Craft in the Digital Age
Yesterday I attended a conference sponsored by our state craft guild, The League of New Hampshire Craftsmen and hosted by The New Hampshire Institute of Art. When the idea was originally postulated a year or so ago, I was excited. Not by the topic per se—I envisioned a roomful of angry traditional craftsmen criticizing the introduction of high tech techniques into their domain—but by the idea of the League undertaking a conference of this scope. The conference (“Crafts in the Digital Age”) coincided with an exhibit titled “High Tech*Hand Made: An exploration of technology’s role in the creation of fine craft.” The link to the exhibit is here:
http://www.nhcrafts.org/CiDA/CiDA.html
By the Friday night before the conference, I was weighing the pros and cons of a long day and a long drive devoted to an issue that really doesn’t interest me much. My personal, not professional opinion. Talking to some of the people involved with organizing the event convinced me otherwise. After all, two pieces of my work were in the exhibit (one has already sold.) Click here for my work:
http://www.nhcrafts.org/CiDA/StatementsAndPhotos/MixedMedia/Udell.html (note: the small detail shot is from a 7 foot tall wall hanging, with four panels like the one depicted.)
And there was a free lunch, too!
The next twenty-four hours were amazingly interesting to me, but probably not along the lines of what the original intentions of the conference were. Here are some examples of the way I incorporated technology before I even got to the conference:
First, I visited the League’s web site to get details on the conference’s location. I followed a link to the NHIA site to get detailed driving directions and a map of the campus.
On my way out of town, I stopped to fill my car with gas, using a credit card-operated gas pump. I drove along listening to music on a CD my daughter had burned so we didn’t have to fight over the same album.
The conference was held in a building with a second story and a basement. Workshops were held on all three levels, so I was grateful, being only nine weeks out of knee surgery, that my surgeon was able to use the very latest surgical techniques available. Not only was the surgery considered a poor option for people my age when the original injury occurred nine years ago (a torn ACL), but the technology had improved to the point that I was able to take all three sets of stairs many times during the day, without crutches or even a brace. Although, I have to admit, losing another 30 pounds the old-fashioned low-tech way (diet and exercise) would have made the task even easier.
And last, I am able to publish some of my thoughts about the conference here in my blog, thanks to amazing technology that, although often frustrating (my DH had to wave his magical web meister hands to unstuck my blog before I could post) still astounds me when I think how much effort would go into a newspaper or magazine publishing the same material. From my head to your head, mere hours after the event. Sooner, if we hadn’t spent the evening at friends’ house eating pizza and watching “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” on their new DVD player… (Russel Crowe is HOT!!)
Okay, all fairly obvious and advantageous aspects of technology in our culture. But the question of the day is, is technology, by its very nature, at odds with handcraft?
As I listened to the volley of introductions, opening remarks and statements from various members of the panel, I found my thoughts all over the board on the subject. I’ll share a selection of statements made by the speakers that especially moved me.
Susie Lowe-Stockwell, Executive Director of the LNHC and Joanne H. Wise, Joanne Wise, Executive Director of North Country Studio Workshops and former board member of the League of New Hampshire Craftsmen’s Hanover Craft Council, coordinated this effort with volunteers from each of the collaborating institutions. Ms. Stockwell introduced the conference and presented a brief overview of the League. She introduced core questions for the conference, among them: If new technology is so pervasive, what does “handmade” even mean? Is “handmade” no longer a relevant term?
The first speaker began with a brief Power Point presentation, and proceeded to read the text aloud to us as it appeared on the screen. Well, some things haven’t changed since 7th grade science class, it appears. I put my brain on cruise control and waited for him to finish. But then he put that away and said some amazing things. (No direct quotes here, I’m afraid, I still tend to rely on that low-tech recording device, memory.) Jay Coogan, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs at the Rhode Island Institute of Design (RISD), who also spearheaded the development of the Center for Integrative Technologies at that institution, and Professor of Sculpture, said that most discussions of craft focus on how the maker acts on his material. But that each craft also makes its own demands on the creator, and, in essence, itself shapes the maker.
He also included a chart that showed the structure of how we create and organize information, starting with data facts or findings (data), which can then be shaped into useful patterns (information). We can then apply this information (knowledge). The final step is the union of knowledge with experience and judgment, resulting in…wisdom. I liked that.
Mr. Coogan also noted that regarding craft at the university level, the proclivity for “talking” over “making” has prevailed. I decided this honest insight was enough for me to forgive his Power Point slides.
He also touched on the recent trend of established institutions dropping the word “craft” from their names to “art and design”. He offered some insight into this change, a sort of “follow the money” theory, noting that it was an attempt to raise the perceived value of craft itself into the more moneyed realms that art commands. That is, art is known for its loftier price points, and that if calling craft “design” can help it demand those same prices, go for it. The story is the same, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent….
Cynthia Schira was the panel moderator. Her credentials include Professor Emerita at the University of Kansas; Gold Medal from the ACC College of Fellows; and Honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from RISD. She is also a weaver who integrates Photoshop and textire CAD programs with a computerized loom.
The first panelist was Lynn Martin Graton, Traditional Arts Coordinator for the NH State Council on the Arts. She currently administers programs to support and document traditional and folk arts. At first, I thought Ms. Graton was embracing technology. She spoke about living in Japan for some years, and her difficulty learning a language so different than the more familiar Romance languages. She spoke about having to learn totally new concepts dictating how ideas were expressed, different expectations of the culture. One example was how the English statement “I need to finish warping this loom today” would be expressed as “If the loom is not warped today, then nothing else can happen” in Japanese. Part of learning such an unfamiliar language is to actively embrace the different cultural traits that spawned it.
Aha! I thought. She’s explaining the source of our fear with new technologies—it’s different and seems alien, and therefore it’s scary. Until we accept it as a human artifact, just like more familiar artifacts, and understand its culture.
As she continued, it turned out she was wary of technology, especially computers. She said computer language was “not human, it has no words, it consists of 1’s and 0’s” and expressed her frustration with the wiles and whimsies of computer programs and data bases. "It’s not human, and it’s changing us!” she exclaimed. Heads nodded in agreement throughout the audience. Alien, not comprehensible, not human. Making us think in new ways. Scary!
Interestingly, I thought her original metaphor was a great one for viewing computers. It may look different, but computer language is just that—a human artifact, a language that serves the demands of its culture (information management.) It may look odd, it may seem incomprehensible, and the differences and misunderstandings are indeed hair-pullers. But we do have people who speak the language fluently, and we even have translators. And oddly enough, sometimes the difficulties we, as non-speakers of that language, may encounter, is because of bad design. Bad models that worked, but didn’t also serve the needs of the end users (you and me.) And instead of being refined or improved, they were simply passed along because they worked well enough.
It struck me that beautifully-written code or well-designed programs are as aesthetically pleasing as a beautifully balanced knife or a well-thrown pot. There is the original thought or goal, and then the act of bringing it into existence. The actual “making” of the program can be well-designed or poorly-designed. How well that end product suits the needs of the end-user is important. I posed this idea to another speaker on the panel, Stanley Lechtzin, Chair of the Crafts Department and Head of Metals/Jewelry/CAD-CAM at the Tyler School of Art in Philadelphia. He disagreed—he’s been using CAD-CAM programs for years and feels you simply spend the time to learn them well. But I noticed he never really answered me when I asked him if he could program his VCR.
Mr. Lechtzin’s presentation was thought-provoking. He eagerly embraced CAD-CAM tools in his gold smithing early on, with spectacular results.
A link that shows the response to his work is here? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676950782.html?from=storyrhs
Mr. Lechtzin is also used to a great deal of resistance, if not outright hostility, to his views on computer-aided technologies. At one point he said, “I know the instant I am invited to speak at gatherings like this that I will end up facing a roomful of angry craftspeople who will disagree with everything I say.” And he doesn’t even care.
“It doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not, the technology is here, and it’s here to stay”, he declared. He said the newer generation of metal workers are originally attracted to the programs at his school because of the tools. “But once they try the CAD-CAM systems, they never go back.” I sensed a wave of horror pass over the crowd. “And I’ll never go back”, he continued. “Look, I have too many ideas in me to get out. Using the old ways of production is just too slow. Too many ideas to spend too much time physically exploring every permutation and all parameters. At my age, I don’t have that much time available, period. I want those ideas out there, out of my head and in the real world. Computer-aided technology has removed the element of labor/time from the perceived value of a crafted object. And it’s about time (no pun intended). Labor/time has been overrated as a criteria for establishing value in craft.”
I could see his point. When I want my lawn mowed, do I want to pay by the hour for someone to cut each blade of grass with a pair of scissors? Or for someone with a riding lawnmover?
So how do his remarks relate to Mr. Coogan’s remark, about how each craft “shapes the maker”… What shapes the maker in a CAD-CAM creation?
Here is the first BIG thought I had at this conference. We had focused on whether the flow of direction--from maker to media--was affected in a good way or a bad way by new technologies. But Mr. Coogan suggested that flow goes both ways. So does technology significantly change the interaction between the maker and the material? Is it a good change? A desirable change? Does it matter? And if so—to whom?
Obviously, some makers feel the interaction itself is to be preserved. Others focus either on the end result. And others, such as Mr. Lechtzin, openly embrace this new interaction. New technologies let his brain pop, go into overdrive, allow him to bring even more of his creativity into the universe. That’s how his brain works. And the new computer-aided technologies are a better “tool” for his kind of brain.
If a traditionally shaped tool—say, a hammer—tires or injures the user, do we blame the user? Or should we blame the tool? If an ergonomic-designed tool is easier to use, easier on the body and just as efficient, should we sneer at the new-fangled design? Or embrace it and be glad someone came up with a better tool? Or, at least, the better tool for us…
Which leads to another thought, which crystallized as the other speakers came forward.
Diane Willow had volunteered to replace another panel member at the last minute. David Revere McFaddon, Chief Curator and Vice President for Programs and Collections at the Museum of Art and Design in New York (formerly—aha!—the American Craft Museum) was unable to attend due to emergency knee surgery. (My sympathies, Mr. McFaddon!) Ms. Willow is Artist in Residence and researcher at the Media Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). She agreed with Mr. Lechtzin, that technology provided the “freedom, full vision, and full utilization of the artistic intent.” She spoke about her experiences working with Haystack, and mentioned the “shared experiences”….here my brain jumped and skipped. I assumed she was talking about the “shared experience” between artist and end-user—the buyer/collector/appreciator of craft.
But she wasn’t. She was describing the enrichment artists get from collaborating, and how that collaboration is assisted by technology. In my brain hiccup, I may be missing the gist of what she was saying, because my mind was racing ahead.
We had so far only heard about the relationship between maker and product, and even that regarding flow in one direction only--maker TO product. Perhaps what was missing from this conference was an examination of that third part of that maker-to-medium and medium-to-maker relationship—the audience. What did the added technology in craft mean to our end-user—our audience? Did they know? Did they care? Should they care? And why or why not?
The educators/commentators of craft saw new technologies as expanding and redefining craft. Craftspeople were worried that the new definition would not include the maker.
But what does the audience think? What is it that moves the viewer, that creates the connection between object and viewer? We say “the hand of the creator”. But what does that mean? And what if the actual “human touch” of the maker extenuates into near-nothingness, as so many craftspeople angrily claim?
I believe the connection will be decided in the marketplace. Each buyer/collector/viewer will be able to decide for herself what that human connection is. It will be a spectrum, from the touch of the human hand on that object from idea to completion, every step of the way to the other extreme, computer-aided design tools that drive automated model makers. For everyone, there will be a section of that spectrum that speaks louder to us than others. For some, it will be the notion of idea springing easily and freely forth. For others, it will be the time and physicality necessary to bring it forth. Some will be attracted to the scarcity of the product, due to restrictions of availability (“The artist can only make ten of these a year.) For others, it will be the lower cost of multiples (“I can’t own an original, but I can own a less expensive version.” And for others, it will be the excitement, the creativity, the originality of the object itself (“This artist is the only person that does this.”)
Beth Ann Gerstein, Executive Director of the Society for Arts and Crafts, Boston, agreed. She addressed head-on the fear that, if new technology is so pervasive, is “handmade” no longer relevant?
It will be up to the individual artist what road to take, and the marketplace to decide which artist they will support. If anything, the spectrum will broaden, not thin. Artists will have even more paths to choose from in bringing their work to the world and to the marketplace. She used the quote, “Technique is cheap; creativity is priceless.” I can’t find the originator, but it’s a great quote. Ms. Gerstein has hands-on knowledge of the consumer through the store end of the SAC/Boston's gallery, hosting exhibits and selling craft.
She didn’t have the answers, but I realized we don’t need to. We just need to recognize the right questions to ask…. What do I bring to my craft? What do I think is important to bring to my craft? And who is my audience for that?
And all summed up nicely by the artist statement of Chris Baker-Salmon, glass artist, whose work appeared in the exhibit. Here’s a link to Chris’s statement:
http://www.nhcrafts.org/CiDA/StatementsAndPhotos/Glass/BakerSalmon.html
And what did I bring to the conference that day? I addressed the panel, the last question from the audience for the day.
I shared my unusual view of computer technology as a creative field in its own right. My husband is one of the most creative people I know. Jon Udell is considered a brilliant internet architect, a thoughtful and original thinker about how new technologies enable people to collaborate and interact with information and people in highly efficient and satisfying ways. Since I’ve returned to my art in the last decade, I find the way we talk about our separate businesses is more alike than different. We face many of the same issues and obstacles, and find there are parallels in the way we proceed to solve those issues. So to say technology is intrinsically “not human” or “not creative” is simply not true. It is a human artifact, and one that allows many people to experience and interact in their world and society in ways that were impossible even decades ago.
I pointed out that the impact of new technology in craft is not a new one. The first time Caveman Grog picked up a good rock to flake his flintstone spearhead, I’m sure there were a bunch of spearhead makers who grumbled about his new-fangled ideas and clung desperately to their antler-tine flakers. I imagine the spirited of discussions over the relative merits of antler tine flaked spearheads and rock hammer flaked spearheads, and whether the former were worth the same as the latter.
I said that Mr. Lechtzin was right on target when he said it didn’t matter if we liked it or not, the new technology was here and being eagerly embraced by a new generation (age-wise and outlook-wise) of craftspeople. We could stay with what we know or go with new tools, the choice was ours. Not a right choice, not a wrong choice. Just…a choice.
I recalled Mr. Coogan’s remarks, about how the new technology would change our interaction with our materials, and how the depth and breadth of that interaction would expand. We could immerse ourselves in the constant touch and the steady hand, or leap into the idea bursting full-formed, like Athena, from our mind to reality, without a million tedious steps along the way. Again…choice. Deciding which way was satisfying to us as makers, and understanding how that choice affected us.
And finally, the third part of the love story, our audience. They, too, would be offered a richer table to choose from. The ultimate test of whether new technology has a place in the world of craft will be determined by whether our audience still perceives and desires a connection to our work—and to us.
Ms. Schira offered her closing remarks to the conference, words of near-poetry. I quote directly from her notes, which she so generously shared with me afterwards:
“The fourth definition of TECHNOLOGY in my Webster’s unabridged dictionary is:
“The sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves the material objects of their civilization.”
Which, I’ll add, if you think of it, could also perfectly describe HANDCRAFT.
