'A Question of Craft' Thesis Proposal

a question of a question of

Alexander Crean 5th Year Arch Thesis Proposal

Alexander Crean 5th Year Arch Thesis Proposal Measure

My research began with a re examining of my initial statement, in particular my understanding of the term ‘craft’. It is one which I have always been drawn to, allowing an articulation of certain qualities that otherwise seem to escape definition. And yet in employing its associated language I feel I have been indulging in a process of ‘faux nostalgia’, using the term for its romantic, evocative imagery, notions of tradition, of a somewhat distant past with an inherent ‘quality’ and ‘purposefulness’.

Certainly in a modern society these connotations of a previous way of life are perhaps the only ones we can engage when we speak of ‘craft’ or the idea of ‘craftsmanship’. But here in lies the danger, as these associations curtail discussions of craft to the past. Whether lauded as ‘ideals’ in danger of being forgotten or ‘irrelevant’ practices no longer necessary, they do not allow for a progressive dialogue setting craft in the evolving framework of modern day.

In approaching an understanding of craft it became important to identify two principle lenses through which it can be perceived and discussed in its present context. The first is the notion of craft as object, this suggests that the primary exponent and measure of craft is the physical object itself, be it a bowl, an instrument or chair. The commonality being that all these objects are inherently functional to a degree.

‘it is practical physical function that unites what would otherwise be distinct areas of activity’ - ( H. Risatti 2007)

This definition places craft in a precarious position in todays society. Traditionally all functional objects were in essence ‘crafted’ or ‘hand made’ yet with the advent of the industrial revolution and mass production, this has become almost exclusively the exception. Objects that were once crafted by individuals responding to small scale needs are now designed and manufactured in factories fuelling consumer wants. This progression has led craft practices increasingly to produce more and more specialised and unique pieces approaching a near exhibition or display quality akin to the realm of sculpture or art and yet here too craft finds itself in a compromised position.

There is no question that something which is carefully and meticulously constructed with time and clarity by hand is beautiful, aesthetically masterful even profound and yet craft despite sharing these qualities with fine art and sculpture has never been held in the same regard due to the prevailing consensus that the practical endeavor of craft lacks the intellectual weight of artistry.

‘no object can be considered art until all ties to functionality are severed’ - ( H. Risatti 2007)

The establishment of the Beaux-Arts in the mid eighteenth century and the rise of fine arts schools perpetuating the study exclusively of painting, sculpture, poetry music and architecture, coupled with the rise of mechanisation and industrial process has left the practice of craft in a much maligned position treading a line between design and art whilst never belonging wholly to either. Yet this removal far from allowing a definition of craft within itself on its own terms has resulted in a sort of ambiguity or reductive view of its practice, struggling to maintain a tenuous foothold in the modern consciousness.

Understanding

The second frame within which we can consider craft is far broader and much easier to adapt to our everyday experience. This is the notion of craft as ethos, that ‘craftsmanship’ is a moral imperative which strives for quality, here it is not the object itself but the act that is important.

‘achieving quality , doing good work, which is the craftsman’s primordial mark of identity’- (Paul Sennet 2008)

This qualification is perhaps more readily appreciable to individuals and society allowing anyone from a furniture maker to an open source software designer to be considered a craftsman providing they embody this ethos of working for the satisfaction that the work itself can provide.

Certainly it is this aspect of craft for which Malcolm McCullough argues in his writings arguing for the craft of digital production. That beyond the skillful techniques deployed to practical ends the true nature of a craft is the passion for the practice itself. And that these can be as manifest in the work of those using the most up to date digital media as those using traditional tools. Both can be said to display

‘a moral value as an activity independent of what is being produced ‘ -( M. McCullough 1997)

This definition allows the immediate transfer of the ideals of craftsmanship to the most modern technical endeavours, but simultaneously places these ideals at the risk of being eroded by the ebb of financial and economic progress and an increased pace of work which can threaten the patience and purpose of this approach to a practical task, with quality at its centre.

The importance of these two views of craft is they allow for a continued discussion of the relevance and the presence of craft in our lives. Whether it be the luther carefully constructing the instrument, a particular and considered object with the skill and craft of its making, embodied functionally and practically in its physicality. Or the musician, devout in the passion of his practice working with the tools of his trade, his craftsmanship evident in his commitment to quality and improvement through the act of rehearsal and performance.

Both allow to a degree a means through which we may quantitatively asses the nature and presence of craft attempting to remove ourselves from nostalgia or ambiguity.However in identifying these two threads, what emerges as common is the presence of a third party, that of the user and that ultimately craft, be it furniture or software is concerned with the crafted interaction and experience of people and things. And is at its most explicit involved in physical engagement and at its most abstract in visual interaction.

In this regard we may see the nature of craft to be concurrent with that of architecture,both are constantly involved in this act of ‘engagement’, the act of making and experience.The craft object, a bronze cast bowl as much as the structure that houses it provides an acute physical awareness of the present, whilst the craftsmanship it employs, the methods and approach, be it modern or more traditional allow a trace back to the past and a continuation of its tradition. It is in this way that the act of craft allows an individual and its community a sense of identity.

Having established this nature of engagement of ‘craft’ I moved forward in my research to explore the means through which we experience this. The work of Henrich Wolflinn and Rudolph Arnheim explore the notion of architectural space through the concept of empathy theory. The idea that we visually experience built form by projecting ourselves vicariously into the spaces we are observing. And that our understanding of abstract concepts of space are inextricably linked to our understanding of our own bodies and the physical states that they induce within us.

‘our own bodily organisation is the form through which we apprehend’ - ( H. Wolflinn 1886)

Thus a space between two walls is not perceived as merely the function of its physical dimensions, but by our ability to pass through it, or stand within it, these two understandings are concurrent and inseparable in how we perceive the space. This process of cognition is present to the same degree when we experience an object which has been crafted.

Ultimately craft objects are functional, they have a practical purpose, and both historically and culturally these often relate to aspects of domesticity or aspects of basic human life, cooking, clothing, eating drinking etc, the result is that our perception of craft is tied to our physical experience of the object. We engage in what is referred to as an enactive response, whereby our visual perception of the physical object results in the impulse for bodily action, our desire to hold, touch, or move. As such craft carries with it a ‘physical imperative’, our understanding hinging on our ability to physically employ or manipulate the object.

Here again we can see the distinction of craft to fine arts, as the work of painting or sculpture evokes what is referred to as intrinsic response wherein our understanding of the work may exist independent of our physical understanding, messages of culture, beauty and history communicated clearly but divorced from our need to engage physically. We may feel compelled to touch a painting or sculpture but we seldom feel compelled to ‘use’ them. This distinction is an important and useful one, as although the technique, skill, beauty and cultural significance of craft work is parallel to that of art work in every respect, the two should not be considered as one endeavour. The aspect that separates craft also provides it its strength, the notion of the physical.

Ultimately craft is work of the body, it is crafted by the body, understood through the body and quite significantly it is learned by the body. The concept of tacit knowledge is of great importance in the tradition of craft, the idea that knowledge of the complex physical techniques and processes involved, cannot be learned solely by direction or through readings, but must be experienced, seen and practiced physically. This belief historically gave rise to the system of apprenticeships and accounts for the powerful adverse reaction of the Arts and Crafts movement espoused by William Morris to industrialisation as the removal of the body from the act of creating.

The primacy of the body in craft is still present today even in the world of digital and more machined work, both the machine and the computer serve as tools allowing an extension of the work of the hand, the degree to which it may be removed is debatable but the necessity of the presence of the body, of the human may not. Ultimately craft is present in the work of the hand, even when utilising a complex or advanced tool, it is only when the presence of the tool or machine causes the work of the hand to seperate from that of the mind, that craft can longer be said to be present.

Perception

intrinsic response

Inverse Wax Mould of Metal Plyers

The debate which surrounds the concept of craft and manufacture is well documented and pushes itself to the fore whenever it seems a culture shifts its approach to the production of materials or goods.

Classically the argument pivots around the image of the handcrafted apposed to that of the machine mass produced object. Where one is seen to stand for the paragon of justproduction responding to essential social needs, the other is vilified as indulgent greed responding only to the cries for profit, industry fulfilling a self generated demand.

Writers responding to the effects of the industrial revolution such as Peter Gaskell feared factories as destructive engines which would lead to the degradation of the position pride and skill of the individual, workers becoming nothing but guides to the machine. Guilds being replaced by labour collectives eroding social well being resulting in

‘a deterioration of in the moral condition‘ - ( P. Gaskell 1836)

Where as men such as Herman Muthesius argued that the introduction of machinery was merely part of the evolution of a craft, machines allowing more skilled, more precise, even more artistic work to be achieved. The mechanism viewed as an extension of the hand controlled by the eye of the craftsman, in no less a way than that of the chisel or the hammer.

‘the machine is nothing but a more perfect instrument’ - ( H. Muthesius 1902)

Although both these arguments are based in truth they have become somewhat polarised over time making them slighty more difficult to reasses in todays light.

Ultimately the answer can be found by assessing the means to which these ‘tools’ are employed. The modern factory even in its most unflattering light can still be said to be relevant and of our time. It uses the most developed technology to produce material in the most economical way. And yet by this same token it is able to mass produce items to a level that are no longer justified by an immediate need, making its operation wasteful and no longer engaging with the realities of the present day. A fact we are only beginning to realise.

In the same light craft objects are considered irrelevant, using tools that many consider outdated ignoring modern developments but they are bound by the realities of modern day in so far as no crafts person may produce work beyond that which they think they might ultimately sell. Fulfilling a tight cycle of supply and demand. This however inevitably results in a sense of exclusivity and high expense.The solution must be found in a meeting of the two, allowing craft which engages in the technology of its time whilst generating an accessible dialogue with the public and ultimately its consumers.

Hand and Machine

Process of Mechanisation

To further understand the link between a craft and its ability to create and progress the identity of a place I undertook a study of the area of Weavers Square in Dublin’s Liberties.

The craft of weaving had been long present in Dublin as far back as the 15th century with the establishment of the Weavers Guild of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1446. But it was the arrival and influx of French Protestant Huguenauts with their experience in silk and poplin weaving that proved the catalyst for the real growth and flourishing of the industry.

Arriving initially in 1572 but in far greater numbers a century later around the mid 17th century they settled in the areas around the Coombe, Weavers Square, Chamber Street and New Market. Along with their expertise in the industry they established the distinctive architectural vernacular of one and two storey brick row houses known as ‘Dutch Billys’ or locally as ‘crooked hats’.

These working homes were suited to their craft with roomy well lit garrets allowing space for the operation of hand operated looms as well as modest living accommodation.The strength of the craft informed the strength of the community with homes creating social squares, which backed on to open ‘tenter fields’ for drying and dying cloth. The physical form of the community became the result of the operation of its craft and conducted the way they lived and interacted.

As the success of the textile industry grew and with the onset of industrialisation soon large mills began to replace the construction of workers homes, with powerful machines performing the work of many men. The textile trade moved from the home to the factory, and despite this shift resulting in the unemployment and hardship of many, the identity of the place was nonetheless tied to its trade. Once again the physical character of the place responded to its identity of making, where large mills were constructed workers housing was established and maintained nearby to ensure a strong workforce. Where areas for drying cloth indoors were needed due to harsh weather conditions lands were acquired and accommodation provided. Structures such as Weavers Hall 1685 (demolished 1965) and the Stove Tenter House 1815 (now the Sisters of Mercy Night Refuge) are testament to the importance of the industry to the area during this time.

The arc of the rise and fall of the weaving craft in the area can be traced in the dereliction and eventual disappearance of the original weavers homes around Weavers Square. Despite the end of the 17th centuary and early 18th century being generally considered a time of great prosperity the industry suffered through a number of severe challenges, protectionist legislation on exporting goods imposed by the British (Woolen Act 1699) threatened livelihoods, whilst the removal of the embargo on foreign French and Italian textiles, flooded the Irish market and ushered the eventual collapse of the once thriving industry. Soon the weavers homes which once stood as proud bastions of craft, became subdivided into tenements to house the hundreds of unemployed workers. A four room house with garret could be subdivided into as many six or seven rooms all let individually. This process led to the ruin and ultimate demolition of almost all of the homes

Today only a couple survive, whilst the development of large scale insensitive housing and theirsubsequent demolition have destroyed any semblance of the square or community which was once so strongly anchored to its place and identity.

Crafting Place

Rocque Map 1757

Weavers Square 1905

Weavers Square Today

Kunsthaus Tacheles, Berlin 1990

Salts Mill, Workers Settlement, W Yorkshire 1851

Temple Bar Studios, Dublin 1983

Live Work Make

The study of Weavers Square allowed a point against which to examine some of the previous discussions undertaken in the research and the means to move towards an architectural intervention.Arguably with respect to the previous definitions, the transition from work carried out within the home to that of the mill can be viewed as the move from work of craft to that of industry, from the individual to the many. And with it the dichotomy of advantages and pitfalls previously discussed. However beyond this relationship, both conditions can be seen to engender a sense of community amongst a society of ‘craftsmen’ or ‘workers’ providing a close knit relationshipbetween living and working conditions of mutual benefit.

The rapid propagation of industrial mills through Great Britain and Ireland in the 18th and 19th century in turn resulted in the development of workers housing, indeed entire towns designed to provide education, religious, and recreational amenities to a factories workforce. Industrialsettlements sought to ‘raise the moral and intellectual standards of the population’ - (G. Darley 2003). And despite certain idealistic utopian overtones, there was nonetheless a sense of cohesive character found amongst a community able to visually identify with its relationship of living and working together.

With the collapse of the early industrial landscape, these same facilities found themselves in a state of disuse and abandonment, and after a long period of lying idle soon moved to the forefront of living working communities once more. This time in the form of counter cultural movements of artist and creative collectives. These communities of artists found the re use of old factory and department buildings a suitable means to subvert traditional cultural views and establish a distinct identity for themselves. And although the work now that of individual artist as appose to factory labourers, once again the strong link between living and working allowed for a shared cohesive image and the outward projection of this image to the rest of the city. Spaces such as Kunsthaus Tacheles in Berlin, show how such spaces can revitalise the artist community that inhabits them and the wider community they occupy.

Today such artists in residence spaces have become somewhat more domesticated and lack the politically driven impetus of their predecessors, they still however provide an invaluable amenity to artists allowing affordable group spaces to live work and exhibit to the public. In Dublin, cooperatives such as Pearse Street Design Tower and Temple Bar Studios have been in operation since 1990 and have been significant in establishing distinct cultural areas within the city. These spaces often occupying re used refineries and mills, still address the issues of community and identity, inherited from their industrial background, reconciling the work of the individual with the image of the collective. What is perhaps absent in some of these more recent projects is a more explicit and exposed relationship with the public and the city, the current public engagement is that of the public peering in to the private world of the artist.

It is here that I feel the opportunity for intervention is present for developing a work that moves craft back to a more central position in the mind of the public. If it is accepted that craft as distinct from art is as much about the process of making as the object itself, than in order for a craft piece to be truly appreciated this process must be made as visible to the public as the work itself. Further to this if the work of craft is ultimately practical and produced for the consumer than an open and direct engagement with the public is imperative to its survival. The hope is to find an architectural articulation that facilitates this dialogue.

Intervention

The opportunity for a beneficial intervention can be seen at the point of intersection of the series of issues which the research has explored from the theoretical to the fundamental. And we find ourselves at a unique point economically and culturally to move in a positive direction. The research has explored how creative and viable craft must engage both physically and commercially with the public serving a concise connection with what it produces and those who consume it, it must adapt to the technology of its time whilst maintaining an awareness of tradition and that it thrives when it operates collectively where resources and skills can be shared and an identity formed and manifest physically creating an awareness in the public of a distinct sector at work.

A recent report stated that tourism in Dublin in 2010 had fallen by 16% with an overall loss of 1.7 billion in revenue over the last three years, and that figures for employment in craft industries in Ireland fell by 56,300 in 2009. Meanwhile initiatives such as The Digital Hub and Fumbally Exchange in Dublin illustrate the continual rise and importance of creative businesses, employing over 77, 000 people in the city and generating some 3.25 billion euro in 2010.We have just begun 2011 and the Craft Council of Ireland has designated it the Year of Craft intending to hold a multitude of events and projects to promote the industry, while Dublin City Council are exploring the proposed development of a ‘Creative Village’ in the City.I think these conditions provide an interesting platform for further investigation through the exploration of an architectural project.

Craft in Ireland has developed into an innovative industry, with most crafts people and graduates utilising digital and other technological media to produce advertise and export work that is internationally acclaimed. Initiatives such as Future Makers run by the CCoi supply support and grants for research, training and scholarships to promote the trade. What is absent in these endeavours is the development of a physical community with facilities for both makers and the public to engage with each other. Examples of such schemes include the LCB Depot in Leicester, a creative cluster which provides studios and offices for lease to artists and creative business startups coupled with strong public amenities.At a time when economies must look to promoting indigenous industry and commerce as a means of encouraging growth and ensuring stability the craft and creative industries provide a viable opportunity for self sustained growth.

I would like to investigate the development of a new Creative Craft Centre in Dublin City, a modern ‘Work House’ that could provide workshop/studio and resident space, as well areas for exhibition and selling. The proposal would stress the importance of both the public and the business aspects of creative industries, providing office, conference and meeting spaces combined with public spaces for engagements, markets and events. A development such as this would allow a modern identity for craft workers and businesses visible in the city, incorporating contemporary technologies, facilities and media equipment and purpose built services. The site for the project may further explore the redevelopment of the area of Weavers Square and New Market exploring its strong identity and history of residence, craft and manufacture.

The project will examine relationships between process and product, work of the individual and the community, ideas of tradition and modernity and the relationship between craft and identity. Searching to see how a current architectural development can foster the growth of a city that has always maintained a strong tradition of crafting its identity.

‘There is no such thing as a tradition that exists of its own accord. Instead, and always, tradition has to be embraced and cultivated’ - D. Porphyrios

LCB Depot - Ash Sakula Architects

‘Playing with Tradition’ - Rug by Richard Hutton produced with computerized loom

Bibliography

- ‘The Craftsman’ - Paul Sennet - Penguin Books 2009

- ‘The Craft Reader’ - Glenn Adamson - Berg 2010

- ‘The Culture of Craft’ - Peter Dormer - Manchester University Press 1997

- ‘A Theory of Craft’ - Howard Risatti - University North Carolina Press 2007

- ‘Craft, Perception and the Possibilities of the Body’ - Margaret A. Boden - University Northumbria Sept 1999

- ‘Industrial Ireland 1750 - 1930 An Archaelogy’ - Colin Rynne - The Colins Press 2006

- ‘Yorkshire Textile Mills 1770 - 1930’ - Colum Giles - HMSO 1992

- ‘Factory’ - G. Darley - Reaktion Books 2003

- ‘Technics and Civilization’ - Lewis Mumford - Lowe and Brydone 1934

- ‘The Last of the Dublin Silk Weavers’ - Kathleen Breathnach - Irish Arts Review 1990

- ‘Newmarket and Weavers Square’ - William O Frazer - dublincity.ie

- ‘Computer-Aided Manufacture in Architecture’ - Nick Callicott - Architectural Press 2001