

the art world it can be argued that craft was "post-modern" before the visual arts

picked it up by endorsing practices and values refuted by modernism. In a related

summation of her research on magazine craft, Agostinone (1999, thesis abstract)

argued that aspects of craft, especially popular craft as “a post-modern form of

aesthetic activity due to its qualities of pastiche, contradictions, refusal of

originality, and democratic level of participation”. Post-modernism has also

elevated the status of craft as commodity. "Post-modernism has learned to love the

commodity, embracing it as both subject and condition with an eagerness which

betrays, perhaps, a deeper anxiety" (Wood, 1996, pp.257-258). The deeper anxiety

is perhaps created by the lack of primary human contact with material culture.

Craft, like other societal constructions, is in flux; it has to continually find new

partners, nomenclatures and technologies. Nevertheless phenomenal hand skills

making clever objects honed over generations of makers cannot be erased; they

remain as an element in the spectrum of technologies available to humanity.

32

. .

Organisations which represent and manage craft are, in a sense, in charge of these

changing fortunes of bodies, hands and objects. They have to continually reassess

their practices and operations in relation to the social, cultural and economic

circumstances they find themselves while maintaining their fundamental support

for the contemporary hand made object and its historical antecedents. They are

open to criticism by some if they stray from the traditional notion of craft and by

others if they ignore the visual arts or the business world.

Academic Craft in/and the Visual Arts

Johnson's (1997) question "Where do we locate the handmade within what

Baudrillard calls the hyper-reality of mass electronic culture?" opens a discussion

on two possible locations, the university and the visual arts. Abandoned by old

learning locations (industrial training) and old partners (the industrial trades) craft

had to find new locations and partners in order to reproduce. It was the universities

and the visual arts that offered both locations and partnerships. This was not

without a certain irony as craft training was traditionally the province of industry

and trade school the very antithesis of a university education and a home in the

"modernist" visual arts, the cultural antithesis of the manual trades.

Although craft is still taught in other places, its recent entry to university and its

association there with the visual arts places the relations between hand making,

intellectual life and the art/craft debate under scrutiny. Craft brings to the university

and the visual arts the notion of the intelligent hand and the university asks craft for

intellectual concerns within its practice commensurate with those of the visual arts.

Bristow, now a university lecturer in textiles, recalled her student days and the

impact the academy had on her perception of the relations between theory and

practice: art and craft in the academy. She felt the need "to continually qualify the

term embroidery - 'it's not really embroidery' - in a way that was almost

apologetic" (1998, p.114).

It is this recent affiliation of craft with the university and the visual arts which re-

ignited and fuelled the art/craft debate and separated art from the act of making

(craft). However craft was not always ignored in visual art education. In the past,

the "fine" arts and craft overlapped in autonomous art schools whose raison d'etre

differed from universities. Autonomous art schools educated artists with little

33

. .

emphasis on theory: a chronological and school-based history of art was tacked on

to a studio-based curriculum, while connoisseurship moderated visual standards.

The content of art history in art schools focussed on the canon: the "great" works

and "schools" of European art. This differed from a cultural studies approach to

teaching art history in universities (now often called history and theory). Instead of

"cultivating the canon” Jackson (1997, p.285-286) suggested "a more valuable

approach to the discipline would be the writing of a history that took account of the

realities of the social world in which art is produced": an approach now the norm

in university visual art departments.

It was in 1970s when university art and later craft departments were established in

universities, some getting there when colleges of advanced education were

rebadged universities and others because of institutional funding advantages.

Whatever their entrance mode, concessions were necessary to cater for studio and

workshop based teaching. Initially art and craft settled comfortably but later as the

cost and disruption caused by studios and workshops was felt, the trend back to the

lecture theatre gained momentum. The concessions, high staff student ratios, slow

development time and inflexible spaces needed for art and craft and the interlopers

who filled them, art and craft students and teachers, became problematic for the

academy. The dichotomy between hand and mind re-emerged. At the time when

Edwards (1997, p.352) wrote: "education must abolish the false distinction between

people who make and people who think" the universities were busy re-affirming the

distinction.

This distinction was emphasised when new digitised technologies, taken up more

rapidly by the university and visual art, further distanced the visual arts from craft.

Unlike craft, the visual arts were not constrained by the traditional obligation to

hand make. McCullough (1996 p.10) quoting Paz identified this difficulty for craft

to leave the hand behind - "Since the thing is made by human hands, the craft object

preserves the fingerprints - be they real or metaphorical - of the artisan who

fashioned it”. The new craft and the way it is taught must retain, at least, a

metaphorical association with the hand.

Craft's presence in universities continues to be a vexed one: not only does it have to

pander to the ideologies of the visual arts but in order to survive it had to compete

34

. .

for, and integrate new technologies and adjust its profile to attract ever-diminishing

resources and changing expectations from outside of the academy. Losche (1992,

p.58) noted the shifting sand of craft education in the Sydney area as it was

subjected to the forces of change and reassessment.

In the arena of arts education the major art schools in Sydney area are continually shifting and reordering the departments traditionally associated with the crafts. This name changing is not simply a facile exercise in labelling but reflects the continual reassessments to which the arts and crafts are subjected.

Once in the university with visual art, craft became saddled with undergraduate and

post-graduate university degrees, alien qualifications which further distanced it

from the grass roots of craft production. In universities the functional object, the

mainstay of grass roots craft production, is tucked away in the corner of the

curriculum while the production of art "objects" takes centre stage. In this way the

traditions of craft are reformed by the criteria of undergraduate and post-graduate

university degrees.

The ideologies of academic visual arts bound in the form of academic degrees are

considered by some to deflect the centrality of craft skill training. Buck (1997,

p.139) said of potters educated in art schools as "fascinated by the presence of

gesture and the mark of the hand of these abstract works". Counts (1981, p.121)

alluded to the dominance of visual concerns as he expressed the lack of skill

training (wheel throwing) in his academic education as a potter thus: "My college

and university education had prepared me to be an artist and teacher with my BA

and MA degrees but I felt angry inside, and cheated." And as Metcalf (1993, p.45)

in his paper denouncing “modernism's” applicability to craft noted that function

was an impediment to the status of artist: "Craftspeople who wish to claim the

exalted position of "artist" are distracted by the foolish idea that the functionless

object is innately superior." Ignoring function creates problems for craft: the

number of viewers for functionless craft works is small and prospective owners and

users even smaller as their acquisition requires knowledge of arcane codes, the

possession of certain forms of cultural capital and disposable wealth. Bourdieu

(1994, p.1) referred to this as a "critique of taste" when he posits that cultural

35

. .

factors rather than the recognition of "gifts of nature" are responsible for consumer

choices:

Whereas the ideology of charisma regards taste in legitimate culture as a gift of nature, scientific observation shows that cultural needs are the product of upbringing and education: surveys establish that all cultural practices (museum visits, concert-going, reading etc.), and preferences in literature, painting or music, are closely linked to educational level (measured by qualifications or length of schooling) and secondarily to social origin.

Craft's alliance with visual art makes both practices difficult to identify as they are

both in a state of flux, influenced by changing social, cultural, theoretical and

technological forces. As visual art changes, so does craft. Clemens (1996, p.51)

discusses this dilemma thus:

All of the propositions adduced by theorists as to the supposed differences between craft and art are thus always susceptible to an inversion or reversal. As soon as one claims that "craft is this" or "art is that", one quickly realises that all of the things that can be said about the one might equally be true of the other, and, furthermore, that the definition will exclude objects or practices that one would nevertheless like to include. For example, saying that craft is a question of functional, well-made, useful objects might provoke the response that 1) the very notions of "functional", "well-made" or "useful" that you are using have themselves, at different times, equally been applied to so-called high art; and 2) that jewellery may well be useful, but the "use" to which it is put is fundamentally different from the use to which, say, quilts, stained-glass windows, and jugs are put - to such an extent that the concept "use" itself breaks down, and becomes, well, virtually useless.

Craft's association with the university and visual art brings with it certain

conditions of residency. It is asked to jettison some of its ancestral functions in

industry and the home for those of the university and visual art. Rather than settling

the art/craft debate its presence further blurs the boundaries, although the

widespread belief in the boundaries sustains the debate. Although difficult to

identify, these boundary differences are nothing more than positions in a power

driven socio/cultural hierarchy. Dormer (1994, p.25) for instance, a proponent of

craft as a discrete practice, is critical of both the position of craft in this hierarchy

and the means some craftspeople use to overcome it: "Acceptance [as an artist] now

depends on denying or subverting craft, or insisting that craft is the least important

36

. .

aspect of the work" while others refer the demarcation as snobbery, Tawa (1992,

p.269) for instance claimed:

The Modernist view of art is exclusive and restrictive - both in content and scope. It makes artificial distinctions, amounting to no more than mere snobbery, between what it chooses to include and exclude: between fine art and craft for example, or between a house painter and the other kind.

and Gross (1995, p.1)

The modern Western designation of the fine, or high, arts expresses a distinction drawn between these exalted domains of cultural production and others that might easily be included but are disqualified on various grounds. Most notably excluded are those performers and products whose appeal may be too broad - the popular, or low, arts - or too utilitarian such as crafts.

As craft and visual art both evoke sensory responses and offer alternative world

views, some within both communities argue that craft and visual art are indivisible.

This reassuring notion of equality often camouflages an imbalance of cultural

capital. Visual artists who hold this view often venerate craft as means but jettison

it when the making is over, and for craftspeople it is often used in pursuit of the

revered title of "artist".

Central to the devaluation of craft in the university and visual art is an underlying

belief that the demonstration of skill and creativity are incommensurate thus

assigning craft to the margins of the visual art world. For example Evans (1998,

p.37) sees it marginalised as "outsider art", McCullough (1996, p.12) as "an

intellectual separation" and Dormer, (1994, p.7) because of its "technical

constraints upon self-expression" and Hatton (1996, p.1) because it “is assumed to

impede personal expression and creativity”. Craft was left behind by the visual arts

as they sought loftier territory, it had to either find its own ground, cease to exist or

become a visual art. But what sort of visual art? During the 20th century visual art

split into a number of forms, for instance installation, performance, conceptual and

body art as well as the "modernisation" of its more traditional forms such as

painting and sculpture. Matching these with categories of craft such as popular,

industrial, studio and "high" crafts further frustrates any resolution of the art/craft

37

. .

debate although one of the criteria for differentiating visual art and craft is the

degree to which it retained or shed the values implicit in craft practice. Becoming

part of the visual art world highlighted the difference between the many strands of

visual art and craft as well as keeping the "art/craft debate" going. One category of

craft, the so-called "high crafts" aspires to the futile by claiming its practice as no

different from visual art.

Nevertheless some makers ignore the art/craft dichotomy, embrace the intrinsic

qualities of craft and are content to call themselves craftspeople rather than artists.

Perhaps this may be understood in Platonic terms (Feyerabend, 1996.). The nagging

doubt in the mind of some craftspeople is that there is a greater separation between

God (God as "Nature") and art than God and craft. Plato suggested that craft

worked with nature and art simulated nature. In a précis of Plato's theory of art Lee

(1987, p.369) saw it as a hierarchy thus:

We have in this section (Plato’s Theory of Art in the Republic) two trios: three “makers,” God who makes the Form, the craftsman who makes, e.g. the bed "with his eye on the form", and the artist who copies what the craftsman has made; three skills, that of the user, of the maker, and the artist. The two trios are not entirely consistent with each other, in the one the craftsman-maker has his 'eye on the form', in the other he takes his instructions from the user, whose knowledge of the true function of what is made is presumably equivalent to the knowledge of its form.

Training as a craftsperson prior to becoming a “visual artist” creates doubts about

their elite status, doubts which are supported by Plato’s (1987, p.363) contention,

“that the artist's representation stands at third remove from reality".

The tensions implicit in the art/craft debate are exacerbated not only by blurring the

boundaries of craft and visual art but also the blurred boundaries of other academic

disciplines and social orders. Disciplines influence and modify each other through

the easy availability of communication media and the spaces opened up by

contemporary thought, such as post modernism. Craft too is vulnerable to the

influences of other disciplines. An understanding of its contemporary make up is

assisted by looking at it through other, as well as its own traditions. Research and

critique of craft and craft education can be widened by subjecting it to the lens of

other disciplines, especially, but not only, with those associated with visual art. This

38

. .

is possible primarily because the education and training of craftspeople is now

carried out in multi-discipline institutional settings, often in universities, and its

practice associated with other disciplines such as community art and architectural

and urban design. Bristow (1997, p.114) related her dilemma in a university context

thus:

As a lecturer and practitioner with a history rooted in the traditions and conventions of textile practice, it was my repositioning within a department of fine art nine years ago, that prompted a re-evaluation not only of my own practice but of the validity of textiles in general, within the broader category of contemporary visual culture.

Contact with other disciplines and interests outside the traditions of craft will

inevitably influence the student's and practitioner's perception of education and

practice. A philosophy in the field of craft education which cannot be ignored by the

university or visual art is the notion that the body can be trained to bypass

conscious intellectual thought. Herrigal (1985) a German academic philosopher in

the 1930s who lived and taught in Japan for about seven years, claimed to have an

understanding of Zen Buddhism by learning the skill of archery the Japanese way.

Whether he understood Zen from this experience or, in fact, it was really Zen at all

has been contested, he nevertheless did receive lengthy skill training in using a bow

under a Japanese master. The claim that it was the body that was trained not the

mind (he was not allowed to intellectualise his movements) is another version of

the intelligent body and hand. This book is of interest to jewellers and craft teachers

as it was a text used by the renowned jewellery teacher Hans Rickerts in the 1960s

as a basis for teaching technique to a group of now famous German jewelers

(Gibbons, 2000, p.1). Whether the method of teaching technique was responsible

for their distinguished careers is debatable; what is worth contemplating is how

body-centred skill training in archery from Japan was used as a jewellery teaching

methodology in Europe.

Akin to the Zen approach to teaching but couched in more scientific terms is the

notion of muscle memory (SIMLOG, 2004, pp.1-2). Some sport physiologists

assert that muscle memory can inform muscles of their task through repetitive

39

. .

practice to the degree that they “memorise” the task freeing the conscious brain and

the senses from decision making each time the task is performed.

At the same time craft is busy jockeying for a place in the university, and the visual

arts it is dropping out of school. Craft options are disappearing from the school

curriculum, and marginalised when they remain yet their place in pre-tertiary

education is still of interest to craftspeople and educationalists. This is reflected in

papers from the conference “Learning and Making” (1998, pp.14-93)) where,

amongst other connections between craft and the “real world”, arguments

concerning the relevance of craft in sub-secondary educational sector were

passionately made. One paper “From making things to making sense: the educative

roles of practical making activity” (Roberts, 1998, pp.22-28) referred to the link

between learning in general and learning to make material objects. Its findings, the

result of a two-year study, in brief considered “the status, the roles, the functions –

of learning through making; making things; the crafts, and craft based activity”

(Roberts, 1998, p. 22).

For craft to find a place in society, it has to both validate itself and find avenues for

exposure. Its retention in primary and secondary education is one avenue it could

take. Roberts (1998, pp.22-23) validated craft education in schools by allying it

with "Human development - that making is fundamental to human development"

and "Cultural/social affairs - that a huge range of skilful craft-based areas of

activity is pursued by adults". He suggested "The school curriculum -

making/project based learning/practical learning are generally well acknowledged:

from 'a useful', to 'a necessary' mode of learning across the curriculum" is an

approach it could take to enmesh itself in the cultural fabric of society.

Sennet, (2003, p.10) in an interview concerning societal inequities in Britain,

advocated learning craft ("in a skill, something physical") as a means of enhancing

self worth and pride. Although not ironing out inequities, craft, at least, could

lessen the impact they have on the lives of those who experience disadvantages. He

laments the lack of status and the loss of technical training in schools which denies

the opportunity for craft to perform this very human role.

40

. .

Craft is now a mainstream option for study in universities and technical and further

education colleges. Transitional problems and disparity of aims and interests create

conflicts between craft’s core values and roots and the modus operandi of

institutional teaching and learning. This is exacerbated by the subsumption of craft

in broad based visual arts faculties once it gets there, and the lack of experience and

preparation in the crafts by prospective students.

Craft’s Public Performance

The assertion that craft performs in the social space, in industry and at leisure leads

the final part of Johnson’s (1997, p.292) question "Where do we locate the

handmade within what Baudrillard calls the hyper-reality of mass electronic

culture?”

Places to "locate the handmade" are to be found in public display and societal use.

The most obvious example for craft in the visual arts is the gallery exhibition.

Although often held in great esteem in the art and craft community the exhibition is

an insignificant means of display for craft in terms of the numbers it attracts and the

impact it has in the wider community. The craft exhibition as a site of socio/cultural

signification touches few but craft in the open spaces of society touches many as an

everyday mediator in human interaction and communication. When released in

public spaces it does more than promote objects of interest it: becomes an important

player in human material culture.

An academic discipline, material culture studies, a branch of cultural studies, looks

specifically at the roles objects perform in public places. Craft is a subject of

interest for material cultural studies when it is lifted from the narrow confines of

academia and visual art and examined as an important player in society, especially

a society such as ours so profoundly material in nature and which freely uses

objects as mediators in human social interactions. As Johnson (1997/98, p.139)

suggests "we may see the complexity and necessity of objects as devices within our

personal and communal narratives". The utilitarian role of the craft object has been

largely superseded by less expensive mass-produced consumables relegating it to a

bit player in academia and the visual arts but releasing it with the potential to

ameliorate the predictability of mass production and consumption. Thus craft

objects are subjects for study as players in the social space. This study of the

41

. .

material and cultural role of objects is encapsulated in the following from the "Aims

and Scope" of the "Journal of Material Culture”:

It is concerned with the relationship between artefacts and social relations irrespective of time and place and aims to systematically explore the linkage between the construction of social identities and the production and use of culture (Bender and Kuchler, 1998, p.129).

Objects (or “artefacts”) can be classified by the work they perform in “social

relations” although it must be said that their roles are never clear cut, they

inevitably overlap, mutate and intermingle. Nevertheless considering material

objects (including craft objects) as players in the social domain has freed them from

the limitations of their place in art/craft and released them as performers in human

social relations.

Objects are “natural” public performers; they attract interest without commitment

and elicit social interaction by drawing attention to themselves and subsequently

their human hosts by representing them in social spaces and opening up lines of

communication. Objects can link the maker and the owner/user/wearer without

direct contact and are a means of entering the maker’s creative life and

“experience” the practice of their arcane skills. But objects are not only inter-social

mediators; they are also markers of personal signification such as affiliation,

signature, personal aesthetics, internal recognition of self and means of raising

spirits, self esteem and self awareness. Objects can be public and private displays of

belonging and material signifiers of affiliation.

Objects soften the transition between states of mind and geographical relocations

by ensuring actual or symbolic continuity (Parkin, 1999). They connect social

spaces, people and communities with their past and diffuse the uncertainty of their

futures. Their presence is reassuring as markers of previous states and geographies

and, carried from one place to the next, avert alienation on arrival in new places.

Objects also serve as symbolic connections to inner worlds such as religious,

spiritual or cosmic beliefs, the simple cross being one of the most potent and

universal of these symbols. Inner worlds are not only spiritual in nature; they can

also be in the form of personal or group fantasies. Fantasies can be triggered by

42

. .

objects because of their previous association with certain mental states and acts

making objects stimuli for fantasy.

One of the most potent works of objects in material culture is their role in storing

and releasing memories. Memories of such things as people, times, events,

incidents, glories, feats, achievements and loss form intimate partnerships with

objects where object and memory become one. Anderson (1992, p.112) also

suggested that “personal belongings such as the craft object, can foster, through

memories and possession an intimate contact between user and maker”.

Objects can have poetic overtones, sharing objects as a sublime social experience

brings people together in an atmosphere free from the prosaic concerns of the

world. Ordinary object functions can be overtaken by ethereal sensory experiences

such as sharing the beauty of a shell while walking on the beach.

Objects can be predominantly a means of exchange for other objects or money.

They can also act as symbols of the accumulation of wealth, both as a means of

denoting and displaying wealth and facilitating the exchange of wealth. Objects can

act as an aesthetically pleasing way to package valuable and rare materials for

storage and later exchange.

Thus a theoretical basis for understanding craft as a player in material culture by

what it does in the world rather than what it looks like or what it means asserts that:

1. craft is corporeal, rather than saying something it does something

2. craft is an extension of the body of both the maker and the user

3. the craft object lacks the capacity to be autonomous

4. craft acts directly upon the professional, personal and/or domestic life

of the user

5. craft is practiced by the untutored in everyday settings.

As players in material culture, craft objects demand use, their function as an

extension of the body of both the maker and user helps manage professional, social,

personal and domestic lives. Unlike the visual art object, the craft object questions

its own right to be autonomous. Craft objects do not stand alone during making or

43

. .

using but rather define (and redefine) themselves by maintaining an ongoing

physical or metaphorical connection with their human hosts. As an example of

dependent body/object relationship Murray (1992, p.207) relates the story of a

finger ring made by the jeweller, Susan Cohn, deliberately designed to wear

through thin layers of metals and expose their different "values" over its life span.

The finger ring, in a sense, captures metaphorically the relation between the maker,

user and object occurring over time and everyday use. DeWaal (1997/98, pp. 28-

29) sums this up neatly when he says, "It is through human use that objects make

their own biographies".

Although mass produced objects perform non-utilitarian roles (Bourdieu, 1994,

p.368) as manifestations of cultural, educational and economic capital, they differ

from the craft object because of the number of replicas in circulation at any given

time and often the cost of acquisition. One of the strengths of the uniqueness of

craft objects is that it brings to the social space the possibility of alternative

inscriptions by enabling configurations not possible with mass-produced objects.

The weaknesses of craft objects include limited availability, exclusiveness and cost,

all of which limit its mass cultural significance.

Considering craft as another actor in material culture can subvert the art/craft

argument without necessarily evoking conflict with visual art. Evans (1998, p.35)

considered Gardner's bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence (as one of his multiple

intelligences) as a theoretical basis for examining craft thereby clearing the way to

value it on its own terms. The expertise needed to manifest "intelligent" material,

corporeal and sensory outcomes, marginalised in the visual arts, can reveal craft as

more than a poor relation in the art/craft binary but as a socio/technical player in its

own right. In this context material objects can alter the way the world is

experienced, literally and metaphorically. For instance it is claimed by Henry,

(1999 p.1) that Virginia Woolf's worldview in her novels was influenced by the

easy availability of telescopes which opened up new vistas of time and space. The

social role of material objects in domestic life has enabled craft objects as useful

research tools. Steedman (1998, p.259) in "What a Rag Rug Means" explores,

through the history of one craft, rag rug making, the development of British textile

and paper industries, working class life in Victorian England and the Victorian

novel. Alessi (1995, p.19) inverts and commercialises the cultural role of objects by

44

. .

claiming that his limited production functional objects can carry "designed in"

social and cultural elements released when used in, or occupying, domestic spaces.

Leisure or hobby craft is another public location for craft on display. In fact leisure

and hobby crafts and "do it yourself" can be validated on one level because of their

commercial and economic viability. Although now at leisure they nevertheless are

the basis for a significant manufacturing industry and sales of plans, tools,

materials, magazines, TV home shows and advertising. Leisure craft also helps

theorise differences between strands of craft and visual art. Leisure craft’s overt

interest in the act of making rather than visual and conceptual consequences of

making are used to categorise all craft in visual art, including the status of craft in

the academy and the "art" gallery system. Leisure crafts remind us of the past, once

essential, core domestic and workplace activities; are they now merely measuring

sticks of human “progress”? Not theorised or subject to "serious" critique, they

support the contention that all craft is entirely physical and devoid of imaginative

cerebral activity (Ed, Lupton, 2000). This is exacerbated by some leisure crafts

being nothing more than reproductions or simulations in magazines, on the screen

or as demonstrations (Baudrillard 1989, p.127).

Leisure craft helps practitioners, theorists, writers and critics to understand and

value all craft and visual art because it offers a category of practice distinct enough

to use as a measuring stick. However leisure craft is sometimes used by artists to

degrade all craft. Visual art, by taking the high intellectual ground, uses leisure craft

as a model to position all craft as an intellectually inferior discipline because of its

emphasis on hand skills and material manipulation. But craft also has a hierarchy,

sometimes described as "high" and "low" crafts. "High" crafts also seek the status

of visual art by demeaning leisure craft. These so-called "high crafts" (especially

those taught in the academy and exhibited in the gallery system) also apply the

visual art caste system when their status is questioned. As Jackson (1997, p.289)

argues:

a cultural form which could be labelled 'low' crafts emerged, and this shaped, and still shapes, the popular impression of what to expect from the crafts. It is seen at venues such as craft fairs and tourist shops, where amateur and semi-professional makers sell work largely based on traditional patterns. Although not necessarily badly made, the

45

. .

products are often denigrated for falling outside legitimate areas of taste. They are scorned by the crafts professionals in the same way that artists scoff at Sunday painters.

The venues of "high craft", the academy and gallery system, accumulate more

viable “cultural” capital than the "low" crafts whose sites, such as the home, craft

clubs, popular magazines and the Internet, are “culturally” marginalised.

Post-modernism, influential in the visual arts, ironically brings visual art, "high"

craft and leisure craft together. Leisure crafts are compatible with ideas implicit in

post-modernism but conflict with modernism such as the dictum of the new, the

creative, the avant-guard and the artist hero. Faith Agostinone's (1999) study of

popular craft magazines supports the claim that leisure craft subverts the modernist

approach of visual art (and "high crafts") and responds to a post-modern view of the

world. Similarly those engaged in "traditional" craft spheres (basketry for instance)

tend to mine the history and tradition of their field rather than draw on personal

"creativity", also a characteristic of post-modernism (Butcher, 1997/98, p.64).

Although seemingly benign, leisure craft is one of most politically loaded topics in

any discussion on craft because it provides a marker to evaluate social, class,

aesthetic and intellectual differences across the spectrum of activities associated

with the visual arts. Practices and institutions concerned with popular craft are

valuable for a critical analysis of the social and cultural perspectives implied in

making, using and consuming craft objects.

Leisure craft will not let the hand wither; the desire to make is preserved and

manifested in leisure crafts. The development of virtual technologies and new

educational philosophies has not negated the desire and usefulness of craft as a

leisure time activity; indeed, they help bridge the voids separating humans from the

means of the production and use of everyday objects.

However craft has not completely vacated industry but, because its traditional

places are no longer available, it has to find other outlets for its native abilities.

Using hand craft to design and develop objects prior to mass manufacture is one

option. Hand craft, recently usurped by powerful computer software, is making a

tentative move for a commercial comeback. Craft will never regain its primary role

46

. .

since the computer will not go away but will the feats of the hand find a new place

as a design tool for industry? The human hand, central to the survival of “pre-

modern man” marginalised by the technologies of "modern man", is reappearing.

Could objects to be used by the body (as most objects are) lack user friendliness if

they are not actually or metaphorically touched by the hand during the design,

modelling and production stage of manufacture?

Hand skills are thus not been completely erased from the design and development

stage of industrial production (Chartrand, 1989). For example clay modelling is still

used in some motor body design by automotive manufacturers, enabling the hand to

feel the shape suggested by the computer prior to committing to expensive tooling.

Hand made full-size models and prototypes are used to test the design with and on

humans, in conjunction with sophisticated 3D-computer software. In fact boutique

industries have grown around the rejection of computer based design and robotic

manufacture. An example is the car body conversion design company, Zeemax.

Zeemax International Design (2002) not only employs hand design and

manufacture but also uses this as a marketing ploy. From their website:

Countless man hours are spent handcrafting each design, and it is ‘old world’ process, (though vastly more expensive and time consuming), along with the rigorous attention to detail by our master craftsmen that separate Zeemax from the many poor quality, mass produced body kits and aerodynamics on the market today.

Zeemax links the notion of quality to master craftsmen and hand craft both to find a

place in the body design industry and gain a commercial advantage.

A symposium, “Designing Minds” (Adelaide, 2000), called for papers on “Current

Issues in Craft, Design and Industry” by inviting scholars to explore the relations

between three interventions prior to production, the craftsperson, the designer and

the manufacturer. The symposium was predicated on the assumption that craft

making with the hand is a viable starting point in research and development and the

craftsperson, in fact, a research resource.

In the context of research and development craft is gaining ground by its

association with designers and manufacturers for the mass market. Catherine

47

. .

McDermott (2000), a writer, curator and design academic, posed an example where

the mark of the actual and metaphoric hand on objects currently being produced for

the market in Britain are seen as an advantage. In particular she cited Mathew

Hilton, a British furniture designer, for his craft approach to design:

Hilton kept control of the making process, carving his own moulds and working directly with a foundry in Charlton, East London which still produces his flipper legs. His engagement is hands-on contact with materials and his approach to the cut and construction of upholstery is the best Britain has produced (McDermott, 2000, p.106)

Haptic is a word regaining currency in research when the maker’s touch is

embodied in computer software used to design objects for human use. Dictionary

definitions of haptics such as “of or relating to the sense of touch” or “the science

concerned with the tactile sense” allude to direct physical contact with the body by

both the designer and user.

Research into the sense of touch is prompted by the inability of present computer

design software (except for finger key or mouse strokes) to factor touch into the

design process. At the moment, computer touch is a virtual rather than a tangible

experience. Haptic research aims to restore the sense of touch in computer software.

A "what is"(2002) description of haptics in computer technology portrays it thus:

Haptics (pronounced HAP-tics) is the science of applying touch (tactile) sensation and control to interaction with computer applications. The word derives from receive feedback from computer applications in the form of felt sensations in the hand and other parts of the body. In combination with a visual display, haptics technology can be used to train people for tasks requiring hand-eye coordination, such as surgery and space ship maneuvers. It can also be used for games in which you feel as well as see your interactions with images. For example, you might play tennis with another computer user somewhere else in the world. Both of you can see the moving ball and, using the haptic device, position and swing your tennis racket and feel the impact of the ball. (Greek haptein meaning “to fasten”) By using special input/output devices (joy sticks, data gloves, or other devices), users can……….

The Immersion Corporation (2002) claims the experience of computer and gaming

technologies is enhanced by “engaging your sense of touch” and in order for you to

experience it “We’re changing the way humans interact with computers by adding

48

. .

the sense of touch”, a marketing ploy similar to the removal of vitamins during

food processing and later announcing their addition as a nutritional advantage.

In craft’s public performance, its role in the arts, material culture, at leisure, in

research and development and industry is considered in the context of the

theorisation of hands and objects. Although the exhibition was dismissed as

insignificant to craft’s greater public performance, it can be used as a homogenous

in house example to explore craft in public spaces.

Craft Writing

Living as we do in text mediated society craft is not only contemplated and

understood in material form, it is also a textual construct. Like many material

outcomes, craft often only survives as a written word, number or printed image and

conversely material objects can be shaped by what is written prior to, during and

after the making process.

Some negotiate the craft world through text; craft is constructed in written form by

theorists and critics as word and image on paper or screen. Craft writing is

hierarchal, from philosophical and theoretical treatises, teaching course guidelines,

promotional profiling to policy documents, competition rules and grant

applications. Craft, beset by changing industrial, educational, cultural and social

forces, depends on these literate advance parties to keep up. Nevertheless, its

presentation as a written construct can be misleading; when separated from its

material form it can easily be misrepresented. The transition from material form to

written word is problematic as new word technologies and modes of reading cast

doubt on inviolable meanings and questions the written word’s central role in

communication.

Additionally the widespread use of computers and their programmed visual tools

has recovered writing as a visual as well as a symbolic form. Writing as a visual as

well as symbolic form is highlighted in Lanham's (1994, p.33) outline of the

transition of writing from the Dada Movement to computer technology. He suggests

these two periods as bookends to an era stripped of its visual identity. He claimed

during this era that "the written surface must be transparent. Transparent and

unselfconscious". With the advent of computers the written surface is no longer

49

. .

transparent or unselfconscious, it has now available to it a plethora of visual options

which enhance the impact of the written word (Kress, 1997).

In particular layout, one of the visual options computers have to offer to enhance

the impact of the word symbols, contests a traditional notion of literacy, reading is

more than identifying symbols as sound; it is also concerned with meanings implied

by their visual layout. A detailed study of this expanded view of literacy by Kress

and Leeuwen (1990, p.2) was initiated by their realisation of the importance of

layout.

Newspapers, magazines, public relations materials, advertisements and many kinds of books today involve a complex interplay of written text, images and other elements, and, what is more, these elements combine together into designs, by means of layout.

With the advent of powerful 3D-computer software, objects can now be made on a

screen by a literate operator. Solid objects can be simulated when programme

grammar is combined with words, numbers and visual symbols gathered together

on a screen. These virtual solid objects, seen as clear graphic simulations from any

angle, are generated with computer programmes such as Solidworks. A craftsperson

with knowledge of the visual "hand tools" in the programme can make a Solidworks

object by commanding the computer and a linked machine to materialise an object.

The object, untouched by the physical body, is made with knowledge of the

programme and normal hand/eye coordination, the object, in a sense, is written into

existence.

Technical and computer writing share the assumption that grammatical knowledge

will enable relatively consistent translations from ideas to word. But what of texts

with arcane grammars or grammars which evolve during the reading, such as

abstract visual art or poetry? Poetry and abstract art push words and images from

their safe technical homes to responses to language not as language. This is not

unnoticed by the academic/intellectual community. An online forum, whose

interests include discourse analysis and new capitalism, posted a note on its website

apologising to, and asking for submissions from, poets, novelists and playwrights

"who have a lot to say about language in contemporary capitalism" (Fairclough,

1995 p.1). An Octavio Paz poem "Between What I See and What I Say" explores

50

. .

poetry and its relations with the material and sensory world by expressing the

notion that the senses are interdependent. The last stanza of the poem in its

distinctive layout plays with the way human senses inter-penetrate.

Poetry

scatters eyes on a page,

scatters words on our eyes.

Eyes speak,

words look,

looks think.

To hear

thoughts,

see

what we say,

touch

the body of an idea.

Eyes close,

the words open. (Paz, 1994, p.487)

Writing is also mutable when considered from a post/structuralist position. If

writing is mutable, is written craft (or anything else) stable enough to act upon?

Foucault's statement, "discourses are practices that systematically form the objects

of which they speak" (Foucault, 1995 p.49) implies that the object craft is a

discourse written into existence by contextual practices.

However, craft is increasingly written about and each representation as a written

construct increases the possibility of contested meanings. Ioannou (1992, p.13)

questions the unstable relationship between "reality" and the writer's construct of

craft when he asks: "What relationship to reality is this synthetic cultural construct

of craft as generated by the writer?" He also expresses ambivalence to the

disjunction between the current necessity to write and the ensuing abstraction it

creates. "Inscribing craft culture into text, an indispensable process, creates the

medium which contains meaning yet removes us from direct involvement with the

actual artefacts and their context."

51

. .

Derrida's view of the relation between word, thing and thought raises another

problem for craft writing. Sarup (1993, p.33) compares Saussure and Derrida - "In

Saussurean thought a sign is seen as a unity, but in Derrida's view word and thing

or thought never, in fact become one. The object when written into existence is an

entity eternally drifting between thought and material object.

Words as symbols in discourse analysis are only a surface representation of activity

going on below. To fully understand the words it is necessary to go down to the site

of conception and explore the context in which it is written and the authority of the

authors who authored it. It is also necessary to mobilise analytical strategies to

disclose implied meanings, analytical strategies which themselves are built into the

analysis. Sites and strategies not only include craft as a visual and tactile experience

but also the forces which are part of their construction. Examples are post

industrialisation, new technologies, gender issues, the changing "technologies of

self" (Aycock, 1998, p.1), the relations between work and play and especially the

impact of theories and philosophies that, although seemingly not directly linked to

craft, can "rewrite" the conventional notions of its lifeworld (Davidson, 1998,

pp.226-27).

A more practical problem for craft writing is raised by the art/craft debate. Craft is

defined by some as the materialisation of skill, material manipulation and function

(utility). When such a definition is used to position craft as a discrete and valuable

entity artists step in and cite it as grounds for exclusion from visual arts because of

its lack of its intellectual and aesthetic concerns. Although many craftspeople are

happy with this arrangement some are not. According to Rowley (1992, p.166) it is

those in the centre of a continuum with intellect and aesthetics at one end and skill,

material manipulation and function at the other rather than the extremes, which

encourages the art/craft debate.

How does one write about objects in the centre when their definitions are blurred

and if so how can such definitions be brought into focus sufficiently to write about

them? Perhaps an analysis of how ad hoc word usage shapes our thinking about art

and craft might help. Ihatsu (1997: p.300) pursued word interchangability in art and

craft magazines, in particular the use of the words art, craft and design she found

there. King (1997, p.177) examined the word craft itself - "Craft is a word bulging

52

. .

with semi-conscious associations and unexamined assumptions. Worse than that, it

appears to contain at its heart an extraordinary contradiction". Mitchell, (1997, p.

325) in a study of the roots of her textile craft practice and the language now used

to position it in the visual arts also found relationships “between text, textiles and

techne”. Burns (2003) brings it to ground by showing how the very survival of craft

practice can be dependent on word usage when applying for craft funding. Funding

bodies arbitrarily link the word craft with other words which radically change its

meaning and thus tilt the funding application in particular directions. She claims

policy makers and funding bodies do not understand the different connotations

words such as contemporary crafts, handicrafts, hobby crafts and folk crafts have on

the definition of craft. Nevertheless some maintain that, in spite of these problems,

writing could be the saviour of craft. For instance, Loney (2002) claims critical

writing about craft is the only way to wrest it with dignity from the mire of the

art/craft debate and that an independent and proud craft is there ready to be written

into existence.

Although the above review traces and critiques the value and status of craft in the

wake of social, industrial and technological changes, it mainly considers craft from

the perspective of art/craft. Although craft when defined in terms of art/craft is an

insignificant force in the social, domestic and industrial realm, its significance is

enhanced when it is considered from wider, social, cultural and industrial

perspectives.

Art and craft have found themselves together again after a long break, not in the

comfortable relationship of the past but as a site of internal conflict as they argue

about each other’s credibility as autonomous entities. Art dismisses the craft that

brought it into being and craft asks to be considered as a vibrant entity. They found

each other because they had nowhere else to go, both abandoned by the

mainstream, craft no longer needed in the workplace or home and art assigned to an

intellectual and aesthetic ghetto, its arcane codes isolating it from mainstream social

and cultural life.

The tensions implicit in the art/craft debate are repeatedly reflected in the literature.

Much of what is said regarding the supposedly lowly status of craft in the art/craft

hierarchy emanates from those who identify themselves as craftspeople, craft

53

. .

theorists and critics as much as artists. Indeed, those who call themselves "artists"

just seem to get on with it. They can offend craftspeople quite well by ignoring

them and the notion of craft itself, resulting in a form of cultural cringe and inverted

snobbery within the craft community.

The thesis intends to put aside these narrow perspectives and consider the question

“what is craft” from the way it is represented in sites with more diverse agendas

than the debilitating art/craft debate. By looking at craft from particular angles a

better understanding of what it is, and how it works may be found.

One angle is to use a particular historical period of a specific craft, jewellery

making, to trace the complex relations between industry, craft and visual art as an

exploration of the concepts in the literature review. Embodied in the jewellers

hand/the jewellery object which follows is an experiential rendition of the body

makes and the body uses, academic craft in/and the visual arts and craft’s public

performance.

54

. .

CHAPTER 4: The jeweller’s hand/the jewellery object

Summary

The hand, because of its dextrous intelligence and metaphoric use in everyday

language, is a useful narrative tool to reflect on the waves of social, cultural and

technological changes influencing jewellery practice over the working life of the

researcher.

According to opinions from both ends of the 20th century, the hand is still important

although its role has changed from a primary work tool to a means of keeping in

touch with the world. The first view from 1887 is in a report on technical and art

education written for a state education department:

The hand intellectualises the body, and in a certain sense the mind itself is dependent upon it. All fineness of work comes from its wondrous adaptability for technic skill; and while it is to the eye that we owe our perceptions of form and colour, the hand transforms these perceptions into visible object (Combes, 1887 p. 146).

and the second in 1996 from a book on craft and digitised technology:

By pointing, by pushing and pulling, by picking up tools, hands act as conduits through which we extend our will to the world. They serve also as conduits in the other direction: hands bring us knowledge of the world. Hands feel. They probe. They practice. They give us sense, as in good common sense, which otherwise seems to be missing lately (McCullough, 1996, p.1).

A career as a jeweller maintained a belief in the amazing capacity of humans to

"hand make". An interest in other fields of visual art could not dispel the conviction

that to "hand make" and to value the hand made is intrinsic to human beings, a

corporeal kin of language. Nevertheless, what constitutes "hand making" is not

immutable. Its role is reassigned as each generation of technologies and social

formations enters the workshop. As the seamless sequence of these changes makes

pinpointing particular times and places difficult, the following narrative is best read

as a series of freeze frames from a moving picture.

55

. .

“Dipping the Hand in Jewellery”

The phrase "dipping the hand in jewellery" is used to capture the mutable hand as it

is beset by changing social, technological, cultural and economic forces.

"The Alternative Hand" - Avoiding Technologies

An Australian jeweller was traditionally a male worker in an industrial trade.

During the 1960s other approaches to jewellery making emerged, contesting the

status quo. Nevertheless they were still assessed according to their similarity with,

or difference from, the industrial trade. One approach, with its roots in the counter

culture, radically turned away from the trade by replacing its economic, technical

and social assumptions with a set of its own. Two important differences were

simplicity and community: jewellery made in domestic settings with others: kitchen

table jewellery. Non-traditional, non-precious and recycled materials and domestic

skills and tools purchased from non-specialist stores were used to make body

adornments. Making jewellery was a social activity (as jewellery was considered a

social medium), carried out in informal collectives in homes or as spontaneous

outbursts of "crafting" at parties or retreats, rarely at a bench or in a workshop.

"The Hands I Have" - Technologies of Necessity

European art history is scattered with artists who occasionally made jewellery. In

the late 60s and early 70s, artists, particularly sculptors freed by the European

tradition of blurring the divisions between craft, art and "trade", experimented with

jewellery making. When artists made jewellery they miniaturised the skills,

techniques and processes used in their main practice to the scale and functional

limitations of jewellery. They called on the skills of trade jewellers when

techniques and processes were beyond them (Harrod, 1997, p.137). Jewellery in

this context was considered as mini sculpture or art and retained the essence of the

art form from which it was derived. The techniques and processes were not

particularly valued themselves but rather were simply a means to produce a form:

techniques and processes of necessity.

"Look No Hands" – The Invisible Hand

Craft traditions of Europe brought to Australia by immigrant jewellers had a major

impact on Australian jewellery. European craft jewellers tended to share with

Australian trade jewellers the notion that techniques and processes should be both

56

. .

mastered and hidden so the form could take centre stage. Tools, machines and

hands became one; their visibility in the jewellery object was considered as

evidence of poor tool and machine use and lack of skill: the marks of human touch

were neither overtly valued nor visible.

The period did not usher in a technological change; rather it was another way of

relating to tools, techniques and hand skills. The tools, machines and the skilled

hand were within the object not on it: hand made without a hand made look. The

skill of the craftsperson was captured by the degree of autonomy the object had

from the tools, machines and hands which made it. High technology was

understood in terms of surmounting the available technologies not mastering new

technologies; the imagery was selected and tuned according to the skills of the

maker. This change in attitude was challenging because the ideologies of the

"trade" had to be acknowledged, European jewellers exalted trade skills but were

dismissive of the use local tradespeople made of them.

"The Extended Hand" - Survival - Limited Production Techniques

As the viability of exhibition sales and public and private patronage waned, other

methods of making a living had to be found. Limited production techniques and

processes available in industry had to be adapted to the small workshop. Time and

labour had to be factored into each object if the workshop was to be profitable.

Limited production processes were imported into small workshops to reproduce, in

numbers, commercial designs and speed up the production of one-off objects. The

hand was extended by linking it with mechanical devices available because of their

reduced cost, size, improved design and simple operation. The untrained toolmaker

could now make simple but effective dies and use compact low-priced machines in

small workshops for limited production runs.

Limited production runs of competitively priced jewellery challenged the visual art

preoccupation with the exclusive one-off object. Craft jewellers could draw from a

continuum with mass production at one end and the high art object at the other

according to the needs of time and place.

57

. .

"The Orchestrator Hand" - Farming Out

Computer based technologies initially did not find their way into small workshops

because of cost and complexity of operation although they were well established in

industry. They were inexpensive enough for small workshops to access but too

expensive to purchase. The technologies were precise, automated digitised forms of

traditional hand tools or machinery used in the small workshop. The role of jeweller

was to make a drawing on paper or disk for a computer to interpret and a machine

to follow. The hand separated from the making process was a dilemma for the hand

maker; the making was now in the hands of others who did not require skill, touch

or knowledge of jewellery making. Computer driven technologies further separated

the hand from the making process, materials left the workshop to return as finished

objects untouched by a craftsperson.

"The Abstracted Hand" - The Computer - Making on the Screen

New technologies have made it possible to design and make jewellery in the small

workshop with limited direct contact with the hand. Computer based automated

processes once only available in industry are now sufficiently compact and

relatively inexpensive to enable the jeweller to manage the entire production

process in his/her workshop. These technologies also enable jewellers to belong to

networks which link local autonomy with global systems because of the

miniaturisation and power of modern computers. The computer not only makes it

possible for the object to be designed as a virtual image on a screen but it also

connects and controls machines which make it, circumventing the need for human

intervention between design and production.

The human time needed to make one or many is the same and to the eye they are

identical: rather than copies (as copies are imperfect replicas) they are a single

object repeated en masse. The evolving hand, from “hands on” to “no hands” in

jewellery making, parallels a similar movement in craft in general.

So far the journey taken by the researcher has been affected by others met along the

way. However, they are a diverse and divided lot who must recruit outsiders to

unite them if their common task of doing research is to be productive. Impartial

experts are needed, bodies from outside art/craft, to rally the mob and suppress the

infighting. Now is the time to call in experts who can mobilise their credentials,

58

. .

assert their status in the community and add their expertise to the task. Who/what

should the experts be and what would their way of thinking add to the research

process not already there?

59

. .

SECTION 2: Theories, methodologies, maps and guides

Section 2 sets the stage for the research projects by outlining the theories,

methodologies, maps and guides which both direct and structure the research.

Theories and methodologies are the experts and the maps and guides are the sites,

problems, arguments, questions, resources and methods, a two pronged framework

to scrutinise an ever-moving craft.

60

. .

CHAPTER 5: Theories, methodologies, methods - the experts with their data

working toolboxes

Summary

The theory/methodology/method used in the research, actor-network theory, was

chosen because of its resonance with both the personal history of the researcher

and the task of the research. Secondary theories, such Pye’s theory of risk and

certainty, Foucault’s discourse as practice and Kuhn’s paradigm theory, are also

outlined as they modify the way ANT is used and how the data is processed.

The thesis is provoked by three concerns - the significance of a working life as

craftsperson and teacher, craft's place in contemporary cultural, domestic and

industrial spheres and its construction in sites of representation. This coalition of

concerns, in a sense, self selected actor-network theory (ANT) as it is well

equipped to deal with them all. ANT works from the premise that there is more to

craft than the outcomes it constructs.

Historical overview of ANT

ANT was influenced by an empirical strand of the philosophy, anthropology and

sociology, of science called Science and Technology Studies (Latour, 1993, p. 3).

Although now widely used as a tool in many contexts, ANT was heavily influenced

by the theorisation of a piece of pivotal ethnographic research by Latour and

Woolgar (1986) in a science laboratory. As anthropologists/sociologists they

studied the actors and their actions in the endocrinology laboratory at the Salk

Institute. However ANT's claim to discover “real” science is hotly contested both

from within the general field of Science an Technology Studies (predominantly

concerning the claim of equal status ascribed to humans and non-humans) and

especially by the “hard” sciences, in fact, starting a flare up, the so-called “Science

Wars” (Fuller, 1998).

Although many have added to its current form, Latour’s contribution to ANT is the

most profound. Latour is a philosopher/sociologist/anthropologist of science whose

interest in Science and Technology Studies was central to the development of ANT.

ANT was not only the result of the theorisation of his incursions into working

laboratories but also of its application to historical sites where breakthrough science

61

. .

had been made (eg “Pasteur and His Lactic Acid Ferment” (2000)) and to sites of

technological development such as Aramis (1999). In these sites Latour studied the

process not from the evidence recorded as its history but what actually happened

when the science and technology was being made: how it was crafted. He argued

against the orthodoxy of the so-called rational scientific method and asserted that

the craft of science had much more in common with other seemingly less rational

human activities than scientists readily acknowledge. Latour used language tools to

mobilise his theories. For instance by replacing the word actor with actant he

endowed all humans, events, actions, things, interactions, associations, ideas, etc

with the same potential to impact on science and technology. He did this in order to

disconnect the word actor from an exclusive association with human beings. He

described the interaction of all the actants participating in the transformation of an

idea into an object as a network, not in the usual sense of systems assembled to

produce a result, but rather the reverse, where the pursuit of a particular result

makes a network. He argued that if an actor-network is responsible for the relation

between a hypothesis and a fact, it is far from sterile and is worthy of interest and

evaluation. Rison (1999, pp.1-2) encapsulated Latour's ANT thus:

In what they have called a "network theory" (Latour and Callon) have developed a vocabulary that does not take the distinction between subjects and objects, the subjective and the objective, into consideration. What they call an "actant", for example, is more than a human actor. Both humans and nonhumans may be actants. An actant may be enrolled as "allied" to give strength to a position. In networks of humans, machines, animals, and matter in general, humans are not the only beings with agency, not the only ones to act; matter matters.

His research was concerned with what scientists actually do when they test

hypotheses and declare results in science experiments. In essence Latour claims that

scientists “craft” an experiment using humans and non-humans as mediators and

these mediators network an alliance of actants to produce science "facts". Latour

(1986, p.29) asks us to step back from the results of science to look at how science

was crafted when he wrote:

It is therefore necessary to retrieve some of the craft character of scientific activity through in situ observations of scientific practice. More specifically, it is necessary to show through empirical investigation how such craft practices are organised into a systematic and tidied research report.

62

. .

Using the word craft in this context is provocative in science and out of favour in

the visual arts. Both scientists and artists tend to ignore or deny craft's input in their

fields.

However Murray’s (1992, p.3) argument for craft in science could also be applied

to craft in the visual arts.

In the production of materials necessary for the discovery of natural entities, the expertise of the technician makes a difference. Latour listens to the language of the workbench. Thus it seems that the technician can be viewed as more than an invisible slave to science, but one whose productive role equals that of a master craftsperson in the manufacture of objects. Latour’s mission as an anthropologist is to highlight the importance of material factors such as craft skills in the understanding of how science produces facts. Facts in the end are appreciated on similar terms to any other well-crafted objects: clean, smooth, hard-wearing and importantly, useful to other scientists.

Latour’s assertion that laboratory science is more than the implementation of a

rational science method makes it an ideal tool to challenge other claims of

rationality. ANT is underpinned by Latour’s critique of the rationality of

modernism. He argued that we (of the West) have never been modern and that

modernism as a myth is exposed by the sheer weight of its non-modern products,

referred to as hybrids or monsters (Latour, 1993, p.49; White, 1995, p.3).The

process of making objects, when subjected to an ANT analysis undermines the

tenets of modernism. For Latour modernism is not possible when humans and non-

humans interact and so-called post-modernism is not simply an era that followed

modernism but rather an exposé of the impossibility of modernism ever existing.

The laboratory experience

An understanding of the source of Latour’s notion of modernist science brings the

researcher back to past experiences in the laboratory workshop. Employment in the

1960s as a technician in a physics laboratory workshop is a first hand experience

which brought the roots of ANT together with reflective observations of laboratory

life. A university physics workshop, an academic laboratory site, is not a place for

the work of a craftsperson to be acknowledged. Craft in the laboratory constituted a

naïve experience; craftspeople were kept in the dark by their limited educational,

63

. .

social and cultural power. They blindly made objects to the researcher’s demands.

However naïve laboratory craft experiences are an ideal background for the

consideration of contemporary craft because, on reflection, laboratory craft was

indispensable to science; it was craft the scientists returned to when things went

wrong. The indispensable craft, the only route to a science "fact", is also an

analogous argument for the indispensability of craft in art. Experiences in the

laboratory in the past and more recent experiences in art enable the researcher, in a

sense, to be his own subject. Hence the laboratory, important as it was to science

then, is important now as a background to research in sites of craft representation.

Although "progress" has rendered a recurrence of the physics workshop experience

impossible, it nevertheless remains as a useful reminder of actor-network theory's

empirical roots. It also enables the researcher to relive the laboratory experience as

an imaginary subject of Latour's research, thus grounding "book" theory in

experience. Bringing together ANT and the laboratory experience makes a

homogenous and viable tool for exploring craft in sites of representation. The

experience in a physics laboratory not only permitted the birthplace of ANT to be

reconstructed, it honed metal craft skills for the later emergent jeweller and marked

out positions in a socio/cultural hierarchy.

ANT and craft in sites of representation

So far ANT is embodied in theory and experience and must be rationalised as a

method if it is to be used to explore craft in sites of representation. There are a

number of key concepts and terminologies which move ANT from a

theory/experience to a method. The following account delineates a pathway for

craft research by tracing the ANT object from its sites of representation to its

precarious place in the world.

The research is carried out in craft sites of representation, in ANT terms, centres of

calculation. Latour (2000, p.304) defines centres of calculation as "Any site where

inscriptions are combined and make possible a type of calculation". Calling all sites

of representation centres of calculation produces a genre of sites temporarily

separated from the distraction of their local aims and practices. In terms of the

thesis, centres of calculation are sites which represent craft, such as organisations,

institutions and events.

64

. .

For a centre of calculation to function as an ANT site the hierarchical ranking of

actors there must be dissolved. Instead, the mix of humans and non-humans actors

in the sites are ascribed with equal status and power by being renamed actants.

Latour (2000, p. 303) "borrowed the word actant from semiotics" to replace the

word actor, actor being too closely associated with human action. All actors, human

and non-human, are therefore ascribed with the same potential to infer the nature of

a centre of calculation.

For the mix of humans and non-humans (actants) to infer the nature of a site of

representation they must “enter into relationships” (Brown, Capdevila, 1999, p.34)

called networks. Networks are entities which bring together all the socio/technical

actions which transform ideas into objects.

The potential for all actants in centres of calculation to create networks is modified

by two macro roles actants play in network construction. Latour called these roles

intermediaries and mediators. He saw intermediaries as dispensable links, feeble

and open to manipulation, and mediators as strong entities which add to, and

remain in networks. Latour (1993, p.80) said of intermediaries: “At worst, they are

brutes or slaves; at best, they are loyal servants" to be enrolled as creative

mediators if they are to become part of the network. He (1993, p.81) described

mediators as “actors endowed with the capacity to translate what they transport, to

redefine it, redeploy it, and also to betray it.” It is the capacity to translate that

endows mediators with the power to effect representation. Intermediaries make

connections and hand things on while mediators translate connections into a form

which builds the network into an object. By identifying this difference Latour

makes available a useful analytical tool, enabling a separation of actants at the site

into links (intermediaries), to be considered and put aside, and stayers (mediators)

which are retained because they build the network. Intermediaries could be seen as

grammatical devices and mediators as elements of meaning. The notion of the

passive intermediary and active mediator is a useful research feature of ANT; they

provide a means of initially sorting actants into bundles worth studying or not.

Networks are not made without some behind-the-scenes work. Latour referred to

this work as constructing chains of translation. “Chains of translation refer to the

work through which actors modify, displace, and translate their various and

65

. .

contradictory interests” (Latour, 2000, p. 311). Chains of translation consist of

problematisation, locating a problem to share, interessement, getting everyone

interested, enrollment, forming a team and mobilisation, acting together on the

problem (Abramson, 1998, pp. 8-10). The word translation commonly used to

describe the process of converting one set of symbols in to another (as in

languages) is used in ANT when interests of one mediator is translated into terms

understood and supported by the other mediators in the network, thereby

strengthening the network.

When the results of translation available from a centre of calculation are no longer

subject to further mediation, they are black boxed (Latour, 2000, p. 304) and the

actants in the black box taken for granted. Latour conceptualised the notion of the

black box to draw attention to the fact that things can be erroneously considered as

indisputable facts, where the contents of the black box are, at any given time,

beyond contestation and where only input and output counts. The actants (material

or discursive) sealed in a black box can evade consideration in spite of their

importance to understanding a centre of calculation. Black boxes are found in all

fields and disciplines and it can be the task of research to open them. Their contents

can conceal actants necessary to understand the practices and operations of centres

of calculation. Black boxes are mobile, they can be transported as homogenous

entities for use in other times and places as artifacts, facsimiles, maps, charts,

photographs, words on paper, a digital code or sets of numbers. Latour (2000, pp.

306-307) called these forms immutable mobiles as they are fixed (and therefore

immutable) and easily distributed as reproductions (thus mobile), inviolable

versions of mediation. But in this form they are vulnerable because they can be

shuffled as constituents of other genres of mobile objects (for example in sets of

statistics, as graphs, charts, museum and education texts, etc.) further isolating them

from their centre of calculation. Sites which represent craft are as vulnerable to

black boxing as any other.

In this sense craft in sites of representation is not only the result of the calculated

actions of individuals or interest groups, it can be a shuffled object in other sites and

in other forms. Craft is subject to the fate of the immutable mobiles which represent

it and the strength of its own networks, and how these play into other and

subsequent networks.

66

. .

According to ANT, when a consortium of human and non-human in action

transform ideas into outcomes a deeper understanding of craft sites of

representation is offered. The making stage, equally important as the idea and the

outcome, captures value and worth that could otherwise go unnoticed. Indeed, by

valuing acting or doing, ANT is an ideal methodology for examining craft in sites

of representation.

ANT supports the notion that craft is important when an idea, hypothesis or premise

is made into an object. Indeed, it asserts that objects can only be fully assessed,

understood and appreciated if craft remains a factor in their later visual and sensory

life. ANT also affirms that all sites where humans and non-humans interact are

available for anthropological exploration and analysis. Thus it is eminently suited to

open up sites where humans and non-humans organise to represent craft.

ANT also includes the researcher in the research process. Okely (1992, p.3) alluded

to the importance of the researcher's constant presence when defending

autobiographical anthropology "the autobiography of fieldwork is about lived

interactions, participatory experience and embodied knowledge". What the

researcher adds to the network expands the scope of ANT and adds to its list of

applications.

ANT was influenced by of the theorisation of studies of the socio/technical world

of laboratory science and how the science “method” produces published "facts". It

was later adapted as a general research tool used to study, at a much deeper level

and from the inside, any context where ideas are transformed into objects. This

deep and inside knowledge enables an infinite re-construction of objects according

to their changing environments, interests and applications. The researcher’s

experience of laboratory life bared the relations between human and non-human

actors and the macro and micro events they shared in the every day task of making

science thus grounding ANT in direct experience. The enrolment into a network of

all human and non-human actors associated with production in the laboratory is a

useful concept for use other sites where craft is busily making things happen.

ANT supports the argument that ideas cannot be made into objects without craft

and craft cannot be removed from objects thus contesting the notion that only those

67

. .

with the power and authority to own objects are responsible for their production.

Nevertheless craft's ordinary humans and non-humans who enable the object's

existence and who are constantly subjected to new technologies, fluid contextual

meanings and disparate social environments, need an inquisitive, pestering

theory/methodology/method such as ANT in order to be acknowledged. In this

context Bowker and Star (1999. p.48) noted that “the actors being followed did not

themselves see what was excluded: they constructed a world in which that exclusion

could occur”.

But like any theoretical/methodological construct ANT is not an isolated entity; it

has relations with others which influence the way the research is approached. It

would be remiss not to include Foucault as such a relation when considering ANT

as a methodology. Foucault’s notion of object formation argues that discourses (any

discourse in any context) about craft can, in fact, make craft. As he (1995, p.49)

attested all practices which make objects are

[a] task that consists of not - of no longer - treating discourses as groups of signs (signifying elements referring to contents or representations) but as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak.

The practices in this study are craft and if craft forms objects it is useful and

important. ANT seems to be familiar with Foucault's notion of discourse

construction, as both suggest that objects are formed by contextual discursive

practices and both question the possibility of discrete or permanent categorisations.

This is important to a study which seeks constructions of craft in sites of

representation. Justin Clemens (1996, pp.49-50) applies Foucauldian discourse

construction to craft thus:

A Foucauldian analysis would rather ask "What sort of practices in what historical conditions have been called craft? Who has then done craft, and how has it been evaluated, and by whom? How has craft been used in the battle of ongoing power relations in society? And to what ends?" Furthermore, for Foucault, in a very specific sense, "craft" could not be said to exist. It would rather be a name that one gives, or finds oneself given, with regards to situations that are constantly in flux.

68

. .

Becker (2004, p.2) paints a similar picture in visual art when he says it “consists of

the network of cooperative activity involving all the people who contribute to the

work of art coming off as it finally does, using the conventional understandings they

share”. This has both ANT and Foucauldian overtones although not quite Latour

(too human centred) and not quite Foucault (is there such a thing as conventional

understandings?) but characteristics which support Clemens’ Foucauldian notion of

crafts and visual art.

ANT's notion of how science is made has roots in Kuhn's paradigm theory. Kuhn, a

physicist who turned to the history and philosophy of science found a disjunction

between the methodology scientists claimed to use and what was historically

evident in their practice. He found that when methodological practices became

unworkable they were replaced by those more appropriate and that the social world

of scientists plays a part in methodological constructions. Kuhn (1996, p.10)

appropriated the word paradigm (pattern) to explain his theory. A paradigm results

when disorganised and diverse activities and thoughts are moulded into a form that

is understandable and useful, not necessarily logical or indeed true or false.

Importantly paradigms are not fixed entities they can change or mutate or be

overthrown by a more powerful, assertive or significant paradigm: hence the

commonly used term “paradigm shift”. The content of the paradigm consists of the

rational and irrational, of fact and fiction and encompasses a social dimension

(personalities, beliefs, affiliations, etc) which cannot either be denied or ignored, in

effect a form of black box. It could be argued that the art/craft world is paradigm

driven.

Kuhn's contribution to the research is to remind us of craft’s temporary nature and

that it too is only a paradigm made up of the available data, the currency of the

theories used to sift through it, selective memories of the researcher and the limited

efficacy of words. Other data, new theories and memories and other modes of

articulation (visual image, film, etc) could produce other paradigms at other times.

The notion of the “paradigm” resonates with ANT and Foucault's discursive object

construction. That is, no matter what comprises an assemblage of knowledge, if it

functions and proves to be a viable tool there is no reason to disassemble it. When it

loses its viability and no longer functions, it will change or be changed into another

69

. .

form to serve a new purpose. Kuhn, Foucault and ANT each remind us in their own

ways of the value of looking to the site of construction, the craft, if objects are to be

fully understood.

Pye’s theory of risk and certainty, another approach to understanding craft, factors

in human fallibility when objects are made. An interesting but contentious

distinction between two approaches to “workmanship”, proposed by Pye (1982),

highlights the role human fallibility plays when objects are made. Pye posited two

approaches to object making, the “hand” and the “machine”. He called the former

the “workmanship of risk” and the latter the “workmanship of certainty” (Pye,

1968, p.4). In the “workmanship of risk”, when objects are made by hand (and with

hand tools) without the intention of exact repeats, the risk during their production is

said to be greater thus raising the potential for the object to say something about its

own making. In other words when one does not have a detailed plan on how to

proceed and, more importantly, what the object will “look” like (as in Latour’s

analysis of the science experiment or when artists make art), the craft process takes

on an independent life and energy of its own. Thus each craft act becomes an entity

and a spectacle worthy of consideration by itself and for itself; it is something to

observe as well as do. Conversely in the “workmanship of certainty” when machine

made objects intended to be exact replicas of each other through the production

process, the craft, is merely a means of getting numbers into the world. If the means

of production is settled and each object is an exact replica of the first the felicity of

the production process is confirmed and interest in the making process wanes. The

intention is to automate the making process to the degree where outcomes are

predictable and identical; any variation in the process of making (the craft) is only

of interest when it is an “error” and thus in need of corrective maintenance.

However “errors” can also be both interesting and productive.

It must be said that opposing risk and certainty in this way only highlights modes of

intention which may help understand craft in a particular way. In a Latourian world

when humans and non-humans interact in any system or practice, no matter how

ordered and logical, certainty cannot be ensured. The notion of risk and certainty

only draws an arbitrary line between the motives of hand making and industrial

mass production rather than to suggest that, at least in a Latourian sense, there is a

difference between craft as risk and craft as certainty. Craft is craft in spite of the

70

. .

intentions. But it is useful as another way of looking at craft. Both Pye’s notion of

risk and certainty and ANT suggest that disinterest in craft is not an option.

If, in ANT terms craft is indispensable, without craft objects cannot be brought into

being, craft is a macro mediator. The recurring position of the methodology is that

craft as a macro mediator does something and therefore is something. Exalting its

importance as a doer validates it as an entity worthy of discrete contemplation.

ANT, Foucault, Kuhn and others are not the only experts available to unravel craft

in sites of representation in this study. The presence of the researcher in the

research and his experiences in the craft sites of representation add both

methodological insights and field work data to the study.

The researcher as actor and expert

Another methodology and data source which cannot be ignored results from

reflections on experiential fieldwork of the researcher in craft sites visited, analysed

and used in a previous life as a craft maker and teacher. Although not considered as

fieldwork at the time, the vividness of memory inevitably prevents them from being

excised from the research.

These craft experiences are important because not only did they determine the

thesis topic, the methodologies used and the sites to be visited but they constructed

the researcher as a subject and the researcher's subjectivity as a search tool

important as any imported into the thesis. Reed-Danahay (1997, p. 2) writing on

auto/ethnography considers it in two ways, as "referring either to the ethnography

of one's own group or to autobiographical writing that has ethnographic interest".

In the context of the thesis both apply: research into the craft community and

autobiographical writing.

The research approaches (ANT et al.) come together when the theorists theorise the

researcher’s experiences and the researcher’s experiences contextualise the

theories. They simultaneously bring together and separate the researcher and the

site under surveillance enabling both passionate dispassionate analyses to occur.

71

. .

But the research will remain isolated from the grounded projects if the directives

such as sites, problems, argument, questions, resources and method which steer it

are not identified and discussed.

72

. .

CHAPTER 6: Maps and guides – an assemblage of sites, problems, arguments,

questions, resources and methods

Summary

The sites, problem, argument, questions, resources and methods used to guide the

research are outlined, discussed and expanded for their implications on the

research process.

Sites of craft representation

The sites for this study are selected because they:

1. are places where the label craft is used or implied

2. mediate their concerns and interests into objects

3. include the personal experiences of the researcher

4. together form a contemporary craft "apprenticeship" and

5. are models for other sites of representation.

They are a crafts organisation, (Craftsouth), an institutional teaching site, (a

university jewellery workshop) and a jewellery exhibition (Triptych). They are

selected because they all “make” objects on or off their premises to promote their

core concerns and interests by not limiting objects to material forms.

The craft organisation, for instance, does not make objects on their premises, it is

not a workshop nor are its employees paid to be craftspeople. In fact the premises

are the antithesis of a workshop environment consisting of standard office space

linked by an entrance foyer and serviced by a reception desk. Nevertheless the site

is validated as a making site because accredited craftspeople members who make

objects in accordance with the organisations accreditation criteria are rewarded with

the advantages of membership over non-members. Members who meet the

accreditation criteria make objects in the name of the organisation. The objects are

not necessarily in a defined style or made with prescribed materials but objects that

meet particular organisational outcomes. To attain accredited membership the

craftsperson must have a profile which overlaps with objectives of the organisation.

Thus, it is argued, the objects although not made on the premises or by their staff

are nevertheless made by the organisation.

73

. .

A university jewellery workshop appears to be the obvious place for material

objects to be made on the premises. But workshop production in a university is not

as transparent as it might seem. Although the academic workshop is a site where

objects are made, the workshop is neither self contained nor industrial. Its primary

raison d'etre is to produce and disseminate university knowledge. The workshop is

just another site in a university where multiple agendas are manifested, where

influences from outside are assimilated and where objects made from one round of

discursive materials are transformed into another.

Like the craft organisation, the exhibition does not make material objects on site;

they are made elsewhere to fit the curatorial objectives of the exhibition maker.

Exhibition venues are neutral spaces where curatorial objectives are assembled by

commissioning or selecting objects to construct and perform visual texts. Thus it

could be argued that the exhibition is, in fact, making objects by commissioning or

selecting only those which conform to its curatorial objectives. When craftspeople

make objects in their workshops to conform to a set of curatorial demands or when

a curator selects work for an exhibition the craftspeople are, in a sense, licensed by

the exhibition maker to make objects. Thus the exhibition can also be said to be a

site where objects are made.

The sites are not constrained by their current borders; their boundaries can be traced

by the researcher as domains of memory. Memory of personal experiences in, and

at, the selected sites is experiential site knowledge. The researcher's place in the

study as a craftsperson, craft organisation member, workshop teacher and

exhibition participator is acknowledged as an influence on the nature of the site and

its boundaries. Although research should be as dispassionate pursuit, in this

instance it is moderated by the researcher’s memories and experience. Nevertheless

the sites must be revisited by the researcher in the guise of an outsider, armed with

expert theoretical and methodological tools to study on a formal level.

The sites also form a cluster which could represent a contemporary craft

apprenticeship. This new "apprenticeship" consisting of learning "trade" skills in a

university rather than industry, studying cultural theory rather than trade theory,

qualifying for membership in a craft organisation rather than a union and

74

. .

participating in a graduation exhibition rather than taking bench tests, rounds off a

contemporary craft professional.

The sites are generalisable anywhere where ideas are crafted into objects. The

selected sites can be considered as models for exploring other sites of craft

representation.

Problems

Although changing social, technological and economic forces in domestic, cultural,

industrial and educational spheres seem to be marginalising craft the problem is

predicated on the assumptions that craft is still important and deserves recognition.

If craft is hidden but still important, the problem then shifts to the lack of

knowledge and understanding of the role it now plays in these spheres.

Sites of craft representation construct craft which serves and defends their

constituency. The problem is craft, important as it is in their operations and

practices, is not always known and/or disseminated, and individual sites of

representation do not necessarily align with the idiosyncratic representations in

other sites. Locating craft in individual sites is only pertinent to those sites and not

necessarily to others. Thus, the problem includes both the lack of knowledge in the

selected sites and its availability as public knowledge. If the results of the research,

limited as it is to the selected sites, cannot be applied, as public knowledge, to other

sites, the problem of establishing the importance and recognition of craft generally

is not resolved. If craft in particular sites is to be generisable, more than knowledge

of its local constructions is needed. Perhaps the methods used to find craft in

particular sites may be transferable for the research to have wider applications.

Hence finding craft in particular sites is only part of the problem; the methods used

to find it need to be identified and applicable to other sites of craft representation.

Arguments

The argument is based on four premises:

1. craft remains an important human pursuit and practice

2. craft connects humans with each other

3. craft mediates ideas into objects

75

. .

4. organisations, institutions and events are constructed in the name of

craft.

The general argument is for the notion that craft is important because it mediates

ideas into objects. However craft, as a macro mediator is not only, or always,

limited to physical action and material objects: it can also be in the form of

discourse and discursive objects. It is thus argued that sites which claim to represent

craft as physical action and material objects (but do not necessarily make or handle

objects themselves) are ideal for studying other manifestations of craft. It is further

argued that, although the practices and operations of these sites enable certain

aesthetic, managerial, social or political objectives to be disseminated (overtly or

incidentally), their practices and operations also reflect the actions involved in their

production. On this basis it is argued that craft remains, albeit in a form authorised

by the site that makes it and further, it is possible to locate and circumscribe craft

by finding the practices and operations which construct it in that site. Because

practices and operations are increasingly encapsulated in "paper work" the

argument could be pursued by the mutability of “paper work” (Latour, 1999). Craft

is mobilised when ideas as “paper work" in the form of numbers and words

(contested knowledge) are mediated into objects in the form of “paper work” as

numbers and words (new knowledge). For instance a work of visual art can be

contested in two ways: initially for the ideas which underpin it as a proposition (old

knowledge) and later as an object of aesthetics or meaning (new knowledge). What

cannot be contested is the fact of its making. It exists and only exists to be read and

interrogated because it is crafted it into existence. Its place as an art object is as

dependent as much on the mediation of its making as its fit with the current trends

in the art world. The mediation between old knowledge and new knowledge,

although erroneously considered dispensable, is a material or discursive form of

craft. Without “craft” as an “indispensable” mediator the “paper work”

introducing the contested knowledge cannot be transformed into the “paper work”

that articulates the new knowledge. As Latour (2000, p. 191) wrote:

So technical people, objects, or skills are at once inferior (since the main task will eventually be resumed), indispensable (since the goal is unreachable without them)

76

. .

When craft produces objects as “paper work”, it makes itself available for later

scrutiny, for example when historical references are needed or a controversy is to

be settled. Thus, the record and dissemination of the making process (the craft) is

important when assessing both the idea and object. It is further argued that this is

significant epistemologically. Regarding craft as a maker of "old knowledge" into

"new knowledge", positions craft as a maker of knowledge.

Compressing the argument into three steps i.e. old knowledge, craft, new knowledge

is, of course, a simplification. The fluidity of the process is encapsulated by Latour

(2000, p.189) when he suggests that when we:

consider the very notion of investment: a regular course of action is suspended, a detour is initiated via several types of actants, and the return is a fresh hybrid that carries past acts into the present and permits its many investors to disappear while also remaining present.

If, as argued, craft makes knowledge in sites by mediating ideas into objects, it can

also perform these roles in the wider culture. That is, awareness of craft as macro

mediator can be used to explore societal transactions by permitting insights into

what, why and how they are made. Craft enables transactions across boundaries

they could not traverse alone.

Questions

The macro question asked of the three sites is "how do they craft craft"?

The general concerns are centred on the nature and construction of craft in sites of

representation which use or imply the label craft and how it fares in these sites

given their responsibility to both uphold the traditions of craft and represent it in a

contemporary context. Further is the knowledge gained from an analysis of the

selected sites generalisable to other craft sites of representation?

Five specific questions emerge from these general concerns:

1. What is craft in sites which claim to represent it and use or imply the

label craft and what part does craft play in the construction and

operations of these sites? What does craft look like as it plays its role

in the construction and operations of these sites?

77

. .

2. How is craft made in sites which claim to represent it and use or

imply the label craft? How do the practices and operations of these

sites make craft?

3. Where else, other than those marked for study are sites where craft

objects are made as a result of their practices and operations?

4. Why is a study of craft important and useful in sites which claim to

represent it and use or imply the label craft?

5. Why is recognition of craft in specific craft sites useful for the

recognition in sites which do not necessarily claim to represent craft?

These are questions posed before the research; the research process will inevitably

answer some, ignore others and write new questions of its own.

Resources

Resources are in two modes, resources used and resources produced. Resources

used include publicly disseminated texts from a craft organisation, access to a

course in a university jewellery workshop and its facilities, staff and students and

memories meetings, agendas, minutes, newspaper and magazine articles and

reviews from a jewellery exhibition. The theoretical and methodological resources

used, including ANT, Foucault, Kuhn and Pye, are augmented by the researcher's

history as a craftsperson and teacher and his personal experiences in each of the

research sites. Resources produced can emerge from the evaluation of the

researcher's experiences, assessment of the theory/methodology/method used and

consideration of the value of such data as textual material, ethnographic

experiences, recollections and records. Resources produced have two uses: one post

research, that is they may become resources for other projects by other researchers

at other times and during the research where they may re-direct and re-position

aims and processes when the research is underway.

Resources used are nevertheless subject to interpretation. Accounts and reflections

on the life of the researcher re-constructed from selective memory and

interpretations of ANT made by following the sometimes-elusive tracks left by

Latour and others are far from an exact science. ANT, for instance, is considered all

things, theory/methodology/method for these reasons:

78

. .

1. It is a theory, and a controversial one at that, because of its claim that

in order to understand the results of an event it is necessary to put

aside human privilege and assume and ascribe equal status to human

and non human actors.

2. It is a methodology because its ethnographic implications broaden

the range of anthropological sites. It urges one to go there and

observe, collect and analyse what is really going on in sites where

“tribes” gather.

3. It is a method because it asks to document actions, interact with the

actants, question official outcomes and open black boxes. It asks us

to observe translations which take place in the hands of mediators

when ideas are made into objects.

Methods

Material for the three projects is collected from a craft organisation, during a

residency in an academic jewellery teaching workshop, and by reviewing the paper

work made before, during and after a craft exhibition. All three use or imply craft

as a name or practice. The right to use or imply craft in this way is not questioned; a

name or practice is without meaning until later actions are performed around them.

Although actions make and are made by names and practices and vary between and

across institutions, organisations and events, they have in common the capacity to

represent craft in some way.

As a general method the materials from the sites are scanned using discourse

analysis. In particular humans, non-humans and their actions are scrutinised based

essentially on an ANT methodology. Consistent with ANT, discrete material

objects are included but not privileged. Although the methods are consistent with

ANT they vary within and across the main three sites of representation. The method

is tailored to suit the way each site projects itself to its constituency and the

community: the craft organisation with written texts, the institutional workshop

through human actors and the exhibition, the remnants of its construction. The

methods include translation, tabling human and non-human actions and reflections

on the way common goals mobilise craft. In brief, craft will be traced in these sites

by searching for the craft which constructed it.

79

. .

ANT as a post-structural methodology blurs the boundaries between theory,

methodology and method and subsumes other theories, methodologies and methods

as its own. Thus it could be said that forms of critical and interpretative discourse

analysis (Fairclough, 1995), historical analysis (the medieval guilds), "thick

description" (Geertz, 1973, p.5) quantitative methods and narrative forms sit

comfortably within the ambit of ANT. ANT also raises questions of distinction

between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Although the researcher

claims the three projects as examples of qualitative research, a liberal use of tables,

diagrams, numbers and percentages which border on quantitative methods are

included. Tables, diagrams, numbers and percentages are intended to encode the

analyses of the discursive, anthropological, and experiential sites in an easy to read

form and as an adjunct to the written text. The post-structuralist nature of the

research and the intervention of the researcher also differentiates the research from

the quantitative model.

Although the three research projects are linked by their significance to the fledgling

craftsperson, their association with the visual arts and the experiences of the

researcher, the resources used for each demand separate research formats. Thus, the

three projects are autonomous in five important ways:

1. The nature of each site demands its own method of investigation, the

craft organisation is essentially an office which distributes textual

material and does not produce objects on site, the university

jewellery workshop is a "hands on" production workplace where

objects are made on site and the exhibition a public meeting place

for objects made specifically for the purpose of display.

2. The methods, although steeped in ANT, vary according to the

differences between the sites; selections from the ANT smorgasbord

are mobilised according to their fit with the site under notice.

3. The method used to apply methodology to method is adjusted to suit

the way the site broadcasts itself, the organisation in texts, the

institution in human and non-human actors and the exhibition in

public display.

4. The presentation of the findings is selected according to the flow of

the analysis, differing from narrative to numbers, often combining

both.

80

. .

5. The experiences of the researcher in these sites are spread over time

and mode of engagement.

The result is three pieces of research based on the same premise and sharing the

same aims but delivered in three different styles. Thus, the three projects can be

linked as one, used in combinations or available for individual use and

contemplation according to the needs of the user.

81

. .

SECTION 3: The research venture - assembling and operating on three sites of

craft representation

Section 3 includes identifying and validating the three sites for analysis (a craft

organisation, Craftsouth, an academic workshop, a jewellery studio in a university,

and Triptych, a craft exhibition) as research subjects, sketching their features,

outlining the methods used to explore them and inferring the outcomes of an

analysis of their operations and practices.

82

. .

CHAPTER 7: Craft sites of representation, a craft organisation, an academic

jewellery workshop, and an exhibition

Summary

This section contains the nitty gritty of the thesis, the site research. There are three

separate but related projects set in an organisation, a workshop and an exhibition.

The organisation and workshop research includes both analysis and narrative

whilst the exhibition research is in narrative form.

Each research project, in its own unique way, explores craft in sites of

representation. Although the projects have many things in common such as using

aspects of ANT as exploratory tools, probing similar questions, employing common

arguments and pursuing similar goals, they are independent of each other in mode

of analysis and presentation, enabling them to be used together, separately or in

combinations according to need or interest.

In spite of many diversions and influences of others encountered on the meandering

journey, it is the career of the researcher as a jeweller and jewellery teacher in a

non-industrial setting which framed the tasks and determined the sites to be

explored.

A jeweller in a non-industrial setting, although cast into the world of the visual arts,

is, in a sense, in limbo, neither a tradesperson nor an artist. Nevertheless attempts to

categorise the practice abound. Often the category craftsperson is applied, the

practice called craft and the teaching, craft teaching. In the visual art world the

category craft is simultaneously identified with and separated from mainstream

visual art practice. Arguing that art cannot be made without craft and craft brings

art into being does not bridge the gulf between them (Dormer, 1994, p.9). Unlike

artists, craftspeople assign discrete values to making itself, whereas artists discard it

as merely as a necessary but "immaterial" phase used to bring idea and object

together (Dormer, 1994: p.25). To support the claim that craft remains in art objects

and art objects cannot be studied without considering craft it is necessary to enrol

others who have made similar assertions in other fields. Support is found in ANT

and the field of science and technology studies and in particular the writing of

Bruno Latour. Latour's claim that the craft phase of science cannot be separated or

83

. .

excised from its published outcomes resonates with a claim of this thesis, that craft

in the visual arts cannot be separated from its "published" outcomes, the art object.

But the thesis does not go directly to craftspeople or artists to explore this notion;

rather it applies the premise to sites where craft is an assumed entity, to explore in

their texts and practices how their "published" outcomes are crafted. Thus the thesis

considers whether their belief in the indispensability of craft remains, whether craft

has discrete innate qualities worthy of technical, sensory and intellectual

contemplation and whether the methodology/method is effective in opening up

other sites (not necessarily art/craft sites) where ideas are mediated into objects.

Three sites, a craft organisation, an academic workshop, and a craft exhibition are

selected on the basis that they make up an alternative "apprenticeship" for craft

workers, that craft makers and teachers visit them to both learn and find affiliates,

and their practices and operations are connected with, and represent, craft in the

visual arts.

The research entails the collection and analysis of data from sites that rely on craft

to manifest their interests. It looks at how these claims are materialised by locating

the network of humans and non-humans (actor-networks) which constitute them

and how one claim sits against another. Rather than attempt to assert a universal or

arbitrary definition of craft, contextual constructions are identified as practised in

selected sites in a search for understanding craft. The research, although employing

tables, diagrams and numbers, is unashamedly qualitative in nature, even the

theory/methodology/method (ANT) is modified to suit when the personal

experiences of the researcher intervenes.

So far ANT has been validated as an ideal research tool on the basis of its treatment

of the authority of rational science method. That is, intentions and results, if looked

at in the light of what actually went on when science is made, are not as clear cut

or, in fact, as "rational" as they seem. When conducting research in the three

selected craft sites of representation, it is necessary to maintain this approach, to

consider intentions and results in the light of what actually went on in the craft

organisation, the teaching institution, and the exhibition event. Alternatives to the

words intentions and results pepper the thesis, such as input and output or

hypothesis and conclusion but more often they are embodied contextually in the

research and revealed by considering, through the particular analysis, what was

84

. .

intended and what was made. The phrase "ideas mediated into objects" is often

used in the thesis as a term which encompasses these alternatives. Whatever terms

are used they are to be understood in the context of the mode of analysis.

85

. .

Project 1: Craftsouth – a case study of a craft organisation

Overall summary

The argument that organisations such as Craftsouth make objects enables an

exploration of their modus operandi and lineage. Included is a discussion on the

form and function of craft organisations and their evolving relations with both their

membership and the wider community.

The first task to be undertaken is an analysis of the practices and operations of a

craft organisation, a site where craft should find representation. A craft organisation

is an ideal place to start because it is where fledgling craftspeople are integrated

into a craft community, where they can access opportunities to start and support a

practice and tap into resources such as grants and mentors. It is also a public site of

craft production and consumption. The analysis is in five parts:

Part 1, the evolving organisation, traces the hand and object over a twenty-year

period and sets the scene for the current modus operandi of Craftsouth and the other

organisation research projects which follow. Part 2 outlines the positioning of

Craftsouth in the field of Western craft organisations by associating the words

guild, association, society and council in titles and introductory promotional

statements with particular modes of practice. Part 3 is an analysis of the public texts

emanating from Craftsouth and Part 4 is a discussion of an accreditation document

used to introduce the notion of the masterpiece in the context of a craft

organisation. Part 5 uses the discussion of the accreditation document to explore the

antecedents of the masterpiece, the medieval guilds, their relation to the

accreditation document and its influence on the proceeding thesis.

Public organisations which represent and manage craft abound. They manage and

dispense resources and provide a community base for the independent and

collective professional and non-professional craftspeople set adrift from the

mainstream by changes in industry and/or domestic life. They also provide a refuge

for craftspeople in the visual art world where the values of craftspersonship and

utility are not disparaged.

86

. .

Craft organisations have a lineage and a modus operandi that extends back to the

once powerful medieval guilds and early industry unions. The guilds, and later the

unions, managed and protected craftspeople and their place in the world by

collectively acting on their behalf. Unwin (1963, p. 16) described the rise of the

“fellowship” of the guilds as a “collective lordship”, in order to “fight lordship

with its own weapons”. It is in the medieval guilds the roots of contemporary

unionism are found, where collectivism was seen as a bastion against industrial and

corporate power. But traditional guilds differed from present day unions in the way

they overtly managed a greater part of the life of the craftsperson. Contemporary

guilds, associations, councils and societies have more in common with their

medieval ancestors than they have with unions although there is, of course,

considerable overlap.

The contemporary version of the traditional guild, association, council and society

re-emerged not so much to strengthen the bargaining power of the unionised

employee but rather to represent both the self-employed craftsperson and perceived

social and cultural interests of the wider community. Although industrialisation and

post-industrialisation have dealt the deathblow to the primacy of the hand made

object rendering it superfluous to industry and a novelty in the home, craft

organisations have proliferated as the desire to make, experience and represent the

hand-made linger. The number of organisations claiming to represent craft, the

proliferation of craft education programs and the number of practising craftspeople

attest to this contention.

Ironically the so-called art/craft binary is, to an extent, maintained by craft

organisations because they provide a venue which represents the subjugated craft in

the binary enabling an identifiable target for visual art elitists. Thus two features of

visual object making, art and craft, can be institutionally pitted against each other,

rather than embraced as common to both and open to scrutiny and contemplation.

Although organisations often overtly align themselves with either art or craft they

covertly acknowledge each other in their practices and operations.

Craft organisations come in a number of forms differentiated, among other things,

by their nomenclature, such as guild, association, society and council. Although

87

. .

they may be separated by these names, they nevertheless have many things in

common, significantly craft as their predominant interest.

The organisational research is predicated on the assertion that craft organisations

make objects, not necessarily on their premises or by directly employing

craftspeople or managing workshops but by shaping and forming objects made by

the craftspeople they choose to enroll as members. In this sense, they could be said

to be making objects by remote control. It, of course, can be counter argued, that as

they do not make objects on their premises and, in the case of Craftsouth, are

seemingly indifferent to them they have nothing to do with their shape or form.

Nevertheless in order to fulfill the criteria for accredited membership objects have

to exist, they have to be made, exhibited and sold for the craftsperson to gain

membership. The hand and the object may not be in sight but they must lurk

somewhere in the organisation for it to fulfill its self ordained functions. Thus the

presence of the hand and object is a tool to both understand the organisation,

making the organisation an ideal site to explore one way craft is represented and

maintained in the contemporary world.

In spite of their choice of nomenclature, differing aims and profiles, organisations

have in common the resources to exercise power in the community, shape careers

and inform practices by their authority to form public opinion, dispense scarce

community resources and shape personal profiles.

Craftsouth is a craft organisation in Adelaide, South Australia which represents

craftspeople members on several levels of accreditation and craft in the wider

community. It was established in the 1960s during the heyday of the alternative

craft movement and has adapted over the years to the changing fortunes of craft in

the visual arts, industry and society. Necessarily the first port of call of its study is

an analysis of its evolution over a significant part of its history to trace its

adaptation to an ever-changing craft scene. This is carried out in an analysis of the

President's and Executive Directors Reports 1980 - 2000.

88

. .

Part 1: The evolving organisation, an analysis of a selection of the President's and

Executive Director’s Reports 1980-2000

Summary

Part1 entails an analysis of selected annual reports, 1980 to 2000, using Latour’s

“Translating Interests” as a methodology/method. Each report is transcribed and

subjected to a general discourse analysis and to one of Latour’s five translations to

plot changes in practices and operations in the organisation as it evolves over a

twenty year period. Finally the hand and the object are used to locate the

organisation’s connections with the traditions of craft.

A combined sequential selection of The Craft Council/Craftsouth’s Annual Reports

and the President’s and Executive Officer’s reports over a twenty year period

(1980, 87, 92, 96 and 2000) is subjected to discourse analysis. The analysis is

interpreted in two ways, firstly, using an adaptation of Latour's "translating

interests", to track changes in direction and structure as it evolves over time and

secondly by locating the hand and object in the practices and operations of the

organisation

Latour’s Translating Interests

Latour’s (1999, pp.108-121) “translating Interests” consist of the following:

Translation 1 I want what you want

Translation 2 I want it why don't you

Translation 3 If you just make a short detour….

Translation 4 Reshuffling interests and goals, consisting of four tactics:

Tactic 1 Displacing goals: maybe you don't know you have a problem

Tactic 2 Inventing new goals: but you have

Tactic 3 Inventing new groups: you need help

Tactic 4 Rendering the detour invisible: if you are not convinced let

your doubts be put aside by these rewards and advantages

Tactic 5 Dissolving responsibility: after all these manoeuvrers you’ll no

longer know or care whether it was you or us who solved your problem.

Translation 5 Becoming indispensable

89

. .

The analysis

The contents of the two reports, the Craft Council/Craftsouth’s Annual Report and

the President’s and Executive Officer’s Report, are scanned as one for the purposes

of analysis.

1980

The dominant interests in 1980 centred on Craft Council endorsed displays of

member’s work held in popular non-elitist venues and tuition in craft techniques.

Displaying objects and makers was still important in 1980. The main display

venues were the Royal Show, Elder Park and the Craft Council’s foyer.

Nevertheless changes in display strategies are foreshadowed by the Miniature

Objects exhibition in the Jam Factory gallery and a calculated attempt to reach

design, architectural and business communities with a promotional display in the

Council's foyer.

The success of the Royal Show display, seemingly happily ensconced in a popular

public venue, provided the participating craftsperson members and the Council with

broad public exposure. But it was also measured by how it enlarged the market and

the size of its monetary return, perhaps a hint of things to come (although $3,339 of

sales was not a remarkable proportion of the estimated $50,000 value of the

objects). The Elder Park fair was claimed as a huge success as it booked 108 stalls

and attracted an attendance estimated at 70,000 and a Council profit of $925. The

fair was a craft market open to anyone who paid for a space to set up a stall. As an

“experimental first” the Council opened up its foyer and office for invited interior

designers, decorators and architects to view the works of a selected craftsperson.

The event was intended to promote the craftsperson and increase the visibility of

the Council to professionals in the design industry. Collaborations with designers in

a range of fields were seen to be a strategy to create a market for the craftsperson’s

skills and products.

Although the President’s Report underplayed the economic and marketing aspects

of both the Royal Show and the Elder Park craft market the Executive Officer’s

Report paid considerable attention to money and markets, signs of changing

interests and objectives.

90

. .

Craft skill training was still a priority in 1980 although the previously successful

Tatachilla summer school appeared to be running out of steam. This was partly

blamed in the reports on “a disenchantment with the sameness of the format.”

Tatachilla, a sort of craft version of Woodstock was, in effect, an opportunity to

indulge in craft in an environment not possible in everyday life.

Country Workshops mentioned in the Report were also at risk. They were an

attempt to bring together the Council's country members, to touch many of craft’s

country roots and to acknowledge and service practitioners who had chosen a

country way of life. These too were seen to be failing not because of their sameness

but because the Council lacked the “time and energy” to organise them.

In house workshops were streamlined to match resources, for example four day

workshops in Backstrap Weaving, Enamelling and Glaze Technology could only be

run if they conformed to the “Council’s policy of only running classes in response

to perceived needs”: responding to, rather than creating needs.

The Council was tenuously hanging on to the “club” like mode of its early years by

still looking inside to member’s needs and interests. The only mention of outside

interests referred to affiliations with sub-groups such as the Fibreworks Collective

and the Leather Group and to member meetings with esteemed craftspeople.

The reports of 1980 contain the first hints of change in the Council's outlook whilst

hanging on to old practices such as the Council endorsed displays of member’s

work in popular non-elitist venues at the Royal Show and the Elder Park craft fair.

It was, at the same time, tentatively looking outside to the market and reconsidering

the effectiveness and popularity of craft workshops and schools such as Tatachilla

and country and local workshops.

Translation 1 (I want what you want)

The Council, at this point, was what its people want it to be rather than what it

thinks it should be: relying to a significant degree on the maker’s hand and the

display of the material object to justify its existence.

91

. .

Although slightly uneasy with its image the Council was still making itself by

carrying out the traditions of craft and the wishes of members and interested others.

It was overtly using the hand and the object to construct an image by displaying in

public venues the skills of the maker. Workshops where craftspeople could learn

new skills and hone old ones under the tutelage of “master craftspeople" endorsed

the primacy of hand and object. The Council, although starting to question how its

current “image” is shaped by popular displays and skills workshops “tailored” to

meet the perceived interests of the members, was still using member’s interests to

represent itself. By assuming the perceived needs of craftspeople in display and

workshops, the Council declared itself and its members as a unified body of

makers.

The Hand and the Object

The hand is overtly represented by displaying its skills en masse in public venues

where objects can be measured by the skill of the hand, and where art is perceived

to be akin to craft. The hand is still considered worthy of further training by the

Council at workshops and summer schools. Nevertheless the Council was growing

uneasy with these activities and was tentatively looking beyond and behind the

hand to the market by reconsidering the way it represents craft. The object was still

being released in the public domain as a means of shaping the Council's profile and

representing craft and the skills of its members. Nevertheless, the Council's interest

in the non-material use of the object was now coming to notice.

1987

The notable changes from 1980 to 1987 concerned the Council’s attitudes to, and

evaluation of, exhibitions and displays and the shift in emphasis from communal

craft activities (summer schools, workshops) to an information service: helping

members to sell the skills they have rather than helping them acquire new skills or

honing old ones.

Nevertheless Council sponsored exhibitions are still important during this period;

references to them constituted approximately two thirds of the word space in both

the President and Executive Officer’s reports. It is a change in the nature of

exhibitions and what the Council expects from them rather than the notion of

exhibitions themselves which was significant.

92

. .

For example the Council sponsored Maker’s Choice exhibition was curated, the

participants carefully selected and the venue a mainstream exhibition space, in fact,

packaged in the style of an elite art exhibition. It was promoted as a prestigious

show where esteemed makers were selected (rather than taking all-comers) and

asked to choose other esteemed makers to exhibit with them. The craftspeople were

referred to as makers, not crafts people, and one of the aims was to “enable the

Crafts Council to widen its audience and its contacts with the rest of the arts

industry” a conscious effort perhaps to shed the mantle of "rustic crafts" and be

seen as part of the wider arts community and the arts industry. The exhibition

incorporated theory and discussion, at the time rarely associated with a display of

craft objects: "as well as the exhibition itself a series of lectures and workshops

given by some of these artists who came from interstate to attend".

Although this exhibition did not tour, touring was considered as a desirable

objective. The craftspeople with their objects for sale at the Royal Show or in a

public park were replaced by a prestigious “high craft” exhibition as a new

representation for the Council, not in the wider community, but in the arts industry.

The Craft Fair discussed in the 1980 Reports also underwent a change in format. In

its new format it was described as a major event devised in 1987 for the 1988

Festival of Arts. It was to be renamed as Contemporary Crafts in South Australia or

Contemporary Craft in South Australia and was to vacate the lawns of Elder Park

and go indoors to the Banquet Hall in the Festival Centre complex. The

craftspeople were to be selected and the format based on the Crafts Council of

Australia’s Craft Expo. It was intended “provide a splendid opportunity for South

Australian craftspeople to present themselves and their work to a prime audience at

a prime time.”

It was felt that the Royal Show display should also go upmarket by changing its

location in the show grounds because “it was clear that we had to distance

ourselves from other things presented there… the decision was made to go it alone

in our own pavilion.” Consideration was given to abandoning the Royal Show

display completely, but instead an interim compromise was decided upon complete

with a name change, “Crafts: The Living Arts”, and a separate location in the show

grounds. The move from the Royal Show "low" crafts pavilion to the more

93

. .

prestigious Walter Duncan Pavilion and the name change was also an effort to lift

the public status of the Council. The new name, Crafts: The Living Arts, itself

suggests a tentative effort to ally craft with art and a desire for a place in the art

world and the new site in the show grounds, the transformation from a display to an

exhibition.

The other significant development in the 1987 Reports was the Council's interest in

its role as an information service. Disseminating information was considered in

several forms, for example the production of a magazine and a yearbook and by

more thorough publicity of exhibitions and events. It was moving consciously

towards a role as an information dispenser: “at the centre of the Councils activities

is the Information Service. We see all of the projects of the Council as being based

on the dissemination of information – whether it be in publications, exhibitions, or

events like the Royal Show”. This was a significant change in the mission of the

Council and a prediction of future directions.

The information considered to be of value to its members was expressed in business

terms such as assistance in "applying for grants, dealing with galleries and buyers,

promotion, sales tax, etc" and on a wider front the practical advantages of being

affiliated with the national crafts body, the Crafts Council of Australia,.

In 1987 a discernible change in the Councils attitude to display is exemplified by

the end of low craft (Royal Show and craft fair) and the advent of high craft

(Maker's Choice and the craft expo). A re-evaluation of its image saw a shift from

promoting craftspeople to promoting the Council and from display to exhibition. A

shift also occurred away from communal teaching and display to an information

service: from directly teaching and promoting the hand and object to informing the

world of their existence and value.

Translation 2 (I want it, why don’t you)

The organisation scrutinises itself – and says I want something different – things

that improve my look – why don’t you want it as it will benefit you as well.

Over the period 1980 to 1987 a marked change took place in the relationship

between the Council, the object and its maker. Although it is difficult to know from

94

. .

the reports where the changes came from they heralded new attitudes towards the

Council's public profile.

The two exhibitions mentioned in the 1987 reports differed from their 1980

counterparts by their exclusivity and focus on a small number of selected

participants (especially in the Makers Choice exhibition). Nomenclature became

important for example from the word craft to art/craft, from fair to expo, from

Royal Show display to “Crafts: The Living Arts.” By excluding those who did not

“enable the Crafts Council to widen its audience and contacts with the rest of the

arts industry” the Council asked why the members and public wouldn’t want it too.

A reading of Latour's (1999. p.111) translation 2 could infer that in order for the

organisation to get what it wanted it had to cut of (if their usual way is cut off)

members who it did not want what the organisation wanted.

The advent of the Council as an information service was clearly articulated in the

reports. A discursive object, (information) was replacing the material object and the

hand and exhibitions and events repackaged as information carriers. The hand and

the object become mediators in a network of information actants. Did the hand and

object as mediators in an information network “cut off” those who are not

considered by the Council to be information producers?

The hand and object is further marginalised by the Council when it suggests that its

obligation to craftspeople is to enable them to apply for grants, deal with galleries

and buyers, promote themselves and deal with tax etc.

The Hand and the Object

The hand is changing venues; it is going places where it will not necessarily get

quite as much overt respect or attention. It is still there in the objects it makes but

its new audience might not be as interested as before, they might not notice how it

made objects but rather what the objects it made might mean or how they react to

its aesthetic appeal. The hand is no longer only grounded in the earthy world of the

workshop and its tools and machines it has now itself a tool – a marketing tool for

craftspeople and a making tool for the Council. The hand graduated from a maker

of objects to a medium of communication between Council, the arts industry and

the market. The object is divorcing the hand; separated from the lowly status of the

95

. .

hand it can be groomed to climb the social ladder and while it seeks respect in the

art world it is also being groomed to reconstruct the organisation representing it.

1992

The advent of craft professionals in the market place

There are no exhibitions, displays, workshops, skills training or craft camps

mentioned in the 1992 report, its right down to business. The President’s Report

opens with a definitive statement –

The priority reflected in the Boards 1993-95 Strategic Plan was a focus on marketing as a means of assisting practitioners to deal with the present recessionary period. By placing an emphasis on marketing in its service programme, professional development workshops and special projects, the Board aimed to develop the potential of crafts practitioners to present and market their products and skills and to aid in realising new ventures and opportunities.

The emphasis on marketing not only concerned assisting members to market their

products and skills but also for the Council to market itself as a particular type of

organisation. Craft was now portrayed as an industry and thus needed to be

represented by an organisation with an appropriate industry/corporate image. In

order to construct such an image the Council set out to develop relationships and

partnerships in projects which opened up new audiences outside the narrow

confines of the craft world. Hence marketing techniques and educational outreach

became a priority. Participation in state and national committees was also

considered necessary to cast a wider net for audiences within and outside the craft

world. The Council’s role as an advocate for the craft industry was significantly

stepped up during this period.

New premises were established in a shift from the suburbs to the Jam Factory in the

city. A city centred location permitted accessibility to the Council as a resource

centre, an advantage over the old premises and a reflection of the desire to be a

service organisation and connect with a wider audience and bigger market. The “up

to the minute style of the new building was said to reflect the messages we have

been sending out about ourselves …as an efficient, professional service

organisation…”.

96

. .

In the 1992 reports little mention was made of exhibitions, displays, skills training

or craft camps. Instead the emphasis was on marketing, professional development

and special projects such as business skills and product marketing. Rather than

imparting skills or making objects efforts were re-directed towards initiating new

ventures and providing opportunities for members to become professionals.

Translation 3. (If you just make a short detour…)

The short detour taken during this period diverted scrutiny from the prestigious

exhibition and exposition which at least cursorily acknowledged object and hand, to

what the object and hand could do to shape the new profile envisaged by the

Council. But the Council, in taking this detour, must offer its members and public

something which embodies the hand and object and a place in the market and the

community if it is to keep and expand membership and public interest. The notion

of mutual dependence justifies the detour sanctifying the diversion of interest from

exhibitions and expos to the professional in the marketplace. The detour is further

justified by the organisation by accepting the things practitioners are going to do

anyway, making and presenting objects to the world, to take up the task that most

practitioners may not want, or be able to do, become professional marketers of their

work. The organisation is re-defining its goals to help practitioners market and sell

their work and reach the goal as a professional marketer. The organisation risks

being seen to take over the maker's practice or as Latour (1999, p.113) said,

“hijacking” it by diverting their primary aims (to make and display work) to the

primary aims of the organisation (to be an efficient, professional service

organisation). Marketing the organisation by marketing the maker is reinforced by

the implications of a change of location, a short detour in one sense but a significant

one because there is no turning back. The new location and the atmosphere created

by the building design, floor plan, fittings etc. can thwart those who resist change.

The shift, from the suburbs to the city and the homespun to the corporate is a

powerful symbol of change. The Council saw it as a means of capturing a wider

audience and a bigger market as they claimed the “up to the minute style of the new

building reflected the messages we have been sending out about ourselves…as an

efficient, professional service organisation…”

97

. .

The Hand and the Object

The hand has slipped from sight, exhibitions, events and hand skills training are not

overtly mentioned in the report. Nevertheless the hand must be there somewhere;

marketing training and new ventures still need hands and objects to put them into

practice. The hand is slipping behind the overt practices and operations of the

organisation into other partnerships and relationships further separating it from its

roots in the workshop and the craft market. Moving house during this period

severed the geographic and historic ties which rooted the Council in its earthy

beginnings cutting off the centrality of the hand and object in its practices and

operations. The object and the hand are now, in a sense, separated from each other,

the object a marketing actor, its function re-negotiated by the organisation as part of

the apparatus used to professionalise itself and its members. The object is now a

mediator for a professional service.

1996

The reports of 1996 ushered in the advent of the Craft Council as a business

organisation for the professional craftsperson. The primary strategy embodied in

the statement “promote and develop new markets for its practicing members” was

intended to establish fertile partnerships and alliances outside the organisation.

Involvement in projects such as the Food and Wine Fair, Feast and the Maritime

Museum were examples. These new alliances and partnerships had to be funded if

they were to be viable and new business opportunities had to economically

advantage both the practitioner members and generate funds for the Council’s

operations.

The Council formalised its professional development trajectory by implementing

fortnightly professional development programmes to continue the “rise in the

standard” of professionalism in the craft community. Professional training was not

seen as the exclusive privilege of the craftspeople members, the management board

was also included, presumably based on the assumption that if the professional

craftsperson needed business skills so did management if the Council as a business

organisation was to be successful. Accordingly the management board was

subjected to a skills audit to identify areas “where additional expertise was needed

and appropriate personnel sought to fill these roles”. Skills in management, not

98

. .

craft skills were considered to be an important criterion for both running a craft

organisation and being a craftsperson.

Training to "craft" business rather than to "craft" objects was now important

enough to establish professional development programmes which “equips

craftspeople with the information, skills, and access to opportunities required for

successful practice” to be enhanced by “full day workshops on the Art of Self

Promotion in Adelaide, Pricing your Work, and the Collaborations workshop,

Expanding your practice into the Public Arena”.

As well as an emphasis on business and professional skill enhancement the Council

took on issues similar to those of traditional worker's unions such as to “ensure

craftspeople are fairly rewarded” and to “facilitate the discussion and

interpretation of issues facing craft practice”.

The Council's role as a service provider took up a large part of the review of 1996:

its range and impact was outlined in detail particularly in the Executive Officers

Report. Such things as the Advisory service, contacting and enlisting graduating

students, the use of the resource centre, marketing, promotional and referral

services, business practice, grant applications, and desktop publishing as well as

answering enquiries from the general public were all considered to be important

Council roles.

In 1996 the transformation from craft making to craft business was complete. The

Council’s main aim was now to promote and develop new markets for practising

members, establish partnerships and alliances outside the organisation, generate

funds, expand professional development activities and ensure craftspeople were

fairly rewarded.

Translation 4 (reshuffling interests and goals)

Perhaps you don’t know you have a problem. Latour contends that in order to

function in the way they want to function groups have to subvert “people’s explicit

interests” even those they purport to represent. In a sense the group with a solution

has to look for a group with a problem. In this case the solution is professional

business skills, and the problem, craftspeople not knowing they have a problem

99

. .

with conducting a viable business. New partners and alliances are found by the

group to advance its aims and craftspeople enlisted to carry them out. What you

need is training in professional development; your goal should be to become more

professional in the business of selling your hand and object. To do this you need

help from real business people on the outside – such as Business SA etc whose

interests, although not obvious to you, are consistent with yours. The organisation

is not trying to sell you something that is not in your best interest, being a

consummate professional is in your best interest.

If you don’t believe us come to the workshops such as full day workshops on the

Art of Self Promotion in Adelaide and Pricing Your Work, you will be convinced

that you cannot do without this knowledge. Let your doubts be subsumed by the

rewards and advantages that partnerships, alliances and professional development

can offer, eventually you’ll think it was your decision.

Reshuffling interests and goals as the above dialogue suggests provides a means of

translating the seemingly benign texts from the annual reports into an

understanding of how the organisation evolved from the object of the hand to the

object of the market. More importantly it illustrates how texts when exposed to a

tool, such as ANT, which does not accept anything as benign and unimportant, can

be a powerful tool. The Council has, according to the only evidence available (the

reports) successfully reinvented its self by offering to its member’s advantages,

opportunities, rewards and protection that, although irresistible, were vastly

different from the attractions offered to members in 1980.

The Hand and the Object

The hand has not only slipped from sight but it has now moved off the premises and

taken up residence in outside organisations. It is appropriated by the Council's new

image as a craft business organisation, and sent to the backroom to promote and

develop new markets by the organisation and seconded out to other organisations as

means of establishing new partnerships and alliances. Outside organisations may

not be aware of the presence of the hand and object but its roots in the traditions of

craft cannot be jettisoned from the business of marketing craft. The object is now in

the market place as a commodity, a unit in the sequence of relations which perform

business transactions. From the craft organisation's viewpoint the commodification

100

. .

of the hand and the object is almost complete; it now can be used to make the

professional who, in turn, makes the organisation. The object can be defined as a

mediator in the professionalisation of practising members.

2000

Between 1996 and 2000 the Crafts Council changed its name to Craftsouth as it was

deemed that the word council gave the impression of an institution. Craftsouth was

originally formed in 1966 as the Craft Association of South Australia, became the

Crafts Council of South Australia in 1978 and Craftsouth in 1997/98.

Issues of image, nomenclature, affiliations and service delivery dominate the

reports of 2000 apparently in an effort to provide the craft professional with a

market and a status similar to that of other small businesspersons.

The 2000 reports go directly to the nitty gritty of business, the Tax system, GST

and MYOB and to a financial relationship with an outside organisation, the

Business Centre. A Crafts Industry Strategy Paper was prepared by Arts SA “to

which Craftsouth was able to provide a clear vision of our role in the future

development of the vital craft/design industry in South Australia”

Craftsouth asserts itself as a business and professional service organisation in two

ways 1) in its core programme (inside) where it intends to provide professional

services and enable craft discourse and 2) by initiating projects (outside) to “foster

audience development and market opportunity for the sector”.

Possibly the most telling example of its direction is in the list of outside

organisations with which it collaborates. They all have, to some degree, business

and/or professional arts management interests. The relationship with outside

organisations is patently revealed by the list in the reports thus - Country Arts SA,

Flinders Art Museum and the West End Arts Forum, University of South Australia,

Jam Factory Contemporary Craft and Design and Object Galleries, The Business

Centre, Council for International Trade and Commerce SA, Business SA, The Small

Business Training Centre - TAFE.

101

. .

Not only was the professional business sector targeted as collaborators but also

particular emphasis was placed on “Developing new market opportunities” by

working through other avenues for commercial success, including the

manufacturing and retail sector and projects with organisations with similar

aspirations, for instance Craft Organisations Australia.

The word design is used more often in this report than any of its predecessors, for

example participation in the Designing Minds project; a project aimed particularly

at the design industry, connected Craftsouth on a formal basis with designers. The

project is a collaboration between Craftsouth: Centre for Contemporary Craft &

Design; the University of South Australia Louis Laybourne School of Architecture

and Design, Jam Factory Contemporary Craft and Design and Object: Australian

Centre for Craft and Design (Sydney). The development and presentation of an

exhibition was assisted with funding from the Visual Arts/Craft Fund of the

Australia Council, via the National Exhibitions Program managed by Object:

Australian Centre for Craft and Design. This range of organisations and institutions

reinforces a perceived connection between Craftsouth with the designers and the

design industry, universities and funding bodies.

These affiliations were one of the strategic initiatives aimed to bring together

designer-makers, commissioning clients, manufacturers and retailers with

Craftsouth.

Continuing in this vein but not widely disseminated is the sub-title the Centre for

Contemporary Craft and Design Craftsouth has added to its title. The word

designer also creeps in by the use the term designer-maker to describe a

craftsperson: “impact that the culture of the designer-maker has had on the

development of contemporary studio practice”

Two exhibitions occupying only two lines of text in the reports are mentioned but

only in the context of “Craftsouth’s resourcefulness, project management and

curatorial skills”: no mention of objects or makers or critique of exhibited objects.

A change in location as well as a “broader service delivery” is mooted along with

seeking increased industry support, for instance as a participant in the West End

Craft Incubator.

102

. .

The upgrading of computing facilities and IT base because “it is extremely

important for Craftsouth to develop and provide leadership for our members

through the use of Information Technology” was considered to be of utmost

importance.

The year 2000 was typified by a preoccupation with business. For example the

corporalisation of the nomenclature in the title change from the Craft Council to

Craftsouth and the inclusion of the word designer in its vocabulary. Issues of image

were symptomatic of this era as were affiliations outside the organisation especially

with business groups. The means of delivering a service such as managing and

curating exhibitions was also an issue in 2000.

Translation 5 (Becoming indispensable)

Look! You can’t do without us: being a professional person is now in a “black box”

there is no question about it. See we have changed our name, image and activities

to ensure that the only path for a craftsperson to take is now clearly marked and

signposted only for the business professional.

The organisation is now indispensable to the hand and the object if they are going

to survive in a complex business and marketing world. It is a craft/design industry

which you are dealing with not an alternative lifestyle. The business/marketing

world is far too complex and imposing for the hand and object to negotiate alone,

Craftsouth with its connections and means of publicity is an indispensable medium

craftspeople cannot do without.

By convincing the maker that it is necessary to pass through the organisation in

order to actually go anywhere the organisation strengthens itself as a body, expands

its interests and validates its position in the art/craft world.

The Hand and the Object

The hand is further “abstracted” as the organisation takes on the new digitised

technologies and co-opts the word design. Important because designers do not

necessarily make objects, they distance the hand from the object and imply abstract

relations between hand and object. The designer may not touch the object in its

material form but creates an abstraction to be taken up later and somewhere else by

103

. .

tools and machines. Technologies of design intervene between the hand and the

object distancing the hand from the craftsperson’s workshop. The new technologies

which refer to the use of soft-ware for business accounting and IT for disseminating

information herald a new era for the maker's hand. The object is now a device for

the dissemination of image, service, audience and market. In the 2000 reports

locating the hand and object is not easy although by collaborations with the

manufacturing and retail sector it is used by the organisation to connect resources

and people. The organisation uses the hand and object to perform the role of a

broker and as a device which manifests the organisations managerial proficiency.

An evolutionary diagram based on Latour’s continuous bi-directional chain visually

illustrates the transition. The idea of “evolution” as something that simultaneously

advances and recedes rather than the notion that one “era” is modified and handed

on, is a useful tool for understanding the demise of the hand and the object and the

rise of professionalism in Craftsouth.

Although the diagram depicts two enclosed overlapping triangles which represent

the transformation of the hand (and thus the hand made object) into a professional

as finite forms, starting with all and ending with nothing, it is only an expedient

local construction. But if seen as a chain of overlapping triangles the diagram can

depict infinite sequences of possible advances and recessions.

Figure 1.

The diagram, a variation of Latour’s (2000,p.71) transformation diagram, illustrates

the transformation from the beginning of the demise of the hand made object in

1980 to its disappearance in 2000 and the relative insignificance of professionalism

104

. .

in 1980 to its takeover in 2000. Although the diagram appears as a rigid structure it

is possible to adjust the bands and the size and shape of the triangles to approximate

the rate of transformation over the twenty year time period by associating change

with size, shape and distance. Latour refers to the bands as the “dialectic of gain

and loss”.

In a discipline called Communities of Practice organisations are categorised either

as Self-Organising CoPs and Sponsored CoPs. Self-organising CoPs start with

shared interests and are initially voluntary, informal and self-organising (Nickols,

2000, p.1). They have the capacity to develop, over time, into formal or sponsored

organisations. The latter describes the evolution of Craftsouth. Although the

analysis did not start at the time of the formation of the organisation an overview of

a significant part of its history is sufficient to show an evolutionary trend from its

inception as a voluntary, informal and self-organising collective in 1980 to a formal

sponsored professional organisation in the year 2000.

During its evolution Craftsouth went through several title changes to match its

changing agenda and remake its public image. The next analysis considers the

effect and use of titles and introductory statements both from a Western

international, and Craftsouth perspective.

Part 2: What’s in a name? Positioning Craftsouth: an analysis of craft organisation

titles and introductory statements

Summary

Part 2 consists of an analysis of a sample of Western craft organisation titles and

introductory statements for modes of practice and operations. Similarly an analysis

of the Craftsouth title and introductory statement seeks its mode of practice and

operation and its fit within the sample of Western craft organisation analyses.

A sample of Western craft organisations are analysed for their modes of practice

and operations using titles and introductory statements as data. The organisations

are selected because they use one the four most common names, guild, association,

society or council, in their title and précis their practices and operations in an

introductory statement following the title. Later the craft organisation under notice,

Craftsouth, is similarly analysed for its fit in the sample. The analysis focuses on

105

. .

Western craft organisations because they, more or less, operate in similar

social/cultural/economic environments as Craftsouth. Below is a typical example of

a title and introductory statement, the Ontario Crafts Council, used in the analyses.

The Ontario Crafts Council is a not-for-profit arts service organization that promotes

craft, advocates for craftspeople and provides educational public programming. It

was founded in 1976 through the merger of the Canadian Guild of Crafts (Ontario,

1931) and the Ontario Craft Foundation (1966) and is registered with Revenue

Canada as a charitable organization-charitable tax number:11887 8511 RR0001.

Programs and activities are supported through membership, proceeds from the Crafts

Council's retail and exhibition location, The Guild Shop, though individual, corporate

and foundation donations and sponsorships.

Handmade works of craft enrich our lives by making our environment, everyday

activities, and experience more meaningful. The Ontario Crafts Council celebrates

and seeks to enhance this contribution of craft and craftspeople to the cultural and

economic fabric of our communities.

As a not-for-profit arts service organization, the Crafts Council promotes craft and

advocates for craftspeople. It provides information, services and programming linking

craft to designers, educators, collectors, the business community and the general

public (Ontario Crafts Council, 2004, p.1)

The craft organisations are selected from the USA, Canada and Britain, the

countries of origin of the sample because they are akin with their Australian

counterparts. Organisations from non-Western countries differ in their social,

cultural and economic relations with the communities they serve and, therefore

would not be relevant to the study. Alfoldy (2003) alluded to the gap between

Western and non-Western notions of craft when she discussed the differences

between their organisational agendas in a brief history of the establishment of the

World Crafts Council.

Ultimately the concern is with the practices and operations of the local craft

organisation, Craftsouth; the analysis of Western craft organisations is only carried

out to position Craftsouth in the field. By identifying the various permutations of

Western craft organisations a matrix is constructed within which Craftsouth can be

positioned. Understanding something of the international scene helps to interpret

106

. .

the way craft is managed locally thus enabling tentative conclusions to be made

about its practices and operations.

The method for the research rests on a central assertion of actor-network theory

(ANT); that is a network of humans and non-humans is formed in the quest for a

desired outcome, or in the words of Law (2000, pp.1-2):

It (ANT) proposes that an object is an effect of an array of relations, the effect, in short, of a network. And that it holds together, it is an object, while those relations hold together and don’t change their shape.

By using ANT to seek out similarities and differences in the networks of craft

organisations which include the name guild, association, society or council in their

title an “array of relations” can be assigned that delineate them as a particular sort

of “object” from their title and introductory statement.

Word Usage

Title - refers to the organisation’s choice of headline e.g. "The Ontario Craft

Council".

Name - refers to the organisation’s choice of collective noun e.g. guild, association,

society or council

Introductory statement - refers to the body of text following the title

The titles and introductory statements from each of the sites have the potential to

reveal an actor-network, a cluster of humans, non-humans and their actions under

the name guild, association, society and council, affiliating or separating them

according to the “array of relations” in their networks.

If networks are found in the titles and introductory statements which categorise the

organisations do the categories help understand the practices and operations of

Craftsouth? For instance does it fit with one of the categories or is it, in the context

of the categorisation, a hybrid, or perhaps a new type organisation altogether?

Data production consists of titles and introductory statements collected from the

websites at forty-eight sites from USA, Canada, UK and Australia which claim to

107

. .

represent craft and use the names guild, association, society and council in their

title. Each name is represented by twelve websites, that is twelve guilds, twelve

associations, twelve societies and twelve councils. These are analysed for their

characteristics in two actions; firstly the forty-eight titles are arranged in four

groups according to their names (e.g. twelve with the name guild in their titles,

twelve with the name association in their titles, etc.) and analysed under these

names for their reference (or non-reference) to craft and the geographic range they

cover. Secondly the introductory statements which follow the titles are combined

under the four names (guild, association, society and council) and reduced to lists

of words referring to humans, non-humans and their actions to search for practices

and operations implied by the introductory statements (Latour, 1991, p. 106).

The aim is to analyse craft organisation titles and introductory statements posted on

websites which use the names guilds, associations, societies and councils for their

relations with craft and their geographic range, identify the humans, non-humans

and their actions in the introductory statements associated with the names guild,

association, society and council, infer operations and practices from the analysis

and position Craftsouth within the context of these names, operations and practices.

The analysis is significant because it opens up a broad social, cultural and

geographic picture of a sample of Western craft organisations which permit a view

of Craftsouth from this perspective. As part of the wider study of craft organisations

it contributes to the pool of knowledge that will inform craft practice, education and

industry and it uses and tests ANT in a particular context.

The first move will be to analyse the titles, the headlines, organisations use to

introduce the reader to the introductory statements. Titles summarise the site when

a web page is opened and thus constitute the initial picture of its content. This

simple ANT analysis will identify geographic range (humans) and craft specificity

or non specificity (non-humans) as a network at each of the sites.

The introductory statements which follow the title are subjected to a more

comprehensive ANT analysis to find the humans, non-humans and actions enrolled

under the four names (guilds, associations etc.) in the titles and the differences

108

. .

these networks make in shaping the “nature” of the organisations and their relation

with craft.

The analysis is guided by the following questions:

1. What is the relationship between the titles, craft and geographic

range?

2. To what extent are the humans represented in the introductory

statements?

3. To what extent is the "technical" represented in the introductory

statements?

4. To what extent are actions represented in the introductory

statements?

5. What do the networks formed by these representations mean?

6. How is Craftsouth positioned within these networks?

7. How does ANT fare in this context?

The title analysis

Table 1 represents the analysis of the titles of the organisations.

The columns are defined thus:

Broad location encompasses whole country or international vistas.

Narrow locations are territories the size of a state or smaller.

General craft refers to non-specific craft activities.

Specific craft names the craft discipline.

No location denotes the lack of specific location in the title.

No craft - neither the word craft nor a specific craft is mentioned in the

title.

Sample title analysis Broad

location Narrow location

General craft

Specificcraft

No location

No craft

Guilds 2 6 6 6 4 0 Associations 9 2 2 10 1 0 Societies 4 2 1 11 6 0 Councils 2 10 12 0 0 0

Table 1

109

. .

Title analysis - inferences

According to Table 1 guilds are mainly a mixture of narrow location, general craft

and specific craft, associations broad location and specific craft, societies specific

craft and councils general craft and narrow location.

Guilds are the most evenly spread in both craft representation and geographic

location. In spite of their role in the medieval guilds of representing specific crafts

there are as many guilds in the sample using the generic term craft as there are

denoting specific craft disciplines. Associations tend to represent specific crafts in

broad geographic locations. It can be surmised that they see the identification and

representation of specific crafts as an obligation to the craft not the craft

community. Societies are similar to associations; they also identify and represent

specific crafts in broad geographic locations. They differ by assuming rather than

defining broad locations. Councils are locally situated and do not identify specific

crafts. Councils invariably represent a limited location, often a state or a territory,

they usually include the name of the location they serve in the title and use the

generic term craft rather than identifying a specific craft discipline.

In general, the organisations represent craft in three ways, generically as craft, by a

particular craft process, (e.g. weaving) or as material knowledge, (e.g. metalwork).

Although some clear distinctions are made by this matrix considerable overlap

across the names is evident. Why the names were selected by the organisations in

the first place is a question unanswered by the research: it is assumed to be a

historical precedents, deliberate intent, arbitrary choice or combinations thereof.

Nevertheless for the research to be valid it is assumed that the founders of these

organisations and those who followed explicitly or implicitly matched the title with

a vision for the organisation.

Introductory statement analysis

Table 2 results from of an ANT analysis of the introductory statements at the

websites of twelve guilds, twelve associations, twelve societies and twelve

councils. The introductory statements from the twelve websites representing each

name are commingled and analysed as one text. Key words are selected referring to

110

. .

three macro mediators, humans, non-human, and actions which make up an "array

of relations" constituting the network. The humans, for example, could be

members, craftspeople, public, etc., the non-human, objects, tools, machines,

materials, etc. and the actions such things as manifesting interests, making rules,

using time, etc.

The analysis is illustrated as a numerical (percentage) relationship between humans,

non-humans and their actions. The table quantifies the words that refer to human,

non-human and action from the total words taken from the introductory statements.

The analysis is asked to consider the "weight" difference between humans, non-

humans and their actions to discern differences in practices and operations between

guilds, associations, societies and councils.

Sample introductory statement analysis Human

% Non-human%

Actions%

Guilds 14.5 19.5 66 Associations 19 9 72 Societies 14 11 75 Councils 16 10 74

Table 2

Introductory statement analysis - inferences

The actions from each of the names, guilds, associations, societies and councils,

are approximately the same in number leaving the relationship between humans and

non-humans to mark their differences. As the human and non-human actants

manifest a similar number of actions another study is needed to look at the type of

actions which separate the names and thus more explicitly identify differences.

Ultimately the study only discloses whether the organisation is more interested in

craft or the humans who practise it.

According to the analysis guilds tend towards the non-human rather than human

and, although not craft specific, they emphasise the technical aspects of craft. Guild

humans are marginally separated from the object and the technical knowledge and

apparatus used to make it. Associations lean more to the human than non-human: it

can be extrapolated from Table 2 that associations promote craft by assembling

people who share its interest. Humans with like interests gathering in associations

manifest craft by social interaction rather than technical interest. Societies are

111

. .

equally balanced between human and non-human, a closer relationship between the

social and the technical. Council’s interests lean slightly more towards the human

than non-human, though not to the same degree as associations. Councils and

associations tend to be concerned with creating opportunities by supporting their

members as craftspeople rather than promoting craft itself.

Craftsouth - title analysis

Table 3 represents the analysis of the title Craftsouth linked with the sample

analysis in Table 1. Although the same method of analysis was used for Craftsouth

little was revealed from its title. The analysis did nothing more than show that a

more comprehensive analysis of Craftsouth is necessary.

Sample and Craftsouth - title analysis Broad location Narrow location General craft

Specific craft No location No craft

Guilds 2 6 6 6 4 0 Associations 9 2 2 10 1 2 Societies 4 2 1 11 6 0 Councils 2 10 12 0 0 0 Craftsouth 1 1

Table 3

Craftsouth, title analysis - inferences

Issues of nomenclature

Craft organisations are sensitive to titles; nomenclature in general is seen as a

means of promoting image and intent. The title changes in the craft organization

under study attest to this sensitivity. During its relatively short history Craftsouth

has been titled the Crafts Association and the Crafts Council and now Craftsouth. A

quote from the magazine SA CRAFTS 1 in 1997 and reinforced in sa crafts 4 in the

same year exemplifies this sensitivity. “Our present name does not really reflect

our contemporary image and is perceived by many as institutional”. The use of

lower case font for the name of the magazine was also noted, perhaps in line with

the organisational name change and an attempt to present a new direction and a new

profile. Name changes are another way to map changes in the organisation over its

history. Craftsouth was originally formed in 1966 as the Crafts Association of

South Australia, became the Crafts Council of South Australia in 1978 and

Craftsouth in 1997/98.

112

. .

Craftsouth –Introductory statement analysis

An analysis of Craftsouth’s introductory statement uses the same method as the

sample in Table 2. Table 4 compares the previous introductory statement analyses

of the guilds, associations, societies and councils in Table 2 with an analysis of

Craftsouth’s introductory statement.

Sample and Craftsouth's introductory statement analysis Human

% Non- human %

Actions %

Guilds 14.5 19.5 66 Associations 19 9 72 Societies 14 11 75 Councils 16 10 74 Craftsouth 15 8.5 76.5

Table 4

Craftsouth, introductory statement analysis - inferences

Craftsouth does not correspond with guilds, according to the sample analysis,

because its non-human representation is much lower. It is inferred from the sample

analysis that Craftsouth is not an association because of its lower human

involvement but is similar to societies and councils because it shares with them a

similar ratio of human to non-human actors and similar actions. Although

Craftsouth changed its name from the Crafts Council to Craftsouth in 1997/8 it still

aligns with councils in the research sample. The connection is camouflaged in the

name change, but many of the characteristics of a council remain.

Craftsouth's title and introductory statement analyses Broad

location

Narrow location

General craft

Specific craft

No location

No craft

Craftsouth 1 1

Human %

Non-human %

Actions %

Craftsouth 15 8.5 76.5

Table 5

113

. .

Craftsouth - title and introductory statement analyses

In table 5 separated from its relations with other organisations the network which

makes Craftsouth according to its title and introductory statement analysis positions

it as an organisation which:

1. serves a narrow location, (by inferring a connection between the

word south in its title.

2. does not favour a particular craft, material or technique.

3. is more interested in people than objects.

4. is an active organisation.

Post mortem

The above analyses represent both the words used and their frequency of use in the

titles and introductory statements of the sample organisations and Craftsouth. For

instance the words craft, members and community are used frequently and at all

sites whilst some words are only used once in a single site. All were counted. This

is a product of reading the twelve sites under each name (guilds, associations, etc.)

as a single entity rather than analysing individual sites for their relations with craft,

geographic locations, humans, non-humans and actions. A somewhat different

reading may have emerged if the number of sites similar in the way they shaped

craft were counted against the total number of sites in the sample.

This research is premised on the ability of the researcher’s experienced eye to

differentiate words which represent human presence, allude to the technical and

connect, authorise or express actions. The problem when selecting words in this

way is that it is impossible for readers to know their context in the sentence or

phrase they were taken from. The general meaning of the word may be misleading;

the writers may, in fact, have contextualised nuances of meaning or words or used

them merely as grammatical devices. Most words were taken verbatim from the

text although some were translated into concepts, for instance where locations were

mentioned they were referred to as geography, dates and temporal references as

time, numerical figures as numbers and practices as craft, all with the potential to

mislead.

114

. .

The analysis is finally enunciated as numbers, a quantitative research outcome,

rather than in words, hybridising the research in away that was not originally

intended. But the words are only a basis for analysis and the numbers only underpin

the analysis, similar to Bourdieu’s (example 1994, p.216) use of percentage tables

in his classic work on taste.

Part 3: The Public texts – an analysis of Craftsouth’s publicly disseminated texts

Summary

Part 3, an analysis of the Craftsouth public texts, begins with an overview and

critique of Part 2 and the argument for a deeper study of the organisation. An

outline of the theory/methodology/method used is followed by the findings and

inferences implied by them.

Part 3 uses a collection of texts disseminated by Craftsouth for its members and the

public as data for analysis. The analysis has two objectives, the first to search for

the practices and operations of Craftsouth per se and the second to make available

material for comparison with other craft organisations.

The general position of Craftsouth in the field of guilds, associations, societies and

councils was depicted by its fit in the analysis of a sample of Western organisation

titles and introductory statements. Differences between the organisations were

premised on the assumption that the name guild, association, society and council

were consciously chosen to match a particular construction of craft representation.

Whether this was the case is speculative but it must be assumed that such choices

were intentional otherwise the research would be only valuable as an experiment

with method. Craftsouth was subjected to the same process to see where it fitted in

the sample of craft organisations. Positioning Craftsouth in the field using the same

process and equivalent title and introductory statement was inconclusive. The large

sample of twelve introductory statements for each name (guild, association, etc.)

weakened the single title and introductory statement from the Craftsouth website.

Nevertheless an international perspective gained from the study backgrounds the

more thorough analysis of Craftsouth to follow.

One of the differences between the "Western" craft organisations sampled in the

study and Craftsouth is the choice of titles. Craftsouth does not reveal much about

115

. .

itself in its title and as one of the aims of the project was to find out about

Craftsouth a much deeper analysis is needed if its practices operations are to be

delineated. Nevertheless it was necessary to compare Craftsouth with other

"Western" craft organisations if its international generality and local specificity was

to be found.

The aim of Part 3 is to locate the network that makes Craftsouth by analysing a

range of texts it disseminates in its name. This will enable at least one view of its

relations with craft, and its engagement with its members and the wider community.

The study, using actor-network theory (ANT) as the analytical tool, asks the

humans and non-humans and their actions embodied in the texts as a network to

reveal who, what and how the organisation intends to serve craft, the craft

community and engage with the general public. The analysis will uncover

Craftsouth’s priorities in terms of people, objects and actions.

In the spirit of ANT the selected texts are scanned for networks of humans

(individual and collective, inside and outside the organisation), objects (material or

discursive, non-human counterparts) and actions (the intentions and results of

human and object interaction). Thus the analysis will seek:

1. the who: the humans involved in the organisation.

2. the what: the objects they use.

3. the how: the actions which mobilise the organisation.

4. the network: the resulting assembly of mediators.

Data is gathered from the following conflated texts and scanned for humans,

objects and actions taken from words, phrases and sentences in the texts:

A media release – September Bulletin 2001.2, is an example of how

Craftsouth projects itself topically in the popular media to a wider public.

The Craftsouth Constitution identifies the official and legal shape of the

organisation.

The Website is an unmediated marketing text intended to profile the

organisation in cyber-space.

The Year 2000 Annual Report is an articulation of the accomplishments and

frustrations in a single year of practice and operation.

116

. .

The Craftsouth Accreditation Document embodies the criteria for practitioner

membership.

The aims of the research are to:

1. identify the humans, objects and actions that produced the texts

2. identify the constructions of Craftsouth inferred by the texts and

3. identify the practices and operations of Craftsouth which result from

these constructions.

The research is significant because:

1. it exposes, at least from one perspective, the practices and operations

of a craft organisation.

2. it contributes to a pool of knowledge that will inform craft education,

practice and marketing.

3. it enables Craftsouth to be positioned within the context of other craft

organisations.

4. it further extends actor-network theory (ANT) as an analytical tool.

The conflated texts are:

1. scanned for individual and collective human presence inside and

outside the organisation,

2. scanned for the objects (non-humans), inside and outside the

organisation associated with the humans

3. scanned for the actions which assist and offer humans and objects

services in the organisation.

The results are collated in tables used in conjunction with narrative text analyses to

infer practices and operations of the organisation.

Questions

1. To what extent and in what form are the humans (e.g. members, craftspeople,

public) represented in the text?

2. To what extent and in what form are the objects represented in the text (e.g.

machines, tools, materials)?

3. To what extent and in what form are the actions of humans and objects

represented in the text (e.g. promote, represent, develop, etc.)?

117

. .

4. What does the network look like?

5. What does Craftsouth look like according to the analysis?

Firstly to the humans of Craftsouth presented in a table of words and numbers and

followed by inferences based on the analysis which manifested the words and

numbers.

Human involvement inside and outside the organisation as individuals and

collectives Combined documents

Individual-inside and outside CS Collective-Inside CS Collective-Outside CS

Bulletin Constitution Webpage Annual report Accred. Doc.

13%

35.5%

51.5%

Table 6

Humans of Craftsouth – inferences: Serving and Being Served

The three boxes in Table 6 (individual-inside and outside CS, collective-inside CS

and collective-outside CS) were selected because they identified the humans the

organisation used to mobilise it as a clearing house for craft rather than a venue for

in-house craft. With the exception of the Director the individuals inside and outside

the organisation were mainly practitioner members or prospective members. The

representation of individual humans is smaller in number than collectives of

humans inside the organisation (e.g. practitioners as a group, committees, staff,

board etc.) and collectives from outside (retailers, media, schools etc.). Of course

larger numbers do not necessarily represent greater influence but it is of interest

that the core role of craftspeople (making objects) is overwhelmed by powerful

business and administrative collectives of non-makers from outside the

organisation. Such outside human collectives are represented by concentrations of

government, retailers, media, industry, schools, web audience, clients, subscribers,

and curators. The inside collectives are boards and committees reinforcing the

notion that the organisation mobilises collectives to serve individuals in business

and to become professional.

This expansion and diffusion of the humans associated with the organisation is

traced in each of the documents other than the Bulletin which focuses on a specific

118

. .

project. The human presence in each text increases as it shifts from the individual to

the collective. In the Constitution it moves from the member to the organization

and then directly to the government, two giant steps from the individual to the state.

The web page moves from the individual member to members as a group and

collective membership (practitioners and others) to those on the outside who will

serve them, retailers, media, industry and schools. In the Annual report the

expansion and diffusion takes a somewhat different path, from the individual

member to the Director and then to the membership, practitioners, professionals,

staff and board. The direction in this instance is not as clearly delineated, that is the

inside individual (the Director) moves toward the inside collective (membership,

practitioners, professionals, staff and board) and then to the outside collectives, the

retailers, media, industry, schools, web audience, clients and subscribers. Finally in

the Accreditation document the individual member is shaped by the inside

collective (committee and the current membership) and outside collectives potential

applicants, clients, curators and media.

Ultimately the humans of Craftsouth must serve, and be served by, the organisation

for it to remain relevant and viable. The numbers expand and the focus diffuses as

the individual member served by inside collectives are themselves further expanded

and diffused by large outside collectives which serve the organisation. Craftsouth

enlists these collectives to construct its intentions and broadcast its image to the

world. In fact in serving the members, the ostensible role of the organisation, all the

humans involved, whether inside and outside are also being served.

Secondly the objects of Craftsouth are presented as a table of words and numbers

followed by inferences based on the analysis which manifested the words and

numbers.

Objects of Craftsouth – inside objects, outside objects Combined documents

Inside objects

Outside objects

Bulletin Constitution Webpage Annual Report Accred. Doc.

9.6%

90.4%

Table 7

119

. .

Objects of Craftsouth – inferences: Expanding the Body and Constructing an

Identity

From Table 7 the objects, the things Craftsouth uses to run the organisation, are

predominantly from outside the organisation. Although Craftsouth is ostensibly a

craft organisation the objects inside the organisation say little about craft. The

Constitution refers to buildings and grounds and at the Craftsouth website its

identity is framed as a professional body thus mainly manifesting craft outside the

organisation. The outside bodies referred to in the documents which allude to craft

and thus identify Craftsouth as a craft organisation are the Professional Craft

Industry, Crafts and Design Industry, Craft/Design Sector, SA Craft and Design

Infrastructure, Visual arts/Craft Fund, Craft Organisations Australia and the

Australian Center for Craft and Design. But not all outside organisations

Craftsouth referred to in the documents are specifically craft related; it appropriates

other organizational platforms as well, such as Other Bodies and Organisations,

Manufacturing and Retailing Industry and Industry SA. It is speculated that the

connection the diminutive Craftsouth makes with these and other outside bodies is

intended to do two things: 1) to construct a particular identity on a wider platform

and 2) to access and mobilise resources and expertise (enroll allies) beyond the

resources of Craftsouth thus enlarging its body and its ability to dispense expertise.

The relation between art and craft is not ignored by the outside objects Craftsouth

mobilizes, notwithstanding the relationship can be strained and when craft is often

demeaned in its association with art. According to the Annual Report Country Arts

SA, Flinders Art Museum, and the West End Arts Forum are organisations with

which it is affiliated and which acknowledge the connection between Craftsouth

and the wider platform of the visual arts. This maintains the position of the

organisation as a player in the general arts field if only in arenas where the art and

craft dichotomy is somewhat subdued as in Flinders Art Museum, (with its interests

in artefacts as well as art) and Country Arts SA (where art and craft more happily

coexist) and where arts business is the primary focus as in the West End Arts

Forum. In fact Craftsouth may become the Anchor Tenant of the Incubator Facility

in the construction of an arts precinct in the West End of Adelaide thus expanding

its body and occupying visible public spaces beyond the anonymity of its small

120

. .

office space. Reaching out is also facilitated by an affiliation with the Sydney based

Design and Object Galleries and The National Exhibitions Programme.

Major outside objects of Craftsouth are specific and local, the business

organisations of Adelaide. Those named are The Business Center, Council for

International Trade and Commerce SA, Business SA and The Small Business

Training Centre TAFE. It seems that the narrow field of craft, art and even the

wider art/craft interests of such institutions as the University of South Australia, the

Jam Factory and the Australia Council are not considered to be sufficiently

business specific for the professional to make a go of it in business. This is in spite

of the University of South Australia being one of the major sites for under-graduate

crafts education, the Jam Factory a venue for professional initiation and marketing

and the Australia Council one of the funding bodies which both supports the

individual practitioner and organisations such as Craftsouth.

It is useful to look at the demarcation of roles between the business organisations

named by Craftsouth as it helps understand how they construct an identity and

expand its body by association. The Business Center is a government body, a

division of the South Australian Department of Industry and Trade that works “with

South Australian business to allow greater competitiveness and profitability which

will help grow the economic base of South Australia.” It is an organisation which

sets out to assist the state by supporting business ventures. Craftsouth envisages a

spin off for craft practitioners by its association with the Business Center. The

Council for International Trade and Commerce SA operates in a wider field beyond

the local although its activities are also intended to be of benefit locally. Its main

claim is to supply “Help for would-be exporters” specifically for “Small to medium

sized South Australian companies looking to export to countries that are very

different from our own”. In recent years the limited Australian art/craft market has

forced the professional practitioner to look overseas for markets. Marketing

individual members overseas expands the realm of the organisation Craftsouth as it

is virtually a traveling companion of the practitioners and/or objects, exporting the

organisation at little cost. Business SA is a division of the Employers Chamber of

Commerce. It operates as a service organisation for SA business and offers services,

training and resources to all businesses of any type or size. This organisation

becomes, in a sense, an arm of Craftsouth by offering similar services to it but on a

larger scale and with access to greater resources. Finally Craftsouth has an

121

. .

association with the Small Business Training Centre TAFE which offers training in

how to set up and run a small business. The centre claims a personal approach to

training by offering to teach business skills “within the context of your own

business or business idea.” One can see the value of this approach by Craftsouth;

the Small Business Training Centre TAFE is a training venue for the specific needs

of craft practitioners which fits well with the objectives of Craftsouth.

Craftsouth’s association with business organisations helps to promote craft locally;

it assists in establishing export markets, teaches small business management to

owner/employers and enables access to practical business training. The emphasis

on the craftsperson as a small business person is exemplified in the way Craftsouth

appropriates the vast territory covered by the business world and the arts industry.

Finally the actions of Craftsouth are presented in a table of words and numbers

followed by inferences based on the analysis which manifested the words and

numbers.

Actions of Craftsouth – assist and offer Combined documents

Assist Offer

Bulletin Constitution Webpage Annual report Accred. doc

59.2%

40.8%

Table 8

Actions of Craftsouth – inferences: Assist and offer

In Table 8 the actions of Craftsouth are presented in two parts, those which assist

the practitioner/member and those which offer advantages to be taken up if they

choose. It is intended to suggest that some actions are automatic, carried out when

the practitioner becomes a member whereas others are on offer if the

member/practitioner chooses to access them. Although the distinction (between

assist and offer) is blurred it, nevertheless, is a useful tool for helping to understand

Craftsouth’s intentions according to the analysis of the data from the documents.

Generally speaking assist refers to the advantages of becoming a member and offer

the smorgasbord of things for members to select from when they become members.

122

. .

Assist refers to the way humans and objects mobilise themselves for the benefit of

the organisation, members, prospective members and the public. The constitution

for instance mentions promotion, development and management, the website

serving and sharing, the annual report such things as expand, share and increase.

Offer refers to what the humans and objects of Craftsouth can dispense to members

and prospective members and the public. For instance the constitution offers

representation, association and cooperation, the annual report, advocacy and

collaboration and the accreditation document assessment and demonstration.

According to the analysis, the network is constructed from individual and collective

humans inside and outside the organisation, objects from outside the organisation

and actions which assist and offer services helping members to become more

professional and business-like in their practices.

Craftsouth is a service organisation which supports member craftspeople to operate

economically viable businesses. It does this by accrediting membership to those

who have already organised themselves in a business like manner, exhibited and

catalogued their work, kept records of sales, prices, awards, reviews and articles.

Once accredited Craftsouth assists the craftsperson to consolidate and fine tune a

business and attain the status of a professional. It does this by offering advice,

programmes, services and opportunities from inside the organisation and links with

business, education, marketing and other professional bodies from outside

Craftsouth.

Post-mortem

A catch 22 problem confronts new researchers. In order to learn how to research the

new researcher must do research and the research she/he is practising on in a

doctoral thesis ends up as a text on a university library shelf. Compounding the

dilemma it is carried out early in the life of the thesis when the researcher is least

aware of the subtleties of the research process. On reflection the analysis of

Craftsouth suffers from this problem, the research would have been conducted

differently if it was repeated. For example the analysis can be criticised similarly to

that of the title and introductory statement analysis. By isolating words, sentences

and phrases used and not accounting for their frequency of use and grammatical

context, the research is open to misinterpretation.

123

. .

Additionally the brevity and superficiality of the analysis limits the knowledge and

understanding of Craftsouth to generalisations. Using publicly disseminated texts is

intended to construct a picture of the organisation as an outsider would see it and, to

the researcher, this was achieved. But how clear is it for the reader who did not go

through the lengthy detailed analysis or was privy to the researcher's experiences of

the craft world? A picture such as this is limited because public texts carefully

constructed in print and mediated by the humans, objects and actions whose interest

they serve are ideals, not necessarily what goes on when humans and objects enact

them during the day to day running of the organisation. Using texts as if they were

humans and objects in action also limits the methodologies ability to understand the

practices and operations of Craftsouth. ANT only works if it is given free rein, it

has to network all actors involved in mediation if an array of relations which

manages the organisation are to be found. Privileging texts as macro actors and

assuming they embody all actors in the Craftsouth network goes against the grain of

ANT, texts are only micro players among others, texts are paperwork. Paperwork,

according to ANT, is free from modalities in ANT terms a black box. The research

only attempted to open the black box it did not find out how the contents of the

black box were decided upon and why it was sealed. To fully analyse the practices

and operations of Craftsouth the research would have to be conducted inside and

outside the organisation, with the people, objects and actions as they went about

their business. Nevertheless something was found in the research in the analysis of

the annual reports, the evolution of the organisation over a set period of time. Using

translating interests as a tool, the hand and the object, the fundamental platform of

craft organisations, was traced from the visible to the invisible thus uncovering a

significant understanding of the development of the organisation.

One of the texts used in the Craftsouth analysis, the membership accreditation

document is given particularly significance. By outlining the criteria for accredited

membership it further opened up to view specific criteria for Craftsouth

accreditation.

124

. .

Part 4: The accreditation document: Craftsouth’s selection criteria

Summary

The accreditation document that permits or debars membership to Craftsouth is

addressed in Part 4. It also serves as an introduction to the conception of the

masterpiece.

Craftsouth’s accreditation document is worthy of independent scrutiny because it

exemplifies Craftsouth's attitude to the craft object in one explicit statement: "The

committee does not make judgments on your work, rather you will be invited to

become an Accredited member of Craftsouth on the basis of your demonstrated

professionalism." This statement deflects the discussion of the document away from

the discrete material object toward Craftsouth’s interests in professionalism. The

object is replaced by a package of organisational concerns and interests which are

based on, but do not necessarily include the material object. The interests and

concerns include secondary material forms, in a sense, byproducts of objects and

things which straddle the interface between objects and records in the form of

paper, numbers and words. Craftsouth is also concerned with the embodiment of

object making outcomes and the identity of human affiliates who make the craft

professional. Thus the accreditation criteria represents the material object by

mobilising its outcomes. This is in accord with one of Latour's observations of

science experiments; process and materiality are reconfigured as records in paper

words and numbers.

The accreditation materials are brought to Craftsouth by candidates and are used to

expand its body and shape its identity by selecting representatives to act for it in the

public arena. It is, of course a two way street accreditation entitles the craftsperson

member access to the advantages only the organisation can offer and enhances

his/her status as a crafts and business person.

Thus the accreditation document constitutes a form of masterpiece, if a masterpiece

is defined as a marker of standards and as a regulatory device.

In the case of the Craftsouth document it is the things they consider to mark the

professional which is the masterpiece, not autonomous material objects. The

125

. .

following narrative discusses this assertion with a detailed analysis of the

Craftsouth membership accreditation document and an account of its relations with

medieval craft guilds.

Part 5: The masterpiece: the medieval guilds, Craftsouth and objects of

management

Summary

Emerging from the discussion of the Craftsouth Accreditation document is the

notion of the masterpiece. It enables a comparative study of the role of the object as

a managerial tool in historical and contemporary contexts. The masterpiece in this

context is a fluid tool subject to contextual requirements in particular times and

places.

The Masterpiece - Hands and objects as mechanisms of control.

The masterpiece is an object whose material form could be compared to that of an

iceberg; most of it sits below the surface changing in size and form according to

water conditions whilst the visible tip is well, a piece of ice. The masterpiece too is

more than the sight of a visible material object and the technical skill of a maker; it

manages the arts, education, industry, the market and the wider community by

adapting to often unseen local conditions. In everyday usage the word masterpiece

has come to mean any work in any form which surmounts the ordinary. In some

dictionaries it is defined as a work of great skill and technical expertise especially

in the realm of the arts and crafts. One on-line dictionary (Merriam-Websters)

whilst acknowledging its everyday usage goes further to refer to its roots in the

medieval guilds as a piece of work presented as evidence for accreditation to the

rank of master. In this sense it could be seen as a qualification entitling practice at a

particular level and for the practitioner to assume a certain professional status. It is

in this context that the word is used in this narrative. It is posited that the

masterpiece is not only used to induct apprentices into trades and enable students of

art and craft to gain credentials at the end of a technical college or university art or

craft course but it is also used to access the advantages of belonging to a craft

organisation. In fact it is used to induct the apprentice or graduate into another level

of perceived proficiency enabling them to gain access to the social and economic

advantages therein.

126

. .

Thus the masterpiece is not as simple as it looks; its visible material qualities and

status as a discrete object cannot be disentangled from the social/cultural/economic

conditions it encounters below the surface. Its construction at any given time and

place is an abstraction, distanced from its material form for use as a mutable

mechanism of control. The masterpiece in terms of ANT is a network of actors

which includes but does not privilege the material object making it available as a

flexible managerial tool easily modified according to context and conditions.

Latour (1999) would argue that this is not the corruption of the object but rather the

normal outcome of the interaction between objects and humans. It was shown in the

analysis of Craftsouth’s annual reports, that this is the case in a contemporary

organisation; the object in that instance is formed and reformed over a period of

time according to the changing needs and concerns of Craftsouth and the

practitioners it represents. This is by no means new. As a study of the British and

European Medieval guilds attests, the masterpiece has always been abstracted from

the material object for use as a tool to control changing economic, social, religious

and cultural platforms. In both the historical and contemporary setting the form of

the masterpiece is constantly shifting to suit organisational needs and concerns as

organisations strive for power, stability and survival risking and obscuring the

material basis on which the organisation was founded.

The masterpiece in action is explored first from readings of the history of its

antecedents, the medieval guilds and second by an analysis of Craftsouth's

accreditation document. A study of the medieval guilds sets contemporary craft

organisations in a historical context enabling similarities and differences to be

explored (Black, 1984).

The masterpiece in the medieval guilds

In the medieval guilds the masterpiece was a managerial device used to control the

flow of apprentices into a trade and the management of the trade's general practices.

It was not confined as a discrete material object and was resisted at times because it

was inappropriate in trades where skills were fragmented or could not be measured

by a masterpiece. In this event there is evidence that it was replaced or

supplemented by a written or oral accreditation process (Epstein, 1991). Written or

oral accreditation presumably tested the apprentice’s or journeyman’s knowledge of

the skills of the trade as well as their ability to read, write and articulate verbally

127

. .

reconfiguring the masterpiece as a network that included but did not privilege the

discrete material object. It is argued that using a written or oral examination, as part

or whole of an accreditation process, supports the notion of a network. Not

dissimilar to what will be argued in the analysis of Craftsouth texts, the network is

the masterpiece. Nevertheless in most trades a mixture of object and examination

were mandatory for entrance into the guilds; very few trades managed to escape

accreditation. Thus the similarity between the form and use of the masterpiece in

both medieval and contemporary settings is posited.

Apprenticeship training in medieval times differed from the contemporary model

because of the broad sweep of activities it encompassed. Present day demarcations

were not a concern for the guilds: what is categorised separately now as trade, craft,

art or profession were taught and managed by the guilds in a single category called

the trades. In fact the influence of the trade model was still apparent at the turn of

the 20th century (Combes, 1887) and still discernible in the structure of trade, craft

and art schools in the 1960s. Apprenticeship as a mix of formal and on the job

education and training in some areas of the “arts and professions” was still common

then.

In the medieval guilds the transmission of trade, craft, art and professional skills

and practices was the overt aim of apprentice education and training and the

evaluation of a masterpiece, the ostensible means of assessment.

Although the aim of apprentice training in the guilds was ostensibly the

transmission of trade, craft, art and professional skills and practices from one

generation to the next, apprenticeship performed other functions, particularly the

management of standards. Epstein (1991. p.125) made the connection between

training and standards when he wrote: “the apprenticeship system in part existed to

pass on skills, and hence the ability to meet certain standards, from one generation

to the next”. Standards used to train the apprentice were also used to maintain and

ensure the general standards of the trade.

But the masterpiece was more than an instrument to induct apprentices and regulate

standards, it was a tool used to assess and manage the tradesperson's personal and

economic well being by limiting entry to the guild only to those who could fulfil

128

. .

certain requirements, requirements which enhanced the profile of the trade. For

example apprentices were often not admitted as freemen nor allowed to set up

house until they passed an examination in workmanship, reached a certain age and

satisfied the economic criteria for entrance (Unwin, 1963): in a sense, a form

similar to Craftsouth's all-round professional. The masterpiece network, expanded

to include apprentice training, standards and the state of trade, the maturity of the

tradespeople and their access to sufficient capital to run a business, is starting to

take shape. The masterpiece, “his knowledge of the craft” was often only a part of a

complex set of criteria used to initiate the apprentice into the trade (Hodsbawm,

1959, p.155).

But the masterpiece also had macro roles; it was used at times to manage the

viability of businesses, the labour force and the industry as a whole. For instance

the Hatters of Paris used the masterpiece as a means of controlling the numbers in

their industry by raising or lowering standards according to the state of business

and the local economic climate: an example of the masterpiece as a device to attend

to wider industry matters (Epstein, 1991).

The masterpiece as a tool used for the overall management of the guilds and the

working environment of its members was, in a sense, a potent regulatory device.

Unwin (1963, p.264) considered “The dominant idea of all this regulation was the

preservation of the status of the master craftsman.” The preservation of the status

of the master craftsperson went beyond their skills and technical expertise to

include social and economic status and rank in the wider community and thus

reflect on the image of the trade itself.

Epstein’s (1991, pp. 124-125) slant on regulation takes it further as a tool which

accommodates variations in standards of production. He was not referring to “high

or universal” standards but rather standards as a flexible tool of trade management.

He claims that standards were not prescribed clearly in guild statutes: “Agreements

on standards of production are not a usual feature of guild statutes” and suggested

that standards were, in fact, another tool which “provided masters with the

incentive to reduce costs by improving efficiency and maintaining quality”. That is,

standards were set and maintained for efficiency and the control of production costs

and to ensure profit rather than the pursuit of “high” standards. Standards were not

129

. .

absolute but were just another variable used to manage the market. Contextualising

the masterpiece was one way of ensuring industry flexibility.

The masterpiece also links standards and the management of the trade with the

control of numbers permitted to practice at any given time. Competition in the

market place depended on the number of guilds people working in the trade and

numbers influence prices and profit margins. By tuning standards to the technical

difficulty and the cost necessary to produce a masterpiece, numbers and thus

competition in the marketplace could be managed. Although there was conflict

concerning the ethics of using the masterpiece in this way (or at all), some refusing

to do so on the grounds that “it was an unlawful restraint on their entry into the

trade” (Unwin, 1963, p. 265), it was an agreed way of tending to the trade.

Regulation not only controlled practitioner numbers competing for business but it

also ensured sufficient number of employees to serve the masters. In fact its use as

a regulatory device in this way was widespread as Unwin (1963, p.266) observed:

There can be little doubt that the masterpiece was used as a barrier against the flood of journeymen whom the masters desired to keep in the position of wage earners.

Using the masterpiece as a regulatory device allowed the guilds to exclude and

include thus enabling the market to be stimulated or depressed according to the rate

of guild membership. Admitting or rejecting members according to regulatory

criteria was a way of building and enhancing the guild’s power as the arbiter of

standards and the protector of the market. Nevertheless not everyone wanted to be a

member and those who saw it as a restriction on trade defied the regulations and

practised covertly.

Standards of workmanship are difficult to identify when the masterpiece is

constantly reformed in accord with the contextual function it is asked to perform. It

becomes a tool in the game organisations play in maintaining their position and

status: its form as a material entity is only of interest when its material qualities are

the only criteria for accreditation or assessment. At other times the significance of

the material object is embodied in other forms such as paper work or as oral or

written texts or numbers released to represent it (Latour, 1999). This is as much the

case now as in medieval times.

130

. .

The masterpiece was, and is a mechanism of control which could exclude or

include and thus manage the rate of practitioners entering the field, stimulate or

depress the market, promote guild membership as desirable and act as both arbiter

of standards and protector of the market.

The role of the object, how it is used and the way it constructs the maker and the

user, surmounts its intrinsic material presence in the medieval guilds.

The masterpiece in Craftsouth

It is argued the delineation of the masterpiece has remained consistent over time: it

remains a construction made by a network shaped by the requirements of the

organisation and the craftsperson. The craft object isolated as a material entity is

ineffective to gain access to organisational advantages; as merely a signifier of skill

and technical expertise it cannot go it alone.

Admittance to the medieval guild and the accreditation of entry to a contemporary

craft organisation subjugates the discrete object for the survival of the organisation,

industry and practitioner.

The craft organisation under study, Craftsouth, was originally established to

represent those who wished to make and use hand made objects in spite of, or

because of, their growing irrelevancy in economic, industrial and domestic realms.

Over time the organisation evolved from a grass roots “craft club” to one which

supports the professional maker, a hybrid of “craft artist” and small businessperson.

The hurdle of accreditation needs to be leaped to become a member of the

organisation. The criteria for membership demands the fulfilment of requirements

laid out in the organisation’s accreditation document, the document constitutes a

network which constructs a masterpiece.

The document can be broken down into three components: the advantages of

accreditation, the criteria for accreditation and the responsibilities of being an

accredited member. Although accessing the advantages and fulfilling the

responsibilities are dependent on meeting the criteria of membership they are also

factors in the construction of the masterpiece. Thus accessing the advantages and

fulfilling the responsibilities influence the network which makes the masterpiece.

131

. .

Informing the three components outlined in the document is the before mentioned

definitive statement that simultaneously includes and sidelines the discrete the craft

object (the work):

The committee does not make judgments on your work, rather you will

be invited to become an Accredited member of the organisation on the

basis of your demonstrated professionalism.

It includes the work because the premise on which accreditation is based,

professionalism, presupposes that there is a material basis (the work) to be

professional about but it also sidelines it by dismissing it as the primary basis for

accreditation in favour of demonstrated professionalism. What then will be the

criteria for accreditation if judgments of the work are excluded in favour of

professionalism; what is the network which constructs the masterpiece enabling

access to the organisation as an accredited member?

Such a statement directs the search for the masterpiece in the accreditation

document in a particular way. If the craft object is removed as the primary

assessment tool what does the network look like that shapes the masterpiece in

terms of professionalism? If acceptance as a accredited member is conditioned

upon how craft objects are presented and marketed rather than what they are or how

they may be valued in the art/craft community as objects of function, aesthetics or

meaning where in the document are the actants which make the professional and

what do they look like?

Thus the masterpiece as a network starts with an extant craft object valueless

without the accouterments of "professionalism". If the craft object is not a self

contained masterpiece what else in the accreditation document needs to be added to

make the masterpiece which makes the professional?

The fragmented network

Assuming the material craft object as a starting point four categories of actors were

located and added to it for their potential to construct the masterpiece of Craftsouth.

132

. .

They are:

1. other objects generated by the material craft object

2. consequences of disseminating craft objects

3. embodied qualities as outcomes of making and disseminating craft

objects

4. human affiliates.

Other objects generated by the material craft object

Although it is argued that the discrete material craft object is not a masterpiece per

se other material objects predicated on its existence are generated and added to the

network to make the masterpiece. They are material objects because their

materiality conveys meaning and aesthetics, independent of their content. An

analysis of the accreditation document identified the following as material network

actors generated by the discrete material craft object: portfolio, portfolio material,

A4 spiral bound binder, visual material, photographs, photocopies and business

cards. Made of paper, plastic and metal they are indispensable to the network

because they convey aspects of the material craft object it cannot convey alone.

Consequences of disseminating material craft objects

When craft objects are disseminated they act on behalf of their makers and have

the potential to feed back reactions from the locations they visit or inhabit. These

reactions are accounts conditioned by the location and articulated by others.

Although they are disseminated in material form their significance to the

craftsperson is no longer material: it is the messages they convey which add further

to the craftsperson's reputation. The reactions they elicit can be in the form of direct

conversation, critiques, sales, money, status, etc. Their role is a maker of texts

essential to a masterpiece network. As texts, they can be shuffled and assembled

according to the needs and concerns at the sites of interpretation. In the case of

Craftsouth's accreditation requirements the texts are an application document and

curriculum vitae, a 200 words essay, exhibition catalogues, price lists, titles, dates,

mediums, dimensions, awards, names, reviews, and articles and, in this case, the

site of interpretation, Craftsouth, and its aspirations, the professional craftsperson.

They are significant because they meet the desire of Craftsouth for accreditation

criteria in the form of numbers and words that represent reactions to the craft object

beyond its material form.

133

. .

The textual accounts help make the maker in the long term as they often less

vulnerable, permanent and not conditioned by the time, place or the status of the

object at the time of manufacture.

Embodied qualities as outcomes of making and disseminating craft objects

In the quest for professionalism as a means to accreditation, Craftsouth asks as a

condition of membership the embodiment of certain qualities and states as an

outcome of making objects. Although these qualities and states are not in material

form they nevertheless are as important to the network which constructs the

masterpiece as their material counterparts. They are a means of internalising,

storing and mobilising in the body of the craftsperson, qualities which are

independent of the particularities of object making and distribution. Included in this

category and cited in the document are such things as creativity or vision,

professionalism and personal development.

Human affiliates

The humans who are responsible for the construction of the masterpiece are also

enmeshed in the network as actors affiliated with the objects, texts and embodied

states. The decision of Craftsouth to stress professionalism, as the main criterion for

accreditation means that the humans connected with the organisation (outside and

inside) must either endorse or accept the validity of this criterion. Either way they

are enrolled as actors in the network. The accreditation document names the human

affiliates as the committee, current members, clients, curators and specialist media

representatives.

The assembled network

Fragmenting the analysis into objects, texts, embodied states and human affiliates

assists in understanding the content of the accreditation document but a network is

made up of a circulating array of relations rather than an assortment of fragments.

The network which constructs the masterpiece in Craftsouth can only become a

circulating array of relations when divisions between classifications of actors in the

network are broken down. Thus the masterpiece as constructed in the accreditation

document consists of an indivisible network of other objects generated by the

material craft object, consequences of disseminating material craft objects,

134

. .

embodied qualities as outcomes of making and disseminating craft objects and

human affiliates, from inside and outside the organisation.

The masterpiece network is constructed both inside and outside the organisation

because it consists of what candidates for accreditation bring to the network and

what those inside the organisation do with it. The successful candidate when

entitled to membership helps to form the organisations objectives. These objectives

are then circulated in the public arena by the members already recruited on the basis

of their compatibility with the masterpiece approved by the organisation. The

masterpiece is the network that makes a professional; the professional the entity

submitted for accreditation and once accredited the representative of the

organisation in the community.

But the role of craft organisations goes beyond projecting itself through its

members, like the medieval guild the function of the masterpiece could be

examined by the way it is used as a device to manage conditions outside the

organisation’s direct control. For instance the training and education of apprentices

and graduates in teaching institutions as well as the nature of professional practice

could be influenced by what craft organisations regard as ideal qualities for

professional practitioners. It is possible, although unusual, to become a professional

craftsperson without institutionalised training or education. In a sense judgements

concerning the quality of the candidates for accreditation in a craft organisation are

also remote judgements of the quality of the trade or undergraduate training they

receive outside the organisation.

All organisations constructed around objects, whether found and placed in

museums or made and represented by craft organisations, seek the masterpiece, the

object that most emphatically defines their image. But the masterpiece is never self-

contained; it always brings with it a mix of material, social, cultural and economic

factors.

By considering the masterpiece as a device for inclusion in or exclusion from a

craft organisation it is defined as a construction beyond the limits of a self-

contained material object to include all the human and non-human interventions

that impacted on its production, in fact a network.

135

. .

In order to further understand the masterpiece in a contemporary setting a glance

back to medieval craft guilds in search of parallels and deviations inform current

practices from positions on either end of a historical continuum.

There were a number of parallels between medieval and contemporary times in the

way the masterpiece was used as a regulatory device including the lack of

specificity in the regulations concerning the form of the masterpiece, prescribing

the difficulty and cost of making the masterpiece according to economic and

cultural circumstances, controlling the number of practitioners in the field by

manipulating the parameters of the masterpiece and as a method of controlling

workplace practices. The masterpiece was also a means used by organisations to

strengthen and broaden their influence by promoting the advantages of

organisational membership in such a way that non-membership did not seem like an

option.

The evolving thesis: reflections so far

Summary

The evolving thesis looks at how the research in a craft organisation, Craftsouth,

could influence the research in the other sites of representation.

The Craftsouth research explored the hand and object as they became increasingly

infused with other organisational agendas. The position of the hand and object in

the Annual reports was the first and most significant finding. The hand and the

object gradually shifted from centre to back stage over the twenty year period of

analysis. Nomenclature was adapted from the people centred word association to

council where people, technologies and relations share equal billing to the corporate

title and subtitle, Craftsouth centre for craft and design where people presence was

further distanced from the organisation’s ancestry. The texts disseminated by

Craftsouth provided evidence of the disappearing hand and object as the interests of

Craftsouth were reformed as professionalism, marketing, membership, profile and

outreach, tasks set for the hand and the object but masking their overt presence.

Hints of the hidden hand and fluid object as an entity to explore and a tool to use

emerged from these analyses. A second outcome of the organisation research was

the notion of the masterpiece. It came to notice during the analysis of the

accreditation document and prompted a comparative study between Craftsouth and

136

. .

its antecedents, the medieval guilds. In both Craftsouth and the guilds, hands and

objects were used as tools for the construction of discursive or material objects to

be reconfigured to match the desires of Craftsouth and the guilds. The masterpiece

directing hands and objects as management tools, emerged as an influence on the

research to follow.

It can be seen why changes in thinking about the form and content of a project such

as this was inevitable, as the research and the naïve researcher moved on new

insights into the problem not envisaged in the original proposal were revealed. The

original proposal, premised on the assumption that the maker's world was changing

primarily because of new technologies and that new technologies made some

practices redundant and new opportunities possible. Whilst the changing

technological landscape has played, and continues to play, an important role in the

field it became obvious that it was too simplistic to assume that it is entirely the

cause. The annual reports were not about technological change yet the modus

operandi of the organisation was gradually modified from representing the maker

and the object to the objective of professionalism. The hidden hand and the fluid

object and the masterpiece, offered another exploratory tool helping to redirect the

research from a study of technological change to a search for a network of actors in

sites of craft representation.

The choice of sites was confirmed by this revelation. The original search in a

number of the common sites of craft representation, reduced to three carefully

chosen sites was validated by the Craftsouth analysis. The hidden hand and the

fluid object and the masterpiece were equally applicable to the other sites of

representation, the academic workshop and the exhibition.

With this knowledge in hand the following research projects can be approached

with wider vision and new perspectives

137

. .

Project 2: The academic jewellery workshop

Summary

Project 2 is an introduction to the workshop, its people and the course they are

jointly conducting. The role of craft in an academic workshop is explored using

official texts, questionnaires, student and institutional paper work and researcher

observation. It also considers the workshop as a research site and the usefulness of

ANT as a theoretical/methodological tool in this setting.

Introduction

The thesis is significantly provoked and sustained by the researcher’s experiences

in formal or improvised workshops and is ostensibly concerned with the relations

between hands and objects in these settings. Returning to the workshop is necessary

if craft is to be observed in this primary form, although a workshop set in a

university art school may differ in some respects from its industrial counterpart.

Thus the researcher’s experiences and immutable aspects of workshop life are

brought to bear on observations of, and research in, a university jewellery

workshop.

Broadly the problem relates to the dearth of research and lack of knowledge about

the practices and operations of teaching and learning workshops in universities. The

problem in this project is explored by considering the relations between workshop

practices and operations, the aspirations and actions of students and staff in them

and the demands made by the ruling institution.

The academic craft workshop has dual roles: it is expected to simultaneously fulfil

craft’s traditional and contemporary operations and practices and generate and

disseminate university knowledge. Thus the question: how do the relations between

the unavoidable nature of workshop practices and operations, the aspirations and

actions of students and staff and the demands made by the institution fulfil craft’s

traditional and contemporary practices and operations and generate and disseminate

knowledge in a jewellery-teaching workshop sited in a university? Can traditional

and contemporary craft values, “industrial” practice and the demands of academic

study all be upheld in a university workshop? What constitutes craft in this site?

138

. .

The general argument involves the workshop as another site where the relations

between workshop practices and operations, the aspirations and actions of students

and staff and the demands made by the institution constitute craft and generate and

disseminate university knowledge. The specific argument is that university

workshops reform craft in order to simultaneously uphold its traditional and

contemporary aspirations and satisfy the demands made by the academic

institution.

In general the problem, question and argument are explored by considering the

relations between the workshop, students and staff and university interests in the

context of a specific workshop jewellery course. Reminding the research of the

significance of hands and objects of the problems, questions and argument at this

point and in this context brings into focus the notion of their indispensability to

both craft and the workshop.

In a workshop where objects are overtly made by hand, it would seem their

significance and place is beyond question. The hand is ever present, fully visible in

the making process, and the object the centre of attention, conspicuously positioned

for contemplation and assessment. But this assumes the academic workshop to be

an autonomous site unfettered by any agenda but its own. This may not be the case;

hands and objects may be struggling for autonomy and the right to produce and

disseminate their unique form of knowledge in a university workshop. Answerable

to others outside the workshop, they may be asked to generate and disseminate

forms of knowledge to which they are unaccustomed. Thus the question of

significance and dispensability is raised in this context. The significance of hands

and objects in this setting can only be established if their indispensability is

acknowledged by all university interests. If the particular talents of the hand and

object are submerged when they are asked to manage agendas other than their own

from outside the workshop and their fundamental significance questioned in an

academic setting how do they assert themselves in this setting?

The hand and object, possibly vulnerable to university agendas from outside the

workshop, may also be vulnerable from agendas outside the university; for instance

students, staff and others may bring to the university concepts of jewellery making

139

. .

and attitudes to university study not necessarily consistent with the fundamental

significance of either.

Naming the research site an academic workshop requires explanation; the

placement of an industrial workshop in the grounds of a university does not

necessarily make the workshop “academic”. There are workshops on campus not

directly related to the intellectual life of a university. University workshops are

categorised in two ways 1) those which are necessary for students to complete a

course of study and 2) those which are part of the infrastructure necessary to

operate a university. The jewellery workshop belongs to the former category and,

for instance, maintenance workshops belong to the latter. If students are enrolled in

a jewellery course of study, a workshop is essential and the most convenient

location for it is in the university grounds. It is on this premise (that in order to

participate in a programme the students require a workshop) that it is named an

academic workshop.

All academic workshops are not necessarily the same as jewellery workshops. They

are merely one of many sites in a university not using the traditional lecture/tutorial

instructional model but where knowledge is nevertheless generated and

disseminated. Students are taught and learn in engineering workshops, science

laboratories, nursing skills laboratories, on the sports field and in kitchens. The

jewellery workshop differs from these in the nature of its operations and practices,

not the educational outcomes it pursues. Research in a jewellery workshop is

intended to see if university interests modify its “industrial” nature and thus enable

comparisons to be made between its operations and practices and those in other

sites outside, within and across universities.

Workshops as study sites demand compromise by both the university and jewellery

making if both are to benefit from their shared residency. Jewellery workshops not

only expect university spaces to be utilised in a certain way because of the demands

of machinery, tools and specialised work arrangements but they also require

problematic staff student ratios, considerable capital outlay and the fulfilment of

stringent occupational health and safety requirements. Teaching by demonstration,

mentorship and supervised practice further impinge on student staff ratios and cost

per student. Additionally workshops on campus evolved from industrial buildings

140

. .

not characteristic of university architecture thus creating problems of integration

and adaptation. Steve Fuller (1998, p.2) in a paper on the “science wars” noted that

even the science laboratory now the norm in universities was once considered to be

an annoying intruder on university grounds:

On the one hand, humanists have usually condescended to the natural sciences in the form of “benign neglect” because they could not see the larger cultural significance of a form of knowledge so intimately tied to technology, manual labour, and the craft tradition more generally. Difficult as it may be to believe now, as recently as a hundred years ago Western Humanists objected to the placement of laboratories on university grounds because of the unseemly sights, sounds, and smells emanating from them.

Academic workshops also differ from their industrial counterparts in terms of the

production of socio/cultural capital. When an industrial workshop is integrated in,

and adapted to, an academic setting its socio/cultural status is raised above its

industrial counterpart. Craft skills learnt in a university endow graduates with a

special “licence” to set up a practice and/or teach, a licence that will attract

socio/cultural advantages over other forms of craft education and training. Of

course anybody is free learn craft skills in any way they please and set up a practice

when and where they choose but a university imprimatur opens up special

opportunities not available by other routes. Although not the central focus of the

thesis acknowledging the advantages of educational, social and cultural capital

offered by university craft study influences the approach to the research. In the

context of socio/cultural capital academic workshop practices and operations and

the researcher’s experiences in workshops outside academia offer links and

dichotomies between what the university strives for and workshop life itself.

The jewellery course under study may or may not be typical of courses offered in a

jewellery department but it is, nevertheless, a pertinent research subject because it

is offered in a university programme, is popular with both jewellery students and as

an across campus elective and it uses the acquisition of hand skills and the

production of objects to fulfil its requirements. The course requires the mastering of

a limited range of quite difficult skills such as die making, die cutting and

knowledge of the principles of the shear, an understanding of why “harder” metals

cut “softer” metals, and the use of these skills and principles in the production of

141

. .

replicas. The course enabled the observation of how the acquisition of skills and

technical knowledge necessary to fulfil course requirements could shape an initial

idea and how an idea could be turned into body adornment. It is argued that the

limitations imposed by shaky student skills, the engineering principle underpinning

the die (the shear) and its use in this context (to cut replicas) is significant to the

final form of an object.

It is also argued that although all courses in the jewellery programme may differ in

detail they are related in a fundamental way, they are all servants to the demands of

the workshop, the acquisition of specific skills and technical knowledge and the

market. The course is ideal to explore this assertion: it highlights the significance of

hand skills, introduces one of the widely used commercial jewellery manufacture

methods and it overtly prepares for the reality of the marketplace. It is further

argued that all jewellery courses encompass these aims although attention from

them is sometimes diverted by the demands of visual art and wider university

interests. The course represents the overall jewellery programme well, its basic

nature making it an ideal research subject. Its stripped down form opens to view the

basis of all jewellery courses, a network of techno/human relations in a workshop

indispensable to the production of objects.

The course, because of its generalisability across the jewellery programme and its

focus on the skills of the hand as a basis for converting ideas into objects is an ideal

research subject. It enables the exploration of the indispensability and durability of

craft when ideas are made into objects and it is valuable as a model for how hand

skills and engineering principles can be extrapolated to other jewellery courses

independent of local and esoteric details. The course is like a skeleton of a dinosaur

in a museum: there is much more to the animal than a skeleton but at least this

stripped down version enables one to imagine a range of feasible surfaces and

possible movements. Without the skeleton there is no dinosaur; without the basic

workshop practices and operations and engineering principles such as those used in

this course, there is no jewellery. Although the relations between the workshop,

skills and principles and outcomes is transparent in this course (the skeleton is

revealed) it is argued that in other courses where relations between workshop and

object, although not as transparent are equally as important to outcomes.

142

. .

The course is titled by the institution as Jewellery Production Techniques, each

word in the title a representation of course content, jewellery alluding to scale and

relations with the body, production with connotations of materiality and replication

and techniques the imparting of skills and engineering principles. As argued in the

Craftsouth research, titles are important. They are the first contact and significantly

shape and limit the details of the course during its life span over a university

semester. Although the jewellery department is answerable to the demands set out

in the hierarchical structure in which it functions (the university and the art school)

it, nevertheless, is its own master when course details are constructed around such a

title, and applied in the workshop. Only jewellers familiar with jewellery

production techniques and jewellery workshops can write a course such as this. The

course as outlined in the handout distributed to students is as follows:

The course statement Practising Jewellery Makers need innovative and ‘low-tec’ techniques that allow them to produce ‘limited edition’ or ‘batch production’ runs of their work. By making multiples of their designs, artists are able to reach a wider audience and capitalise on the time spent developing an idea or design. A production run or ‘bread and butter’ range can be sold through a retail outlet and often supports the development of an artist’s experimental or ‘avante-garde’ exhibition work. Aims/Learning objectives or outcomes The aim of this course is to introduce you to fundamental jewellery production concepts and technology with a view to providing you with a clearer understanding of the opportunities that limited-production projects create for the professional practitioner. Students who successfully complete the course will:

• Demonstrate safe work practice and an understanding of the

common material and process hazards in the workshop. • Have a clear understanding of the nature of limited-production

runs as method of extending contemporary jewellery making practice.

• Have developed a satisfactory level of competence in a range of

jewellery production techniques. • Respond creatively to projects using limited edition and batch

production techniques. • Demonstrate an awareness of local and national contemporary

craft practice with a focus on limited-production methods

143

. .

The course is divided into three parts, hydraulic die forming, pancake die making

and batch production. Hydraulic die forming, although not a research subject,

included general workshop knowledge such as workshop safety, annealing and

work hardening, aluminium anodising, cold joining techniques and the use of tools

such as disc cutters and templates. General workshop knowledge such as this is

integrated in the research subjects, the pancake die and batch production. The

pancake die the tool for batch production, is an ideal research subject because:

1. it requires a high level of skill with a tool, the piercing saw

2. it requires a moderate level of skill in the use of a machine, the fly

press

3. skills, tools and machines cannot be bypassed if the requirements of

the course are to be fulfilled

To expand on the efficacy of the pancake die as a subject for research, it is

necessary to explain the die in terms of its principle and action by reducing it to a

simple geometric diagram similar to the teacher’s white board explanation drawing.

The diagram in Figure 2 illustrates the central feature of the die, the principle of the

shear. Although it is neither probable nor necessary for the reader to understand the

principles and use of the pancake die, from this brief outline the intention is to

illustrate how unforgiving the shear principle is by the diagram and what students

have to master by hand before they make objects to fulfil course requirements.

The principle of the shear as illustrated in Figure 2 and in the teacher’s whiteboard

diagram could be described as "paper work" intended to overcome the difficulty of

describing its principles and action in words. Its essential precision is dependent on

students understanding the die principle from a diagram and their skill to cut it with

a particular tool, the piercing saw.

Figure 2

144

. .

Further as Figure 3 shows its efficacy as a die is dependent on a mathematical

relationship between the thickness of the metal used to make it (die thickness), the

width of the saw cut (the saw blade size) and the thickness of the metal to be cut

(blank thickness). The relationship between these three variables will determine the

critical angle of the saw cut necessary to make a working die. Thus the acquisition

of technical knowledge is crucial for the ultimate efficacy of the die. Figure 3

illustrates a diagrammatic version of the technical knowledge which must be

understood by students if they are to fulfil the requirements of the course.

Saw Blade Size Die

thickness Blank thickness

5/0 4/0 3/0 2/0

17.5 18 20 22 .749 mm .64 mm Angle in degrees

Figure 3

The above are examples of a geometrical and mathematical model (in the form of

paper work) underlying the function of the die. A non-functioning die disrupts the

network of human and non-human actions and the production of a techno/aesthetic

object for contemplation and assessment and the paper work it needs to generate.

The principles and use of the pancake die are theorised in ANT terms based on an

un-edited entry in the researcher’s journal.

The whiteboard drawing illustrating the geometry of the shear principle is a crucial point of departure as the whole project hinges on the determination of this simple geometrical principle. It not only determines how multiple identical blanks can be cut but also how its limitations, to a significant extent, shape both their use and visual outcomes (that is, an understanding of the geometry is necessary for the production of techno/aesthetic objects). The geometry not only determines outcomes but it also determines process, tool selection, tool size, tool production, bench layout, seating position and skill development but also the nature of the social world of the workshop, affiliations, disputes, clique formations and allegiances between people and ideologies. Here we have a classic example of “laboratory” work significantly shaping an idea into an outcome. This idea is a means of exploring the “language of the workbench” and comparing it in industrial and academic workshops.

145

. .

The teacher introduced the projects by using the geometrical and mathematical

principles in Figure 2 and 3. He discussed the advantages and disadvantages of this

type of die with the class in terms of “design” and quantity, the two most important

elements of the course. Making the die began as “paper work” on the whiteboard

and continued by demonstrating how its principles and knowledge are transferred

from paper work to a working metal die: from theory to practice. Although the

objects begin to take shape when the paper work is replaced by metal work the

geometry and mathematics of the die remain as indispensable elements to the end.

The batch production project, using the die to make replicas on a hand press,

ushered in another phase of its life, it tested the die making skills of the students

and mobilised a machine for a specific purpose.

This project is an example of how workshop craft is built in when objects of

meaning and aesthetics are made. The viewer/user of the finished objects does not

need to know the die principles or knowledge but it is argued that their existence

will remain in the appearance of each object. Craft as a source of contemplation and

assessment, remains even when the object gains autonomy and leaves the

workshop.

The project is completed by ensuring that the die took into account body

attachments such as pins and hooks, marketing and selling and new technologies, in

a sense they too became imbued with the principles and knowledge of the pancake

die.

The course was taken on campus and organised over a ten week period, in one-

week segments of four and a half hours in one large workshop providing a stable

and predictable setting for the research to take place.

There were approximately twenty-two students at the beginning of the course, a

mixture of jewellery majors, jewellery minors and across campus students each

with their own motive for doing the course but all dependent on the workshop for

its fulfilment.

The workshop furniture consisted of individual benches arranged in short opposing

rows enabling shared tool use, easy access and social interaction. Some tools and

146

. .

machines were used at the bench, while with others it was necessary to move

around the workshop and cooperate with fellow students. For example the drilling

machine shared at the benches required cooperation at the bench and the fly press

and metal rollers required movement in the workshop encouraging social contact

and co-operation away from the benches. The machines required individual

preparation at the bench, movement around the workshop and team work for their

efficient operation. Along with a circular table where students occasionally wrote,

drew and talked and a white board where they collected for lectures the fly press

and power roller were the main social contact points in the workshop.

A separate specialised workshop used for hot, dirty and toxic processes was also a

cooperative meeting point for students. A store where tools and other equipment is

held, distributed and serviced by a studio assistant was another student gathering

point.

To make jewellery students had to move and interact through and around these

rooms directed by the placement of benches, machines and processes and their

individual requirements at any given time.

Actor-network theory (ANT) is employed to explore the operations and practices of

this jewellery workshop in a university. ANT is useful because it assembles the

humans and non-humans as one as they are directed by this course of study in a

jewellery workshop. ANT probes the question: what is the object craft in this

context, or as Law (2000, pp.1-2) puts it, what is the “effect of an array of relations,

the effect, in short, of a network” which makes craft in a jewellery workshop?

By employing ANT to seek out a network which enrolls humans and non-humans

for a course of study in a workshop, an “array of relations” or a network is

constructed which bring together a contextual notion of craft.

How can ANT help understand craft in an academic workshop when it is usually

understood by its "published" objects rather than the “array of relations” which

made them? To background this question it is helpful to return to the research site

which instigated and the methodology and featured in Latour and Woolgar's

"Laboratory Life".

147

. .

The methodology used in the academic workshop project is influenced by Latour

and Woolgar’s (1986) ethnographic research in the endocrinology laboratory at the

Salk Institute. This was one of Latour’s first major incursions into the inner

sanctum of scientists in an effort to understand science in the laboratory and how

scientific “facts” were made. Rather than relying on the autonomous paper work

which claimed and marketed the research Latour and Woolgar sought in their study

the details of laboratory life which led to immutable “facts” – “facts” according to

Latour (1999, pp. 22-23) are entities stripped of the modalities which made them.

But “facts” are only autonomous entities while the "array of relations" which

made them remain intact and unquestioned and while the black box which contains

them remains unopened or does not fall apart. It is argued that the object craft made

in a workshop suffers the same fate: it too only holds together while the relations

which made it remain intact. Alter the relations and reform the object.

Research in a university jewellery workshop differs in a number of ways from

Latour and Woolgar’s residency in the Salk Institute. Because:

1. it takes place in a university jewellery workshop, where

socio/technical relations between actants differ from those in a

laboratory

2. jewellery students and teachers are involved in the design, making

and assessment of the objects produced in the workshop whereas

scientists employ a team of specialists to connect a hypothesis with

an object and publish for assessment (Smith, 1997, p. 19)

3. the researcher is familiar with craft teaching workshops having been,

in the past, a jeweller and teacher whereas Latour claimed to be

unfamiliar with laboratory life

4. a laboratory and a jewellery teaching workshop differ in their social,

cultural and technical construction

What then remains as common ground that would justify appropriating laboratory

experience in this way?

148

. .

1. It is not unfamiliar territory. The researcher in the past had helped

make science for the scientists in a laboratory as a technician in a

university physics laboratory in a pre computer era similar to that of

Latour and Woolgar's “Laboratory Life”.

2. As a jeweller and jewellery workshop teacher, the researcher

recognises the correlation between how a laboratory and workshop

environment similarly transforms a yet untested idea into a testable

object.

3. Many other researchers have since used ANT in environments

outside the laboratory, indeed, outside science.

4. The laboratory “fact” and the object craft share the same fate, that is

they are both valuable in the world until they are “falsified”

(Popper, 1999) and they are both destined to end up in the form of

numbers and words on paper or disk. That is, they can both end up

merely as a record of an object vulnerable to new” facts” and new

objects.

5. There are enough similarities between the laboratory and the

jewellery workshop to validate ANT as

theory/methodology/method to claim the object craft as a research

subject.

6. Using ANT to explore a university jewellery workshop tests a

method which is of potential use in similar sites inside and outside

universities. It raises the prospect of interdisciplinary study as well

as other studies in other jewellery courses within and outside

academia.

The overall aim of the project is to understand craft in an academic workshop by:

1. observing it in action by following a formal course of study from

start to finish

149

. .

2. analysing institutional texts and student responses to questionnaires

and understanding how students rewrite institutional texts in the

workshop

3. analysing institutional assessment texts and the assessment process

and understanding how student objects are rewritten as institutional

assessment paper work.

The questions raised prior to the research are:

1. To what extent and in what form are humans constructed and

represented in an academic workshop?

2. To what extent and in what form is technology constructed and

represented in an academic workshop

3. To what extent and in what form are the relations between humans

and non-humans represented in an academic workshop?

4. What is formed by these representations?

5. How does the academic workshop look according to the ANT

analysis?

6. How does the network operate?

7. What does the network produce?

The project is significant because it asserts the primacy of craft as the producer and

disseminator of knowledge in an academic workshop by:

1. fore-grounding craft when student hands make objects

2. considering the importance of techno/social relations in the workshop

3. identifying other obligations imposed on the workshop as it mobilises

craft skills

4. highlighting the management and production of paper work

5. asserting the capacity of craft to produce intellectual and aesthetic

meaning

Data produced in and by the workshop is collected from all facets of workshop life

such as observations, institutional texts, questionnaires and student generated texts

as the course is followed from beginning to end.

150

. .

The analyses are comprised of:

1. Incoming institutional paper work

An analysis of the official paper work brought to the course – paper work imposing

directions on the course before the teacher begins to teach in the workshop. The

paper work consists of:

University Wide Guidelines - Graduate Qualities

Registry - Admissions

Division of Education, Arts and Social Science – Graduate Qualities

Program Information - Bachelor of Visual Arts

Course Information Student Booklet – Introduction to the jewellery workshop

Course - VSAR 66 (12860) Jewellery Production Techniques

2. Teacher’s input

A survey of the teacher’s formal lectures and demonstrations consisting of white

board lectures, displays and bench demonstration.

Included are:

An introduction to the pancake die concept

Die cutting bench demonstration

Discussion of the relations between craft, design and idea/concept

Display and discussion of sample objects

Outside the workshop – marketing and selling

Outside the workshop– CAD/CAM

3. Student’s paper work

An analysis of student responses to:

Questionnaires

Student's journals/sketch books

Mandatory student essays

4. Researcher’s experience

A workshop journal which recorded and included:

151

. .

A transcription of workshop experience

The past experience of workshop teaching

The past experience of laboratory work

5. Institutional assessment data

In the form of paperwork, talk and process:

Assessment criteria

Transcription of each student speaking to the group about their work

Transcription of individual teacher/student mark negotiation of course work

Teacher’s comments

Teacher’s mark sheets

6. Overall network

The above five analyses fragment the passage from idea to object. They will finally

be considered as material for an integrated network using the data from the above

five analyses.

Data collection took place one day per week for 10 weeks plus informal contact at

other times. An ongoing relationship with the jewellery programme, its staff and

some students was established during the residency.

During the residency:

1. the general atmosphere of the workshop was observed and noted in

terms of the researcher's own experience

2. formal lectures and paperwork delivered by the teacher were noted

and transcribed

3. talk and actions of students doing jewellery as a major option were

noted and transcribed

4. four students were asked to respond to a 25 question questionnaire

5. student journals were accessed, collected and photocopied

6. student essays were collected and analysed

7. assessment events were observed, noted and transcribed

8. texts related to assessment were collected

152

. .

9. texts in general considered to impact on the course were collected

and noted.

Workshop life was followed over the duration of the course. All involved started

and finished together and all share an interest in seeing a technical concept (the

pancake die and batch production techniques) transformed into objects of aesthetic

interest (ten related jewellery objects). All interests are at risk including the

teacher’s job, the student's education and the researcher’s thesis. Although they all

conform to the “rules” of the course what they expect from it may differ.

Data collection began in week seven of the course, after the hydraulic die-forming

project had been completed and when the pancake die and the batch production

project was about to begin. The course was entered at this point because it enabled

the process that used the difficult-to-make pancake die for the third project, the

batch production, to be followed from start to finish. Five students were enrolled

for close observation on the grounds that they were jewellery majors and they

intended to follow the pancake die process through to the batch production project.

From these five, one withdrew, leaving four subjects along with informal contacts

with non-majors adding substance and depth to the general workshop experience

and to the trajectory of the pancake die as a tool for batch production. Coming to

the course at this stage is useful because it is both sufficiently small and self

contained to manage as a research project.

Although ANT renders some things visible in the workshop it also obscures others

such as passion, desire, expression and joy. The model of the laboratory is not

totally interchangeable with the art school studio/workshop as the aims and

intentions of science and visual art differ. The "truth" of craft/art objects is not

found by repeating the experiment but by their appeal to certain current

socio/cultural norms. The overlap with science is only useful in the context of the

research because both are shaped by dominant “paradigms” of the moment but the

link between science and its offspring, technology, differs from the link between

craft in craft/art and its offspring, meaning and aesthetic experience. The research

cannot be considered to be a definitive conclusion to workshop life because it lacks

the authority of a large subject sample and the diversity of reasons students

153

. .

undertook the course. Nevertheless the research does illustrate a method of

understanding workshop life in the context of a university workshop.

Before the formal research can begin, observation and comment on workshop life

as it is played out on a daily basis sets the scene. Although strong inferences can be

drawn from the formal research an account of the informal interactions between

humans and non-humans in the workshop opens to view the random nature of

workshop life. The following narrative observes and comments on the "learning to

make jewellery tribe" as it goes about its business of satisfying institutional

demands and group and individual needs and desires.

The Work Shop Makes Objects: a socio/technical narrative set in an academic

jewellery workshop

Let us at last give the artisans their due. The liberal arts have adequately sung their own praises; they must now use their remaining voice to celebrate the mechanical arts. It is for the liberal arts to lift the mechanical arts from the contempt in which prejudice has for so long held them, and it is for the patronage of kings to draw them from the poverty in which they still languish. Artisans have believed themselves contemptible because people have looked down on them; let us teach them to have a better opinion of them selves; that is the only way to obtain more nearly perfect results from them. We need a man to rise up in the academies and go down to the workshops and gather material about the arts to be set out in book which will persuade artisans to read, philosophers to think on useful lines, and the great to make at least some worthwhile use of their authority and their wealth. (A Diderot Pictorial Encyclopedia Volume 1) Diderot in the article “Art”

Summary

The narrative is a transcription, interpretation and voice of the seen and heard

during a residency in an academic jewellery workshop. These sights and sounds

shape, and are shaped by, the ubiquitous techno/social apparatus of an academic

jewellery workshop.

Introduction

The narrative is written as dialogue between workshop actants (including the

researcher) in the language of the workshop. Does the dialogue reveal anything

about how the techno/social apparatus of the workshop makes jewellers? Where in

the dialogue is craft: is it submerged by the relations of the workshop with the

154

. .

university and art school whose territory it occupies and whose rules and laws it

must obey? The search for craft must go on, as it is the underlying premise of the

research. In the narrative, sightings of the construction of craft will be alluded to,

but mainly left for readers to find as they follow the story.

Craft is constructed by the complex relations of hands and objects in the

techno/social environment of the academic workshop, hands and objects cannot be

ignored, workshops exist primarily for hands to make objects. The narrative looks

at the way the workshop employs hands to make objects for later assessment at an

arbitrary time, date and place at the end of a jewellery production course. Of course

the workshop cannot carry out this task alone; it enrols others to help out,

principally students enrolled in a jewellery production course, a teacher who

brought his knowledge of production jewellery each week to the workshop, other

staff who entered and left the workshop spasmodically, outsiders who interrupted it

and a researcher, an ex jeweller and jewellery teacher who comments on workshop

life. Nevertheless the focus is on the workshop, thus the narrative title "The

Workshop Makes Objects".

Rationale

As the data for analysis is collected in a university jewellery workshop the nature of

workshop life itself influences the direction of any research carried out there.

Noting, transcribing and reflecting on workshop life over the duration of a course of

study opens to view the environment in which the later formal research projects

take place. Below is such an introduction based on the argument that the workshop

facilitates and mediates all activities within its domain, including formal research

projects.

Observations recorded as a non-participant observer over a ten week course of

study are mused upon from a number of perspectives. ANT is always there,

nonchalantly looking and listening for networks in the techno/social world of

workshop life. Tables and diagrams are occasionally offered with numbers and

words to short cut techno/social relations. Inferences founded on highlights,

watersheds, turning points and controversies pepper the narrative. Added to these

are formal and informal conversations between workshop actants and reflections

based on the first hand experience of the researcher. Underlying everything is the

155

. .

struggle of the workshop to assert itself in a form which meets the needs of all its

inhabitants.

An important outpost of a jewellery teaching workshop is the human body. The

workshop uses the human body in a number of ways, for instance to present the

materials it shapes for public spectacle, to train the body to perform its tasks, to

enable its skills, machines and tools to be converted into human lifestyles and to

use the body as a market place for its goods. But the workshop is never an isolated

entity. In this case it is answerable to the academy, a place where the hands of

jewellery students are persuaded to produce objects which not only mediate the

satisfaction of personal desire and/or an introduction to a vocation but serve the

wider interests of the university as well.

The original transcript was organised chronologically using a loose episodic form

as an arbitrary structure. In the final draft the chronological time structure is

replaced by non-temporal socio/technical formations made from the plethora of

micro events of workshop life. The workshop is indifferent to chronological time

continuity as its pace is set by the vagaries of workshop practice. Workshop life is

neither smooth nor seamless; it is disrupted by institutional interference from

outside and controversies on the inside. These disruptions fragment workshop

continuity creating time and space for the researcher to reflect, contemplate and

reconstruct his experiences of workshop life.

The transcription is based on spontaneous journal entries rewritten as a running

narrative. The narrative is selective, not all notes were used, but it remains roughly

in the rambling style of the hand written journal. Reflections on the notes are

highlighted as boxed comments and at times font, point and indent changes. But

generally the narrative is in two forms, firstly the researcher's choice of what formal

and informal sights and sounds were worth collecting and transcribing as workshop

dialogue and secondly commentary on them based on his experiences, insights and

theoretical knowledge.

Introductory dialogues

First impressions of workshop life came from contacts with it and its people on

several occasions prior to the commencement of the course. A newcomer to

156

. .

workshop research needs to be as familiar as possible with its spaces and contents

before the humans move in. These visits were to “speak” to its furniture, machines

and tools poised ready for the humans to arrive.

The first human was the jewellery course coordinator, the person in charge of, and a

teacher in the jewellery programme. A discussion about the jewellery programme’s

(and thus the workshop’s) “fit” within its closest outside organisational structure,

the Bachelor of Visual Arts, ensued. The jewellery programme is only one of many

options offered in the BVA. The programme, without a separate identity, highlights

the tension between visual art and workshop life especially when they share

common courses, aims and administrative structures. The role the workshop plays

in the BVA was discussed; in particular the impact arcane nuances of jewellery

workshop life have on other courses in the BVA. As jewellery workshop practice

could be described as a “craft” experience, the question is asked “What is the Role

of Craft in the BVA programme?"

This conversation came at an opportune time as it concerned the "big picture" view of the workshop set in the context of the jewellery programme, the school of art and the university. In terms of the hand and the object, it touched on the relations and influences between/of hand skills and material objects and visual art prompting a another question for the narrative to consider “What is the Role of the Workshop in a BVA programme?".

Visiting the dormant workshop at this point was essential to “soak up” its

atmosphere and to make drawings of its floor plan, layout and contents. Making

drawings was a way of predicting movements enforced by the workshop layout and

to determine the best vantage points to study workshop life without getting in its

way. This helped to find a hitherto unused narrow bench facing away from most of

the workshop activity to expand on journal notes and to establish a “home” in the

workshop which could be alternatively private or public.

The workshop comprised the expected range of tools, machines, benches, and

storage facilities arranged symmetrically in a room partially divided by a floor to

ceiling wall. The space had been two smaller workshops later made into one by the

partial removal of an interior wall leaving the single space with two entrances and

exits on either side of the remaining wall. This meant entrance to, and exit from the

workshop could be carried out surreptitiously as the partial wall did not allow both

157

. .

doors to be viewed simultaneously. The maze like structure of the workshop with

its entrances, pathways and dead ends was already suggesting socio/technical

relations. Two jewellery cases, standing near the centre of the workshop exhibited

past and present student work showcasing the sort of objects the workshop could

make and contrasting strikingly with the general industrial ambience of the

workshop.

Heavy benches with vices are arranged around the walls of the work shop. The

course co-ordinator’s workbench sits centre stage near the large round table and a

whiteboard used to organise seating during lectures and as a drawing, thinking and

designing space at other times. The future of jewellery work shops is represented by

a computerised CNC machine in an isolated corner, a monument to the future of the

traditional jewellery workshop. Other workshop equipment includes a press, hand

and power rollers, tree stumps for metal smithing, storage cupboards and a sink.

Two other rooms linked with, but outside the main workshop are a specialised room

for hot, wet and toxic activities and a storeroom managed by the studio

technician/storeperson for the distribution and management of communal tools and

small machines. These two areas have a laboratory feel about them because of their

layout, the nature of the esoteric, but well used apparatus and the warning signs and

instructions on the walls. An atmosphere of surveillance pervades the space where

humans are more strictly monitored and supervised by the workshop, its apparatus

and the staff who manage it.

Humans, meeting the workshop for the first time, are confronted by interior architecture, furniture and machines ready to direct movement, behaviour and social interaction. The interior architecture, furniture and machines are both an ally of, and impediment to, the humans who engage with them.

The empty unlit workshop was revisited a second time to imagine the role of a non-

participant observer. Although not claiming the same unfamiliarity with the

territory as Latour and Woolgar in “Lab. Life” having been, in the past, both a

jeweller and jewellery teacher a sense of the outsider was overwhelming. The role

of “outsider ethnographer” in a university jewellery workshop had not been fore

shadowed, workshops which taught and made jewellery in the past were home

territory. These past experiences in similar workshops had to be put aside and

158

. .

replaced by, at least, a modicum of naivety. Will the difference between a jeweller

and teacher inside and outside of academia be sufficient to disengage past

experiences of workshop life? Will the environment be hostile and alienating to a

degree that it will stifle the research? Can the lack of knowledge of, and experience

in academic workshops be construed as a form of naivety similar to Latour and

Woolgar’s claim in the Salk endocrinology laboratory? In fact, is Latour and

Woolgar’s claim as observers not privy to the beliefs of the laboratory possible?

Lynch (1997, p.97) does not think so. When he wrote “the problem is that most of

the terms of the tribe are our terms as well” he was referring to Latour and

Woolgars knowledge and experience of sociology and anthropology. Perhaps

Latour and Woolgar’s understanding of how science was made in the laboratory is

not so different from the researcher’s knowledge of jewellery making in a

university workshop? Will past experiences get in the way? To what extent does the

unfamiliar role as an “ethnographer” in the workshop render it a naïve experience?

Is it alien or familiar territory?

A position as an outsider, a non-participating observer is important. Only as an outsider can one dispassionately observe what is going on? But this is difficult because any role played in the workshop, including that of a researcher, draws one into workshop life. It is especially difficult for a former workshop practitioner and teacher. The temptation to revert to past roles has to be repressed; the risk of directing rather than observing may deny insights into how this workshop makes objects.

After visualising the abstract research experience, the next step was to plan

practical moves to see, hear and record the workshop in action. Of course data had

to be collected: but what and how and from whom? Experiences of others is

necessary, someone who has successfully written a thesis. Work sheets prepared to

help organise the workshop observations were submitted for expert scrutiny. They

consisted of floor plans, observations of bench and machine and tool use, talk and

the paper work introduced to, and taken from, the workshop. The strategy was far

too complex and unwieldy to manage in the workshop, noting on blank paper

would be a better approach because it does not predict workshop life, it follows it.

A rugged hard-back journal would be the best way to record the week by week

sights and sounds of workshop life.

159

. .

The apprehension of entering old territory in a new role resulted in over preparation - rather than let the workshop speak in its own language it had been set it up to say what the researcher wanted to hear. Help was needed to deal with the crisis.

It was suggested interviews would support the observations but what would

interviews look like in this instance. An Internet search for interview guidelines

was fruitful but it was finally decided that a series of written questions to distribute

to a small number of students majoring in jewellery was a better approach.

Observations by an outsider are not enough; the experiences and observations of those who belong to the territory are necessary if a more comprehensive picture is to be painted. They are one of the mouthpieces of the workshop; they are the voice of its actions.

The workshop makes objects

Milling around with students and staff waiting for the workshop to be activated is a

trying time when there is a stressful task ahead. Start ups are messy for all; humans

contrive social interaction as they wait, some in silence, some in conversation and

others in preparation for the day. The staff also watches for the right moment to get

things started. The “right moment” for researcher introductions depends on the

interaction of staff and students, a delicate decision – too early and few would be

ready or interested, too late and the workshop would take over and leave the

researcher behind.

When the right moment seemed imminent the first move was to negotiate with the

teacher and the course co-ordinator about when and how the researcher would be

introduced. Briefly explaining to the teacher what was intended elicited an

unexpected conversation. He reacted by expressing doubts about the efficacy of

university research in general by relating an interview he had heard with a gene

scientist who claimed that the proliferation of papers necessary to sustain a research

career was out of control. The dichotomy between the theorist and the practitioner

in the workshop was evoked by this casual and unexpected conversation. A

theory/practice debate, not unlike the art/craft debate was brought to notice by this

chance interaction, as the researcher was nervously embarking on his first outing as

an ethnographer and was about to, in a sense, theorise the teacher’s “practical”

jewellery production course.

160

. .

Going into the territory of others and observing what is going on is an enterprise requiring tact and a lightness of touch - even those who have agreed to co-operate may still harbour a certain reticence to be observed. Was the teacher's comment about the present state of research an expression of this unease? Theorising an environment, in this case a hands on workshop, which is often said to speak for itself can invite resistance.

Nevertheless after a brief discussion with the teacher and the course co-ordinator

introductions were made and the project was underway.

The students formed a group and politely and attentively listened as the course co-

ordinator introduced the researcher as a “useful addition” to the workshop. The

research project and the staff and student’s place in it were introduced in terms of

fellow craftspeople with a shared interest in workshop life.

The Ethics Committee approved handout was read, explained and distributed and

volunteers sought. All but one volunteered making the management of the group

much easier than initially envisaged. Consent forms were distributed signed and

returned and, after the student who abstained was assured that her decision would

be respected, the formalities were complete.

The course co-ordinator later spoke about the introduction to the research project

expressing the view that he thought it was a constructive introduction to workshop

practice.

"Right moments" are crucial if research is to be effective - not only does everybody and everything have to be physically in place but readiness in a psychological sense is also important.

A semester is divided into two terms. A project from the first term had to be

assessed before the second term work could be introduced. This was an unexpected

and opportune turn of events, a chance to observe an assessment review without

seeing the objects in production in the workshop. Witnessing the first assessment

review allowed a comparison between it and the later end of course review.

The review was held at the student’s workbenches thus retaining the nexus between

the workshop, the jewellery objects and techno/social relations which made them.

They remained “at home” and were not asked to conform to (or perform in) an

161

. .

unfamiliar venue where expectations may have been different. Nevertheless the

objects and the workshop were vulnerable without a human spokesperson, a cleared

space to be noticed and visual support, to separate them from their technical

heritage. With a spokesperson, cleared space and visual support they were not left

to entirely speak for themselves. Workshop assessment binds objects to the

techno/social environment in which they are made privileging their role as records

of skill and technical facility the workshop offers. The objects remained at their

home benches. The students moved as a group from bench to bench each student in

turn speaking as an advocate for the objects, their role as makers and as spectators

for the advocacy of the work of others. The audience listened without commenting

and clapped at the end of each brief performance. No journals were shown although

drawings (mainly drawings of objects on bodies) accompanied some objects.

A techno/social event such as this separates the objects from their role as desirable wearables. They hover in the territory between the industrial workshop and the visual art studio – attention is only transferred from the techniques of production to meaning and aesthetics via a leap of imagination. It gave the objects an opportunity to show what the workshop had accomplished rather than an opportunity to prove themselves in exhibition or on the body.

Although the students moved from bench to bench and positioned themselves in a

sight line to include both objects and maker and interact if they wished, few took up

the offer: students were reluctant to close in on object and maker in spite of the

encouragement of the teacher.

The twenty-one students each talked for approximately one minute enabling the

assessment review to be completed in less than a half hour. No paper work was

required from the students.

A feature of teaching workshops is that of performance, students continually perform for other students and staff in the workshop. Assessment reviews simply formalise performance in front of a peer audience. To a degree the objects and the workshop are, at least temporarily, at the mercy of their maker's ability to perform to an audience.

After a short break the teacher assembled the group, discussed the first term work

and outlined the projects for the second term. The students arranged themselves

around the circular table and facing the white board.

162

. .

He firstly thanked the students for their involvement and results and expressed a

willingness to talk individually about any problems they had during the first term.

Although the teacher encouraged the students to talk about their ideas during their

reviews his concerns now at the white board were mainly technical, workshop

concerns. This was workshop jewellery; the problems discussed were not about

design or aesthetics but rather the relations between workshops and objects.

The relations between object and workshop are worthy of consideration for users and makers. Workshop objects retain their means of production, for users as mystique and makers as indelible skills - the workshop's fingerprints remain.

A discussion on assessment linked objects with workshop practice and institutional

objectives: this unavoidable but irritating feature of institutional life positions the

workshop uncomfortably between the internalised, esoteric ideals the student brings

to the workshop and institutional objectives in the form of assessment criteria. An

example was the definition of jewellery: the teacher’s definition for the limited

production course was hand scale objects. Would a definition such as this be

accepted in the general community or is it an institutional objective imposed on the

workshop?

Theorising the roles objects perform in material culture is often the basis for production in the academy, rather than the classic forms used in every day life.

Buying materials for the course was the next step, money had to be paid at a central

office and an account number brought to the workshop technician to claim the

materials: an A4 sheet of paper was attached to the white board with the

instructions to make the transaction.

The intervention of the administrative system of the university adds its imprimatur to the object. Money and paper are transformed into materials – materials can be transformed by the workshop back into paper and money when objects are exhibited (as critique) or sold (as money).

The students re-assembled in front of the white board awaiting guidelines for the

next project. They sat impassively throughout the teacher’s presentation: an

explanation of the one-piece blanking die for limited batch production. The

163

. .

blanking die is called a pancake or waffle die because its hinged action resembles

that of a waffle iron.

The pancake die principle was presented in four modes; sound, image, object and

action, each mode adding conceptually to the principle of its manufacture and

operation. Sound, in the form of talk, led to a philosophic/theoretical discussion.

Image in the form of whiteboard drawing introduced geometry as a starting point

for body adornment. A material example in the form of an object, the die as a

working example, enabled the principle to be seen and touched and finally the

cutting action of the die as a bench demonstration brought the theory, image, and

geometry of the die together as a workshop tool.

This is an example of “an array of relations” forming an object - each phase of explanation adding to and remaining in the network which constitutes the theory of the pancake die.

The students broke into informal chat groups around the workshop and then into

two groups, one group asked to assemble around a demonstration bench and the

other to wait for a second demonstration.

A die is more than a theoretical construct; it could not be used if it is not made and

making required tacit knowledge and practice. For this the class was split into two

groups, the reduced numbers enabling all to see the bench demonstration of the die

cutting technique and the application of main tool for the course, the piercing saw.

The piercing saw technique was demonstrated at the bench using a saw guide

attached to the bench by the studio technician. The demonstration was completed

by handing around a finished die, this time it included knowledge of the tools and

skills needed to make it. The students stood passively watching and listening. The

demonstration was repeated for the second group of students.

Articulating the principles behind the die was one thing, making it is something else - talk, drawings, examples and demonstrations are abstractions - seeing the die being made brings the hand of the student directly to the task, and the workshop into action.

After the demonstration the students scattered, some left the workshop, others

sought isolation or group support whilst others began drawing. Nevertheless the die

164

. .

making demonstration is not finished and jewellery objects cannot be made until

they return to the workshop furniture, machines and tools to practice and master the

skills of saw piercing a pancake die.

The rigidity of instruction and the fluency of demonstration are contested when students attempt to personalise them in the context of their fledgling skills, desires and values. The instruction and demonstration is forced back through the wrong end of a funnel by the innocents.

Not all workshop demonstrations are formal and premeditated. Later in the course a

spontaneous demonstration took place. A spontaneous workshop demonstration can

result from a student question and/or an overlooked but important element of

workshop life. A demonstration of making a file cleaning tool is such an example.

The teacher attracts a small group of students around an anvil mounted on one of a

cluster of stumps to demonstrate making a file cleaner. He places a strip of copper

on the anvil and thins and spreads it by hammering one end. This also work hardens

it and this combination of thinning and hardening produces a tool which can be kept

permanently in the toolbox. He then talked about and demonstrated the function

and use of the tool. It is a tool for removing metal trapped in the teeth of files which

restricts their cutting action and transfers one type of metal to another.

Tool making is intrinsic to workshop life. The workshop contextualises itself with

its current projects by continually adding to the store of tools and machines it

makes available to its inhabitants.

Making tools has been specific up till now (the pancake die was a tool) and an integral part of the construction of the course object. The file cleaner is the first general tool to be demonstrated - hands making tools to make tools to make objects is a part of workshop life.

Understanding and making the pancake die is only the beginning; it has to be

connected to its functional and aesthetic possibilities for it to become a piece of

efficacious socio/technical apparatus. A long talk/discussion/demonstration brought

together everything connected with, and emanating from, the pancake die such as

notions of quality and price, materials and finish, design, craft and the body.

165

. .

Teacher's word use Type of word Number of

Words

Technical 40

Theoretical 8 Conceptual 16 Design 15 Inspirational 0

Table 9

Table 9 shows the concentrations of teacher’s interests and concerns in his

introduction to the pancake die. The language used by the teacher to explain the

operation, the aesthetic and use of the pancake concept as encapsulated in Table 9

favours the technical over other concerns and interests. The analysis is tempered by

the informality of the presentation, its experiential basis and student intervention.

Through the teacher, the workshop has its say.

The distinctive feature of the pancake die is its capacity to cut identical multiples

and cutting multiples for batch production is the predominant aim of the course. A

batch is a group of identical or similar objects understood as one in the workshop

but as individual pieces for distribution as autonomous objects in individual sites

once they leave. At the conclusion of the discussion on the function, aesthetic and

use of the pancake die the teacher displayed three brooches as examples of batch

production. By selecting brooches as examples a category of production objects is

endorsed directing the results of the pancake technique towards the torso form, the

brooch. The three brooches - a throwaway 1970’s Save the Whale badge, a brooch

made by an American jeweller connecting his major exhibition work with low cost

production objects and an example of the teacher’s own production work are

displayed. In each case attention was focused on the ingeniousness of the pin

attachment.

The course was materialised in a particular form at this point as the teacher and the three brooches affirmed the brooch form as a “fact” for the project. Will this “fact” be endorsed by the students when their objects are submitted for assessment?

The following discussion is predicated on the assertion that the workshop makes

objects. The workshop’s interests, in this case, are technical and economic, the

technical is manifested in the preoccupation with attachments, how they are made

166

. .

and from what, and economic because the workshop can pay its way by the

production of this type of inexpensive saleable object. The first brooch, a Save the

Whale badge, is self-explanatory; it was produced in the 1970s to promote the

cessation of the whale kill. These low cost badges were pressed and screen printed

in large numbers for wide distribution. Interest in the relationship between the

safety pin brooch back and the function of the object was the main concern. Its

perceived short life span validated the cheap safety-pin fitting: an intimate linking

of its social role and its technical manifestation, of an objective and an object.

The second, a brooch by Bally, an American jeweller with an impressive

promotional website (a significant means of distributing production work and now

a workshop outreach), was presented as an exemplar of production jewellery. Like

his major exhibition work, it used discarded scraps of yellow and black reflective

road signs as raw material for a decorative brooch form. It was a production object

made for wide distribution, its modest price tag a boost to the jeweller’s income and

workshop payment. The function of the piece, for the maker is to make money and

for the buyer inexpensive pleasure, aims which sit well with the pancake die’s

capacity to blank forms en masse at low cost. Thus the low tech approach of the pin

design and how it brought the brooch and the human body together was its main

interest.

The third brooch, made by the teacher, brought the authority of the maker to bear

on the project and the teacher and workshop together. Intimate details of its life

world were accessible because it was accompanied by its maker; the object had a

“social” as well as technical existence. Students immediately responded to this

connection by showing interest in the details of its production, where it was sold,

and the selling price. A network of production, which now included the maker and

student, was constructed.

A detailed description of how the piece was made drew the students further into the

world of the teacher's brooch. The square pieces of wood cut to shape in an

industrial workshop were stained dark brown by the maker. A related image on

either side of the wooden shape, in this case the sun and the moon, necessitated the

invention of a clip that would allow the wearer to choose either image at will. For

the maker the sun and moon images merely differentiated one side from the other

167

. .

thus directing attention to the clip attachment which enables the changeover with a

simple movement. The material used on the clip, its thickness and the way it was

attached to both the wooden form and the clothing were of prime interest to both

the teacher/maker and the audience of students. The pin became an integral part of

the visual and functional elements of the piece.

Is the difference between a personal and impersonal object mediated through the difference between an image (aesthetics and meaning) and an invention (in this case a novel clothing clip or attachment)? This course concerned production objects not "works of art" thus the ingenuity of the clip, the performance of attaching and detaching, could equal, or even supplant seeing or being seen with the object. Perhaps a personal performance piece.

The display and discussion of the brooch samples centred on technique and cost is as profound as an abstract theoretical talk on meaning and visual qualities. How does this fit with academic craft?

Interest in technique and cost led to a discussion on the process and advantages of

writing a design brief to instruct the production of socio/technical objects: a case of

writing to the workshop.

With formal proceedings out of the way the researcher’s attention is drawn to the

techno/social buzz of workshop life and the typical workshop mood which occurs

in the time and space between formal activities and self directed work at the bench.

Although the unusual presence and demands of the researcher adds to and interrupts

the normal mood of the workshop, it is an awareness of the freewheeling character

of the workshop which is significant at these times.

Students amble toward their benches after the white board session. A student stops

to talk to the researcher at the jewellery cases displaying finished work from the

first project, examples of the workshop’s output. Why did these particular objects

find their way to the display cases: were they “masterpieces” or objects of self-

promotion? The researcher then speaks to a few students still clustered around the

white board about their plans for the pancake die and batch production. Other

students talk and laugh in small groups near the benches before commencing work.

Another student is working at a machine, the fly press. The die is working well, the

researcher comments “that’s the sound” Student, smiling - “yes”.

168

. .

Some leave the workshop for a break. Later they gradually return and the teacher

starts to move around the benches for brief discussions with some, stopping longer

with others such as late students and those who need help with the bench

arrangement and body position for saw piercing. The workshop sound of piercing

saws cutting metal begins to rise above the social sounds of talk and laughter.

Later the course co-ordinator enters the workshop with an outsider and discusses

and demonstrates a technical process. The researcher talks to the studio technician

in the passageway outside the workshop and discovers that he was a welder by

trade. The teacher leaves the workshop later to return to talk to a very late arrival

who was reading the whiteboard notes. The teacher chastens the student by

emphasising the importance of being there for the introductory talk. The studio

technician helps reposition a saw guide for a left handed student; the workshop

takes over.

As the students settle at the benches, the sound of piercing saw blades battling with

the hard stainless steel gradually overtakes other workshop noises, broken only by

occasional cries of frustration and anguish as blades break and the uncomfortable

sawing position takes its toll. The researcher introduces himself to a jewellery

major and students of graphic design and architecture for later conversations and

talks to a mature age student about his reasons for return to study after a long

absence. The studio technician starts a conversation questioning the researcher

about the thesis – will it become a book – what value is it to the university

jewellery department etc? Two students leave the main workshop to anneal metal,

later to return together to prepare it on the power roller for blanking.

The day drifts on: it is mainly a day for the unsupervised saw piercing, workshop

work. The researcher leaves early, along with many of the students.

The work shop is not always a space organised by the imposed authority of the institution or its human agents; when left to its own devices an inherent dynamic takes over and mediates its socio/technical world.

Weekly sessions usually began with a formal lecture. Lectures in workshops rarely

start on time; waiting for them to begin is ideal for exploring workshop details such

as the paper work on walls and bench tops. In this case the full gamut of workshop

169

. .

interests was found including a list of jewellery suppliers, a tool and machinery

catalogue, copies of the course outline, a trade jewellery magazine, gem price list,

student projects on prominent jewellers, occupational, health and safety advice and

travel posters; the workshop speaks.

What can be made of the variety of paper work on the walls of the workshop? Is it representative of what goes (or went) on in the workshop or is it a random collection accumulated over time?

The students are asked to “bring a chair” ready for a talk on sales and marketing.

Before they can settle, the course co-ordinator intervenes and asks for a “quick

word” about chairs in the workshop. The plastic stacking chairs some of the

students are using are removed and the students asked to use their bench chairs for

the lecture and return them when it is finished.

This turns the talk to safety issues in particular keeping major pathways clear of

chairs as well as bags and toolboxes.

Occupational Health and Safety is a current preoccupation in institutional workshops. Laws, rules and codes of practice can affect workshop life and the nature of the objects produced therein.

The workshop must eventually release its products for sale if it and its human

affiliates are to survive, although it sometimes keeps some to display as a record of

its work. Nevertheless it is important for students to know something about the

marketplace, as professional practice and the authority and survival of the

workshop depends on selling. The lecture begins by making a connection between

selling and capitalism: in a capitalist society a sale is an unavoidable aspect of

making and is both a form of appreciation and measure of success.

The details of the relationship between cost of production and selling price was

spelt out by suggesting that all costs necessary to sustain a lifestyle should to be

added to the cost of running a workshop and operating a small business. Overheads,

research and development, outside services, idea generation, organising contracts

and designing time should be included when costing work.

170

. .

Cost and pricing is conceptualised as money in a capitalist economic system.

Money should not be over looked as an actor in the workshop. It is a factor in the

development of workshop objects, money is exchanged for tools and materials

brought to the workshop to make objects and objects are exchanged for money

through sales and marketing strategies to sustain the workshop. Money is often

discussed (where to buy and at what cost?) as students require additional materials

and tools needed by the course and the workshop.

Costs and prices although often dismissed as alien to the creative adventure are, in fact, unavoidable elements of the lifeworld of workshops. They are a part of the design and the production of all objects and a major issue for the workshop which makes them.

The object’s life post-workshop depends on price and mode of selling. The

differences between selling venues such as markets, jewellery stores, boutiques,

galleries, from home, on the Internet, to friends and through exhibitions is a factor

in determining the object’s future. It is necessary to match venues with objects. The

ownership of objects after they leave the workshop is also a factor: for instance

ownership is exchanged on sale to a retail outlet, but remains connected to the

maker when on consignment. A professional attitude to marketing is a factor in the

socio/economic status of the object when it leaves the workshop. Publicity in the

communication media helps objects to get out into the wider community where they

can be seen and related to particular cultural environments, while association with

organisations can position the object within networks of support and advice.

Objects leave as immutable mobiles, separated from the workshop modalities which made them. They then become actors in other networks according to the venues, and socio/economic realms they find themselves. They are attracted to particular venues and socio/economic realms by an in built set of primary marketing and sales characteristics and remade by a secondary set by marketing strategies in those venues and realms. Production work is a transparent example of this but to an extent all art works are influenced by these factors. Marketing and selling are vexed issues in the craft/art world, the art object can attempt to stand aloof from the marketplace but ultimately the market cannot be ignored.

Machines are central to the social and technical life of a workshop, but they can be

difficult to get to know (Mackenzie, 2002, pp. 52-53). A student working at an un-

cooperative machine, the fly press, is watched by another student and the

researcher. The die is not cutting properly and the students are discussing

171

. .

alternative cutting strategies. The researcher intervenes and makes a suggestion

which later proves to be contrary to the teacher’s advice.

Variations in technique occur when humans interpret it. Technique is not immutable; it too is subject to contextual relations with tools, machines, environments and people all capable of transforming the "universal" into the local.

The teacher arrives during this controversy and assumes control. He gently but

firmly discusses and demonstrates the setting up procedure for blank cutting.

Although this was a tense moment the intervention by the researcher was

ameliorated by the subtle and measured intervention of the teacher.

Being a non-participating observer is difficult to maintain over a long period. Over time one learns something of the culture and habits of the focus group sufficiently to want to impose "outsider" knowledge on it. Perhaps researcher intervention should be confined to the role of "cultural labourer".

The collaborative effort resulted in successful die cuts and the press an amiable

rather than difficult partner, a happy group working together. The talk was now

positive, the actions unified and the spirit light-hearted.

The teacher settled the difficulty between the two students, the machine and the

researcher with a story (see this block of metal it should be as far away from the

machine as possible, it is a trouble maker) and a firm but gentle demonstration

creating an affable relationship between humans and non-humans. Add to, rather

than abandon, a network and humans and non-humans can settle controversies. The

teacher speaks for the machine, by adding to the network the cutting action of the

die, the direction of the die flap, why non-parallel surfaces create problems and

how placing the die and the blanking material between soft surfaces protects the

cutting edges of the die and increases its life span.

Another student arrives at the press after the controversy had been settled and

attempts to cut blanks. Unsuccessful, the student “blames” the non-humans (the

machine, the materials and the theory of the pancake die) for the failure of his die to

cut and “punished” the machine by using extreme force against it. He had not heard

the teacher speak for the machine and was unaware of the subtlety of its needs. The

172

. .

two successful students sided with the machine and the die blaming the

dysfunctional relationship on the unsuccessful student. He blamed the machine and

the supportive relationship the two successful students had with the teacher,

exacerbated by one of them claiming to have a privileged relationship with the

teacher. The teacher could not solve the controversy for the unsuccessful student

because the latter refused to allow the teacher to speak for the machine. Separation

was the only solution and the student was sent back to the bench to modify his die

in an attempt to make a dissident non-human actor (the pancake die) a compatible

mediator in the controversy between himself, the teacher and the machine.

The two successful students remained at the machine taking it in turns to cut

blanks; alternatively as user and spectator.

Other students worked the machine without controversy. The solution to the initial

controversy, at least temporarily, had extinguished new controversies; the action of

the machine now unites rather than separates.

Machines are the centres of attention in a workshop; they have both presence and authority. They are the signature of workshop appearance and the focus of much of its social interaction. They are indispensable as collaborators in processes humans cannot carry out alone but they can be difficult if things do not go their way. The ultimate aim of the machine/human interaction is the cyborg, perfect symmetry between human and machine.

Geometry is important to the collaborative operation of machines. A group of

students’ mill around the fly press watching as the teacher coaxes another die to

work. He demonstrates cutting the blank assuming the geometry of the die and the

machine to be correct. Geometry is important. The previous machine demonstration

was successful because the geometry of the die was correct enabling the teacher to

fluently and impressively demonstrate without having to re-explain die theory.

Correct geometry produced a working relationship between the machine, teacher,

student and researcher. But when incorrect geometry makes blanks difficult to cut a

new controversy develops in the relationship between machine and humans. To

counter the incorrect geometry additional mediators need to be added to the

network which produced a working relationship between the machine, teacher,

student and researcher. This was the case when the teacher intervened to help

another student unsuccessfully using the machine. The teacher assembled the same

173

. .

equipment used for a die with correct geometry and attempted to cut a blank. The

familiar click, the sound of a successful cut, was missing causing the teacher to

apply more force to the machine than previously used for the die with correct

geometry. This asymmetrical relationship between teacher and machine was created

by the teacher adding extra force to the die cutting network in an attempt to over

power the machine. Another addition to the network caused by imperfect geometry

was a change in the relationship between the teacher and the student: the blame for

the failure of the die to cut opened the relationship for re-negotiation. The third

addition occurred when the teacher had to retreat from the ideal (because of the

incorrect geometry) and use equipment, employ actions and revise earlier assertions

in order to entice the die to cut. Backing off from a previously claimed inviolable

position again upset the relations between the humans and the machine, in

particular the teacher’s authority over it. When the revised procedure still did not

work, the attention was redirected toward the die and the student who made it. The

hierarchical relationship between the teacher and student was again placed under

negotiation when the teacher inspected the die and found it had been made

incorrectly. A tension developed as blame was apportioned; the student, although

unaware that the die was cut with incorrect geometry was blamed by the teacher

and the teacher was blamed because his introduction to die making did not guard

against incorrect die cutting. As there was no time to cut a new die and the

requirements of the course were specific, twenty identical pieces had to be blanked

from the die; the expanded network was set in train.

When teacher and student are using a die to cut at the machine, a three way

exchange between teacher, machine and student results: three sets of interests each

with a stake in the outcome. Successful use of the die is a power struggle which is

ultimately negotiated between teacher knowledge, status and authority, student

desire and ownership and the machine’s unerring reliance on correct geometry.

Groups collected around machines are an example of socio/technical relations

constructed when workshops make objects. Unity (in Figure 4) between machine,

teacher, student and the observing researcher is dependent on the solution of

machine controversies.

174

. .

Figure 4.

Success and failure of the pancake die at the machine, in this case the fly press, are examples of workshop action manifesting relations between humans and non-humans. It is an instance when a machine mediated the relations between humans and non-humans by offering an indispensable link between human aspirations and objects. The machine brought aspirations and objects together for both success and failure. Success and failure affects the relationship between the humans who are using the machine. In this role, could it be said to be a Social Machine?

Workshops are not confined to their physical space, contents or resident humans,

they invite others in, organise action in other workshops and operate outside

institutional “rules”. An example of the latter came to notice when student who was

having problems in cutting blanks in workshop time laid out twenty finished pieces

in a pattern on the bench top. The student had used the workshop outside class time

and the expertise of another lecturer to complete the project. Many students leave

the workshop during workshop time and many leave early and do not return. It

would be easy to dismiss this behaviour as “laziness” or some other human frailty

but fulfilling course requirements is sometimes more readily achieved with outside

support, reassurance, affiliations, rest, disengagement, etc. as well as technical and

design help not available in one workshop or at a specific time.

The student was an outsider; taking the course as a minor option in her graphic design degree she brought another notion of study to the jewellery programme. She was not comfortable in the workshop but liked both designing and wearing jewellery. Although she liked to work outside the "culture" of the workshop she still needed it to fulfil both the desire to make and the course requirements. She was adamant about not cutting another die but rather found outside help to make the errant sample die fulfil the requirements of the batch production project.

175

. .

Workshops can erroneously feel like homogenous spaces disconnected from the

outside world, a world of their own. Unannounced arrival of outsiders can disrupt

this illusion. During the die cutting demonstration the jewellery course co-ordinator

brought a group of outsiders into the workshop momentarily catching the attention

of the class. The visitors were the head of the art school and architects gathering

information for a new school building. The course coordinator was relieved to find

the class full and active while the visitors were present.

Outsiders create unease and need to be identified and their behaviour scrutinised on how they relate to "normal" workshop activities.

Outsiders do not have to enter the workshop to open it up to an outside world. A

visit by the researcher to a jewellery department in another institution resulted in a

cross-institutional discussion with the teacher on jewellery, jewellery teaching and

workshops.

Difference/similarity/amalgamation underlies the relations between workshops in competition.

Outside also includes the interrelationship between the joint activities of networks

of workshops. A whiteboard talk about the resources available to jewellers to speed

up production, reduce tedious repetitive actions and improve incomes is based on

the interrelationship of workshops. The workshop can orchestrate production in

other workshops rather than relying on its own resources. Real time interaction is

possible because the speed of new communication technologies enable spaces,

people, tools and machines to link workshops as a single entity.

The teacher outlined the uses and advantages of such technologies and how they

can expand the facilities and production range of individual workshops. Computers

can talk to each other and activate technologies such as computer aided design

(CAD); computer aided manufacture (CAM) using laser cutting, water cutting, wire

cutting and 3D technologies such as rapid prototypers, 3D printers and automated

production casting to make objects off site.

176

. .

The workshop enlists temporary outsiders to make it more efficient, speed up its operations and bring technologies that would be too expensive, too big and too intrusive into the workshop without upsetting its normal composure. They are, in effect, a virtual workshop accessed in ethereal computer space thus diffusing the boundaries between the material and the virtual.

Workshops constantly use numbers as part of their everyday language, for example

numbers to describe tools and machines, to measure objects and prepare students

for assessment. Numbers are also used to limit self expression, for instance an end

of course paper was limited to 250 words, and to compare student skill levels, the

number 15 was cited as an average when students were asked about saw blade

breakage during die cutting. The teacher estimated that he would have broken about

6 cutting a similar die thus bench-marking a number to aspire to and as a standard

for professional practice. Numbers then became the basis for an expanded

discussion on saw piercing principles and practice.

Is there a relationship between hand skills and the "quality" of objects? In the case of the pancake die competent hand skills would certainly make a die that cuts cleanly and lasts longer but does skill open up or limit “creative” possibilities? A complex die might be more interesting and more difficult to cut that a simple one and make a difference in the number of blade breakages.

The number discussion moved to assessment. Number was used to place a relative

value on the pancake die exercise (20% of total): number as a means of directing

student interest and effort.

Is there a difference between number use in the visual art and the jewellery department?

Number kept assessment on the agenda. Unless the project was completed attaining

full marks would not possible, “if you haven’t finished you can’t get full marks – if

it isn't, do it again if you want full marks”. The teacher wanted 20 pieces by the end

of the day. Was the exercise worth repeating for extra marks? It was left up to the

students to manage numbers according to their outcomes they desired.

Assessment can be negotiated although the authority of the institution and its representatives usually prevail. The negotiation often settles on numbers, one of the most common institutional assessment markers.

177

. .

The relationship between assessment and numbers continued at the machine in a

discussion between the researcher and a student. The student had cut 13 blanks (but

needed 20 for assessment) with a die which appeared to be worn out. Various

combinations of surfaces for cutting to revive the cutting action were discussed but

the ideal machine use and the cutting principle had to be compromised in pursuit of

numbers. Nevertheless the pursuit of numbers can have positive outcomes; in this

case it led to experiments in the die cutting process which would not have been

attempted with perfect machine/die symmetry.

Cutting blanks to a predetermined number can only be facilitated if the machine (the fly press) is a partner in the conversations between humans - the machine keeps the lines of “communication” open by its willingness to compromise. In this case the conversations concerned ways of asking the machine for the numbers to fulfil the assessment criteria.

A student turned on a radio so far unused in the workshop. Backed by the group of

students at her bench she tuned it to a middle of the road rock station. Another

student hearing the radio and without seeking the opinion of other students changed

the station to contemporary rock. As he changed the station he loudly expressed

annoyance with the music being played as a deliberate affront to his sensibilities.

The friction caused by this episode divided the students and temporarily affected

the operations of the workshop. Controversies in a workshop are not necessarily

caused by workshop actions, they can come about by ideological, aesthetic and

political divides brought to it by humans.

The episode raised the question of the relevance of sound in a workshop. Workshop

sound is in two forms, sound generated by the workshop and sound introduced into

the workshop. Workshop sounds generated by the workshop can be used to

monitor and evaluate workshop and human performance such as intensity of work,

type of work, correct and incorrect tool and machine use and sound introduced to

the workshop such as laughter and conversation and non workshop sound such

radios, tape and disk players, the level of human involvement.

178

. .

For a jewellery teacher sound made by the workshop signifies how well it and its humans are performing. Strangely the human voice is a discord in this environment, like abnormal machine and tool sounds it can signify that something is wrong and need of attention. Students accept some workshop sounds and contest others.

Time is an indispensable mediator when anything is made. Objects in academic

workshops are rigorously conditioned by time sliced into segments, constrained

within limits and pitted against its self. Time is a factor behind all the decisions

made about the shape and form of the academic workshop object; it is not only

itself an indispensable mediator but impacts on the other mediators in the network.

Time sets the distance of the making process prior to making, disengages but

hovers during the making process and rigorously intervenes at the end. Only at the

end, when time is rendered “opaque” by closing one time slot and opening another,

is its impact on the object visible (“I needed more time”). Time is transformed into

talk and objects during assessment.

Learning and teaching institutions cannot avoid deadlines. Even post graduate research deadlines have to be met. Deadlines are a means of managing time and time management is passed from the institution to the student to the object. Thus time becomes built into institutional objects affecting their number, shape and form.

Talk brings objects into being: objects are formed by conversations in the

workshop. Talking with, and listening to, students, teacher, technician, co-ordinator

and visiting lecturer on their relations with the workshop, the course and each other

offers divergent insights into workshop life. Firstly a number of unconnected

discussions with and between students explore non-institutional insights into

workshop life.

A student talked with delight at the success he had with a die which would not cut

during scheduled workshop time. He displayed the blanks in copper and aluminium

as a pattern on the bench top. The outside was brought to bear on the workshop by

this conversation, the frustrations he felt working in the confines of scheduled class

time were ameliorated by the success of working unsupervised in the workshop

outside of class time.

179

. .

The inviolability of the workshop as the only site where objects are made is questioned by this conversation - students make objects wherever they can.

Another talked of her plans for a bracelet using the repeated blanks. The discussion

went beyond the project to the technical problems of hinge making and then to the

notion of tacit learning. Options for hinge making were discussed and later acted

upon enabling the bracelet to function on the body. Technical decisions, pertinent

to the workshop but not the course, were made by this conversation. Another talked

about the limited life span of a pancake die and strategies to increase it, leading to a

discussion on the difference between tool steel and stainless steel as a die material.

The conversation brought the influence of materials on die making into focus and

the effect the limited life spans of tools, machines and workshops have on

production. The notion of life span and the function of the die are made with this

conversation. The teacher joined the discussion on materials. He talked about how

the softness of wood responded to machine pressure and that steel supported worn

dies although it tended to mark the blanks. The teacher suggested the use of a piece

of clean stainless steel as a die support. The conversation about materials made a

longer lasting die.

Conversations construct their own agendas, in this case, outside/inside, technique and materials.

A discussion with a student ensued on the social relations formed by workshops, in

particular how student numbers decrease as the day wears on and whether

organised breaks might stem the exodus: or is it just the way of workshop life. Do

long self-structured projects such as those in this course make human relations with

the workshop inevitable? Perhaps projects have a “natural” growth cycle which

determines their relations with the workshop and is the growth pattern and

workshop relations manifested in these attendance patterns? Perhaps some stages

are better resolved outside the workshop such as idea development and paper work

because the technical imposition of the workshop is inhibiting. The university

impinges on student time; they have other commitments to fulfil and deadlines to

meet: a lull in one site produces activity in another.

180

. .

Students in the course are comprised of jewellery majors, jewellery minors and

students taking jewellery as a single broadening course. Jewellery minors and

single course students can come from any school or discipline within the university

and enrol in certain jewellery courses although students of art, architecture,

industrial design and visual communication fill most places.

Discussing jewellery with non-major students reveals things about jewellery

workshop life obscured by the passion and knowledge of those who choose it as a

major option.

Talking with such a student at the press about her relations with the jewellery

workshop revealed how she began as a jewellery major but shifted to glass after

experiencing it as a minor option. The technical and physical limitations of

jewellery making and the jewellery workshop were frustrating when compared to

the directness of working with glass. She described jewellery making as fiddling

about and not going directly to the object as one did with glass. Her love of glass

was cultivated by the direct contact with the material. Tools and machines do not

intervene as much, the maker works directly with the elements, heat and air and the

process, which to a significant degree limits the participation of others. She found a

counter-workshop that was more conducive to her notion of making.

Workshops and the machines and tools in them are material specific, that is, they are designed to respond to the nature of particular materials and transform them into objects. Workshops thus define the actions necessary for the humans to make objects with, and in them. The actions become performances and the performances construct identities and social relations within the workshop. Jewellery making is tool and machine driven and its performance space is localised and personal. Working with glass opens up space and is reliant on managing difficult to harness, heat and air.

In conversation another non-major student expressed a different experience with the

jewellery workshop; she was a graphic design student who had been struggling with

the tools and machines in the jewellery workshop. It was not that she had difficulty

in using them but the struggle seemed to be in their nature and what they made her

do in order to materialise an idea. Later she needed to make a series of small holes

and was shown by the teacher on how to use a pendant drill, a motorised drill with a

flexible shaft. The ease, simplicity and effectiveness of the drilling process

181

. .

delighted and encouraged her: a specific machine had helped her to become, in the

context of the course, a jeweller. As a graphic design student, the jewellery

production course was her first in the jewellery workshop. Her major in the Visual

Communication programme was graphics not illustration because she claimed she

could not draw. When asked about her knowledge of computers she said that, as a

previous TAFE (technical college) course had covered all the programs she did not

have to repeat them at university. Dualities are interesting (between TAFE and

university, between hand and computer, between jewellery and graphics) as they

extend to the notion of self. She spoke two languages (English and Mandarin) and,

although she felt Australian rather than Chinese, both cultures assigned her to the

other. Estrangement from the workshop (not jewellery) seemed to be a

characteristic of students doing single courses in the jewellery department.

Another non-major, an architectural student, needed help with a technical problem;

he had to remove a large amount of superfluous plastic from the centre of a die. The

chasm between concept (which he had in his head) and object (which he was trying

to make) needed to be bridged with tools, machines and processes to produce a

working die. For a non-jeweller with little familiarity with the workshop (like

scientists without their technicians or artists without their craftspeople), he was

adrift in surroundings he could not mobilise. A discussion with him about his future

was interesting in this context. His plan was to be a builder rather than an architect

(in his uncle's building firm), interesting given his understanding of concept and

object in the jewellery workshop. What he was learning as an architectural student

was the antithesis of what he needed as a builder. Perhaps his future role in his

uncle’s firm was to do what he is learning at university: to convert ideas into paper

work not objects.

The workshop means different things to different people. Talking to students whose major programme of study is not dependent on the jewellery workshop helps to understand its role a little better. In the case of the graphics student, the workshop was a means of doing a bit of jewellery which she liked to wear. Her relations with the workshop manifested another duality in her life rather than an integration of means and ends. To the architectural student the workshop seemed like a foreign land, its role as a mediator was not obvious; what it offered to make ideas into objects was inert rather than active.

182

. .

Knowledge of the outside is not the sole province of jewellery majors. A discussion

between a jewellery major and a jewellery minor concerning the acquisition of

materials (aluminium sheet) from outside the workshop is an example. The non-

major knew of an outside source and how to access it whilst the major did not.

Knowledge to serve the workshop is not dependent on knowledge of the arcane

world of the workshop.

Outside the workshop knowledge of the world is divided equally among those reliant on the workshop and those not. In fact those with less knowledge of the work shop can often help those with more knowledge because they are not encumbered with the codes and disciplines of workshop life.

Students are not the only workshop residents; conversations with others associated

with it open up its world from other perspectives. For instance a temporary

replacement technician had been appointed for the week. His consent as a research

subject and interest in the research project was an opportunity to talk to an outsider

who knew jewellery making (he had his own manufacturing business) and worked

occasionally in an academic workshop: an opportunity to talk about the difference

between the two venues. He was keen to continue the conversation during tea break

in the staff lounge: outside the workshop.

The conversation turned to the perennial question in the art/craft debate, what is the

best way to learn jewellery making, mastering technique and exploring ideas or

generating ideas and applying technique. The researcher argued an alternative

route: technique is ideas; the objects of jewellery (practice or teaching) are

embodied in the necessities of making. Integrating technique and ideas might

satisfy the intellectual objectives of the university and the technical skills needed

for jewellery practice. He did not differentiate between academic jewellery and the

trade, arguing that thorough grounding and practice in the techniques of jewellery

making prior to making objects is as necessary for university jewellers as it is for

trade apprentices.

The course co-ordinator joined the conversation and talked about the relative

importance of developing hand/eye/brain skills in a short university degree course.

The production course is based on a single difficult hand skill, saw piercing at a

constant angle. Should precious time be given to practicing this skill or should it be

183

. .

bypassed by supplying tools and machines to students which predetermine the

crucial relationship between angles and thicknesses. Which is most important in

university workshops, the skill of die making or the concept behind its manufacture

and use? What do university jewellery graduates do when they finish their degree,

set up small workshops and make and sell their own work or work as designers

using their knowledge of die making to design work to be made by others? The saw

guides set at the correct angle and attached to each of the benches for the

production techniques course limited skill development to managing the piercing

saw. He wondered if it would be better to learn by making and correcting mistakes

rather than using the “calculations” predetermined by the pre-set angle of the saw

guide. Would it be better to practice these "calculations" as eye/hand/brain skills

and develop skill development, knowledge and practice which could be transferred

to other jewellery courses?

The question of what comes first, technique or ideas, is a dilemma for university workshops. They have an obligation to cover both - but does learning technique inhibit the manifestation of ideas (and do some ideas demand "bad" technique?) and is the manifestation of ideas inhibited by not having the technical skills to manifest them or are technical skills learnt through necessity.

Introducing jewellery making to university students is steeped in art school

methods of idea generation. Jewellery making is introduced to students with the

idea behind object rather than the skill and technique to make it. Visiting a

teacher’s introductory jewellery class endorsed this contention. It was held in a

design studio rather than a workshop and they were making paper and card models

for, or about the body to be later reproduced in metal using simple tools in the

workshop.

Later when the paper and card models were translated into metal objects the idea

was, to a degree, subverted by the more difficult to manage metals and tools. The

teacher talked about how the translation from one material to another changed the

original concept of the paper and card model. Materials also have a “voice”;

different materials will speak differently about a common concept but so does the

environment which processes them: in the studio students made ideas, in the

workshop they made jewellery.

184

. .

Conversations "oil the machinery" of the workshop and help to make objects. Conversations carried on within differing power structures “oil the machinery” differently and produce different objects.

The workshop was locked and the corridor deserted. A locked workshop is

mysterious; perhaps the class had been cancelled or a catastrophe inside had

occurred. No staff members were present; in fact the only humans were two

students waiting in the corridor for the day to begin. The researcher talked with

them about their interest in jewellery making, where it came from and what they

expected from a jewellery course: bringing the workshop out into the corridor.

A workshop is rendered benign when the humans are barred - space and objects can be virtually opened by conversation and activated by human presence.

When the workshop is eventually opened, formal human workshop relations which

organised and structured the day up until now are absent; it is up to the workshop

and students. The workshop springs into action as the serious making begins.

The workshop is a now place of practice where student skill levels are increased

and gradually become as one with the workshop. The workshop is a macro actor; it

is in full flight. With its authority students are designing, cutting and testing die

shapes and object ideas. The workshop is doing what it knows best, it is in its

element. The workshop quickly dispenses with anything but its core operations as it

increasingly manages to get its own way.

Nevertheless the workshop is not in complete control, some humans refuse to come,

others will not stay, experts arrive and interfere and things arrive or are left behind

from other courses. For instance the teacher brought in outside paper work, a book

“Cheap Thrills in the Jewellery Workshop” for students to peruse. It promoted a

counter workshop by offering cheap alternatives to the traditional workshop tools

and machines it was visiting. The teacher discussed the author, his Internet site and

the work shops he has held in Australia with any interested students. An American

hydraulic press workshop is announced for later in the year. The Internet and

visitors offer the workshop mobile and virtual tools now possible because of rapid

communication and transport systems not available in the past.

185

. .

Diagrams explaining riveting techniques were left on the white board from a

previous class - outside paper work but available to the workshop to dispense at any

time. A sort of “paper work” residue spills over from one class to the next blending

and subverting the homogenous nature of discrete courses.

When things from outside the course are brought in, left over or offered for future use, they enable one to revisit past experiences and glimpse possible futures. Workshop boundaries are arbitrary constructs and can be broken when new, alternative or past possibilities appear or reappear.

The issue of student absence, lateness, or erratic attendance is raised when

workshop boundaries are diffused. A discussion with the teacher on this issue

ensues without drawing conclusions or strategies.

Erratic attendance is a concern for the workshop as the end of the semester looms. Is attendance significant for the successful completion of the course or is the course satisfied by other actions elsewhere? Is the concentration and effort required not sustainable over the course? Is the workshop environment too demanding? Perhaps the workload across the programme is such that it is not possible to spend four and a half continuous hours per week on a single university course.

This is the right time for the researcher to collect data as the students are not

encumbered by formal obligations to the workshop; the workshop is now making

objects and does not seem to mind interruptions. The course is at the right stage to

look for students who are willing to talk and respond to the prepared question

sheets. Finding and talking to jewellery majors, explaining the questions and the

value of the research was the first step.

Deciding on the content of the question sheets and enrolling subjects is a stressful process. Was I leading them to a prescribed actor network? Perhaps the questions should have concerned making objects in a workshop and later applying ANT to look at the responses. Would interviews have been a better option? Was the questionnaire too open ended?

The aim was to find a group of jewellery majors to respond to twenty six questions

on their relations with the workshop. After six sets of questions were printed and

five willing subjects found the number of questions, what they were about, and a

time frame was discussed in some detail.

186

. .

One of the aims of a hands-on course is getting hands, tools and machines to collaborate and manifest a concept or idea into an object. They are actors which make choices, arrange detours, participate in rationalisations, act on chance, and accept serendipity, etc. in an effort to find a network that will make the object of their desire. In this setting (the macro actor, the workshop at work) the teacher is a resource filling gaps (upsets) and solving problems when seen, heard or smelled and providing mediation when necessary to maintain the workshop network.

Conflict over numbers and the nature of objects arises again at the end of a course.

The teacher and a student are engrossed in a controversy about number and nature

in an effort to satisfy the institutional mandate, student desire, teacher authority and

the mission of the course. Numbers and nature, clearly spelt out in the assessment

criteria at the beginning of the course are up for negotiation at the end because they

have been rewritten by the experiences of students and/in the workshop. The task of

maintaining the teacher's authority and the underlying purpose of the course whilst

satisfying the individual and educational needs of the student in the context of the

institutional mandate requires a delicate touch. For instance one student interpreted

the course as a means of making a single autonomous object made up of a

configuration of identical units whilst the teacher interpreted it as a means of

making a number of identical or similar but separate objects. The controversy

between numbers (one or twenty) and nature (exhibition object or inexpensive

production objects) was resolved by compromise and negotiation by the teacher and

the student marking his work as an eligible candidate for assessment.

The building of a new "fact" by negotiating numbers and nature can resolve an assessment controversy. It highlights how a previously immutable "fact" can be modified so that humans and non-humans involved can negotiate new number and nature agreements, in fact, a new "fact". Negotiations such as these are common in workshop life.

In this pre-assessment stage objects are shaping up for the big occasion. They are

either shedding aberrations which do not conform to institutional demands or

constructing justifications to contest them. The humans involved are also preparing

for the occasion, the students with presentation strategies and words and the teacher

with dates, time, place and procedure. A primary decision for the teacher is whether

assessment should be carried out with or without the students. Could the objects

speak for themselves or were they at risk of being appropriated to support the

assessor’s point of view when separated from the maker’s support? The teacher

187

. .

proposed continuous assessment during the course because knowledge of the final

assessment process early in the making process limits student “creativity” and may

determine what the objects looks like at the end.

Whether objects should speak for themselves or whether they are only part of a network of human (makers, assessors, wearers or users) and non-human actors (tools, machines, furniture and spaces), indispensable to their existence is a crucial question raised by formal assessment.

Pre-assessment time was characterised by its quietness, small attendance and traffic

in and out of the workshop. Small and erratic attendance could be dead-line related,

the end of the semester is closing in and all courses in the student programme are

demanding attention at the same time. A notice appeared without introduction on

the white board heralding the end of the course.

Project 3

Edition of 10 – or as discussed with R…

250 word essay

Briefly outlining the concept of the work and discussing the design

process (technical and aesthetic)

work and essay due

Thursday June 27th 9 am

Don’t forget presentation

The notice signified the end of the course and a reminder of the necessary

assessment objects and time and place of assessment. For the teacher it was time to

assess the student work and the efficacy of his teaching, for the students to promote

objects compromised by the limitations of time and for the researcher time is up, is

there enough data, does it mean anything…..?

"Finished" objects stripped of the means for change and development herald a stressful period in workshop life. Time is up for everybody interested in the workshop objects.

188

. .

The assessment arrangements result from a discussion between the course co-

ordinator and the teacher. Assessment procedures are a means of appraising the

course and grading the human’s activities in the workshop. A number of options

were discussed including the relative value of group and individual assessment. The

assessment details are to be formalised by the course co-ordinator at end of the day.

Leaving assessment procedures in a state of flux till the end of a course is not such a bad idea. The events of the course will never be identical each time it is presented even when the introductory paper work remains unchanged. Students (groups and individuals), teachers and workshops remake the course in new forms on each occasion. Workshops modify assessment criteria.

To finalise assessment arrangements the teacher, co-ordinator and researcher retired

to the staff lounge to discuss assessment protocol and procedures. The discussion

was cautious in the beginning, tentatively proposing and evaluating opinions.

Although the conversation often strayed from the topic, proposals gradually

emerged and took shape. Much of the discussion concerned the relationship

between the course and the students and what it meant to them in terms of learning.

Finally it was decided three approaches would be used; the students would read

their previously written 250 word essay to the group, they would set up a display of

their work as a mini exhibition and they would discuss their work with the teacher

on a one to one basis. The course co-ordinator then left to prepare the assessment

paper work.

Over cups of coffee and tea assessment was separated from the course and the workshop in which it was conducted. It was decided that all who had a hand in the manifestation of the course should be involved in its assessment, the co-ordinator, teacher, students, and the researcher as an onlooker.

Later that day the prepared assessment documentation was distributed via email

formally outlining the procedure and time table for assessment. It consisted of a

Assessment protocol sheet, Where, When, What and Times sheet and Activities

sheet, and an outline of the purpose of the course, the criteria for grading the work,

the grades and the relationship between the course expectations and the university

expectations, a sheet in the form of a table detailing separately the grading and

criteria for assessment and a group feed back sheet where students could comment

on the course.

189

. .

The workshop had done its job - this assessment, unlike the earlier one would be carried out outside the workshop, in a quasi exhibition setting away from the world of the workshop.

A notice placed on the white board outlines the procedure for students to formally

evaluate the course.

Q101

Jewellery Production Techniques

Course Home page – course evaluation

9.30 – 10 am

The computer pool is booked for you to do the course evaluation

for this course or you can do it at home if you have internet…….

Not only is it time for the work produced by students to be evaluated but it is time for the students to evaluate the course which produced the work. How well did the workshop manage the course?

The last workshop day, a time to fine tune objects for assessment, the transition

period between making objects in the workshop and defending them in the

assessment "court room". The students, waiting for a new regime of confinement

and interrogation on assessment day are busy fine tuning objects freed from the

teacher, paper work, skill development, but alone with any problems incurred in the

workshop. This brief autonomy permits inter-student display, consideration of now

not possible alternative approaches to the course and getting the objects to look

their best. Students have something to show as the course is about to leave the

workshop and be reformed as paper work.

There is no formal instruction during “swot vac”. The large workshop where the

course was taken is locked and those who still need to work had to use a smaller

access workshop. The only staff member available is the studio

technician/storeperson. Use of the access workshop is for one week only: the week

prior to assessment.

190

. .

The lock out, the workshop denies access to the students and their work, it no longer has any role to play in the shape and form of the objects, they now must use a temporary space or go it alone.

This is the hiatus between the prescribed course outcomes and the autonomous object before it is converted into paper, words and numbers. The next phase in the object's life cycle (its immutable mobility?) is during and after assessment which will eventually lead to severance with its exclusive ties with the workshop, the jewellery department, the art school and the university.

This is the last formal workshop contact the researcher has with the course, students

and staff although the connections made with the jewellery department will enable

ongoing relationships.

It is assessment day for the pancake die and batch production project. The handout

states that assessment is to begin in the morning after the students set up their work

for display and finish early afternoon when all the work is to be collected and

removed from the studio.

The objects are to be evaluated and removed from the institution, their existence is to be translated into words and numbers and the objects are either destroyed, recycled or reconstituted as objects of desire.

The assessment venue is a studio away from the workshop reconfigured as a quasi

exhibition space by arranging small tables in a U shape and covering them with

clean sheets of paper. This differs from the mid semester assessment, the objects

are now separated from the tools, machines and general ambience of the workshop

which made them. Exhibition and display is somewhat like a half way house for

objects, although they are to a degree autonomous they are still constrained by their

role as learning and teaching objects but yet to be mobilised by the desire of a

wearer. Many students have seriously taken up the exhibition model by staging

their objects in settings which exhort their presence and enhance their appeal to the

viewer/assessor. Paper, cloth and found objects are used either to highlight or

camouflage the objects, depending on whether the student wants the objects to be

above or within their surroundings. Prior to the assessment the staff and the

researcher move around the exhibition informally commenting on the displays. The

assessment appears to be designed to compare the objects with the aims of the

course rather than comparing one student’s work with the next.

191

. .

Presentation is intended to enhance the capacity of the environment to display the objects in the best light and is important as a means of guiding the object’s entry into the world.

The students are gathered in readiness for the assessment process. They start by

reading from their previously prepared 250 word essays to the group. At least this

was the intent. Very few actually read from the essays, preferring to make off the

cuff statements and remarks about their work. Perhaps the familiarity with each

other and their work legitimated this informality. The teacher commented after each

statement either in the form a summation or question.

This phase was about students talking about their work to the group and the teacher responding to their statements. The process of translating objects into words and numbers had begun.

Before this got underway a brief informal feedback session ensued. The teacher

asked for comments on the course.

This was a verbal version of the evaluation sheets the university asked for and the comment sheets the jewellery department wanted.

After a break the individual reviews commenced. Each student was allowed five

minutes with the teacher to talk about their displayed work and anything else

related to the course. The researcher observed and noted key elements of each of

these dialogues. The course co-ordinator talked with some students after their

session with the teacher.

The conversations were short (unless there was a controversy) and were guided by

the displayed work on the table. Generally the student spoke first and the teacher

reacted to both the student's talk and the work itself. The teacher used an identical

mark sheet for each student to guide but not dictate the direction of the

conversation.

192

. .

Another dimension is added to the presentation of the object. It is entering the world which it is meant to inhabit, transferred from the interests of its maker to the desires of a user. It is no longer only an exhibition object but rather one that responds to the personal desires of an individual, albeit in this instance in an artificial world of an institution and by one of its agents.

The fate of the students and objects are now in the hands of the institution, their fate

to be later encapsulated permanently in words and numbers.

The objects are now complete as their function as assessment objects completes the making process. They are separated from the workshop and its humans although traces of both remain. Their fate now lies in the relationships they form in the outside world with the humans and non-humans they encounter along the way. Nevertheless their days are numbered.

It was time to collate and review the data, where it came from and what it might

mean. Data collection is not a fluid process, it never runs smoothly, students and

staff are preoccupied with their own concerns, assisting the researcher is not, nor

should it be, a high priority. The researcher’s initial organisation fell into an

amorphous pile. The collected essays, journals and question sheet responses now

had to be turned into something which looked like formal workshop research

projects.

The Workshop Research: the overall approach

Summary

This is an outline of the overall approach to two workshop research tasks. In both

tasks student paper work is analysed in the context of institutional paper work.

The notion of paperwork to paperwork as a method of exploring institutional texts

in a workshop setting is extrapolated from Latour’s (1987, pp. 21- 63) lengthy

discussion on literature in “Science in Action”.

Paperwork in the context of the workshop research is generated by the production

of material and discursive objects. Words and numbers used to disseminate

institutional requirements and record their outcomes are collected and analysed as a

method for interpreting workshop life. It is based on the premise that paper work

both produces material and discursive objects and later replaces them enabling the

abandoned objects to remain alive and revisited by proxy. The word "paper" is a

193

. .

metaphor appropriated from the non-digitised past and refers to any available

recording or reading technology, such as paper, tape, disk, screen, etc.

The residency in the jewellery workshop was originally intended to explore an

“industrial” site in a university where academic knowledge is generated and

disseminated. Early in the residency it became clear that the workshop’s

responsibility, other than teaching students to make jewellery objects, was also a

clearing house for institutional mandates. As the two agendas met in the workshop

(student’s intent on learning jewellery making and the university intent on

manifesting its core interests) it was decided to collect, consider and analyse data

which epitomised the encounter. Two research tasks surfaced from the large

amount of raw data collected on this basis, both involving workshop paperwork.

The first explores the premise that students rewrite instructional institutional

paperwork when they make objects in the workshop by infusing them with personal

and sub-cultural objectives. The second explores the premise that paperwork

rewritten by students as objects infused with personal and sub-cultural objectives

rewrites assessment paperwork as new institutional paper work during mandatory

assessment processes.

Institutional workshop paperwork is not plucked from thin air; it is authored on the

knowledge, skills, experience and competence of administrators, educators, artists

and craftspeople with a vested interest in both agendas. That is, institutional paper

work is constructed by the vested interests of others who have previously made

“objects” as a basis for the paper work they author, endorse and implement in the

workshop. Students then use the institutional paper work to produce objects to

produce new paper work. New student paper work such as assessment and other

institutional records, student journals, records of sale, visual images, etc. influences

the next round of institutional paper work by suggesting amendments, corrections

and directional changes. The cycle of paperwork, objects, paperwork continues

alternatively excising and adding students, objects and workshops from and to the

loop.

Nevertheless some paperwork is imported from outside the institution and

influences how new paper work is produced (Latour, 1987, p. 31). Paperwork from

outside acts similarly to citations in written texts; it enables students to bring

194

. .

outside authorities to bear on both their paperwork and institutional paperwork,

authorities that, consciously or unconsciously, are taken into account when new

paper work is written. In the case of the jewellery workshop, other jewellers,

theorists, writers, critics, gallery directors, marketers and salespeople, grant bodies

and specialist organisations not formally linked to the workshop influence

institutional and student paper work through books, journals, magazines, catalogue

essays, grant applications, sales records and organisation accreditation criteria.

Although these influences are beyond the scope of the study it is important they are

considered as one of the limitations of the research. The assertion that institutional

paper work is contested and rewritten by students and modified by imported paper

work cannot be ignored if they want to "pass" the course.

Other factors also impinge on the student’s interpretation of the institutional texts

such as the teacher’s informal verbal explanations and demonstrations, the cultural,

educational and technical capital students and teachers bring with them and the

resources drawn from sites within the university but outside the jewellery

workshop. Nevertheless by looking at how students relate to institutional texts a

general picture of their relevance can be gained. But “paper first” is an institutional

approach to object making which seems to be accepted without question.

Bamberger (1991) in her paper “the Laboratory for Making Things” questions the

notion of “paper first” after observing and theorising the scantily researched

dichotomy between “natural” makers who design, make and understand by doing

but have difficulty applying and writing texts and those who need or desire

explanatory paperwork prior to making. For many starting with the hands and then

drawing the texts into the making process as the object grows is a more natural

approach to making. Many academic workshop courses (including the one studied)

are based on the first approach, that is abstract institutional texts (verbal and

written) are introduced prior to making, and making is written about by students

during and after the making process.

Focusing on paper work is a way of exploring the relations between workshop

operations and other agendas, in the case of this study, those imposed by the

university. Institutional and student paper work reformed by workshop practice and

knowledge, can be the basis for considering the workshop as a model site for

curriculum writing. Does the authority of the institutional paper work give authority

195

. .

to the personal paper work, or is the institutional paper work merely a starting point

for the production of new paper work? Does it matter from where the authority of

the paper work emanates or is it necessary to know the motives of those who

instigate and implement it?

In order to contextualise the two research projects field notes taken during the

residency have been presented prior to the two formal analyses in the workshop

narrative “The Workshop makes Objects”. The narrative transcriptions and

observations preceding the formal analyses enable the lively, social, often chaotic

activities of the workshop to bear on cold and somewhat abstract research.

Hence the three interacting strands of the research in order of presentation are:

1. a narrative transcription and commentary from the researcher's

journal

2. an analysis of, and student response to, instructional introductory

institutional paper work

3. an analysis of, and student responses to, institutional assessment

paperwork

As a general guide to both research tasks Latour’s No.2 rule of method and his first

principle (Latour, 1987, pp. 258-259) are acknowledged:

• Latour's No. 2 rule of method - “To determine the objectivity or subjectivity

of a claim, the efficiency or perfection of a mechanism, we do not look for

their intrinsic qualities but at all the transformations they undergo later in

the hand of others”.

• And his first principle - “the fate of facts and machines is in later users’

hands; their qualities are thus a consequence, not a cause, of a collective

action”.

Research such as this can only be taken at face value if it is assumed that

institutional texts are read by its human research subjects. Asking students to read

the texts prior to the research stifles the “everyday” of workshop life but assuming

they do not read them limits the efficacy of the research. The best to be done is to

rest on Latour's (1987, p. 60) claim that people use three strategies when confronted

with paper work, giving up, going along or working through and hope the content

196

. .

of the institutional paperwork is ingested by one, or a combination, of these

strategies. Giving up is the most common strategy; people do not always read texts,

they go their own way, going along the subject reads and believes the author’s

assertion without question and, in fact, assists in its claim by going along with it

without dispute. Working through is the least common requiring reenactment of the

steps which led to the claim under exactly the same conditions used by the author.

Although institutional texts are not always read they nevertheless must seep into the

social and technical networks in the workshop because students ultimately need

them to fulfill course requirements.

Application 1: institutional paperwork and workshop objects

Summary

In Application 1 the content of the institutional paper work is placed against what

students thought, wrote (and drew) before, during and after they made objects in

the name of institutional paper work. The analysis rests upon responses to

questionnaires, study of personal journal entries and the content of a short essay.

This section is predicated on Latour’s aforementioned rule of method and first

principle. Rather than searching for the intrinsic implications of the institutional

texts, it is “the transformations they undergo later in the hand of others” which

impels the analysis. In this case the others are a class of jewellery production

students and in particular four students selected for closer scrutiny. Included in the

transformation is the researcher who interprets and analyses the texts and his

mentor, Latour, always lurking in the background trying to keep things in his

domain.

Although student objects start from institutional paper work they are modified by

student interventions and production of new paper work.

The paperwork, collected from the institution includes university, school of art,

jewellery programme and jewellery production techniques course texts. The

paperwork collected from students include responses to a questionnaire, journal

entries and a 250 word essay from four jewellery majors named as A, B, C and D.

197

. .

Questions asked of the institutional paperwork are:

1. what did the university paper work ask of the students?

2. what were the student's responses to the questionnaire on institutional

paper work?

3. what did the student’s journals say about the interpretation of the

institutional texts?

4. what did the student's say about the course in the 250-word essay?

5. in each of these cases did the student responses to the institutional

texts rewrite the workshop course and if so how?

A collective analysis of student responses to institutional paper work

To understand student response to institutional paperwork it is necessary to firstly

analyse its content. Four institutional texts, the university core objectives, the

school of art modus operandi, the jewellery department aims and the course outline

for Jewellery Production Techniques, were analysed in the light of student response

to a questionnaire, their journal entries and in a short essay. The questionnaire

asked four students (A, B, C and D) to interpret institutional paper work, their

journals, encouraged by the teacher but not assessed, were a source of day to day

interpretation of the course and the 250 essay, mandatory paper work on individual

techno/aesthetic evaluations of their work throughout the course, was a course post

mortem.

Part 1: Before the course: institutional paperwork and student objects

The institutional paperwork analysed are:

1. University wide texts: from University Graduate Qualities document

2. School of art texts: from South Australian School of Art website

3. Programme texts: from South Australian School of Art - Jewellery +

Metal website

4. Course texts: from a student handout –Jewellery Production

Techniques.

198

. .

The result of the analysis is in two parts; the first shows the main institutional

objective (highlighted) and the second, a collective summation of the text content

which led to the main institutional objective.

The university wide texts

The university’s core mission as outlined in the University Graduate Qualities

document.

The Graduate: The ideal graduate is a professional; a lifelong learner and

problem solver who can adapt to either individual or collaborative work

practices, is ethical and is capable of taking her/his place in the community.

South Australian School of Art

Art school objectives from its website

The Student: As well as acquiring practical, problem solving and research

skills and developing creatively through self-expression the student should be

passionate about art and consider it as a potential career.

The jewellery department metals programme

The jewellery and metal programme outline for enrolled and/or prospective

students.

The Object: A crafts practitioner should be able to produce objects that are

both conceptual and practical by exploring a range of alternative, precious

and non-precious materials for the body.

The course - jewellery production techniques

The Course statement, for distribution to jewellery students enrolled in this course.

The Market: Use innovative, simple techniques to produce marketable,

saleable objects that will support both a lifestyle and a passion for the craft.

In brief the four texts collectively refer to the graduate in the community, the

student at art school, the object for the body and the market to sustain a career

and lifestyle.

199

. .

For students or prospective students, outcomes from The Jewellery Production

Course depend on the interaction of, and relations between, the aims and values of

these four sectors encompassed in the course, Jewellery Production Techniques.

Table 10 shows the intersection the four texts:

Interaction of, and relations between, the four institutional texts University School of Art Jewellery and metal

programme The course - batch production

Graduate professional career Crafts practitioner, Supports artist lifestyle

Student

Lifelong learner Creative problem solving skills, creativity, self expression, passion

Object Practical skills Conceptual and practical works, materials and processes

Innovative and "low tec" techniques

Market Work practices, community

Wide audience, sold through retail outlet. Capitalise on design development

Table 10

Institutional text analysis - inferences

Students must concede to the demands of university, art school, jewellery

programme and course texts in order to successfully complete the course, Jewellery

Production Techniques, by manifesting new paperwork by the production of objects

in the workshop.

The four institutional texts promote the course as a well rounded university

experience by including the graduate, the student, the object and the market, a

comprehensive education if embraced by the students taking the course. If students

interpret and use the texts according to institutional demands they would fulfil the

requirements of university study considered to be important in the texts. However

the four texts conflict with each other. For instance the ideal art school student may

not be interested in making material objects, “creativity” does not have to include

material objects nor would they necessarily be interested in markets. Thus the

question: did the students interpret the texts as prescribed or did their actions in the

workshop rewrite them as new texts?

Table 10 illustrates the interaction between the institutional texts. The construction

of the graduate in the university texts is reinforced in the school of art as a career,

in the jewellery and metal programme as a crafts practitioner and the course as an

200

. .

artist's lifestyle. The construction of the student in the university texts is as a

lifelong learner and in the art school as a creative problem solver but is not

represented in either of the jewellery department texts. The object is not

represented in the university texts but referred to in the art school, the jewellery

programme and the course and the market is mentioned only in the university and

course texts.

The Hand and the Object

The university texts are graduate oriented; concerned with how the university is

represented when the graduates take their place in the community: the hand and the

object as producers of useful citizens. The art school texts are student orientated

and are directed towards how the art school would like to be known, predominantly

a site for the production of the of self and creativity: the hand and the object as

producers of creative, problem solving self-expressive people. The jewellery and

metal programme texts focus upon the material and conceptual object as a formal

entity, a world within itself: the hand and the object as producers of a form of

material culture. The market is referred to most strongly in the course texts; it is

overtly "commercial" and orientated towards supporting a way of life by capturing

an audience: the hand and object as producers of economic capital.

To consider the translation and transformation of the institutional texts the

inferences, graduate in the community, the student at art school, the object for the

body and the market to sustain a career and lifestyle are considered with the

analysis of student responses to a questionnaire, in student journals and by a short

essay. Firstly the questionnaire -

Part 2: About the course: student response to the institutional paperwork

questionnaire

Four students were asked four questions referring to their reading (or perception) of

the above four institutional texts disseminated by the institution, texts which could

influence the shape and form of the objects they make. Specifically the students

were asked what an object might look like according to their interpretation of texts

supplied by four levels in the institutional hierarchy – at the general university

level, the art school level, the jewellery department level and the course level.

201

. .

The analysis consisted of student responses to, and researcher’s interpretation of the

following set of questions:

Question 1 - "What did you think a “university” object should look like according

to your understanding of a university’s core mission"?

The researcher's collective interpretation of the responses to the university object

varied from being unclear and too concerned with economics, should exhibit a good

finish, represent the acquisition of knowledge, show the interface between

technique and idea, skill, personal style and experimentation to striking, elaborate

but boundless.

Question 2 - "What do you think an “art school” object should look like according

to your reading of BVA texts"?

The researcher's collective interpretation of the responses varied from design,

originality and personal development, a reflection of the learning environment,

underlying concept rather than appearance, show personal effort, encompass

contemporary theories and traditional influences to artistic, original and

aesthetically pleasing.

Question 3 - "What do you think a “jewellery department” object should look like

according to your reading of their texts"?

Researcher's collective interpretation of the responses varied from design,

originality, personal development, reflection of the learning environment and to

being well made. It should also fit the course guidelines and the course aims,

exhibit new skills, show a personal and creative touch, appeal to the viewer and

exhibit good craftpersonship and an eye for detail.

Question 4 - "What did you think the object expected from this course would look

like according to your reading of the course paper work supplied by the jewellery

department'?

202

. .

Researcher's collective interpretation of the student varied from disinterest in

course paperwork to wearability, jewellery scale and a good finish. It also should

show appropriate making techniques, experimentation, highlight the processes and

skills and their use learnt in the course. The correct number of objects and the use

of the production techniques from the course should be displayed as well as lack of

complication, good construction, professionalism and good craftpersonship.

Table 11 shows the intersection between the institutional texts and student

responses.

Student responses and institutional paperwork University object Art school object Jewellery dept. object Course object Student A Not clear because the

university does not present a clear understanding of its core mission - too concerned with economics

Emphasise design and originality, personal development and understanding in a learning environment

Emphasise design and originality, personal development and understanding in a learning environment

Not influenced by course paper work

Student B Quality of finish, show an accumulation of knowledge, intersection of technique and ideas, university -objects are boundless

Can look like anything but must have an underlying concept

Should be well made and fit the guidelines given

Should be wearable, to jewellery scale, well finished, appropriately made, show experimentation and use the processes learnt in the semester. It should show the skills taught and how they can be used

Student C Exhibit learned skills, personal style and experimentation

Show personal effort and encompass contemporary theories and traditional influences

Show lessons learnt in the workshop, new skills, and personal and creative touch

Make the number asked, use production techniques, not too complicated, well constructed and professional looking

Student D Show professional finish, striking and elaborate

Should be artistic, original and aesthetically pleasing

Should be appealing, well crafted and detailed

Should be professional and well crafted

Table 11

Analysis of questionnaire response – inferences

Table 11 illustrates the interaction between the institutional texts and student

responses. The relations between the institutional texts and student response are

interpreted by matches and mismatches. The first analysis looks at whether student

response to the four questions on institutional paper work went along with the

analysis of institutional texts. The responses appear as lists in the student’s own

words.

203

. .

University texts: nil went along.

Art school texts: they went along by agreeing on originality, personal development,

understanding in a learning environment, be concept based, show personal effort

and be artistic and original

Jewellery programme texts: they went along by agreeing an object should be well

made, conform to guidelines, show workmanship skills, show new skills, be well

crafted and detailed

Course texts: they went along by agreeing on wearability, scale, appropriateness of

manufacture and numbers

The second analysis concerns how student responses to the four questions on

institutional paper work rewrote the institutional texts.

University texts: they rewrote the university texts as economics, finish, knowledge,

relations between technique and ideas, unboundedness, learned skills, personal

style, experimentation and as striking and elaborate

Art school texts: they rewrote the art school texts as design, to look like anything, to

encompass contemporary theories and traditional influences and be aesthetic

Jewellery programme texts: they rewrote the jewellery programme texts as design,

originality, personal development, personal touch, creative touch and appeal

Course texts: they rewrote the Jewellery Production Course texts as not requiring

paperwork, experimentation, use of processes, use of taught skills, use of course

techniques, uncomplicated, well constructed, well crafted and well finished

According to Table 11 the students did not emphatically differentiate between the

four strands of institutional paper work, although the art school and course texts

were the most clearly matched. Such things as originality, concept and artistry were

mentioned as understood in the construction of the art school student and course

texts by production and the market. The jewellery programme strongly promoted

204

. .

adherence to institutional requirements in particular its emphasis on craft qualities.

The university object was the most distanced from the workshop and thus the least

clearly articulated. The student responses to the university texts borrowed from the

other three institutional texts, re-covering ground such finish, skills, style and

appearance as well as the acquisition of knowledge.

In their response to the institutional texts student's hands and objects were mainly

concerned with art school and the Jewellery Production Course aims.

Part 3: During the course: student journals

The student journals, described here as continuous paper work, ostensibly used by

students as an integral part of the production of objects, are analysed according to

the researcher’s personal experience as a maker and teacher. The four students were

asked to "Comment on the role continuous personal paper work plays/played in the

production of your emerging object. What is its impact on both the technical and

sensory/aesthetic aspects of your emerging object”?

The student’s briefly outlined how they use their personal journal (as continuous

paper work) and the role it plays in the production of objects. The relevant sections

of the journals were later scanned for meaning by the researcher for inferences

contained in both word and image and the analysis encapsulated in one or two

sentences.

The production of personal paper work is an adjunct to the production of objects

and, in a sense, embodied in the object. When personal paper work and object are

separated (because of failure, sale, loss, etc.) the paperwork remains as a record to

either replace or "become" the object.

Student comments on continuous paperwork and researcher observations of student

journal entries plots the process of transforming institution centred paperwork into

student centred objects.

205

. .

Student comments on continuous paper work and researcher's observations of

journal entries Student Student stated attitudes to continuous

paper work (journal) Researcher's observations of student continuous paper work (journal)

A Does not give journal work high priority. Works directly with materials

Used only as a reference for course information Journal sparsely used

B Uses journal mainly to develop plans for objects - journal helps keep in touch with the ideas behind object making. Used as a planning tool

Used as a reference for die technique and course information and to test sample die shapes to select from. Technique and process as object.

C Uses journal for drawing and testing ideas for objects rather than technique. Journal used to develop the form and aesthetics of the objects to be produced. Used journal as a visualising tool

Journal used not only to develop form and aesthetic but also as sort of running narrative on the production of the objects. Contains historical and other references from outside the course and a few cursory notes on given technique, but ideas predominate. "Artist's" journal to explore ideas

D Claims to use journal to shape ideas into a form ready for production and to use drawings rather than words. Used as a technical planning tool

Contained drawings of finished pieces rather than developmental drawings leading up to finished drawings. Used to test finished motifs as plans for production. Written notes were mainly comments on these (almost) finished forms. Plans ready to transfer straight to objects

Table 12

Student journal analyses – inferences

Journal work presents an opportunity for students to subvert or personalise

institutional texts. They are an opportunity to test, in relative privacy, personal

interests and passions in spite of institutional directives: an opportunity to rewrite

institutional texts before they are modified to comply with institutional assessment

criteria. Nevertheless journals are not popular with all workshop students, some

begrudgingly use them and others start with good intentions but ignore them once

the making is underway. Table 12 looks at the journals from two perspectives, on

the left as student responses to the questionnaire and on the right observations by

the researcher.

The responses to the journal question varied from irrelevancy to a general planning

tool, a means to visualise finished objects and a method to bring technique and

object together. The researcher's observations saw the journals as a repository of

course information, a sorting of technique and process, an opportunity for an

“artist” to explore ideas and as the basis for planning for production.

A correlation between student use of journals and the researcher's observations of it

is born out in the table. A number of general functions of workshop journals are

also articulated in this analysis such as idea development, planning technical

206

. .

processes and matching limiting technique with material objects. As one student

suggests, not every one wants or needs to use a journal to make material objects,

bringing the resources of the workshop to bear on ideas and materials is also an

effective approach. Educational institutions either demand or imply the use of

journals as they fit well within the intellectual traditions of the academy and are

available, if needed, for assessment. Journals are, in a sense, personalised course

abstracts, a repository for, and a revelation of the application of the hand and the

object in workshop production.

Part 4: After the course: the 250 word essay

Part 4 looks at the institutional text analysis and its relation to the contents of a 250-

word essay written at, and for the end of the course. The essay topic copied

verbatim from the whiteboard in the workshop – a 250 word essay briefly outlining

the concept of the work and discussing the design process (technical and aesthetic)

asked the students for a written exegesis to accompany their objects. This differs

from the responses to the researcher's questions because it asked students to

summarise their experiences after completing the course. Although they were not

asked to consciously consider institutional texts in the essay question their

construction of the course may incidentally comment on them. In effect, the essays

(and the journals) constitute an examination of how institutional texts "seep into"

workshop practice. What do the essays say about the course when institutional texts

are replaced by objects for assessment?

Where in the essays are the institutional texts: is there a relationship between the

institutional paperwork at the beginning of the course and the essay paper work

written at the end of the course?

To probe these questions an analysis of the essays is compared with the analysis of

the institutional texts (Table 13). The claim that the four institutional texts

collectively refer to the graduate in the community, the student at art school, the

object for the body and the market to sustain a career and a lifestyle is tested by an

analysis of the 250 word essays. The essay analysis is presented in the table in

black or grey text, black represents the major emphasis in the essays and grey the

minor.

207

. .

The relationship between institutional texts and student essays Student Graduate –

university texts Student – Art School texts Object – jewellery dept.

texts Market – course texts

A Research Materials, technique Analysis, time, production

B Design, experiment Technique, body, materials production C Expression, research, passion,

ideas, concepts, personal Object, body, materials, technique, tools, inscription

production

D Body, technique Sales, audience, money

Table 13

The 250 word essay – inferences

Table 13 brings the course to a conclusion by tabling student essays with

institutional texts. The essays were about student workshop experiences as they

transformed institutional texts into personal texts. Each student was allotted a major

(black) and minor (grey) key to illustrate their relations with the institutional texts.

Student A was mainly concerned with materials and technique with a little on

research and production. Student B was similar to A whilst C emphasised interest in

expression, passion and ideas and the object and the market. Student D was mainly

concerned with the market. There was little reference to the university texts in any

of the essays.

The essay was intended to encourage students to think about why and how they

made objects in the context of the course. The researcher was more interested in

what the essays said about the institutional texts. Table 13 shows the four essays

covered much of the ground outlined in the institutional texts except for the

university texts.

Together the questionnaires, journals and essays are a source of data which test the

statement that workshops rewrite institutional texts in the hands of students. The

analysis of the questionnaire response, journals and essays suggested that student

intentions resulted from the ongoing encounter with the workshop rather than the

institutional texts.

The next testing ground for the paperwork to paperwork claim is assessment, the

notion that the workshop which rewrote primary institutional texts by the

production of objects sees them rewritten by the institution as assessment texts.

208

. .

Application 2: Workshop assessment: assessment paperwork, workshop objects and

the examination

The examination combines the techniques of an observing hierarchy and those of a normalizing judgement. It is a normalizing gaze, a surveillance that makes it possible to qualify, to classify and to punish. It establishes over individuals a visibility through which one differentiates them and judges them. That is why, in all the mechanisms of discipline, the examination is highly ritualised. In it are combined the ceremony of power and the form of the experiment, the deployment of force and the establishment of truth. At the heart of the procedures of discipline, it manifests the subjection of those who are perceived as objects and the objectification of those who are subjected. The superimposition of the power relations and knowledge relations assumes in the examination all its visible brilliance. It is yet another innovation of the classical age that the historians of science have left unexplored. People write the history of experiments on those born blind, on wolf-children or under hypnosis. But who will write the more general, more fluid, but also more determinant history of the 'examination' - its rituals, its methods, its characters and their roles, its play of questions and answers, its systems of marking and classification? For in this slender technique are to be found a whole domain of knowledge, a whole type of power. One often speaks of the ideology that the human "sciences" bring with them, in either discreet or prolix manner. But does their very technology, this tiny operational schema that has become so widespread (from psychiatry to pedagogy, from the diagnosis of diseases to the hiring of labour), this familiar method of the examination, implement, within a single mechanism, power relations that make it possible to extract and constitute knowledge? It is not simply the level of consciousness, of representations and in what one thinks one knows, but at the level of what makes possible the knowledge that is transformed into political investment (Foucault, 1991, pp.184-185).

Summary

Two things are considered in Application 2, the institutional assessment

requirements, and the process of assessment at the end of the course. Paperwork

which guides assessment and the paperwork generated during assessment together

permit another insight into the socio/technical world of the workshop.

The implementation and production of assessment paperwork opens pathways from

one course to another from one level of a course to the next and authorises practice

as a credentialed practitioner. Assessment paper work “qualifies, classifies or

punishes” students, teachers and the course and, importantly, is source material for

the revision of paper work for following generations of students, teachers and

courses.

209

. .

In Application 1 the researcher looked at the transformation of institutional paper

work into student paper work by the production of workshop objects. Application 2

focuses on the paper work used to assess workshop objects and the paperwork

produced by them as assessment grades and commentary in the form of records in

words, letters and numbers.

A workshop course is resolved and accounted for similarly to any other university

course, as a set of recorded words, letters and numbers estranged from the material

and discursive objects used to make them. In this form they are more useable for

the institution than their cumbersome ancestors because, as Latour said, they have

three characteristics not available to their parent objects. First, in the knowing

hands of “paper shufflers”, they become expedient data which encapsulates the

proficiency of students, the expertise of teachers and the standing of institutions.

Second, as paper work they are more mobile than the objects used to make them;

they can travel quickly and easily between sites as needed and third, they are

standardised enabling them to be mixed with other data to assess overall individual

and institutional performance free from the limitations of the clumsy objects which

made them (Latour, 1999, p.255).

Thus the aim is to consider the analysis of the institutional assessment texts in the

light of the assessment process as they are "rewritten" to demonstrate the merits of

the course, teacher, students and workshop objects as they seek the approval of the

institution.

The analysis is in two parts, an analysis of the institutional texts that refer to

assessment and an analysis of the assessment process which produce new texts.

Part 1: Analysis of institutional assessment paperwork

Five examples of institutional assessment paperwork are analysed. They are the

assessment criteria for the course, assessment for all assignments, assessment

criteria for pancake die, assessment criteria for limited production and assessment

criteria for studio sessions.

210

. .

In Table 14 the assessment texts are analysed from three standpoints, the humans

involved in their application, the non-humans enrolled in their construction and the

actions assessment asks students to take to fulfill the criteria of the course.

Humans, non-humans and actions embodied in institutional assessment texts

Assessment texts

Human involvement in assessment

Non-human involvement in assessment

Actions asked of students in assessment

no no no

Overall course assessment

0 nil 13 Work, materials, workshop, limited production, jewellery production, limited edition, batch production, techniques, local, national, contemporary, craft practice, limited production

5 Demonstrate, understanding, develop, respond, demonstrate

Assessment for all assignments

3 Lecturer, technical officer, course coordinator

5 Assignments, due date, seven days, due date, disability

6 Submitted, collected, returned, re-submitted, extensions, presented

Assessment criteria for pancake die

1 your 6 Pancake die process, pancake die technique, stainless steel die, twenty pieces, accuracy, shape

3 Demonstrate, demonstrated, negotiate

Assessment criteria for limited production

2 You, your 8 Course, limited edition, batch production, ten plus, tooling, process, design, concept

4 Opportunity, demonstrated, negotiate, produce

studio performance assessment

9 Your, your, you, your, your, your, students, you, you

26 Studio, skills, materials, lecture, studio, studio, weekly, lecture topics, projects/assignments, attendance, lecture, footwear, clothing, workshop, studios, safety glasses, grade, mark, studio, assessment, projects, studio, environment, studio, exercises

10 Provide, opportunity, develop, demonstrated, learning, explore, working, participation, excluded, learning

Total 15

58 28

Table 14

Analysis of institutional assessment criteria - inferences

In Table 14 the analysis searched for the dominant imperatives in the institutional

assessment texts, that is were they located in the workshop object, as the

embodiment of changes to the student maker or in the actions both the object and

its maker were asked to perform in order to “pass” the course?

Assessment from the analysis is directed toward “non-human” criteria, (58

mentions) (the non-human involvement in assessment), whilst humans, (human involvement in

211

. .

assessment), and actions, (actions asked of students in assessment), together comprised of 43

mentions (15 human and 28 actions).

What then is assessment in the institutional texts? From the analysis it is making,

knowing, using and presenting non-human objects. Who must make, know, use and

present the non-human objects: the individual human, the student. And what actions

need to be taken for the individual human, the student, to make, know, use and

present, participation as an individual maker.

From the analysis, assessment network for institutional texts is making, knowing,

using and presenting non-human objects as an individual human and

demonstrating the results of individual action.

The analysis of the institutional assessment texts (Table 14) provides a background

to an analysis of the assessment process (Assessment Theatre) to follow. If

Assessment Theatre is considered in the light of the above analysis what can be

found when students (and teachers) make objects in the workshop which rewrite the

assessment texts and, in fact, the introductory texts in Application 1.

Part 2: Assessment theatre: performing assessment

Part 2 is called assessment theatre because course, student, teacher and object are

asked to perform in front of an audience to marshal creditability for themselves and

each other. The nexus between their inter-dependency and their individual interests

relies on their ability to capture an audience (from the institution to fellow students)

although it is possible for a "star" to emerge and dominate the stage. In a

performance environment such as this all four actors (course, student, teacher and

object) have to convince the institution of their creditability, the teacher no less

because his/her creditability is embodied in the performance of the course, student

performance and object as well as his own. There are two performances in

Assessment Theatre the first when the object is performed in “public” by the

students and teacher and the second, a more intimate affair, when the course,

teacher, student and object perform a “four hander” for the institutional “mark”

sheet.

212

. .

The following analysis is in two sections the first is based on “public” or group

performances and the second on the “four hander”. The first, the “public” or group

performance, is divided in two sections, the mid-semester assessment and the end

of course assessment.

The mid-semester “public” or group performance

Although the two performances are explored together they differ in a number of

ways, mainly because of disparities of time and place. The mid semester group

assessment was held in the workshop amid benches, machines and tools and the end

of course group assessment in a more formal, quasi-exhibition setting separated

physically and conceptually from the workshop. These differences influence the

“importance” of the events and student’s attitude toward them. The socio/technical

details influencing the events have been previously discussed in the work shop

narrative "the Workshop Makes Objects". In this section the organisation and

analysis is looked at, in both the mid semester and end of course assessment, by

using a simple discourse analysis carried out by the researcher during the

performance in front of the class and the teacher. The more substantial analysis, the

one to one reviews with course, teacher, student and object, is dealt with in Part 3.

Mid semester group review

Although there were twenty-one students participating in the mid semester review

each only spoke for about a minute enabling the assessment to be finished in less

than a half hour. No paper work was required from the students. The students were

simply asked to talk about their objects to the group.

The below table is based on the dominant categories of interests found by the

researcher in the voices of students as they talked about their work to the class in

the workshop.

213

. .

Student main concerns A B C D E

Student “Useful” object

Concept or idea

Technical problems or difficulties

Explanation of technique

Transformation of technique to object

1 + 2 + + 3 + + 4 + + At this point the teacher suggested they talk more about ideas than technical difficulties & problems 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + + 11 + 12 + 13 + + 14 + + + 15 + + 16 + 17 + 18 + + 19 + 20 + + 21 + Total

7 12 6 4 2

Table 15

Mid semester group review - inferences

Based on student talk Table 15 tells us something about how they individually and

collectively responded to the course. The total responses from the table is

30(A+B+C+D+E=30) consisting of 7A, 11B, 6C, 4D and 2E. “Useful” objects,

concepts or ideas and technical problems or difficulties were the main responses

comprising 24 out of the 30 responses. It is impossible to know how this table

would have looked if the teacher had not intervened after student 5 and directed the

talk towards ideas and away from technical difficulties. Although the numbers are

not sufficiently substantial to draw conclusions the difference between before and

after teacher intervention was discernable. For instance C, technical problems or

difficulties, sits at 33% before and 17% after intervention, whilst before and after

percentage for B, concepts and ideas, remained roughly the same (33% and 39%).

End of semester group performance

The end of course assessment was much more elaborate than the first and was

carried out in a space separate from the workshop and set up specifically for the

assessment performance.

214

. .

The first phase consisted of each student talking about their work to the group

ostensibly from their previously prepared 250 word essay. In most cases the essay

was not consulted, the students preferring to talk from their carefully displayed

objects encouraging interventions from the teacher. This was a group phase: all

were asked to look and listen as their name was called. Figure 16 was constructed

from the researcher's notes taken during each student talk. It includes a single word

précis of the teacher’s comments.

Student concerns and teacher comment A B C D E

Student “Useful” object

Concept or idea

Technical problems or difficulties

Explanation of technique

Transformation of technique to object

Teacher input

1 + + affirmed 2 + + exemplar 3 + instructed 4 + + taught 5 + commented 6 + affirmed 7 + commented 8 + + categorised 9 + + categorised 10 + + categorised 11 + instructed 12 + affirmed 13 + + taught 14 + + affirmed 15 + + affirmed 16 + + affirmed 17 + + taught 18 + + instructed 19 + + affirmed Total 1 11 5 4 11

Table 16

End of semester group review - inferences

Based on a transcription and analysis of student talk concerning their work Table

16 tells us something about how they individually and collectively responded to the

course. The total responses from the table is 32 (A+B+C+D+E=32) consisting of

1A, 11B, 5C, 4D and 11E. Concepts or ideas and transformation from technique to

object were the main responses comprising 22 out of the 32 responses. Intervention

by the teacher revealed 5 affirmed, 1 exemplar, 2 instructed, 3 taught, 2 commented

and 3 categorised. The teacher’s main response, affirmations, could be regarded as

either a neutral reaction or a genuine endorsement of the student overview of their

semester's work. Instructed and taught, although different in the sense that

215

. .

instructions were aimed at the individual (what to do next, steps toward,

improvement, etc.) whilst the opportunity to teach directed towards the group

together made up 5 interventions.

Part 3: Individual reviews: (student, teacher, object)

After a break the individual reviews commenced: each student was allocated five

minutes with the teacher to talk about their work and anything else related to the

course. The researcher sat in on each review and noted the key words used by the

student and the teacher during the performance. The programme coordinator sat in

on some performances and talked to some students and the teacher after their

session.

The following word/number analysis tables result from sitting in on 18 course,

teacher, student and object assessment performances. The conversations were short

(unless there was a controversy) and included “interjections” by the objects

displayed on a table. Generally the student spoke first and the teacher reacted to

both the student's talk and the interjections of the objects. The teacher had an

identical mark sheet for each student which guided but did not dictate the direction

of the conversation. The researcher sat in on these conversations and listed words

that denoted themes (eg materials, concept, etc) spoken by the student and the

teacher. Student, teacher and objects were considered as single entities. The below

raw analyses are constructed by identifying key words and their frequency of use

during the conversation. The argument that assessment interests from both the

perspective of the students and the teacher are located in the analysis underpins the

analysis. The results of the overall analysis stem from 39 total key words used in

the analysis, the basis of all the tables which follow. The table headings for word

usage are:

Shared key words, teacher + student - 13

Student only key words - 9

Teacher only key words - 17

Shared key words + student key words - 22

Shared key words + teacher key words – 30

216

. .

Shared key words, teacher plus student

Range and incidence of the 13 shared key words (used by both student and teacher) Common key words Student use % of total key

words (39) Teacher use % of total key

words (39) technique 16 41 11 28 tools 3 7 6 15 materials 4 10 6 15 number 2 5 2 5 design 11 28 15 38.5 time 1 2.5 5 13 assessment 1 2.5 3 7 human 4 10 1 2.5 process 1 2.5 3 7 concept 3 7 1 2.5 idea 1 2.5 1 2.5 display 1 2.5 7 18 mechanics 1 2.5 2 5

Table 17

Student only key words

Range and incidence of 9 key words used only by students Words used only by students

Number of uses % of total key words (39)

outside 1 2.5 negotiation 1 2.5 variation 1 2.5 development 1 2.5 prototype 1 2.5 cost 1 2.5 market 1 2.5 wearability 1 2.5

Table 18

Teacher only key words

Range and incidence of 17 key words used only by teacher Teacher only key words

Number of uses % of total key words (39)

student 1 2.5 attendance 3 7 quality 4 10 detail 9 23 series 1 2.5 industry 1 2.5 durability 1 2.5 body 1 2.5 presentation 5 13 labels 1 2.5 chemistry 1 2.5 commitment 2 5 explore 1 2.5 work 1 2.5 finish 1 2.5 price 1 2.5 aesthetics 1 2.5

Table 19

217

. .

Shared key words + student key words

The range and incidence of the 22 key words (student + shared) used by the

students Student key words

Number of uses % of total key words (39)

Technique 16 41 Tools 2 5 Materials 5 13 Number 2 5 Design 13 33 Outside 1 2.5 Time 1 2.5 Negotiation 1 2.5 Assessment 1 2.5 Human 5 13 Process 1 2.5 Concept 3 8 Variation 1 2.5 Development 1 2.5 Mechanics 1 2.5 Prototype 1 2.5 Cost 1 2.5 Idea 1 2.5 Market 1 2.5 Wearability 1 2.5 Display 1 2.5 Learning 1 2.5

Table 20

218

. .

Shared key words + teacher key words

The range and incidence of the 30 key words (teacher + shared) used by the teacher Teacher's key words

Number of uses % of total key words (39)

Technique 12 31 Tools 6 15 Materials 5 13 Design 18 46 Process 2 5 Student 1 2.5 Time 4 10 Attendance 3 8 Quality 5 13 Detail 9 23 Concept 1 2.5 Display 5 13 Mechanics 2 5 Number 2 5 Series 1 2.5 Industry 1 2.5 Durability 1 2.5 Body 1 2.5 Presentation 5 13 Assessment 1 2.5 Labels 1 2.5 Chemistry 1 2.5 Human 1 2.5 Commitment 2 5 Explore 1 2.5 Ideas 1 2.5 Work 1 2.5 Finish 1 2.5 Price 1 2.5 Aesthetics 1 2.5

Table 21

A useful overall finding from the analysis was the disparity between the total key

words used by student and teacher, 56 % in the case of the students 76% in the case

of the teacher.

A comparison between the 39 key words ranked in order used by the students and

the teacher revealed both disparity and overlap. They agreed that technique and

design were important but differed on the next three on the top five on their lists.

The top five student words were:

1. technique

2. design

3. materials/humans

4. concept and

5. tools/numbers

219

. .

The top five teacher words were:

1. design

2. technique

3. detail

4. tools

5. materials/quality/display

Individual reviews - inferences

The tables do not demand too much analysis, they speak for themselves.

Nevertheless a reminder of what they are about will help to negotiate the

researcher’s observations. Table 17 shows the words and frequency of use of 13

shared key words (used by both teacher and student), Table 18, the words and

frequency of use of 9 key words used only by students, Table 19 the word and

frequency of use of 17 key words only used by the teacher. Additionally Table 20

refers to the number of times 13 shared key words (used by both teacher and

student) were used by the students and Table 21 the number of times 13 shared key

words (used by both teacher and student) were used by the teacher.

Without identifying key words the tables were intended to convey the coincidence

and disparity of interests between course, teacher, student and object during the

individual reviews. For instance they showed that the teacher's interests were

broader than the students (Tables 18 & 19), almost double, 17 key words only used

by the teacher and 9 key words by the students, but they also shared a number of

interests (13 key words) (Table 17). Nevertheless the frequency of use of the 13

shared key words was greater overall by the teacher than the students except for the

word technique.

Although the name and frequency of use of key words is significant in showing

coincidence or disparity between the teacher and students the words themselves are

also important if the nature of the course is to be understood by its results. That is,

if the course set out to achieve certain ends (see institutional assessment analysis)

what did the assessment have to say about the fulfilment of these ends? By

considering the analysis of the assessment paper work in the light of an analysis of

the assessment process it is possible to consider how students read the paperwork

when they produced objects in the workshop. For instance the ranking in order of

220

. .

the number of times the 39 key words were used by the students (student's

concerns) were:

1. technique,

2. design,

3. materials/humans,

4. concept,

5. tools/numbers,

The ranking in order of number of times the 39 key words were used by the teacher

(teacher's concerns) were:

1. design,

2. technique,

3. detail,

4. tools,

5. materials/quality/display

These show a consistency of interests in the most frequently used words but a shift

to other concerns in the less used words. Perhaps the coincidence in the most

frequently used words (design and technique) simply means the students must fall

into line with the teacher's interests in order to “pass” the course but once it has

been fulfilled other student interests can be attended to.

Table 19, key words used only by the teacher, is particularly significant because it

reveals three interests, detail, quality and presentation, not represented in the

student only table (Table 18). In fact key words used only by students are not

sufficiently significant in number to denote interests independent of the course.

The rewritten texts: institutional assessment paperwork and student reviews

Application 2 culminated in a mire of tables, words and numbers that, although

innately interesting did not necessarily lead to new insights on workshop

assessment. But perhaps that is all the research set out to do (produce words and

numbers) or indeed all it can do, research does seem to find its own way in spite of

the researcher’s zealous attempts to direct it. The research was underpinned by the

assertion that the fate of material and discursive objects would ultimately end up as

words and numbers filed for later use. Why should the fate of workshop assessment

221

. .

research be any different? The research, in a sense, has validated this assertion and

completed its task if it makes available words and numbers for contextual use in

other time and places. They are now imbued with the aforementioned three

characteristics unavailable when only in the form of courses, teachers, students and

objects: they can be shuffled, are mobile and easily mixed with other words and

numbers in other contexts, times and places.

Nevertheless the aim of Application 2 was to explore the rewrite of institutional

assessment texts when the workshop makes objects. Relating the institutional

assessment text analysis with the analysis of the assessment process is the first step.

The institutional assessment text analysis is précised as “Assessment from the

analysis of the institutional texts is making, knowing, using and presenting non-

human objects as an individual human and demonstrating the results of individual

action”. How do the words and numbers which encapsulate the assessment process

fit with this statement? The dominance of the non-human totalling 58 mentions

aligns with the institutional assessment texts emphases on non-human objects.

Humans and actions totalling 43 mentions, 15 human and 28 actions assigns actions

as important in the assessment process and in correspondence with institutional

assessment text actions such as making, knowing, using and presenting. The

humans who must make, know, use and present are mainly the individual student in

both analyses. From these general statements students make objects which rewrite

the institutional assessment texts into forms similar to the requirements of

institutional assessment texts.

A general overview such as the above merely states the obvious; students must

conform to institutional requirements to “pass” the course. Perhaps investigating

some of the detail in the tables might reveal more of the relationship between the

institutional assessment texts and the assessment process. For instance Tables 18

and 19 illustrate the disparity of interests between student and teacher during the

teacher/student/ reviews. But they do not say too much, key words used only by

students are not sufficiently significant in numbers (out of 22 students only nine

words are used and they are only mentioned once) but are of interest because they

are not used by or shared by the teacher and they are all action words. Teacher key

words are greater in number (17) and use and predominantly refer to non-human

attributes such as quality, detail and presentation. Key words used by student and

222

. .

teacher tend towards the non-human such as technique, design and materials

although reference to the human is also significant there. The disparity between

student and teacher interests is dissolved in Table 17 where their conversations are

centred on two obvious aspects of objects, technique and design. Could it be that

focus on the non-human aspects of the institutional texts (dominant in the

institutional assessment text analysis) are directed by the teacher? It is of interest

that in these conversations human qualities (not dominant in the institutional texts)

are of interest to the students and not the teacher, a text rewrite perhaps. Table 20

shows the key words shared by the students and teacher were tabled with the key

words used only by students the student key words remained the same whereas the

shared words materials, design and human increased in usage (the key word

technique remained the same). This means that students increase their usage of

these words when they are in conversation with the teacher. When the shared key

words were mixed with the key words used mainly by the teacher, technique and

design increased and detail was added suggesting that when teacher and student

were in conversation the shared words design and technique increased slightly with

teacher use and the key word detail, not a shared word but a teacher word entered

the conversation.

Academic workshop assessment is a vexed process; it has a number of

simultaneous but conflicting obligations to carry out. It has to satisfy the core aims

of the university, maintain the authority of facilitators, such as teachers, course

writers and administrators, uphold the validity of programmes and courses and,

most importantly, satisfy student idiosyncratic desires, passions and vocational

interests. Can the words and numbers, the paperwork, which embody their interests,

satisfy all involved in their construction and can the paperwork from the assessment

process be used to modify future paperwork? The research was limited in achieving

its aims because the socio/technical world of the workshop and the intervention of

others are difficult to pin down in words and numbers; they should be looked at in

the context of the workshop narrative.

If nothing else, the research points to a time and space where a collision between

institutional demands and student desires might occur. The struggle occurs in the

space between the delivery of the institutional introductory texts at the beginning of

the course, and the implementation of the assessment texts at the end. Ultimately

223

. .

the institution wins out; the power enforced by the institution through institutional

texts subverts student desire. Students have a course to pass.

224

. .

Project 3: Triptych: the jewellery exhibition

Summary

Triptych, a jewellery exhibition and its sponsor, the Helpmann Academy, are

followed as they simultaneously make themselves and each other by engaging in a

joint project, promoting jewellery education in South Australia. The premise on

which the exhibition is based and the aims of the Helpmann Academy (an umbrella

organisation representing art and performance education) are described and

gradually brought together as they set out to make themselves and each other. To

help understand this amalgam of shared and disparate interests ANT is used as a

tool to construct a network of exhibition makers. The appropriation of craft as a

display and marketing tool is explored as the exhibition is conceived and crafted to

fruition.

The flurry of professional and workshop activity is not the only place for the hand

and the object to perform. Quiet reflection and contemplation on past events is also

a site for the study of craft. The final task involves the researcher sitting back and

musing on an exhibition experience after rummaging through files for a few tatty

records, photographs and objects to trigger memories.

This research mobilises actor-network theory as a methodology/method for

interpreting the events leading up to and culminating in a jewellery exhibition,

Triptych, in June 1996 at the Artspace gallery in Adelaide, South Australia.

Using ANT to explore this event in a field of memories and texts tests the premise

that particular institutional arrangements will produce a particular notion of

jewellery, in fact, a particular notion of craft. It is argued that, for the mediating

institution, in this case the Helpmann Academy, to authorise a particular notion of

jewellery craft, it has to produce an identity for itself as an authority and display

that identity publicly.

Introduction: Craft and the exhibition, Triptych

It is no longer an expectation that an incontestable meaning for the word craft can

be found. Yet the word is used freely and interchangeably to allude to particular

disciplines and cultural practices in everyday language, academic literature and

225

. .

education as if it had inviolable meaning. The confusion surrounding the word,

although acknowledged by both practitioners and writers in the visual arts in

general, has not impeded its use institutionally as alternatives have proven to be

equally elusive and problematic.

Institutions of various kinds, educational, professional, funding etc., wielding

considerable power, influence and authority over their constituency, have grown

around contextualised meanings of the word craft. These meanings must be

reflected in the roles they perform and understood by the market they wish to

capture if the institutions are to become, and remain, viable in their field. Thus

institutions are promising ports of call in a search for meanings of craft as they are

bound to produce texts, practices and ideologies in their name as raw material for

analysis. Therefore the task of pursuing a universal meaning for the word may be

best put aside and replaced by a more fertile strategy that pursues a local meaning

of craft within the texts, practices and ideologies that speak of it in specific

contexts. The meaning of the word at a given time and place is contingent on the

way it is used as a contextual inscription.

The case I am arguing is that the simple, yet disruptive notion that “reading” textual

referents in context makes particular “objects” also applies to the “object” craft and

the “object” institution. I am not referring here to selected textual referents, the so-

called important ones, but in a post-structuralist sense to all textual referents, large

or small, visible or invisible, material or digital, written or imaged, human or non-

human, which make craft and its enabling institutions in context (Foucault, 1995;

Clemens, 1996).

I am also arguing that there is not a universal meaning for craft, that it is an open

sign and problematic and that its infinite “meanings” are embodied in the

institutions which articulate it in their interests. Additionally I am positing that

when institutions construct a meaning for craft in their interests they, in effect,

construct themselves in a certain way as their construction materials can only be

found in the notion of the craft they are presenting to the world.

The basis for the arguments stems from a particular stance taken toward the notion

of craft: that craft is what happens in the “laboratory” when things are made and

226

. .

remains viable as an entity for contemplation when making is complete. Making

does not necessarily entail producing discrete material objects; in fact, material

objects themselves may constitute the machinery of the laboratory. This is the case

in a “laboratory” called the Triptych exhibition; the jewellery objects already

constructed in the workshops of the exhibitors are then set the task of making an

exhibition with defined objectives. It is not the isolated actions that produced the

object, they can be another study at another time but rather how the objects craft an

exhibition.

In order to pursue these arguments I will engage actor-network theory as a way of

performing the argument in the context of a particular event, Triptych, a jewellery

exhibition, sponsored by an institution the Helpmann Academy.

Methodology: ANT as a translator of interests

Actor-network theory is used as a means of opening up passages within Triptych

and the Helpmann Academy. Two papers are called on as models for the task. Both

use actor-network theory and both seek to understand how a homogenous outcome

is made by a network of seemingly disparate parts. The first is Robert Bud’s essay

“The myth and the machine: seeing science through museum eyes”. Bud sought to

understand the construction of a science museum from two perspectives, the myth

created by placing objects in a shrine-like setting and thus rendering them “sacred”

and the machine where the exhibits are arranged and identified “with clearly

defined instrumental functions performed by an engineered system” (Bud, 1988,

p.135). Bud (1988, p.139) employs the ANT concept of translation for the task and

cites Callon to delineate its stages thus:

1. problematisation, the central actors (human and non-human) define the problem,

2. interressement, other spokespeople are caught

3. enrolment, their roles are defined

4. mobilisation of allies, the effectiveness of negotiations are tested against the

constant threat of betrayal.

I am suggesting that jewellery in the exhibition Triptych was also presented on two

fronts, as “irresistible” objects of desire and as a calculated selection of objects to

perform a specific function for the exhibition makers.

227

. .

The second is Bram Dov Abramson’s “Translating nations: Actor-network theory

in/and Canada”. Abramson (1998, p. 8) also used Latour and Callon’s sequence of

translation, problematisation, interessement, enrollment and mobilisation, to show

how the independent aims of disparate actors can be displaced and merged by the

results of negotiations. He used translation to fashion the diverse motivations and

interests of all the actors into a single desire for a common outcome. As Callon and

Latour (cited in Abramson 1998, p. 4) wrote:

By translation we understand all the negotiations, intrigues, calculations, acts of persuasion and violence, thanks to which an actor or force takes, or causes to be conferred on itself, authority to speak or act on behalf of another actor or force.

The question asked in this paper was, put simply, what is the unified nation Canada

when it is made up of such diverse, conflicting and separate cultural, linguistic and

national interests? How could these interests be enrolled so that a single nation,

Canada, could speak on their behalf?

In order for the Helpmann Academy to be a recognisable entity it also had to

translate a diversity of interests in such a way that it had the authority to speak and

act on behalf of the actors it represents.

The research not only sets out to locate meanings for craft in institutional settings

and to test the capacity of institutions to make themselves by enrolling others, it is

also an exercise in trialling actor-network theory within a personal experiential

framework. The task is to mobilise the theory, set it to work, with a minimum of

reference to its formal organisation and dominant theorists. The task will be

difficult, as the ease with which one can lapse into either a theoretical quagmire or

conversely a piece of inane personal writing has to be relentlessly managed. The

tension between these two opposing positions can be sensed as the writing struggles

to avoid the dominance of either.

Nevertheless writing the story and the theory simultaneously is an attempt to come

to understand both more fully. Without ANT, the story of Triptych would have

been little more than the usual outline of the process of exhibition making

228

. .

experienced many times before: curators, exhibitors, objects, invitations, publicity

and a few arguments and pacts with people along the way, grist for the mill for

exhibition-making. Conversely, over-viewing the theory would merely amount to

recounting the primary sources and authors in one’s own words and supplementing

them with the interpretations of others. Of course this is valuable as an introduction

but, to really know a theory, it has to be transplanted in one’s own patch, as it were.

Actor-network theory is useful in this regard; it creates an equal distance between

the writer, the event (in this case Triptych) and the theoretical tool kit by initially

assigning the same “value” and the same name, “actants” to all the human and non-

human participants in the event. The spotlight is removed from the human actors

and replaced with a diffuse light cast over all the actors. Without the distraction of

highlights all are subject to the same scrutiny. The possibility of revealing insights

is enhanced because actants that may have been unnoticed or considered

insignificant can be brought into focus. De-centering is a constant in actor-network

theory.

But, as is evident from studies influenced by ANT, de-centring is better understood as a method of analysis, which, given the observation 'something was done', systematically avoids the form of 'explanation', provided by grammar (which is at once fundamental and beside the point) that runs; 'some one must have done it.' (Lee & Stenner 1999, p. 92)

The seemingly insignificant actors may be missed because their stand-alone

importance does not position them centre stage where they can be seen. In actor-

network theory the ANT notion of mediation enables the seemingly “insignificant”

to perform macro roles. By connecting networks intermediaries enable all actors to

participate in the making of an event.

Intermediaries provide the still missing link which connects actors into a network and defines the network itself. Intermediaries are the language of the network. Through intermediaries actors communicate with one another and that is the way actors translate their intentions into other actors. (Stalder, 1997, p. 7)

Actor-network theory as a tool which brings networks into focus encouraged a re-

visitation of the exhibition Triptych “in the making” rather than merely as a

229

. .

reflection on a scattered series of emotional incidents that lead ultimately to what

could be easily be described, somewhat erroneously, as a disappointing event. The

social value of the exercise and the notion that something could, in fact, be made by

disparate groups and institutions was a revelation enabled by actor-network theory.

Problematisation: The exhibition, what? where? whom?

The intention of this narrative is to revisit and explore a jewellery exhibition,

Triptych, held in June 1996 in the Festival Centre Artspace gallery in Adelaide

South Australia.

The exhibition was ostensibly about a public display of jewellery objects drawn

from a particular niche of craft production, the teaching and learning institutions:

so-called academic craft. Through the channel of a joint exhibition between partner

institutions it was intended to display to the public, prospective students and

industry the scope and output of these institutions and the healthy articulation they

shared. The project, eventually called “Triptych”, involved the three streams of

jewellery making from the jewellery faculties in a TAFE college and a university

co-operating in a joint exhibition. The staff members from the jewellery faculties

selected a current and past student and each made three pieces of jewellery to show

the breadth and depth of jewellery education and training in South Australia. The

exhibition was made under the auspices of the Helpmann Academy, an independent

umbrella body set up to promote cross institutional activities between departments

within these institutions.

The geographical location of the exhibition is the city of Adelaide, capital of South

Australia. It is a small city located in southern central Australia that relies on the

“arts”, to a significant extent, for its identity and status. The reputation as an arts

capital is built predominantly on the national and international reputation of its

biennial arts festival. The festival brings to the city overseas and interstate artists

and companies with considerable reputations in performance and visual arts. For a

brief moment the arts world looks at Adelaide and then looks away. In the shadow

cast by the festivals, the local arts community quietly goes about the business of

maintaining an arts profile for the city.

230

. .

Arts education institutions are important to the arts community in Adelaide; they

train, educate and support local practitioners in keeping with the city’s reputation as

an arts capital. They have a responsibility beyond their primary role as art educators

as their facilities and capacity to attract human and capital resources to the state is

crucial to the well being of the arts in general. Nevertheless duplication of

programmes and resources in the education institutions is a problem for such a

small city. In this instance at the time of the Triptych exhibition (1996), the South

Australian School of Art and its affiliate the School of Design at the University of

South Australia and the North Adelaide School of Art in the department of TAFE

conducted similar visual art programmes. The School of Design trained jewelers for

the design industry and the North Adelaide School of Art taught a craft based

programme for independent craft jewelers and a trade technology course for

indentured apprentices. The three programmes in the two institutions embodied

three approaches to jewellery making, design, craft and technology. The three

programmes operated separately and inter-relationships were rare: in fact a certain

level of enmity existed between the programmes. It was the desire to articulate

overlapping programmes such as these and ameliorate inefficient use of resources

that an umbrella body, the Helpmann Academy, was envisaged. It was the mission

of this overarching body to smooth out these divisions and cultivate a closer

working relationship between the institutions.

The Helpmann Academy

The Helpmann Academy was born, not specifically for the event “Triptych”, but for

smoothing the physical and ideological fissures that separated institutions,

departments, staffs, individuals, buildings, philosophies, social cliques and

imbalances of cultural capital, in arts education in Adelaide. It was to illustrate that

both the duplication of resources and the myth that cultural capital reflected quality

could be overcome if a neutral umbrella organisation absorbed the conflicting

disjunctions.

“Triptych” was not the only Helpmann project envisaged in this form. A number of

exhibitions planned as a series of single events were intended to ally departments in

the partner institutions engaged in similar activities. Jewellery was the first off the

block as, at the time, it was considered to be viable in its respective institutions and

thus had the potential to provide positive exposure for the Helpmann Academy.

231

. .

The role the unique and problematic institution, the Helpmann Academy, plays in

the construction of Triptych is significant enough for a more thorough examination

of its modus operandi to be undertaken.

The Helpmann Academy was formed to highlight the specific interests and needs of

the visual and performance arts in South Australia and take them beyond

institutional politics and territorial squabbles. Arts training had been hidden in the

institutional hierarchy of complex tertiary education campuses such as TAFE

colleges, colleges of advanced education and later universities: it was in need of a

body to bring it back into sight. It was thought at the time of its formation that the

Helpmann Academy might evolve into an independent arts institution similar to the

traditional independent arts schools of the past. Several models within this format

were initially considered including an exclusive school only for those with

exceptional talent. Although there was general agreement on the desirability of such

an organization the entrenched interests and hierarchical nature of arts departments

within universities and TAFE frustrated the development of an independent

institution. A configuration was finally decided upon in the form of a “partnership

that unifies” the ideologies and practices of the institutions it represented. The

Helpmann web site in its own words put it thus:

A Better Model for Arts Education Formed in 1994 the Helpmann Academy is a unique partnership of all the tertiary arts training establishments in South Australia… The Academy unifies the skills and resources of South Australia’s universities and TAFE

To authorise events such as Triptych in its name, Helpmann had to make itself in a

form where these events reflect a similar authority it assumes for itself. As the

identity of the Helpmann Academy is predicated on it establishing identities for the

institutional partners it serves, those partners have to be presented to the world as

Helpmann is presented to the world. As Abramson (1998: p. 13) put it:

Macro-actors—organizations, nations, universities-are understood as aggregates of micro actors whose wills have been aligned through various materials: social, bureaucratic, physical or financial means to name a few. Macro-actors, therefore, do not “exist” per se but rather speak themselves and are spoken through their various agents.

232

. .

The title for the institution was the first identity construction and titles are

important; they convey information about the institution prior to formal contact.

The words Helpmann and Academy, no less, identify and introduce a certain type

of institution to the world. By choosing this title, the Helpmann Academy

advertises itself in a certain way. Would the identities of the represented partners

also be understood by the implications of Helpmann’s choice of nomenclature? A

discussion of the title might say something about the information it conveys. Sir

Robert Helpmann was a dancer, choreographer and actor whose name is

synonymous with performance arts (Biographical Note: Papers of Sir Robert

Helpmann (1909-1986), p.1.). Where does craft, for instance, sit with a notion of

public performance produced as it is in seclusion and for private use? The word

academy is also loaded with a particular construction of identity in western culture

as its roots in Plato have become identified with universities and intellectual life in

general. What would the nomenclature mean for the craft of jewellery making when

it is identified as a partner in an organisation that claims the status of an academy?

Or does it simply mean that the word academy was chosen to endow Helpmann

with a certain prestige and thus by association lift the profile of the partners it

represents? In the art world the words academy and academic also refer to a

particular style of painting and sculpture. Does this archaic definition still have

credibility in 21st century Adelaide? Does Helpmann construct an identity with its

choice of nomenclature which also endows the identities of the partners it is

representing similarly? Is their identity conditioned by being a Helpmann partner

when they are connected in public events such as Triptych?

Yet titles only float on the surface. There is, of course, more to Helpmann than its

choice of name. Latour used the term the “the sociology of translation” to describe

how macro-actors enrol others in their name. Callon and Latour (in Abramson

1998, p. 4) talked about aligning actors and points of view thus:

In order to grow we must enrol other wills by translating what they want and by reifying this translation in such a way that none of them can desire anything else any longer.

For Helpmann to work it had to be more than a name, it had to translate the desires

of the partners into events in such a way that they accepted them as their own.

233

. .

Interressment: The exhibition: in whose interest?

The Helpmann Academy having decided on a “unique partnership” as its modus

operandi had to implement it in some way. It had to initiate events and offer

advantages without recognising the boundaries separating the institutions it

represented. Its initiatives included small grants for exhibitions and performances,

funding for visiting artists and speakers, specialised educational opportunities and a

newsletter as a united voice of the partners. But major public events were needed if

it was to assume an important position in arts education in South Australia.

In the mid 1990s three major public events were planned, a combined graduate

exhibition, a fund raising dinner and the subject of this research, collaborative

exhibitions bringing similar departments together in a single exhibition space with a

broad based common aim. Although a number of these joint shows were envisaged,

only two got off the ground, an electronic image/printmaking exhibition and the

subject of this research, the jewellery exhibition, Triptych. Triptych was an ideal

opportunity for Helpmann to promote itself as an influential entity in both the

educational and visual art scene.

So far the exhibition, Triptych, has been seen as vehicle for the Helpmann

Academy to manifest itself in a public event. But Triptych is also another

manifestation of a genre of events called exhibitions and exhibitions have a

trajectory indifferent to the intentions of exhibition makers. Although Triptych is

ostensibly the consequence of the intentions of Helpmann, it cannot avoid

representing the inbuilt characteristics of the exhibition genre. It is therefore

important to know something about exhibitions if Triptych is to be fully

understood. Exhibitions are merely a tool of the museum for its temporary and

mobile events. Triptych is such a mobile museum and as Vergo (1989, p. 41) wrote

“museums exist in order to acquire, safeguard, conserve and display objects,

artefacts and works of art of various kinds”. In spite of the intentions of

Helpmann, Triptych’s primary mandate is to collect and safely display the jewellery

objects selected for the exhibition. Much of the energy of the committee was

expended on making the exhibition work simply as a mobile museum. Of course

museum exhibitions can do more than merely look after and display an assortment

of objects; exhibitions are overtly or covertly thematic and according to Vergo

(1989, p. 46):

234

. .

In the case of most exhibitions at least, objects are brought together not simply for the sake of their physical manifestation or juxtaposition, but because they are a part of a story one is trying to tell. The ‘context’ of the exhibition confers upon them a ‘meaning’ beyond any significance they may already possess as cultural artefacts or objects of aesthetic contemplation. Through being incorporated into an exhibition, they become not merely works of art or tokens of a certain culture or society, but elements of a narrative, forming part of a thread of discourse which is itself one element in a more complex web of meanings.

The exhibition, Triptych, intended to display jewellery objects with “meaning

beyond any significance they may already possess as cultural artefacts or objects of

aesthetic contemplation”.

One of the aims of this research was to locate the source and nature of the meaning

of Triptych and identify its actant mediators, some of which were written into the

exhibition proposal. For instance the Helpmann Academy, the University of South

Australia, TAFE, the School of Design jewellery department, the North Adelaide

School of Art jewellery department, the three strands of jewellery making taught in

the two jewellery departments, (design, craft and trade), the three lecturers who

manage them and the students and recent graduates they selected. Others were

enrolled as the needs of its form and shape demanded. The problems and interests

of all actors cause the process of exhibition making to alternatively fragment and

overlap. The place where the problems and the interests overlap is where an

exhibition can be constructed and where Helpmann can be made.

Perhaps the text that announced the exhibition can be investigated as a place where

the problems and interests overlap sufficiently to start making an exhibition. In an

introductory statement written by a principal actor, a lecturer from the University of

South Australia titled “Overview and budget for the proposed Helpmann Academy

Jewellery Touring Exhibition”, a number of problems and interests were

enunciated. They were problems because means had to be found to express them in

the exhibition and interests because they can help to maintain jewellery as a viable

academic option.

235

. .

From the document aims of the exhibition were to:

1.promote an increased awareness of South Australian jewellery education available to students from the targeted areas”

2.recognise those who have flourished in an environment where

contemporary jewellery has not been seen as central to the arts or the trade.

3.make a long term contribution to the profile of the Helpmann

Academy and further promote its presence in South Australia and overseas

4.ensure that the North Adelaide School of Art and the University of

South Australia will benefit for the same reasons 5. ensure that the exposure has the added bonus of having, the potential

to attract local and overseas prospective students.

A statement of the official problems and interests such as these tends to camouflage

underlying local social, cultural and economic problems and interests. Having three

strands of jewellery education and training (craft, design and trade) in two

institutions in a small city such as Adelaide generates problems for the individual

teaching institutions concerned. The problems could be defined pragmatically in

terms of resources such as funding and the diminishing student pool or socially that

the perception of a hierarchy rather than individual needs and ambitions governs the

choice between comparable departments within, and across institutions. The

jewellery departments could be considered as a microcosm of the problems

besetting art and craft education in general, that of status, articulation and the

rationalisation of resources. An exhibition such as Triptych was assigned the

difficult task of smoothing these differences and stimulating further co-operative

activities.

Enrolment: The exhibition: making a team

If the exhibition was to appear to the public as a unified entity, a team of actors had

to be built with/from their attendant interests. Spokespeople had to be gathered

whose shared interest in the success of the exhibition had to surpass the conflicting

interests and positions they hold as individuals and institutional representatives. “A

Better Model for Arts Education”, the slogan for the Helpmann Academy, had to

become, at least temporarily, their slogan and Triptych, their exhibition. To

236

. .

understand the interests and positions the actors had to acknowledge it is prudent to

return to the Helpmann Academy’s place in the exhibition.

The Helpmann Academy has two macro roles to play in its association with the

partners it represents. It is not only a macro actor but also a macro mediator. It does

not perform the events it initiates but rather brings together micro actors to perform

them in its name. It becomes a macro actor only when it is performing as a macro

mediator. If it claims the mediating role of papering over the gaps and smoothing

out the differences in art/craft education it must be seen to be doing this in events

under its name. Its ability to create “A Better Model for Arts Education” and claim

credit for the performance of the partners it represents depends on the partners

accepting its mediation. Helpmann, in a sense, anoints its partners with an identity

that it proclaims for itself. The partners as spokespersons for their own interests are

also enrolled as spokepersons for Helpmann.

In order to illustrate and promote its role as a macro actor and mediator to its

partners and public the Helpmann Academy had to sponsor specific and identifiable

events in its name. It had to assemble a team of micro actors to fashion events

according to the image it wanted to project. It was necessary to “enrol” a chain of

micro actors from all its seats of identity in a formation that was sufficiently

coherent for public display if Helpmann was to be seen, and thus become, what it

claimed to be in its promotional material.

But Helpmann’s exhibition is ineffective as an in house venture, Helpmann needed

a public image. For this it was necessary to enrol media actors such as objects,

labels and viewing structures to broadcast itself at the exhibition and other public

spaces. It was objects, labels and viewing structures, its media department, added to

the team which assembled all positions and interests associated with the exhibition

as one. All the institutional actors are ultimately reliant on them for their individual

success as exhibitors makers. The exhibition had to be a success if individual

exhibitors or spokespersons were to be seen to be successful and only if they were

successful could Helpmann claim success. As a moment for saying what craft is the

choice of objects, labels and the viewing structures that accompany them are

crucial.

237

. .

The objects were the first to show the way. At the "show and tell" meeting when

each exhibitor brought one piece and placed it on the table a team began to form.

The separation according to conventional positions of power, constructed by the

status of the institution and the hierarchy of lecturer, past student and present

student, remained only while each object maintained a visible relationship with its

maker and its home site. Once separated the initial self-consciousness dissipated

and the objects were relieved of particular characteristics ascribed to them by these

associations with relative positions of power. Power became diffused as an

amalgam of object (non-human) and human according to their potential as a

candidate for the exhibition not as a representative of an institution. While the

objects dissipated positions of power the notion of a “successful” exhibition began

to form.

While objects led the way their task was not easy, they collectively had many roles

to perform. Bud in his paper on the planning and construction of a chemical

museum in London claimed the selection of objects was important, their task was to

fulfil a number of sometimes-competing and conflicting roles in an exhibition. In

the case of the chemical museum he said “each section would have exhibits

illustrating history, modern development, scientific principles, work and interaction

with the environment.” (Bud, 1988, p.147)

Collectively Triptych’s objects no less had to speak on behalf of a number of

conflicting and competing tasks. They had to enunciate a notion of jewellery

acceptable to a wide audience. They had to theorise a concept of academic craft.

They had to tie together three strands of jewellery education craft, trade and design

as different but equal. They had to show the vibrancy of jewellery education in

South Australia. They had to show how the Helpmann imprimatur contributed to

their individual and collective qualities and they had to provide individual and

collective viewing pleasure for the disinterested visitor.

In short the objects are asked to act as a calculated arrangement labeled for specific

functions for the exhibition makers and as objects of desire: put simply as education

and entertainment.

238

. .

In a complex event such as this labels are everywhere. Even before the exhibition is

open to the public, words and images on an invitation card often viewed in a

domestic setting create an impression of what might be seen and what it might

mean, a label which attracts or discourages.

The exhibition name is an introductory label. The exhibition name, a primary label,

was initially “Educating Jewellers”. The name was eventually changed to

“Triptych”, a name change that shifted the object’s role at least in the eyes of the

innocent from an exhibition about jewellery education to something more open

ended, perhaps jewellery craft as narrative. It represented at least a partial

separation from the academy by the introduction of a narrative conundrum, the

triptych. Is the mindset of visitors as they confront the exhibition for the first time

aware of the shift from education to entertainment? A significant label change can

be crucial to how an exhibition is interpreted.

A facilitator was contracted to prepare a schedule for the exhibition from start to

finish: a timeline that extended from Monday February 5th to the opening on Friday

June 14th 1996. The schedule was detailed and written in note form and each note

was accompanied by a date. The bulk of the timeline was taken up with labelling in

one form or another, in fact from Monday 11th of February to Friday 7th of June the

schedule only discussed matters that concerned writing, signage, photography,

catalogue, invitations and invitation lists, proforma, framing and art work. The

“labelling” actors were given a high priority in exhibition making.

The labels on the exhibition objects were especially significant. They were placed

inside the frame behind the glass ostensibly to make transportation and setting up

easier: fewer bits to get lost or handle. The labels included the maker’s name,

status, institution, name of piece, (if applicable) type of object and materials used to

make it. It was text important to the narrative. If visitors read the labels (and they

do not always) attributes not necessarily embodied in the object are revealed on

them. By sealing the written text behind glass with the object the labels are given

authority, they are attached to the object and move when it moves and they cannot

be easily be modified. (Plate 1).

239

. .

Plate 1

Object audiences have to firstly weigh up the advice that comes with its labels

before and after they make their own judgements on it. Through labels the

professional and the powerful can stand between objects and their public and

challenge their innate judgements and confidence to make choices. Labels shape

opinion and status (Said, 1989, p. 136).

Viewing structures are important in how an exhibition is read. They are not only

made by the interior architecture and physical layout of the exhibition site, they are

also built into the housing of the objects, their arrangement in the exhibition space,

the concept of the exhibition and the formula used to select them. The pathways

through Triptych are marked by a flexible quasi-mathematical formula. Viewers

can choose pathways from multiple choices offered by two institutions, three

programmes, seven lecturers, seven students and seven graduates, many narrative

possibilities. In terms of knowing the craft of jewellery making, these narratives tell

multiple stories by linking institutions, programmes, lecturers, graduates and

students in infinite formations. Where is the craft of jewellery in these narrative

labyrinths? The quasi-mathematical formula emanated from an item on the meeting

minutes (Minutes: 12/02/96):

The concept of the exhibition is that six lecturers from the two institutions choose a student and a graduate. Each participant will then offer three pieces of jewellery to be individually displayed in a showcase as seen in the sample. Fifty-four pieces will be exhibited and promoted with an accompanying catalogue which is appropriate to represent the Helpmann Academy on an overseas tour.

240

. .

The above quasi-mathematical formula was not set in concrete. It could be

contested in a struggle for equality and fairness as the three strands of jewellery

production, design, craft and trade grappled for equality of representation. For

example the original “concept” of two institutions, three programmes, six lecturers

and their little team of students and graduates was increased to seven lecturers

adding three more exhibitors and nine objects to the mix. A meeting agenda item

acknowledged this change thus: “LS, NASA lecturer in 1996 invited to exhibit.

Group now has 21 exhibitors” (Minutes: 12/02/96). Representation was not simply

confined to the numbers in the quasi-mathematical formula it was also where the

numbers came from and how they represented the craft of jewellery making.

The viewing structure hinged on display case design. The objects were asked to

assert their differences and perform as an integrated exhibition of objects within

identical separate and separated show cases. The cases simultaneously separated the

objects and merged them in a single display significantly shaping viewing

structures. An agenda item titled “Problems” argued emphatically for a particular

case design:

Considerable discussion on the constraints - size, depth, durability - of the frames as the conforming display unit for all works. The internal space in which to mount work is 205mm high by 18Omm wide and a maximum depth (to be confirmed next meeting) of around 38mm. Discussion focused upon whether the mounts should all be the same size, and whether all frames should be hung on the wall. WM expressed strong views on the need to consider visual continuity and practicalities of extensive touring where the work, to a degree, is outside our control. WM requested that exhibitors consider designing work to suit the exhibition concept. (Minutes: 12/02/96)

The physical dimensions of the exhibition space could not be factored in to the

equation accurately as the “museum” was intended to travel extensively. In order to

manipulate the visitor’s relations with the exhibit by remote control the glass

fronted wall cases were designed around specific dimensions and shapes and the

objects locked in permanently. (Plate 2) “WM expressed strong views on the need to

consider visual continuity and practicalities of extensive touring where the work, to

a degree, is outside our control”. (Minutes: 12/02/96)

241

. .

Plate 2

Ultimately the display case design was standardized to point where difference was

indiscernible. Although the rationale was based on transportation and security the

outcome, nevertheless, had implications for the viewing structure and the narrative

implications of the exhibition.

“Problems” illustrates the extent the display case design affected the notion of

jewellery in the exhibition. The last sentence “WM requested that exhibitors

consider designing work to suit the exhibition concept” (Minutes: 12/02/96)

encapsulates a general dilemma peculiar to exhibitions; to what degree should an

individual object, ultimately destined for complete separation from the exhibition it

is helping to make, conform to a “concept” to ensure the success of an exhibition.

In fact, the display case design favoured a form of jewellery popular in academia

that of the autonomous jewellery object, the object indifferent to the body, the

object near but not necessarily on the body.

But, of course, others outside institutions, teachers and current and recently

graduated students had to be enrolled if it was there was going to be an exhibition.

The first appointee was the aforementioned facilitator to manage the project: a

mediator who, although departing before the project got underway left his mark on

the show as he appointed the exhibition designer, case designer and publicist and

set the agenda and timeline. The Artspace gallery director and administrators were

242

. .

also enrolled, as they had to speak for the gallery space where the exhibition

opening was to be held.

The facilitator attended only the inaugural meeting, an extraordinary affair where a

plan and time frame for the entire process, from start to finish, was presented to the

assembled cast: reference to the straight line of "science" not, as Latour called it,

“the labyrinth of technology”. Nevertheless his timeline offered at this meeting

remained as a guide, and therefore a significant actor, in the process of making the

exhibition. In this sense the manager/curator remained from start to finish. The

mediators he enrolled, although human were not visible, the exhibition designer,

case designer and maker, the publicist and others only connected on opening night

with an organised exhibition of work in neat individual cases with the press and

critics ready with pens in hand.

Enrolling actors is not a straight forward affair. The taken for granted can have a

subtle but profound effect on exhibition making. Actor-network theory refers to the

taken for granted as a black box whose contents are revealed when things break

down, deviate from the plan or are contested. Once opened interest is redirected

from visible actors to those in the black box.

A black box contains that which no longer needs to be considered, those things whose contents have, become a matter of indifference (Stalder 1997 citing Callon and Latour, 1981 p.285).

Opening the black box can be disruptive if it questions normalised assumptions and

procedures. So what was in the unopened black box and how did its contents

question the assumptions and procedures driving Triptych at this point?

Three object contenders for a place in the exhibition opened the black box. The first

was LS’s low-tech wirework, virtually made with hands without tools (Plate 3).

LS's “fiddling” with wire required no learned hand skills or tools other than those

developed in the domestic sphere, hardly displaying the sophisticated skills of the

craftsperson. Her inclusion offered the disruptive notion that craft is the act of

making and not requiring high skills, precious materials or permanency. The second

object contested the whole notion of jewellery as wearable and jewel-like. PB’s

front-end loader (Plate 4), a replica of a child’s toy, parodied the tradition of

243

classical jewellery. He appropriated a non-jewellery object as jewellery, a post-

modern concept of art that anything can be jewellery if it is called jewellery. His

piece mocked the “jewelness” of jewellery, the concept of Triptych (that jewellery

is a distinct category of object) and the implications of preciousness in jewellery

making. He presented as an exhibition candidate an exact replica of a small

commercial toy front-end loader hand made in gold and over painted in bright

colours. The materials were precious and expensive but out of sight, the technique

although difficult was well executed and it was small enough to hang around the

neck. The third piece questioned jewellery as body adornment. It evoked the

potential for objects to say something outside of its material form. DE’s Family

Portrait (Plate 5) allusion to the emptiness of domestic environments was picked up

and personalised in a Craft International article: “DE combines galvanised iron,

acrylic sheet, brass, titanium, polyester resin and sterling silver to express an

insight into his private life in Family Portrait” (Craft Arts International, issue 38,

1996-7). It also decided that the display case was its home, it was bolted in place, it

was not for outside life but it was ready to travel.

These images are included in the print thesis available from the University of

South Australia Library.

Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5

If these objects opened the black box of jewellery they also opened the black box of

Triptych. The contents of the black box of Triptych, when opened did not match the

“rules” for the exhibition. Skill acquisition, wearability and materiality, the basis of

the exhibition were contested by objects that did not require skill, were not intended

to be worn and had a function beyond their form. Jewellery making was a serious

business for Triptych as it represented educational capital and human resources. Its

presentation was important: visitors can draw conclusions, make judgements and

choices based on what they read into the exhibition. Ambiguity is an impediment

244

. .

to what Triptych set out to do, especially for those in other places and from other

cultures. Representations of jewellery craft were both weakened and strengthened

by the contents of the black box.

Mobilisation: Putting differences aside: the exhibition as a network

Ultimately it was in the interests of all for the exhibition to go ahead; the network

had to work. Protagonists had, for the moment, to become allies. Nevertheless,

networks of power swept through the exhibition-making process initially inhibiting

the formation of a unified team.

A glimpse of a unified team came at the before-mentioned "show and tell" meeting

when each person brought an object and placed it on the table for the perusal of all.

This meeting not only foreshadowed the possibility of a team but also the

possibility of an exhibition. Objects took over the meeting; they set aside human

power struggles and reminded all of their common purpose. Objects assumed a

number of positions in this process: for example some did not require human

collaboration in order to exude "political" power whilst others formed human

affiliations not conditioned by personal and institutional hierarchies. A group of

non-humans, potential exhibition objects, took over by dismissing human

disjunction and started the process of mobilising the exhibition.

The process started by objects was taken up by labelling. Labelling ultimately

mobilised the exhibition. The possibility that institutions, objects and humans

would be subject to scrutiny as a collective by both being media and exposed to

media in spite of institutional and individual differences, did the trick. Media is not

privy to, nor cares about the detail of exhibition making; it will merely write and

read the exhibition as a public spectacle. What the labels say impinges on the

shared interests of the collective and brings them together sufficiently for the

exhibition to proceed as media and for media to have a target. Abramson (1998, p.

12) described the content of media thus:

the content of media are commodities which are produced, brought and sold, and electronic media extend the economic and cultural influence of centres of production over marginal areas.

245

. .

His notion of “technological nationalism” (Abramson, 1998, p.12) applied to the

nationhood of Canada could also apply to Triptych if the idea of the collective

becoming, at least temporarily, a metaphoric “nation” made by the technologies of

the media.

The exhibition was to be widely dispersed both through media and travel. It was

intended that the work be shown locally, nationally, internationally on the Internet,

through a CD-ROM and as postcards, a rather adventurous itinerary. In reality its

travel was limited, locally at the exhibition venue and a limited tour of some pieces

in Asia, on postcards, featuring an image of one piece from each participant and in

a promotional article in a crafts magazine, "Crafts International".

Latour's (1999, p. 303) notion of Articulation, a term that "occupies the position left

empty by the dichotomy between the object and subject or the external world and

the mind" helps to understand why an event which achieved few of its goals was

perceived as successful. The objects and labelling articulated the exhibition,

brought it together with the media thus occupying the position between “the

external world and the mind”. For instance its physical and virtual geographical

aspirations were never met but articulation between where it said it was going (its

mind) and where it actually went (the external world) rendered “failure” irrelevant.

The fact that the collective proposed that the exhibition would set out on a vast

physical and virtual tour was enough. Its media and the media sent it on its way.

For instance an article in Craft Arts had it touring in South-East Asia:

Each of the 63 pieces has been framed in deep wooden mounts in preparation for transportation to a number of interesting destinations. South-East Asia is the first port of call and the list of venues is growing…Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and Korea are some of the countries that have expressed interest in the work (Craft Arts International, issue 38, 1996-7).

Everything accompanying the exhibition, the labels, the mounts, the exhibition

design, the endorsement of the Helpmann Academy, the profile of some of the

exhibitors all suggested that the extensive travelling life was inevitable. The fact

that this could not be demonstrated did not matter. The impression that it did (tour

246

. .

extensively) was enough because the case for the extensive tour was articulated as a

powerful proposition.

As the exhibition came together the weight gradually shifted from the human actors

to the non-human, as objects, labels and gallery space eventually occupied centre

stage and permitted human presence on the opening night. But what did it say about

the craft of jewellery appropriated as it was to make a specific function exhibition?

Were they any longer jewellery objects as they sat in their rigid vertical glass

fronted frames; were they now as Vergo wrote merely “elements of a narrative,

forming part of a thread of discourse which is itself one element in a more complex

web of meaning”?

In fact an exhibition such as this do not favour everyday wearable jewellery objects

in spite of a newspaper critic’s contention that “Although outlandish, non-wearable

Jewellery is not seen”, (Advertiser, 08/07/96). It could be argued that no jewellery

was seen, the exhibition itself was the only visible entity. Bud (1988: p. 156)

referred to a general dilemma of exhibition making especially applicable to

Triptych when he wrote: “Throughout its construction a gallery is haunted by the

problems of building a unique product, with objects not intended for a museum”. It

could be argued that jewellery objects are not intended for the museum or

exhibition, in that setting their role is transformed from a body

inscription/adornment to an anthropological curiosity. In fact, the structure of

Triptych favoured a form of jewellery popular in academia, that of the autonomous

jewellery object, the object that ignored the body, in particular the object that did

not go around the body but rather on it or near it: the brooch form or the hand held

object. The format suited the flat-backed object, hoop jewellery completed by body

parts sat most uncomfortably in these structures. A conception of the craft of

jewellery making was thus articulated.

The Advertiser newspaper review 8/7/96 titled Quirky Charms saw the exhibition

as embodying eclectic approaches to jewellery making thus:

Triptych is an exhibition which reveals something of the range of eclectic approaches.

247

. .

There is a traditional celebration of gold, silver and precious gems, high-tech works combining space age metals and quirky fabrications which reveal irreverence for conventional forms and substances. Attitude and artistic intent more than convention, often determine the choice and combination of materials as well as the form and function of the work. (Advertiser, 08/07/96)

According to the Advertiser critic the exhibition was held together by its range

of responses to jewellery making. The machinery of the exhibition produced a

smorgasbord of jewellery forms and the inference that in these teaching

institutions anything and every thing is possible. The jewellery objects had

conferred “upon them a ‘meaning’ beyond any significance they may already

possess as cultural artefacts or objects of aesthetic contemplation: a pleasing

outcome for the exhibition makers.

Helpmann was also vindicated in the media for its part in the exhibition. According

to the same newspaper review 8/7/96 “The Helpmann Academy has gone upmarket

with its stylish show at the Adelaide Festival Centre’s Artspace gallery until July

27……the quality of workmanship, design skills and imagination is consistently

high”. Going up market is a step Helpmann appreciated if, as argued, the exhibition

was intended to make Helpmann in a positive public form. By linking the quality of

the work with the Helpmann Academy, it is made into a functional institution.

In another media representation, a promotional piece in a craft magazine, the

quality of the exhibition and future of jewellery in Adelaide is embodied in the

strength of the graduates and students, and by implication the institutions and

teachers who manage them. According to the text the exhibition also hints of

possible careers on graduation: “If this exhibition is any indication, we, the

potential customers, have a wonderful treat in store”.

If one quality of this exhibition is to be singled out it would be the strength of the current generation of jewellers working in Adelaide, and the potential offered by the next generation. The students of today will soon be exhibiting their work in graduation exhibitions here and around the country. If this exhibition is any indication, we, the potential customers, have a wonderful treat in store. (Craft Arts International, issue 38, 1996-7)

248

Unlike the Advertiser critic it appears that the Helpmann Academy’s own media

was more interested in attendance numbers and their standing in the community.

The attendance was not linked with the quality of the work or the attraction of the

jewellery objects. According to “Update”, the Helpmann Academy newsletter, it

was enough for the exhibition to be a successful social event.

The “Helpmann Update” identified actors, such as “Academy Friends, Members,

Board, partner school representatives, government officials, media and other

invited guests” (Plate 6) not necessarily implicated in its gestation period of the

exhibition, but important actors in the making of the exhibition.

'Triptych' Opening

Over 200 people attended the opening of the Helpmann Academy's'

Triptych' jewellery Exhibition at the Festival Centre's Art Space in

June. In the crowd were exhibitors, Academy Friends, Members,

Board, partner school representatives, government officials, media and

other invited guests. Mr Bill Cossey, General Manager of the Adelaide

Festival Centre Trust performed the opening ceremony (Helpmann

Update, Volume 3, No 3, Issue 10, Sept.1996).

This image is included in the print thesis available from the University of

South Australia Library.

Plate 6 Triptych Opening

(Sept. 1996, Volume 3, No. 3, Issue 10)

249

. .

Media reviews are not academic treatises and are influenced by commercial,

political and social interests. Nevertheless they are public utterances with the

potential to shape opinion and attract or deter viewers.

Humans were not alone at the opening: objects, labels, cases, viewing arrangements

lighting, food and drink and promotional material were also there; humans rolled

into non-humans, a collective where divisions were inconsequential, all had a part

to play in the exhibition event, “Triptych”.

The exhibition remained open for several weeks, continuing to speak according to

the contextual mix of audience and objects. Success and failure, post exhibition,

affected others not intimately involved in exhibition making such as heads of

schools, educational managers and institutional bureaucrats, their positions in the

arts education hierarchy implicated them in a public exhibition such as this.

Nevertheless their role could only be that of arbiters; they were actors who only had

the authority to review the responses of others.

The actors, of course, are not limited to those who were invited to the opening

ceremony. The exhibition, the objects and the Helpmann Academy are shaped and

re-shaped by waves of new actors in the form of gallery visitors and their interests

as the event is available for public scrutiny.

The exhibition brought together actors who otherwise would have remained apart.

Although the formal articulation was temporary, the humans, objects, meetings,

shared inscriptions, venues and ideas never formed in this way again; only informal

relations between macro-actors (Helpmann, TAFE, University) and the micro-

actors that constructed them remained. Post exhibition the Helpmann Academy was

seen as an option when in house or articulated projects are envisaged. In the eyes of

the participants an abstraction such as the Helpmann Academy was transformed

into a concrete entity by its role in making the exhibition. For the institutions, it

brought people together in a cooperative event that later could be manifested in

personal and institutional affiliations.

250

. .

SECTION 4: Reflections: with professionalism, institutionalisation and

marketing in mind

This section is epitomised by the claim that professionalism, institutionalisation,

and promotion problematise craft, disrupt its fundamental significance and

appropriate it for their own ends. The research, reflected on from these perspectives

for both revelational and empirical outcomes, is overviewed and theorised in this

section.

251

. .

CHAPTER 8: Revisiting the sites of representation, the Hidden Hand and the

Fluid Object and the Masterpiece

Summary

This chapter is an overview and commentary on the research findings and their

implications, the appropriateness of ANT as a theory/methodology/method and the

additions the thesis makes to craft literature. The chapter also covers the creation

and usefulness of The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object and the Masterpiece, as

actual and metaphoric research tools.

Revisiting the sites of representation

Using experiential knowledge, the opinions of others, a consortium of experts, the

art/craft debate and factoring in sites, problems, arguments, questions, resources

and methods how did the sites represent craft and its relations with the world?

Revisiting the problem of craft in the three sites of representation with post-

research knowledge offers new insights into their practices and operations. The

problem post-research rests on how the sites constructed and acknowledged craft

and how their relations with it differed from each other. Using a

theory/methodology/method such as ANT in this context not only locates craft in

the selected sites but identifies ANT as a tool useful for opening up other sites

where ideas are transformed into objects.

The analysis of the first craft site of representation, the craft organisation

Craftsouth, is predicated on the assumption that its publicly disseminated texts

would divulge its past and current relations with craft.

The first text(s) under analysis, a selection of annual reports 1980 to 2000, laid out

the achievements and future plans for the organisation during this period. ANT's

translating interests were employed as analytical tools to disclose practices and

operations in and by the organisation over a twenty year span. Translating interests

set up an imagery dialogue between Craftsouth, its members, prospective members

and the public. The hand and the object emerged as salient topics for the dialogue

because of their fundamental significance to craft at all times and in all places.

Initially led by craftspeople members, prospective members and the public the

252

. .

dialogue was gradually taken over by the organisation to press its internalised

interests. Monitoring the gradual submission of the hand and the object in this

context plotted the transfer of interests from outside the organisation to inside the

organisation. The visible hand and object were progressively submerged under

initiatives concerned with business and professional interests. Although the hand

and the object remained, they were obscured and appropriated to construct the craft

professional compatible with Craftsouth's perception of member requirements and

its public profile. However the hand and the object submerged as they were in

pursuit of professionalism cannot be excised; to become professional craftspeople

must make objects by hand. Craft organisations should overtly acknowledge their

foundations: the act of making and the material object, a craftsperson cannot

become a professional without them. The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object came

into view during the analysis of the reports first as a finding and second as a

potential research tool.

Although annual reports are publicly available, they are not the first port of call for

those seeking the services of a craft organisation. The first textual contact

prospective members and the wider public make with the organisation is its title. It

is commonplace to broadly infer the nature of craft organisation practices and

operations by including in their title words such as guild, association, society or

council. An analysis of forty eight craft organisation from Australia, Britain,

Canada and the USA which used one of these words in their title sought

correlations with geographical locations and inferred relations to craft, thereby

connecting the word choice with certain general intentions. The analysis used the

relations between titles, geographical locations and craft to construct a matrix for

use by both the craft organisations under study and others beyond the range of this

research. Location and, importantly, craft interests were used to encapsulate the

general practices and operations of craft organisations in the study. Titles are

important and should encompass as much information as possible to encourage

further interest in the organisation.

The ultimate aim of the analysis of titles was to find a place for Craftsouth in the

field of craft organisations. Although an attempt to categorise Craftsouth by its title

was inconclusive the analysis resulted in a discussion of the role and importance of

nomenclature for craft organisations. Craftsouth's concern with nomenclature in its

253

. .

annual reports validates title research as more than trivial curiosity. The title,

Craftsouth, is the latest in a sequence of titles used over the history of the

organisation as it searched for the public profile it wanted. Discussion on the role of

titles in the annual reports of Craftsouth exemplified its concerns and attested to its

sensitivity to a public image. The interest in titles in Craftsouth's annual reports

validated the title analysis. Titles are important to craft organisations and should

encapsulate their general field of interests. According to the analysis, Craftsouth

fails to provide adequate specific detail about its practices and operations in its title.

But titles are too general to uncover the detail of interests and services offered by

craft organisations. At websites and in hard copy promotional material, titles are

followed by introductory statements which expand on the organisation's interests

and services and their relations with craft. In this analysis the same organisations

used in the title analysis were again sorted by their association with the word guild,

association, society or council, enabling cross referencing between title and

introductory statement analysis. An ANT analysis then looked inside these

statements for three things, human involvement (the social), non-human resources

(the technical) and the relations between them (the actions) to explicate the

organisation’s interests and services. The relations between humans, non-humans

and their actions were a means of making more detailed connections between the

organisation, craft and its public. The analysis of introductory statements also

enabled a matrix to be constructed where other organisations, including Craftsouth,

could be located in a Western international context. The information contained in

introductory statements takes the enquirer deeper into the practices and operations

of the organisation, enabling decisions to be made on its appropriateness to their

needs. Introductory statements provide a wealth of information (Ellis, 1999) on the

public profile the organisation projects but not necessarily how it goes about its day

to business.

The analysis of Craftsouth's introductory statements was a more fruitful means of

finding its fit within other Western craft organisations and for understanding its

relations with craft. Craftsouth was found to fit with societies and councils

according the sample because of a similar balance between human and non-human

participation. Although Craftsouth changed its name from the Crafts Council to

Craftsouth in 1997/8, according to this research it still retains some of the

254

. .

characteristics of a council (the word used in its previous title) although these

characteristics are now hidden by the name change. Craftsouth is regional, not

devoted to a specific craft and is interested in mobilising people in active projects.

Titles and introductory statements are essentially promotional texts. To understand

Craftsouth from the inside, it was necessary to analyse a range of texts which deal

with the details of its practices and operations. The texts included a media release,

its constitution, website, the year 2000 annual report and its accreditation

document. Three macro actants were sought from the analysis - humans, objects

and actions.

By finding the individual and collective human involvement in Craftsouth, the

analysis identified those who managed Craftsouth's practices and operations.

According to the analysis, humans as networks of administrators and collectives

inside and outside the organisation managed its practices and operations. The

objects of Craftsouth were predominantly from outside in workshops and wholesale

and retail outlets. It also gained strength and authority by engaging and affiliating

with other craft representations who make objects in their own right. Craftsouth

assists and offers services to members and the community as a professional and

business organisation. Identifying the actions of Craftsouth helped understand how

it went about connecting and authorising human and non-human actors to work in

its name.

The analysis of Craftsouth’s membership accreditation document, already

scrutinised in the general Craftsouth analysis, was an example of how the hand and

object could be appropriated to make the professional rather than shape the

qualities, meaning and aesthetics of discrete material objects. Although the object is

included in the process of accreditation, it is bound by paperwork (texts and

images) rather than materiality. The Craftsouth accreditation document outlined the

criteria of a masterpiece used to enrol members and regulate its practices and

operations in the form it desired.

The analysis enabled comparisons to be made between Craftsouth’s accreditation

document and medieval craft guilds leading to the notion of the Masterpiece. By

considering the roots of the Masterpiece in medieval times and its counterpart in

255

. .

Craftsouth's accreditation criteria The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object was

collapsed into a single form, the Masterpiece, a useful tool especially for the study

of testing, assessment and accreditation guidelines and procedures.

The analysis of the second site of craft representation, a jewellery workshop in a

university, was based on the assumption that observing a course in an “academic

workshop” and collecting the paperwork disseminated and produced during its

implementation helps understand the relationship between traditional craft and its

academic counterpart. The analysis was underpinned by an adaptation of Latour's

No. 2 rule of method and his first principle - that is the efficacy of a claim to a

"fact" can be tested by what happens between paperwork in and paperwork out. A

jewellery course, Jewellery Production Techniques, was studied on this basis by

exploring how students materialise institutional paperwork during workshop

practice and how workshop practice makes new student and institutional

paperwork.

Because the paperwork was collected and analysed in the context of the

socio/technical world of the workshop it was important first to narrate continuous

observations of workshop life over the period of the course to provide background

for the formal research. A detailed diary kept by the researcher and transcribed into

narrative form not only provided a snapshot of workshop life but also set the formal

research projects in the context of workshop life. The transformation of university

demands into student outcomes took place in an environment which was far from

the systematic, measured world of a science laboratory. The narrative, in the form

of observations, conversations and reflections, included macro and micro events,

social formations, controversies and disruptions which are both part of the everyday

routine of workshop life and the distinguishing features of a teaching workshop in a

university. The workshop narrative highlighted the everyday relations of humans

and non-humans in the workshop because, and in spite of the institutional demands

placed on them. This is important to a workshop study as it situates the more formal

workshop research in the context of the socio/technical realities of university

workshop life.

To understand craft in an academic workshop by looking at the paperwork which

imposes on, critiques and modifies workshop life and its "industrial" ambience, it

256

. .

was first necessary to analyse university and student produced texts. The

university's interests were revealed by collecting and analysing paperwork it used to

modify traditional workshop operations and practices to make students into

academic jewellers. It was argued that the workshop was modified to manifest

institutional interests because teaching jewellery making was not the university's

only objective. The workshop was another campus site used to fulfil university-

wide educational and community aspirations and the theoretical and practical visual

art and design objectives of a jewellery department in a school of art.

Nevertheless university paperwork is open to interpretation; it is far easier for the

institution to write paperwork than to see it implemented in the form they intended.

Students read (or don't read) paperwork according to what they want from, and

what they bring to a university course. Following the analysis of the institutional

texts, four students were asked to respond to the institutional texts which impacted

on their jewellery course in the university. Their interpretations varied widely

enough to suggest that students "rewrite" paperwork as they make objects in the

workshop. The importance of this analysis rests on the comparison it offered

between the university objectives and the student's interpretation of these objectives

- an amalgam of what the students desired and what they thought the university

wanted.

In addition to direct questioning, understanding student readings of university

paperwork was explored by analysing their continuous journal paperwork. Student

journals are a source of personalised rewritten institutional paperwork. Journal

interpretations of institutional paperwork reveal personal beliefs about jewellery

making students bring to the university which affect their relations with the

academic workshop. The private nature of the journals allowed light to be shed on

the individual and personal reactions students have with the course. The inferences

from their journal work varied widely, ranging from collecting and evaluating

technical processes to manifesting conceptual and aesthetic interests.

At the end of the course students were asked by the teacher to write a 250 word

paper on their work in the course. Paperwork such as this adds to and expands on

student journals by bringing together in a personal narrative the relations between

the institutional paperwork, teacher's input, student desires and the influence of the

257

. .

workshop. It enabled their interpretation of institutional texts, the plans they made

in their journals, self- assessment of their progress and a critique of the course to be

compiled in a single narrative.

Institutional assessment criteria played a major part in both channelling student

actions during the course and constructing a form of institutional craft. What

students are asked to produce at the end of the course is the result, for many, of

frustrating negotiations with the institution and its agent, the teacher. Neither

students nor craft see themselves as only servants of institutional aspirations.

However, if craft is offered as a university course of study, it cannot escape the

institutional demands embodied in assessment criteria and procedures. It is bound,

like all programmes, to serve the wider interests of the university. Its form and the

role it performs must take into account all levels of university requirements, from

institutional wide texts to the practices imposed by the demands of a jewellery

workshop. Institutional assessment requirements account for more than the

techno/aesthetic outcomes of jewellery production. Analysing institutional

assessment texts for a craft (in this case jewellery) course revealed much about

university requirements at all levels - from the vision of the vice-chancellor to the

teacher’s aspirations for first year undergraduate basic jewellery skills. The

university demands more than assessment of material outcomes of a craft course; it

wants its graduates to represent it in a particular way in the university and the wider

community.

The mid semester group review introduced the notion of assessment theatre, where

the craft object represented by its maker makes a public appearance, albeit in front

of a captive audience. The group review introduces craft and students to the

problem of winning over a disinterested public. Craft is increasingly spoken into

existence and students are often initiated into craft-talk as part of institutional

assessment. The mute object materialises as a spoken construct when the student

performs on its behalf. Whether in the institution or at large, craft objects are

dependent on the ability of their representatives to capture an audience. Craft in

this setting was constructed by individual student pre-occupations and teacher

intervention. An institutional/personal dichotomy was played out in the workshop

where the objects were made in and by the workshop and remade with talk ranging

258

. .

from the manifestation of learned technical expertise to the presentation of esoteric

desire: from institutional compliance to outright rebellion.

The end of semester review differed from its mid semester counterpart by the

occasion and setting, and craft is significantly constructed by occasion and setting.

The occasion was the final assessment for the semester when the objects were on

their own, and the setting a pseudo exhibition venue distanced from the workshop,

its tools and machines. The teacher input during the individual student presentations

was greater in the end of semester review; an obligation to assign marks directed

the talk toward institutional interests. An overview of student representation of their

objects for assessment outside the workshop differed from the mid semester review

because it moved the talk from technique to two related fields, concepts and ideas

behind the objects and the transformation of the technical limitations imposed on

them by the course.

The final assessment was in the form of individual reviews. The individual reviews

were the most significant for the student, teacher and institution and for the

researcher’s analysis of the assessment process. These intimate reviews were

intense and elicited the coincidences and differences in interests between teacher

and student as they both try to assert themselves through the objects on display for

assessment. The triad of interests, the teacher protecting himself and the course he

taught by assigning grades, the student wanting to pass the course but also assert

her/himself as a "creative" maker and the object now approaching independence

from the course, teacher and student, were each trying to gain the upper hand. Craft

was a contested construction at these individual reviews, for the teacher, the

student, the institution and the object struggling for autonomy.

The course, now over, was summed up as an exercise in rewriting texts. The

institutional paper work was rewritten by student responses to questionnaires,

journals, essays, talk and assessment processes and importantly by their relations

with workshop life. Institutional paperwork was also rewritten by the university in

the form of grades and written and oral commentary by the teacher. These new

texts should impact on the next round of institutional texts. What students do with

institutional texts in the workshop when they made objects which "rewrote"

institutional paperwork, should always remains open for negotiation. Although

259

. .

students disputed and rewrote institutional texts during the course when it came to

the assessment crunch they tried to negotiate a way to conform to institutional

requirements in order to “pass” the course.

The workshop project was based on the ANT notion of translating interests. The

dialogue, in this case, was between actants as they confront the problem of

institutional jewellery making, sort out their common interests and enrol each other

in the task of manifesting and mobilising them so all needs are met. In particular an

adaptation of Latour's No. 2 rule of method and his first principle guided the

process and following the paperwork trail was the means of exploring the dialogue

eventually materialised as jewellery objects.

The analysis of the third site of craft representation, the exhibition Triptych, was

made using recollections and reflections of the researcher and a collection of

informal and media texts on the pretext they would divulge the exhibitions relations

with craft. ANT was mobilised to explore the socio/technical affairs leading up to

and culminating in a jewellery exhibition, Triptych, in a public gallery in an arts

centre. This project relied more heavily on a mix of reflections, and texts as

memory triggers than Craftsouth and the university jewellery workshop. It differed

from the Craftsouth analysis because of the use of personal reflection and a scrappy

collection of fortuitous texts rather than carefully composed official documents. It,

of course, differed from the workshop research which was formal, organised and

bounded in real time and specific experiences. Nevertheless a

theory/methodology/method such as ANT was required to utilise and organise the

memories and make the haphazard collection of texts into a research project.

However as material to be interrogated by ANT it was like any other data made

available for analysis. The rationale of the research, studying craft in sites of

representation was represented in Triptych by an exhibition of institutional

jewellery making. Jewellery making in Triptych averted the notion of objects away

from their role as personal adornment to a display of teaching skills by jewellery

teachers (and hence the making skills of jewellery students) and the capacity of

institutions to organise viable educational sites around them. Few of the jewellery

objects would leave the confines of their sealed exhibition cases for human hands to

touch, the predominant aim of jewellery craft. However jewellery craft in Triptych

went beyond teachers, institutions and students, it was also a launching pad for a

260

. .

then new umbrella organisation called the Helpmann Academy. Jewellery craft for

the Helpmann Academy promoted the idea that it could accomplish what

institutions, teachers and students, in isolation, could not. Helpmann claimed that

only an overarching organisation could temporarily dismantle personal and

institutional barriers and conflicts to jointly promote a generic product, regional

jewellery education. In doing so it implied a particular notion of jewellery,

Helpmann jewellery, a form that only it could authorise thus constructing and

disseminating a public identity for itself. By exploring this event through a field of

memories and texts it is argued that a Helpmann notion of jewellery craft is opened

for consideration.

However the Triptych research revealed more than institutional and Helpmann

constructions of jewellery craft. The public display of jewellery objects was

mediated by a generic form, the exhibition. The impact of the generic exhibition on

Triptych surfaced as the story of its making unfolded. Exhibitions are the public

face of institutionalised displays called museums. A third task for ANT in Triptych

could not be avoided, revealing the concept of the museum and its impact on the

representation of the objects it displays. The museum exhibition, a common vehicle

used in the Craft/Art world for promotion, gains prestige and finds markets by

organising events in its own way. Rather than an impediment, the construction of

institutional craft in Triptych was advanced by the way exhibitions work.

Succinctly put by Vergo (1989: p. 46) "in most exhibitions at least, objects are

brought together not simply for the sake of their physical manifestation or

juxtaposition, but because they are a part of a story one is trying to tell". The

generic museum, in the case of Triptych, constructs craft as a story about teachers,

students, teaching institutions and the Helpmann Academy rather than about the

sensory, tactile body related objects it employed.

One of the means used to find craft in the thesis is to look at the roles the hand and

the object play in the texts and practices in the sites which represent them. The hand

and the object, although embedded in the narrative of Triptych, were performed by

the way the skills of the jeweller were portrayed. Once the jewellery was sealed in

boxes and placed in the exhibition space, the hand was hidden by its separation

from maker and user and the object rendered fluid by the various functions it was

asked to perform. The hand made the exhibition in a particular form and then

261

. .

disappeared from sight and each object a bit player in a single Masterpiece, the

exhibition.

Exhibitions perform functions outside those designated by their constructors.

Significantly viewers bring concepts of jewellery, ideas about jewellery education

and affiliations with the institutions to the exhibition and shape it accordingly.

Triptych performed only some of its intended "official" roles but on the local level

and, for those not in the target audience, it performed a multitude of roles. Indeed

the proposed vast physical and virtual journey mapped out for Triptych did not

eventuate; it remained mainly in and for the local community.

Taken together, the three sites representing Craft in this study can be seen, on

reflection, as the “New Apprenticeship.” In contrast to the researcher’s own

apprenticeship as a fitter and turner, or even later as induction as a jeweller, this

new apprenticeship places quite different emphases on the role of the object and the

hand in its making. The work of making is still important, but it is mediated much

more strongly by paperwork, by business and marketing activities. Even to “pass”

the courses requires mediation of objects and self through paperwork. Assessment

has at least these two forms. Professionally, too, the recognition of craft work

through the organisation requires attention to business skills, marketing and

exhibitions, in ways that are qualitatively different, both to the craftsperson and to

those engaging with the education and training or exhibition of objects. This new

apprenticeship – university education and training, participation in exhibitions and

membership of a relevant organisation – allows both for continuity of emphasis on

the craft object and its maker and for differentiation and individualisation of the

hand worker in a marketised context.

Craft objects do not stand alone. They are ascribed roles by those responsible for

their construction and dissemination. Revisiting the sites of representation such as

Craftsouth, the academic jewellery workshop and Triptych in which the researcher

was, at various times, an insider and outsider, permitted reflections on the

construction and dissemination of objects in context. Context, in this thesis is

encapsulated by the notion of the Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object.

262

. .

The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object: targets of research/tool for research

As the research was able to provide only a range of snapshots of the three craft sites

of representation and a rapidly changing craft scene rendered the research findings

impermanent, it is up to the efficacy of the tools used and produced along the way

to substantiate it, ensure its future and promote its adaptability in other contexts.

The tools used were based on ANT. Early in the research, ANT led the analysis

towards the search for hands and objects as a method of finding the practices and

operations in the craft sites of representation. As a consequence, the active but

hidden hand and the extant but fluid object were found in the overt practices and

operations of these sites. The hidden hand was a way of acknowledging the

presence of the hand when it was responsible for, but submerged beneath, the overt

interests and concerns of the sites of representation. The fluid object referred to the

way the object was shaped to conform and adapt its form and function to the

contextual needs in the sites of representation. It is further argued that, as ANT

searched for the hand and object in these sites it was covertly providing a research

tool for use in other sites of craft representation. Thus the finding, The Hidden

Hand and the Fluid Object, was born as a tool for use in this study and for other

studies at other times.

A short history of the thesis helps to understand how this portable tool emerged.

Prior to the study the researcher assumed that the hand and object were obstinately

carrying out their traditional roles by resisting the new technologies threatening to

replace them. Awareness of these looming technologies prompted the study in the

first instance as they were assumed to be an enemy of craft. As the research

unfolded it became apparent it was more complex than the take-over of hand and

object by new technologies. Hints of the complexity of the situation emerged in the

early stages of the Craftsouth research where the hand and the object were seen to

be slowly submerged over time under social, cultural and economic forces which

included but did not privilege new technologies. When the academic workshop and

exhibition Triptych were subsequently explored awareness of the subjection of

hand and object to other agendas influenced the outcomes of their research. It

became clear that although the hand and object were far from eradicated, their

submerged but still vital presence was problematic for the sites and the humans

who manage and access them.

263

. .

The terms the Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object suited the outcomes study. Craft

was found in the study to be an amorphous entity and, like other contemporary

practices and operations, was difficult to circumscribe with universally agreed upon

margins or boundaries. Even when margins or boundaries were drawn in context,

they proved to be impermanent, shifting, alternatively blurring and focusing and

constantly at risk of being redrawn by those in power in particular times and places.

If craft is to be studied, there is need for a tool which could follow its somewhat

elusive trajectories. The tool must be portable, stable and at hand if the shifting

craft scene is to be kept under surveillance long enough for a thesis to be written.

When the sites have mutated into other forms, a more permanent tool is useful if the

thesis is to last as a study of craft. It needed a tool that is able to move with the

ground it is surveying - a virtual rather than a concrete entity. A tool, in the form of

the Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object serendipitously emerged as the research

unfolded.

The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object grew as a way of acknowledging the

camouflaged hand and object in the selected sites of representation. The Hidden

Hand and the Fluid Object was a portable tool which could deal with contextual

constructions of craft, be moved to other sites when needed and redo past research

when the research was no longer relevant. Although the three sites used in the

research - the craft organisation, the university workshop and the exhibition will not

remain in their present forms, the notion of craft embodied in the concept of the

Hidden Hand and Fluid Object (in material, discursive or virtual form) keeps them

alive by acknowledging the hand and the object as the founders and the basis of

their current operations and practices. In spite of a constantly shifting craft, the

Hidden Hand and Fluid Object is a method available for use wherever and

whenever craft is explored.

Thus two useful applications are promised by the concept, the Hidden Hand and

Fluid Object. First it can be the focus for the search in craft sites of representation

and second it is a tool for use in unearthing craft in other sites of representation at

other times. It was its place as a focus for this research and as a tool for the other

projects which gave it its significance.

264

. .

The research makes the claim that the hand and the object, although hidden and

fluid, persist in spite of being problematic in their sites of representation. The sites

can be well managed but still fail to recognise the presence of the hand and object

thus breaching the fundamental connection between humans and non-humans in

these sites. The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object can reunite humans and non-

humans and re-humanise objects in sites of craft representation. By re-visiting well

known places (sites of organisational craft, institutional craft, and the craft

exhibition) where the hand and the object, at least, are still given cursory

acknowledgement, an opportunity is opened up to redeem human presence in other

sites. It brings into focus the claim that craft can both recognise and satisfy the

needs for humans as creatures of the material world in spite of the intervention of

dehumanising technologies and socio/cultural formations. Of course further testing

in other sites is necessary if the following question is to be answered. Is the Hidden

Hand and the Fluid Object a sufficiently flexible tool to locate and understand the

relations between craft, its humans and its objects?

The Masterpiece: a fluid tool of management

As the Craftsouth research progressed it was apparent that The Hidden Hand and

the Fluid Object, itself claimed as a useful research tool, could be collapsed into the

single form of The Masterpiece when accreditation or assessment analyses are

required. The Masterpiece is, in a sense, a black box built and sealed according to

local needs and circumstances but available for opening and rebuilding as needs

and circumstances change.

A particular construction of the Masterpiece emerged from a realisation during the

analysis of Craftsouth that hands and objects were valued according to local rather

than universal criteria. A study of medieval craft guilds also found that local rather

than universal criteria were used to select apprentices to be trained and installed as

journeymen and to induct tradespersons as guild members. The Masterpiece was a

fluid construct, shaped and adapted according to the needs of industry and power

structures at given times and in particular places. The contemporary form of the

Masterpiece only differed from its medieval ancestor by the nature of their differing

socio/technical environments. Thus the Masterpiece enabled a comparative study of

craft organisations across history and in the other selected sites of representation,

the academic workshop and the exhibition when assessment, accreditation and

265

. .

selection processes were under notice. The concept, the Hidden Hand and Fluid

Object, collapsed into the form of the Masterpiece, is also a tool available to study

craft sites of representation. The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object in this form is

enhanced as a versatile tool to explore craft practices and operations especially

when they are related to accreditation and assessment criteria and procedures.

Further research can build on this study. It would be possible to study, using the

two concepts of the Fluid Hand and the Hidden Object and the Masterpiece, other

craft sites, to examine the ways in which hand and object relate and are or not

visible. It might also be worth considering study of trade training sites in

comparison with university craft education sites for the ways in which the object

and the hand are represented and made visible. The extension of the idea of the

new apprenticeship might then be able to be fleshed out more deliberately as the

focus for new work. Other studies which could flow from this research include the

comparison of different approaches of ‘consumers’ or purchasers of craft objects

and the ways objects transmute in their different settings, with other relations to

other objects, hands and contexts.

Appraising ANT: the pros and cons

The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object and The Masterpiece came to notice

because they resonated with ANT's claim that the discovery of science "facts"

entailed more than the implementation of a rational science method - the hidden

and fluid use of hands and objects and opening and closing "black boxes" all

contributed to a seemingly unencumbered science "fact". The Hidden Hand and the

Fluid Object and The Masterpiece could only be found and used in the texts,

practices and aspirations of Craftsouth, the academic jewellery workshop and the

exhibition, Triptych, if an inquisitive theory/methodology/method such as ANT

was on hand to unearth them. ANT's oft disputed, but important claim that ideas

become objects by networks of humans, non-humans and their actions crucial for

understanding science "facts" resonates with the similar claim substantiated in the

research findings. That is, craft in sites of representation can only be fully

understood if the human and non-human mediators which construct the network

which makes craft at that site are taken into account.

266

. .

The match between ANT and the intentions and outcomes of the research was

fortuitous. In the beginning, neither a clear picture of the research aims nor a deep

understanding of ANT encouraged the project. They both came into focus,

separately and slowly, to later merge, when each became a servant of the other. But

ANT was and remains a creature of science and although Latour is a critic of

rational science method, he still believed in science and, rarely discussed it in terms

of Craft/Art. Craft in the visual arts, the stepping off point for the thesis, is not a

branch of science whereas ANT is really a modification and adaptation of the

science method. The esotery of craft in the visual arts is easy to dismiss in ANT

terms because it is emotional, sensory and arcane. ANT, in contrast, is about the

socio/technical actions of humans and non-humans, differing from the visual arts

(and poetry) because of its empirical basis. ANT is concrete in spite of its

radicalism: craft, at least for some, has absorbed and appropriated many of visual

arts intangible qualities. Nevertheless ANT builds bridges between craft, visual art

and other sites of representation. As a constant tool of examination it enables

diverse sites to be seen in a generic form, explored not for differences but because

they share the capability to mediate ideas into objects.

ANT promotes generalisability, particularly useful in a study of craft, where the

interaction of human hand and object remains a priority without which the field

would not exist. Further studies for ANT in the arena of craft could include a study

of the hand and object in the workshops of self employed makers, in the craft

market place, such as the Jam Factory shops, where the touch of the hand and the

hand made object underlie marketing strategies and a visual art site such as the

Experimental Art Foundation where the hand and the object are assigned

conceptual as well as craft roles. How the hand and object inter-relate in the

art/craft debates can be further illuminated by study of art and craft curricula in the

secondary and tertiary education sectors, the rationale of funding and grant

dispensing bodies and in the acquisition policies of state and national galleries.

Adding to the literature pool

The interests and concerns which underscore the thesis, organising the making and

using body, academic craft in/and the visual arts, craft’s public performance and

craft writing were contextualised and analysed in three craft sites of representation.

A study of a craft organisation, an example of organising the making and using

267

. .

body, adds to the literature by detailing the consequences of the professionalisation

of craft. It highlights the influence of context when craft is made and distributed. It

also shows how the interests of craft makers and users were shaped by the pressure

of management techniques. The thesis added to craft education literature by

studying in depth one important relatively recent teaching and learning venue for

craftspeople, the university workshop by bringing together the mission of university

study and the nature of workshop life. By studying the formation and presentation

of a particular exhibition in depth the thesis has added insights to exhibition

making, one of the important promotional venues for craft in a wider cultural

setting. The particular nature, function and limitations of such a venue when

explored and theorised found how all involved in making an exhibition had to work

together if the separate motives of all are to be satisfied. The thesis has added to

craft as a written construct by employing ANT as a voice for constructing craft in

sites of representation. A new “apprenticeship” for craftspeople was proposed by

the three sites, membership of a professional body, education and training in a

university and public profiling through a promoted graduate exhibition. It is an

apprenticeship because it accounts for all elements of the initiation into the work-

world of a craftsperson. The new apprenticeship differs from the traditional

apprenticeship the researcher experienced in the 1950s because it is fragmented in

non-mandatory sites, is managed to a significant degree by the “apprentice” and is

situated in a different socio/cultural climate.

Although the thesis set out to explore craft it also contributed to visual art and the

ongoing art/craft debate. The claim that ideas are mediated into objects in craft and

visual art is shared ground worthy of discrete contemplation in both disciplines.

The ground which visual art and craft shared in the past has fuelled rather than

settled the art/craft debate because it is now used to differentiate rather than

collaborate. The thesis suggests that this need not be the case. The shared ground

could also be a place where craft and visual art come together, where "in the

making" is a viable site of aesthetic, corporeal and human interest in both cases.

The notion of The Hidden Hand and the Fluid Object and The Masterpiece add to

the literature by providing tools to sort out differences and find common grounds in

the socio/cultural conflicts between craft and visual art.

268

. .

Summary

Sites of craft representation must now manage two agendas. They have to be viable

and attractive public entities compatible with contemporary culture, industry,

society and economy and continue to represent the traditions of craft; their core

business and primary purpose. Hands and objects have to be adapted and

incorporated within both agendas in order to remain in these sites.

Other than representing a contemporary face of craft the sites of representation have

other roles to play in the wider community. They have to reach beyond their

traditions as craft clubs, skills learning centres and craft markets and add something

to a complex social, industrial, cultural and economic world. They have to manage

the debilitating craft/art debate and distribute scarce public resources according to

community wishes rather than accede to powerful cultural elites. They have to

ensure a future for craft and its human followers by selecting appropriate education

and training venues and writing curricula which gives craft and its adherents the

best chance of survival. They have to convince industry that craft is a vital

education, research and development tool and that it should plant its roots in the

sub-tertiary education system to seed future expertise for industry and the arts.

They have to rationalise craft's place in computer technology and support research

to re-install it there. They have to compensate for the social and cultural deficit and

sense of loss if craft is withdrawn from mainstream domestic, industrial and

material culture.

Postscript

The thesis was a challenge on several fronts. It, of course, was a challenge to the

researcher, who had to come out of the workshop tidy up and go to the office.

Manual experiences had to be interpreted or translated as words and the deft use of

hand tools replaced by the clumsy use of a computer. Prejudices, defensive attitudes

and hierarchical socio/cultural positions had to be set aside - not an easy task. The

thesis was a challenge to craft as its shaky position in education, visual arts and

material culture was continually confronted and questioned by other interest groups

and constantly re-written in forms which challenge its traditional and contemporary

constructions. The thesis was a challenge to the three sites of representation as

examples of craft in action and by default a challenge to other sites where craft is

the basis of their practices and operations. Finally the thesis was a challenge to

269

. .

ANT and its ability to locate and break up entrenched meanings, concealed objects

and normalised understandings in the world of craft.

270

. .

REFERENCES

Abramson, B. D. 1998, Translating Nations: Actor-network theory in/and Canada,

Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Feb. 1998 Vol. 35 Issue 1.

[Online accessed 02/03/2001] http://www.crsa.icaap.org/content/archives/35-1/35-

Abramson.pdf

Agostinone, F. 1999, A Post-modern Feminist Text Analysis of the Pedagogy of

Popular Craft (Crafts) Oklahoma State University [Online accessed 29/01/00]

http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/preview

Alessi, A. 1995, Creating a New Metals Order, Metalsmith, Spring 1995

Alfoldy, S. (2003) Global Peace Through Craft: The Formation of the World Crafts

Council [Online accessed 03/02/2003]

http://www.craftculture.org/archive/alfoldy1.htm

Anderson, N. 1992, Glass Roots: Australian Studio Glass History as Contemporary

Narrative, Craft in Society an Anthology of Perspectives. Fremantle Arts Centre

Press, South Fremantle

Aycock, A. 1998, Technologies of the Self: Foucault and Internet Discourse (1)

[Online accessed 08/06/98] http://shum.cc.huji.ac.il/jcmc/vol1/issue2aycock.htm

Bachelard, G. 1994, The Poetics of Space. Beacon, Boston, Massachusetts

Bamberger, J. 1991, The Laboratory for Making Things, D. Schon, ed., The

Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice. Teachers College

Press, New York

Baudrillard, J. 1989, The Ecstacy of Communication, The Anti-Aesthetic - Essays

on Postmodern Culture. Bay Press, Washington

Bender, B. Kuchler, S. 1998, Journal of Material Culture. Sage Publications,

London

271

. .

Becker, H. 2004, Excerpts from “A New Art Form: Hypertext Fiction” [Online

accessed 06/04/2004]

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/CCT794/Sources/Becker-

HypertextFiction...

Black, A. 1984, Guilds and Civil Society in European Thought from the 12th

Century to the Present. Methuen, London

Blauvelt, G. Wrensch, T. and Eisenberg, M. 1999, Integrating Craft materials and

Computation, Proceedings of Creativity and Cognition 3. Loughborough, England

Bowker, C. and Star, L. 1999, Sorting Things Out - Classification and its

Consequences. MIT Press, Massachusetts

Bourdieu, P. 1994, Distinction - A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.

Routledge, London

Bristow, M. 1998, 3 Weeks to Turn 348, Three Years to Turn Intuition Toward

Understanding, Ideas in the Making, Practice in Theory. Crafts Council

University of East Anglia

Buck, A. 1997, The Art of Craft, Obscure Objects of Desire. Crafts Council,

University of East Anglia

Bud, R. 1998, On the Social Production of Visual Difference, The Myth and the

machine: seeing science through museum eyes, Picturing Power: Visual

Perceptions and Social Relations. Routledge, London and New York

Burns, J. 2003, Reflections on Contemporary Crafts Crossroads - or Can Public

Policy Be Misplaced on a Word [Online accessed 03/02/2003]

http://www.craftculture.org/archive/burns1.htm

272

. .

Butcher, M. 1997/98, Personal Practice and the Expression of Theoretical

Principles in Traditional and Modern Basketmaking, Ideas in the Making, Practice

in Theory. Crafts Council, University of East Anglia

Chartrand, H. 1989, The Crafts in a Post-Modern Market [Online accessed

17/10/2001] http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/crafts.htm

Clemens, J.1996, Cultural Theory and Crafts Practice. Craft Victoria, Melbourne

Combes, E. 1887, Report on Technical Education. Charles Potter, Government

Printer, Sydney

Counts, C. 1981, Apprenticeship: Working Space, Apprenticeship in Craft. Daniel

Clark Books, New Hampshire

Crocker, R. (Ed) 2000, Designing Minds, Symposium Papers, Louis Laybourne

Smith School of Architecture and design University of South Australia

Derrida, J, 1997, Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins, Maryland

Designing Minds, 2000, Proceedings of the Designing Minds Symposium,

University of South Australia, July 2000

deWaal, E. 1997/98, Parts of a Journal, December 1997-May 1998, Ideas in the

Making, Practice in Theory. Crafts Council, University of East Anglia

Diderot, D. 1959, A Diderot Pictorial Encyclopedia of Trades and Industry.

Volume 1, Dover Publications, New York

Dissanayake, E. 1995, The Pleasure and Meaning of Making, American Craft

April/ May 1995

Dormer, P. 1994, The Art of the Maker. Thames and Hudson, London

273

. .

Edwards, C. 1997, The Castration of Skill, Obscure Objects of Desire. Crafts

Council, University of East Anglia

Ellis, D. 1999, A discourse Analysis of Curriculum Documents taken from the

Internet on Jewellery Making in the Academy. MEd thesis, University of South

Australia

Epstein, S.A. 1991, Wage Labour and Guilds in Medieval Society. The University

of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London

Evans, J. 1998, Significant Work: Towards a Framework for the Understanding of

Craft Practices, Ideas in the Making, Practice in Theory. Crafts Council, University

of East Anglia

Fairclough, N. 1995, Critical Discourse Analysis. Longman, London

Fairclough, N. 2000, What we have omitted: creative writers [Online accessed

03/08/2000] http://www.uoc.es/humfil/nlc/LNC-ENG/Announce/announce.html

Feyerabend, P. 1996, Theoreticians, Artists and Artisans, Leonardo, Vol. 29 No. 1

Focillon, H. 1989, The Life Forms in Art. Zone Books, Distributed by The MIT

Press

Foucault, M. 1995, The Archaeology of Knowledge. Routledge, London

Foucault, M. 1991, Discipline and Punish. Penguin, London

Fry, T. 1992, Green Hands Against Dead Knowledge, Craft in Society an

Anthology of Perspectives. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South Fremantle

Fuller, S. 1998, The Science Wars: Who Exactly is the Enemy [Online accessed,

26/05/2003] http;//members.tripod.com/~ScienceWars/japoo1.html

Gatens, M. 1996, Imaginary Bodies, Ethics, Power and Corporeality. Routledge,

London

274

. .

Geertz, C. 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books Inc. New York

Gibbons, J. 2000, Zen and the Art of Franz Rickert [Online accessed

06/05/2000] http://www.craftculture.org/archive/frickert.htm

Gross, L. (ed) 1995, On the Margin of Art Worlds. Westview Press, Boulder, San

Francisco, Oxford

Grosz, E. 1994, Volatile Bodies Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Allen and Unwin,

St. Leonards NSW

Hacking, I. 1998, Self-Improvement, Foucault A Critical Reader. Blackwell,

Oxford

Haptics – a whatis definition. 2002, [online accessed 6/06/2002]

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gc212226,00.html

Harrod, T. 1997, The Modern Jewellery of Gerda Flockinger, Pioneers of Modern

Craft. Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York

Hatton, B. 1996, INTENTION AND EXPRESSION, The importance of skill, April

1996Craft Australia Bulletin, Issue 16 [Accessed online 05/09/98]

hppt://www.craftaus.com.auArticles/articls01.htm

Henry, H. 1999, Nebulous Networks: Virginia Woolf and Popular Astronomy

(British Literature, Sir James Jeans, Telescope, Visualisation Technologies, Donna

Harraway, Bruno Latour) The Pennsylvania State University 1999 [Online accessed

29/01/00] http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/preview_all?9937985

Herrigel, E. 1985, Zen in the Art of Archery. Penguin, London

Higby, W. 1999, Intellectual and Sensual Pleasures of Utility, The American

Ceramic Society Bulletin, September 1999

275

. .

Hobsbawn, E.J. 1959, Primitive Rebels – Studies in Archaic Forms of Social

Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Ihatsu, A-M.1997, "Craft, Art or Design? In pursuit of the changing concept of

"craft”, Obscure Objects of Desire. Crafts Council, University of East Anglia

Immersion Corporation – Computing and Entertainment [online accessed

30/09/2002] http://www.immersion.com/products/ce/overview.shtml

Immersion Corporation – Immersion Medical [online accessed 6/06/2002]

http://www.immersion.com/showcase/overview.shtml

Ioannou, N. 1992, A Focus for Craft Studies, Craft in Society an Anthology of

Perspectives. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South Fremantle

Jackson, A. 1997, Against the Autonomy of the Craft Object, Obscure Objects of

Desire. Crafts Council, University of East Anglia

Johnson, J. 2000, In Praise of Hands [online accessed 20/05/2002]

http://www.renewingtheheart.com/devo/a0000227.html

Johnson, P. 1997, Out of Touch: The Meaning of Making in the Digital Age,

Obscure Objects of Desire. Crafts Council, University of East Anglia

Johnson, P. 1997, The Right Stuff, British Crafts. May/June 1997

Johnson, P, 1997/98, Introduction to Narrative: Craft Materials and Processes as a

Means of Recovering Events and Exploring Subjectivity, Obscure Objects of

Desire. Crafts Council, University of East Anglia

King, A. 1997, The Lost Continent of Craft: historical myth or vision of the future?

Obscure Objects of Desire. Crafts Council, University of East Anglia

Kingsley, C. 1991, More Than a Job, Readings on Work and Society. compiled by

John Gordon, New Readers Press, New York

276

. .

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 1996, Reading Images. Deakin University Press,

Victoria

Kress, G, 1997, Visual and verbal modes of representation in the electronically

mediated communication: the potentials of new forms of text, Page to Screen,

Taking literacy into the electronic era. Allen and Unwin, NSW, Australia

Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago

Lanham, R. 1994, The Electronic Word. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Latour, B, 1987, Science in Action. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, England

Latour, B. Woolgar, S. 1979, Laboratory Life, The Social Construction of Facts.

Sage Publications, Beverly Hills London

Latour, B. 1993, We Have Never Been Modern. Longman, England

Latour, B. 1999, Aramis or the Love of Technology. Harvard University Press,

London

Latour, B. 2000, Pandora’s Hope, Essays on the Reality of Science Studies.

Harvard University Press, London

Latour, B. 1999, On recalling ANT, Actor Network Theory and after. Blackwell,

Oxford

Latour, B. 1998, On Actor Network Theory: A few clarifications, nettime [Online

accessed 07/07/2000] http:www.tao.ca/fire/nettime/old/4/0071.html

Latour, B. 1997, The trouble with Actor-Network Theory [Online accessed

23/08/2000] http.www.ensmp.fr/~latour/artpop/p67.html

277

. .

Latour, B. 1991, Materials of Power, Technology is society made durable, A

Sociology of Monsters. Routledge, London, New York

Law, J. 2000, Objects, Spaces, Others [Online accessed 07/07/2000]

http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc02/jl.html

Lee, D. 1987, Plato the Republic. Penguin Classics, England

Lee & Stenner 1999, Who pays? Can we pay them back?, Actor Network Theory

and after. Blackwell, Oxford

Learning Through Making, 1998, conference report. Crafts Council, London

Loney, A. 2002, Craft and Writing About It: Some personal Questions [Online

accessed 03/06/2002] http://www.craftculture.org/archive/loney1.htm

Losche, D.1992, Tangled Identities: Anthropological Discourse and Craft, Craft in

Society an Anthology of Perspectives. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South

Fremantle

Lupton, H. 2000 (ed) The Creative Craft Collection. Magread Pty. Ltd. Sydney

Lynch, M. 1997, Scientific practice and ordinary action, Ethnomethodology and

social studies of science. Cambridge, Melbourne

Mackenzie, A. 2002, Tranductions, bodies and machines at speed. Continuum,

London, New York

McCullough, M. 1996, Abstracting Craft - The Practiced Digital Hand.. The MIT

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Mc Dermott, C. 2000, Thoughts from London, Designing Minds, 2000,

Proceedings of the Designing Minds Symposium. University of South Australia,

July 2000

278

. .

Metcalf, B. 1993, Replacing the Myth of Modernism, American Craft. Feb./March

1993

Merriam-Webster OnLine [accessed online 30/09/2002] http://www.m-

w.com/home.htm

Mitchell, V. 1997, Textiles, Text and Techne, Obscure Objects of Desire. Crafts

Council, University of East Anglia

Mitsubishi Motors, 2002. History Room Diamante [Online accessed 31/05/2002]

http://mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/TDC/HistoryRoom/DIAMANTE_e.html

Morris, W. 1888, The Revival of Handicraft [online accessed 03/03/2003]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1888/handcrft.htm

Murray, K. 1992, Till Death Us Do Part: A Structurationist Approach to Jewellery,

Craft in Society an Anthology of Perspectives. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South

Fremantle

Murray, K. 1992, There is Craft in Pierre’s Laboratory [Online accessed

03/05/2001], p. 3http://www.kitezh.com/texts/craftplab.htm

Murray, K. 1992, On the Other Hand [online accessed 31/05/2001]

http://www.kitezh.com/texts/otherhand.htm

National Library of Australia, MS 7161, Papers of Sir Robert Helpmann (1909-

1986)

Nickols, F. 2000 Communities of Practice – Two Types of CoPs [Online accessed

19/02/2002] http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/CoPTypes.htm

Okely, J. 1992, Anthropology and autobiography, Participatory experience and

embodied knowledge, Anthropology and Autobiography. Routledge, London and

New York

279

. .

Ontario Crafts Council, 2004, about us [Accessed online 04/03/2004]

http://www.craft.on.ca/info/who_we_are.html

Paz, O. 1994, Between What I See and What I Say…, The Collected Poems of

Octavio Paz. A New Directions Book, New York

Paz, O. 1974, In Praise of Hands, New York Graphic Society, NY

Parkin, D. 1999, Mementos as Transitional Objects in Human Displacement, The

Journal of Material Culture. Volume 4 Number 3 Nov. 1999, Sage Publications

Popper, K. 1999, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge, London and New

York

Press, M. 1998, Craft Degrees in a Changing Context, Learning and Making.

Conference Report, Crafts Council Publication, 1998

Pye, D. 1982, The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge

Reed-Danahay, D. 1997, Auto/Ethnography, Rewriting the Self and the Social.

Berg, Oxford, New York

Renard, G. 1918, Guilds in the Middle Ages. Bell and Sons, London

Rison, L. 1999, What is Actor - Network Theory? [Online accessed 02/07/2000]

http:132194.10.4/~mryder/itc/ant_dff.html

Roberts, P. 1998, From making things to making sense: the educative roles of

practical making activity, Learning Through Making. Conference transcripts, Crafts

Council, London

Rowley, S. 1992, Warping the Loom: Theoretical Frameworks for Craft Writing,

Craft in Society an Anthology of Perspectives. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South

Fremantle

280

. .

Said, E, 1989, Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies and Community, The Anti-

Aesthetic Essays on Postmodern Culture. Bay Press, Seattle

Sarup, M. 1993, An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism.

Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

Sawchuk, K. 1987, A Tale of Inscription: Fashion Statements, Body Invaders panic

sex in America. New World Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Ontario, Canada

Sennet, R. 2003, Class and Respect, The Talk Show [Online accessed 03/03/2004]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour

SIMLOG, Muscle Memory, 2004 [Online accessed 03/03/2004]

http://www.simlog.com/muscle-memory.html

Smith, T. 1997, Craft modernity and post-modernity, Craft and Contemporary

Theory. Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards, Australia

Stalder, F. 1997, Actor-network theory and Communication Networks: Towards

Convergence [Online accessed 07/07/2000]

http://erp.fis.utoronto.ca/~stalder/htm/network_Theory.htm/#Dynamics

Steedman, C. 1998, What a Rag Rug Means, Journal of Material Culture. Volume

3 Number 3 Nov. 1998

Tawa, M. 1992, Poesis and Praxis: Craft, Modernity and the Techne of

Architecture, Craft in Society an Anthology of Perspectives. Fremantle Arts Centre

Press, South Fremantle

Unwin, G. 1963, The Guilds and Companies of London. Frank Cass and Co. Ltd.,

London

Vergo, P (ed) 1989, The New Museology. Reaktion Books, London

281

. .

White, S. (ed) 1995, Reason Modernity and Democracy, The Cambridge

Companion to Habermas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY

Williams, G. 1981, Apprenticeship: The Master's Degree, Apprenticeship in Craft.

Daniel Clark Books, New Hampshire

Wilson, F. 1998, The Hand. Vintage Books, New York

Wood, P. 1996, Commodity, Critical Terms for Art History. The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago and London

Zeemax International Design Ltd. 2002, Internet Advertisement [online accessed

31/05/2002] http://www.zeemax.com/7generalinfo.htm

282