The Language of Process

'The Language of Process: how new materials and technologies are changing product design' is the current exhibition in the Special Collections section of the All Saints Library of Manchester Metropolitan University. The exhibition ends on December 20th.

 

I was asked to speak at the opening -

I am a maker; I could call myself a designer, a craftsman or an artist, but I prefer the term Maker, as in Creator; someone who straddles the grey area between those disciplines.

So that’s the perspective from which I view the ‘Language of Process’ exhibition.

To those of you who have been along to the exhibition, it may appear to be a strange selection of odd items. Some objects on display are practical and functional, others whimsical. Many are aesthetically pleasing, yet one or two might be described as ugly. So why have they been brought together?

I feel strongly that this exhibition provides extremely timely evidence of the emergence of a new language of making, where the traditional barriers between craft and design are dissolving.

A lot of the objects on show have been created using new and emerging digital technology. Employing these new machines is not a case of simply pressing the button, as many people seem to think. They are expensive and sophisticated, but they are just tools, with all the same idiosyncrasies as traditional tools. And that is part of the attraction for me and the new generation of makers who are leading the way by making these machines do what we want them to.

As all makers know, we have to explore materials and processes in order to develop the skills and sensibilities necessary to turn an idea into a resolved 3-dimensional object.  And we don’t stop exploring; the journey never ends. As a potter I was never totally satisfied with what came out of the kiln; we search for a perfection that we will never achieve. That’s what gets us up in the morning. And it’s this striving, this insatiable curiosity that attracts us to explore new ways of making.

But why is this important? For me, craft and design aren’t just about the creation of beautiful bespoke objects, The most inclusive definition of these activities and one that I subscribe to is ‘the application of creative thinking and tacit knowledge to solve a problem’. Which means that we engage with them from morning ‘til night; we rely on those skills from birth to death, the midwife and the gravedigger employ them; they are fundamental to our very existence and we all have the potential to exercise them. One example of this is my dentist. He was telling me of the part that craft knowledge plays in his work. He regards it as a fundamental and central part of his skill, something that was kindled not at Dental School but as a teenager in the Art Department.

So, it’s fundamental that students at all stages are allowed to get to grips with materials and processes and not just sit in front of the computer screen.

Take another, closer look at this exhibition. You’ll see designers really getting down and dirty with messy materials, and craftspeople hacking technology. The rulebook is being thrown away and it points to a healthy future of innovation and creative thinking.

Manchester School of Art is very fortunate in having traditional workshops and increasing digital making and research facilities. They go hand in hand, the new tools do not replace the old.  And they are both vital if our students are going to play their part in the UK’s economic revival. The doors of the workshops must be open to all and I would hang a big sign in each of them, simply saying ‘What if…’

MMU could be an important cradle of the next Industrial Revolution as long as the teaching and provision of resources not only embrace the present cutting edge, as seen in this exhibition, but also helps to shape the future direction of craft and design.

I don’t see this activity centered solely on the Art School. The projects that I’m involved in MIRIAD are in conjunction with material scientists, Learning Innovation and Engineering, including a project to formulate 3D printable Graphene. There’s a lot of common ground to be shared between the disciplines, but we can also challenge and stretch each other and that’s where the advances happen.

I hope I’m preaching to the converted, so if you have any influence on decision makers at any level please bring them along to the ‘Language of Process’. Show them the beauty, the skill, the innovation and the creative thinking. This must be one of the most tangible ways to demonstrate that Innovative Making has an exciting and rightful future in the cultural heart of this University.

Long Live the Revolution!

I was recently asked to take part in a panel discussion during the Design Manchester 13 Festival at Manchester School of Art -

Here we are at the beginning of an exciting new Industrial Revolution and there is an opportunity not only to make things that were previously impossible, but also to right some of the wrongs of the previous Revolution.

Before the First Industrial Revolution, the way things were made was essentially by craft production; the local potter would make earthenware for the kitchen and dairy; the blacksmith would make and repair tools for the garden and the farm.

Architecture was essentially vernacular, as materials were obtained locally and buildings were shaped by the limitations of stone, slate and wood.

Regional styles developed in response to local needs and were refined over time, producing architecture and artefacts that we now value for their simplicity, their truth to materials and their ecological impact.

I’m not trying to paint a rose-tinted picture of life before 1760; it was grim up north for the majority of the population. The Industrial Revolution improved standards for a section of society, however, I think we would all agree that life since then wasn’t and still isn’t a bed of roses for everyone.

And we are now facing the ecological backlash of 250 years of progress.
This time around, things might be different.

My particular interest is the creation of art craft and design using new and emerging digital technology. It allows me to make objects impossible to produce when I was a production potter. 3-D printing has enabled me to unleash my imagination and create artworks that challenge the definitions of art, craft and design.

But 3-D printing isn’t just about making beautiful, bespoke objects. It holds far more potential.

With 3D printing, ideas can be transformed into objects without the need to produce costly moulds and tooling. The only way manufacturers can justify that sort of expense is by manufacturing in large volumes. In our revolution, batch production and the one-off are ways forward, whether it’s a personalized light fitting or a replacement knee. Customisation and individualisation are not only possible but to be encouraged as an enhanced sense of ownership must mean that the product is likely to be cherished more than an off-the-shelf, generic version.

And the Internet allows for distributed manufacture. So, we don’t need shiploads of identical products crossing the oceans. Instead, you could cycle down to your 21st century version of the local blacksmith (perhaps now renamed as a Codesmith) to collect your freshly printed stuff. Or, make it at home on your own printer.

Another advantage over traditional reductive processes is that there is far less waste in Additive Manufacturing, as leftover material is re-used.

And this time the technology isn’t in the hands of an elite minority. Tinkers and hackers are busy stripping down, re-jigging the technology, and making it accessible to a wider community of makers.

This all sounds rosy, doesn’t it? If I was little less positive and little more sceptical I might be describing the risks to our revolution, from vested interests through to nasty and dangerous applications.

This revolution is still at a very early stage, but if it is going to make a positive difference we need to encourage widespread innovation.

We need a 21st century version of the Lunar Society, meeting by the full moon not only to discuss the technology, but the social implications as well.

Perhaps they could write a manifesto? It could go something like this:

1. Cloud computing will put tools into the hands of the proletariat.
2. 3D printing will democratize design; everyone will be a designer.
3. All data will be open source.
4. Hacking of technology will be encouraged.


I’m sure you could all think of a few more.

The Second (Third or Fourth?) Industrial Revolution...

As part of Design Manchester 13, I was asked to sit on a panel to discuss the implications of the Second Industrial Revolution. (As you can tell, I'm not sure which Industrial Revolution this is, but that's besides the point.)

I wrote a few words, which as I thought about them, raised more questions than answered them. However, they are a useful starting point for lectures I'm giving this month at the Parson's School of Design in New York and at the Norwegian Crafts conference in Oslo.

Second Industrial Revolution, DM13 Manchester School of Art. 30.10.13

Here we are at the beginning of an exciting new Industrial Revolution and there is an opportunity not only to make things that were previously impossible, but also to right some of the wrongs of the previous Revolution.

Before the First Industrial Revolution, the way things were made was essentially by craft production; the local potter would make earthenware for the kitchen and dairy; the blacksmith would make and repair tools for the garden and the farm.

Architecture was essentially vernacular, as materials were obtained locally and buildings were shaped by the limitations of stone, slate and wood.

Regional styles developed in response to local needs and were refined over time, producing architecture and artefacts that we now value for their simplicity, their truth to materials and their ecological impact.

I’m not trying to paint a rose-tinted picture of life before 1760; it was grim up north for the majority of the population. The Industrial Revolution improved standards for a section of society, however, I think we would all agree that life since then wasn’t and still isn’t a bed of roses for everyone.

And we are now facing the ecological backlash of 250 years of progress.

This time around, things might be different.

My particular interest is the creation of art craft and design using new and emerging digital technology. It allows me to make objects impossible to produce when I was a production potter.  3-D printing has enabled me to unleash my imagination and create artworks that challenge the definitions of art, craft and design.

But 3-D printing isn’t just about making beautiful, bespoke objects. It holds far more potential.

With 3D printing, ideas can be transformed into objects without the need to produce costly moulds and tooling. The only way manufacturers can justify that sort of expense is by manufacturing in large volumes. In our revolution, batch production and the one-off are ways forward, whether it’s a personalized light fitting or a replacement knee. Customisation and individualisation are not only possible but to be encouraged as an enhanced sense of ownership must mean that the product is likely to be cherished more than an off-the-shelf, generic version.

And the Internet allows for distributed manufacture. So, we don’t need shiploads of identical products crossing the oceans. Instead, you could cycle down to your 21^st century version of the local blacksmith (perhaps now renamed as a Codesmith) to collect your freshly printed stuff. Or, make it at home on your own printer.

Another advantage over traditional reductive processes is that there is far less waste in Additive Manufacturing, as leftover material is re-used. 

And this time the technology isn’t in the hands of an elite minority. Tinkers and hackers are busy stripping down, re-jigging the technology, and making it accessible to a wider community of makers.

This all sounds rosy, doesn’t it? If I was little less positive and little more sceptical I might be describing the risks to our revolution, from vested interests through to nasty and dangerous applications.

This revolution is still at a very early stage, but if it is going to make a positive difference we need to encourage widespread innovation.

We need a 21^st century version of the Lunar Society, meeting by the full moon not only to discuss the technology, but the social implications as well.

Perhaps they could write a manifesto? It could go something like this:

1.     Cloud computing will put tools into the hands of the proletariat.

2.     3D printing will democratize design; everyone will be a designer.

3.     All data will be open source.

4.     Hacking of technology will not be a criminal offence.

I’m sure you could all think of a few more.

Long Live the Revolution!

Joining the Crafts Council

27.08.13

Today was spent at the Crafts Council in London, being inducted into my new role of Maker Trustee. I spent the day in meetings with various CC folk, learning how the organization operates and being introduced to the main issues that are currently under discussion.

My relationship with the CC goes back to 1985 or 86, when Vicky and I needed to find a new market for our pots and Northern Arts provided CC sponsorship to attend the Chelsea Crafts Fair. It was the last year that it was run by Lady Phillipa Powell, before the Crafts Council took over the show. It was a great success and exactly the type of support that we required at the time. 

In the 1990’s we received 2 travel grants from Northern Arts; the first took us on an extended tour of Hungary to look at traditional slipware. The trip resulted in our work developing in a new, unexpected direction and the writing of a book on contemporary slipware, the research for which was assisted by our second travel grant from Northern Arts. As you will have gathered, the support we had was well-targeted and brought about significant changes to our practice, revitalizing it and ensuring its longevity.

After the Labour goverment came to power in 1997, the Arts Council subsumed the Crafts Council, and my perception was that the organization had lost its autonomy, its efficacy had been diluted and its very existence was uncertain. The move out to Islington (hardly remote!) and the closure of the gallery and the shop at the V&A seemed to support my doubts and the Crafts Council slowly faded from my consciousness. 

However, the past few years have seen resurgence, both in CC activity and interest in craft. Take the ‘Powerof Making’ exhibition, co-curated by the CC and V&A. It attracted 340,000 people; one of the most popular shows ever held at the V&A. There was everything from dry-stone walling to 3D printing and a plethora of exquisite objects that I really wanted to get my hands on. 

For me, the exhibition demonstrated the common language of all makers and how a thatcher in Somerset is engaged in the same thought processes as I am with all my high-tech gear. We share the same approach to materials, processes and techniques and take pride in our ability to use creative thinking to produce meaningful work. The exhibition also demonstrated that ‘making’ is innate; it’s something that is hard-wired in our DNA and has enduring appeal.

So it’s a great time to be involved with the Crafts Council and as a Maker Trustee I am very keen to pass on your thoughts to the board. I am interested to hear about your perception of the CC, whether you feel it represents you as a maker and the type of activities you would like it to be engaged in.

The Future is Here?

The September/ October issue of Crafts Magazine (244) has 2 articles that question the place of 3D printing within the Crafts world. Edwin Heathcote is seriously underwhelmed by the Design Museum’s ‘The Future is Here: A New IndustrialRevolution.’ He emphasizes what I presume he thinks of as an abuse of the technology in the range of ’ugly, over-engineered and under-thought objects, desperate to convince us that here is a technology that will change the world.’ Though I haven’t seen the exhibition, I suspect that the choice of exhibits is at fault, as I do believe we have a new way of making things that will allow advances in design and manufacturing. I wonder if the exhibition includes examples of 3D printed bio-compatible materials that allow reconstruction of body parts such as the trachea for patients recovering from cancer surgery, or relatively simple objects such as optimized Airbus door hinges that reduce fuel consumption by $1000 a year?

Geoffrey Mann thinks there’s ‘danger in going digital’. Both Heathcote and Mann question the digital aesthetic and the constraints of materials available to 3D printers, but as Mann points out, ‘We’re only at the beginning, surely the best is yet to come’.

I for one would certainly go along with that.

Which brings me to the direction of my own work. For some time I have had the same concerns, and though I have tried to use the technology to make work that doesn’t shout ‘3D printed’ at first sight, it still feels as though it can go further in being integrated with my previous practice. That, after all has been my aim all along. So how do I bring the material qualities, cultural associations and aesthetics of slipware (and other ceramic types) into the world of digital design and Additive Manufacturing? First of all, I must be careful not to lose the creative potential of AM, so the choices are:

·       Print in clay

·       Print moulds for slipcasting

·       Apply an alternative surface finish, one with other cultural associations.

The themes of my most recent work have moved on from simply making ‘impossible’ objects, based on historical ceramics to exploring how we increasingly engage with the physical world through the 2 dimensions of a screen. And no matter how high the resolution, the experience can only ever be a fraction of the real thing.

3D Printing in clay is still in its infancy. And though I’m sure it will be refined, it is not going to solve my immediate needs. Jonathan Keep, however appears to have produced a reliable ‘Computer Controlled Coiler’, (a development of the Bits from Bytes RapMan 3D printer,) that looks as though it could quite easily be scaled up to produce larger objects. I need to find out more and will be contacting him this week to discuss acquiring one, either for MIRIAD or for my personal use.

Printing moulds on a ZCorp printer is feasible, however, slipcasting relies on the cast being able to be removed from the mould, therefore it would not be possible to produce objects as complex as the ones that I have so far produced by SLS. My experiment to print pate de verre from a ZCorp mould was successful, but as the mould was destroyed in the process, only one object could be produced. However, that isn’t necessarily a problem.

The Matrix 300 paper printer at MIRIAD holds possibilities for producing models from which moulds can be taken. There are limitations, particularly the printing of finely detailed objects as small pieces of paper are prone to clog up the workings, bringing the machine to a grinding, ugly halt!

Applying an alternative surface finish could be a temporary way forward, but the connection to my previous ceramic practice would be broken. So I’m not keen on that route at the present time.

More thoughts to follow…

Ceramic 3D printing tests 07 - some results

Well, it's my last day here at KHIO, for now. I will be returning in Novemeber to speak at the Norwegian Crafts Annual Meeting and hope to spend a few days here at KHIO to conduct some more tests. But by then I should have the ZCorp 406 running back in Manchester and have made some tests of my own.

I plan to continue the postings, and would appreciate any thoughts, reactions or assistance from like-minded explorers.

Results of the test bar firings: 

POWDER TYPE

RATIO *

LENGTH mm **

SHRINKAGE

950°C
Red Clay***	1:1:2	Turned to 'foam'
	1:1:3	90	10%
	1:1:4	91	9%
Potclays****	1:1:2	± 84	16%
	1:1:3	86	14%
	1:1:4	89	11%
1000°C
Red Clay	1:1:2	Turned to 'foam'
	1:1:3	90	10%
	1:1:4	91	9%
Potclays	1:1:2	± 84	16%
	1:1:3	86	14%
	1:1:4	88	12%
1050°C
Red Clay	1:1:2	Turned to 'foam'
	1:1:3	These tests were dipped in vitreous slip, fired to 1000°C, then glazed and fired to 1085°C
	1:1:4
Potclays	1:1:2
	1:1:3
	1:1:4
11000°C
Red Clay	1:1:2	Turned to 'foam'
	1:1:3	88	12%
	1:1:4	90	10%
Potclays	1:1:2	± 82	18%
	1:1:3	83	17%
	1:1:4	85	15%
1085°C GLAZE
Red Clay	1:1:2	N/A
	1:1:3	89	11%
	1:1:4	91	9%
Potclays	1:1:2	83	17%
	1:1:3	85	15%
	1:1:4	86	14%

* REFERS TO MIX OF SUGAR, MALTODEXTRIN AND CERAMIC POWDER, i.e 1:1:4 =1 part sugar, 1 part maltodextrin, 4 parts ceramic powder.

** Refers to the recessed 100mm line in the test bars measured after firing.

*** Pure red clay supplied by KHIO

**** Potclays ceramic powder mix, contains flux, supplied by Michael Eden (MIRIAD)


The Prtlnd Vase is still in the kiln, hopefully I will be able to unpack it before I leave here this evening... I'll let you know.
A second vase was printed yesterday and is still in the powder...