Tuesday, December 14, 2010

A Rudimentary Historical Context

The fluidity of the role of technology over time necessitates that my IP investigate the historical context of mechanized production and its juxtaposition with craftsmanship. With an eye towards this end, I re-read the ID history articles assigned in my Integrative Product Development course. I found three of particular interest, with the most recent being dated 1923. Quite obviously this needs to be extended to include more contemporary authorities-

John Ruskin, The Nature of Gothic (1853)
Proposed 3 Rules:
1. Never encourage the manufacture of any article not absolutely necessary, in the production of which Invention has no share.
2. Never demand an exact finish for its own sake, but only for some practical or noble end.
3. Never encourage imitation or copying of any kind, except for the sake of preserving record of great works.

" The demand of perfection is always a sign of misunderstanding of the ends of art."

"Imperfection is in some sort essential to all that we know of life. It is the sign of life in a mortal body, that is to say, of a state of progress and change."
"... the law of human life may be Effort, and the law of human judgement Mercy."

Ruskin largely argued that the value of an artifact lied in it's imperfections, not in its polished finish. He later defined his use of "invention" as the form, color, or engraving of exquisite items. These qualities were proof of the human expression that gave these items value, while imperfect, they spoke volumes in comparison to the stagnate manufactured item.
Most interesting for me is Ruskin's focus on human expression, via mistakes, rather than simply stating a supremacy of the human hand over technology. Instead he advocates that the empty object is as worthless as the empty man producing it, for he was "only a machine before, an animated tool"

Frank Lloyd Wright, The Art and Craft of the Machine (1901)
"The Machine is, in fact, the metamorphosis of ancient art and craft; that we are at last face to face with the machine- the modern Sphinx- whose riddle the artist must solve if he would that art live-"
"genius must progressively dominate the work of the contrivance it has created."

"The Machine is Intellect mastering the drudgery of earth.... its function ultimately to emancipate human expression!"

"It will clothe Necessity with the living flesh of virile imagination"

Wright's argument is in many ways the antithesis of Ruskin's; embrace technology and move beyond the drudgery of physical manufacture. The machine was the great democratizer, freeing craftsmen to move beyond the realm of mere utility. Wright also warned that the machine was capable of doing great good, but only in the right hands willing to use the technology to create a more beautiful world over a selfish desire to increase one's own leisure or wealth. In one sense, Wright is speaking to the change in making art to creating it, democratizing skilled craftspeople to the role of artist/designer.
Walter Gropius, The New Architecture and the Bauhaus (1923)
"The artist was a man 'remote from the world', at once too unpractical and too unfamiliar with technical requirements to be able to assimilate his conceptions of form to the processes of manufacture"

Gropius was a harsh critic of the art "academy" where mechanical skills of drawing or painting were taught under the pretense of creating professions. he argued at the time that such professions were imposters of the arts, no better than machines because while they possessed the necessary skills, they lacked a holistic understanding of the changing world around them. Quite the opposite of Wright, these individuals were too engrossed by the tools of expression to utilize technology's economy and efficiency: stalled, marveling at their own ideology-



Monday, December 13, 2010

New project abstract

Proposal Statement

How is digital fabrication renegotiating fine craft, from what could only once be described as priceless to a series of discrete mechanical processes? In this context how is the contemporary craftsperson defined?

Conceptual Investigation

What is digital “craft”? I want to explore the connections between the quantifiable digital elements and perceived notions of craftsmanship, maker, and creator. How must artists and designers redefine themselves as contemporary craftsman in the presence of automated prototyping/production/perfection? My research will also explore parallels with the early industrial revolution and the writings of its advocates and harshest critics. Within the broader context of art-making, I will use the development of the camera as a case study of technology necessitating conceptual renegotiation of artmaking (ie expressionism).

Final Form

Due to my prior work with process and meticulous attention to detail, it seems fitting that my explorations of contemporary craft should be two-fold: process and product. For the process portion I will design and construct a large scale 3d printer. In order to objectively examine what digital craft is, I must be able to remove myself from the physical process of making, while simultaneously gaining an intimate understanding of the digital elements at work. Many of the constraints I will use in the development of the Printer will be a direct result of the Product. Unlike available 3d printers, my design will utilize mortar to create a usable product, again in an effort to focus on the nature of craft. The final product will be a functional furniture object. I came to this decision because of the high level of interaction possible with a human-scale object, as well as the tactility and experience inherent with furniture. I will produce the same piece of furniture multiple times in an attempt to associate different digital qualities with the perceived notion of craftsmanship.

Andy would be proud

It's about time- Below is a letter sent to the Smithsonian Institute by the Warhol foundation. It's about damned time someone challenged the Catholic league!


Mr. Wayne Clough
Smithsonian Institution
SIB Office of the Secretary
MRC 016
PO Box 37012
Washington, D.C. 20013-7012

Dear Mr. Clough,

The Warhol Foundation is proud to have been a lead supporter of Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture, but we strongly condemn the decision to remove David Wojnarowicz’s video A Fire in My Belly from the exhibition. Such blatant censorship is unconscionable. It is inimical to everything the Smithsonian Institution should stand for, and everything the Andy Warhol Foundation does stand for.

Although we have enjoyed our growing relationship during the past three years, and have given more than $375,000 to fund several exhibitions at various Smithsonian institutions, we cannot stand by and watch the Smithsonian bow to the demands of bigots who have attacked the exhibition out of ignorance, hatred and fear.

Last week the Foundation published a statement on its website www.warholfoundation.org, condemning the National Portrait Gallery’s removal of the work and on Friday our Board of Directors met to discuss the long-term implications of the Museum’s behavior on the Foundation’s relationship with the Smithsonian Institution. After careful consideration, the Board voted unanimously to demand that you restore the censored work immediately, or the Warhol Foundation will cease funding future exhibitions at all Smithsonian institutions.

I regret that you have put us in this position, but there is no other course we can take. For the arts to flourish the arts must be free, and the decision to censor this important work is in stark opposition to our mission to defend freedom of expression wherever and whenever it is under attack.

Sincerely yours,

Joel Wachs
President