MAKE:SHIFT

I will be in conversation at this important conference. Click on the image above for more details including booking information. Here's the Crafts Council's description:

'The new Crafts Council conference Make:Shift explores how advances in materials, processes and technologies are driving innovation in craft practice 

A surgeon, an expert on robotics in architecture and an inventor of colour-changing fabrics are among the world-leading makers, thinkers and innovators confirmed for the Crafts Council’s first Make:Shift conference this November.

Taking place at Ravensbourne in London from 20 to 21 November 2014, Make:Shift will explore current and future thinking on the role of craft in 21st century production.  

Introduced by keynote speakers Martina Margetts, Ammar Mirjan and Raymond Oliver, the conference will be centered on three key themes: Materials, Making and Tools and will look at how makers are contributing to innovation in other sectors, including science, engineering, technology, manufacturing and medicine. 

Make:Shift is part of our innovation programme alongside Make:Shift:Do, a two-day festival of new making taking place across the UK from Friday 21 to Saturday 22 November.'

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…

Where do I go from here?

-->

April and May have been busy, a pretty hectic combination of work and play. 

It started with a trip to Oslo National Academy of the Arts, where I was invited to give a lecture about my practice. It was also an opportunity to meet the staff in both the Ceramics department and in the 3D printing facility. The facilities are extremely impressive, all housed in a beautiful 19th century sail factory complex.

I am planning to return for a longer period in order to experiment with their ZCorp 310 that they have just started to use with ceramic powders. The plan is to create a network of 3D printer practitioners exploring the theme of ceramics, culminating in an event in the autumn of 2014.

A few days after my return to the UK, I set off for a holiday in France with my wife Vicky, our friend Jan and my bike. The trip by train to Montelimar was excellent, though carrying my road bike in a bag wasn't that easy. Whilst there I cycled from the Drôme, through the Gorge de L'Ardeche, down into Languedoc to see friends, then up through the Cevennes to be reunited with Vicky and Jan in Ispagnac, a beautiful village at the entrance to the Gorge du Tarn.

I had to cut the holiday short in order to return to London for Collect, held again at the Saatchi Gallery, where I was showing some new pieces with Adrian Sassoon. The show was definitely up to it's usual standard, and I was lucky to have the Prtlnd Vase purchased by the Art Fund for the New Walk Gallery in Leicester. The curators plan to open a digital gallery and had researched my work and in particular the Prtlnd Vase for their presentation to the Art Fund.

Whilst at Collect, I took part in the first ‘Fielding Talk: Lives in Craft, launched in memory of Amanda Fielding, the writer and curator who died in 2012. This event, …celebrates Fielding’s passion and knowledge for the sector through the voices and experiences of the most exciting and innovative makers in contemporary craft.’ Glenn Adamson from the V&A chaired it with Clare Twomey and myself in discussion around the theme of the relationship between makers and curators. The acquisition and positioning of ‘digital craft’ has been problematic for curators as there was uncertainty as to the placing of the work. Fortunately for my contemporaries and I, there now appears to be a confidence and keen interest in our work, though the interpretation of challenging pieces can still be problematic for the curators.

Back in Manchester, I have been continuing to explore the Mcor Matrix 300 printer that 'prints' in layers of paper. It has been a temperamental machine, but a technician’s recent visit appears to have made it operate more smoothly. I set it off this morning to print the first of 4 pieces to be used as moulds for the making of ceramic sprigs for a version of the Prtlnd Vase. The body of the vase was printed in 4 sections by Mcor, as our machine failed to build them. I plan to have a mould produced and if talks with Wedgwood succeed, I will slipcast it in traditional Jasperware.

-->

And this leads to the question I pose in the title of this piece, “Where do I go from here?’ The reason I ask this question is that I am going through a period of reflection about my work. Over the past 7 years I have produced a body of work that has investigated 3D printing through the interpretation and re-design of familiar objects such as Wedgwood and Sèvres ceramics, appropriating their cultural significance to make comments about craft, values and the virtual world that we increasingly inhabit.

As I have always said, I don’t want to use the technology for its own sake, there has to be an idea that underpins its use. I am now at the stage where I feel I need to go further, in terms of material and process. The aim has been and still is to produce ceramic 3D printed artworks, combining my previous experience and knowledge of ceramics history with ‘post-industrial’ manufacturing. But this is where Glenn Adamson steps in.

-->In his new book, ‘The Invention of Craft’ he states that “…new forms of practice will inevitably be forged through the synthesis of the analogue and the digital…”[1]

The Mcor Matrix printer alerted me to the journey the data travels between the computer software and the printed artwork. The only difference between the data used to produce the paper prints of the Prtlnd vase and the SLS version, is scale. However, unlike the SLS original the faceted sides look as though they have been made from folded paper. Something has happened in the process that gives the object a softer, ‘crafted’ look. So this version will not only refer to the relationship between actual and the virtual from the standpoint of our increasing engagement of the real world through a screen, but also record the material process.

The other thought-provoking piece of writing comes from Justin McGuirk in the Collect 2013 catalogue. He is talking about craft ‘fetishism’ and the difference between being seduced by electronic gizmos and crafted objects. “The philosopher Bruno Latour might argue that we are once again seduced by the ‘thingness’ of things. In his essay ‘Why has critique run out of steam’ he extrapolates Martin Heidegger’s distinction between objects and things. He writes ‘The hand-made jug can be a thing, while the industrially made can of Coke remains an object. While the latter is abandoned to the empty mastery of science and technology, only the former, cradled in the respected idiom of art, craftsmanship and poetry, could deploy its rich set of connotations.’ So we have a distinction here between the mute machine-made object and the poetic hand-made thing. Does this distinction help us?”[2]

And where does it place my work?

Do I fall between the 2 stools? And is this why I feel I need to bring a physical, tactile connection back into my work?

I shouldn’t care what the Adamsons and McGuirks think, as I am a maker not a critical historian, writer or philosopher, but even before my days at the RCA I have attempted to justify my output. It’s part of my methodology and one that sometimes weighs heavy.

---

[1] Glenn Adamson, The Invention of Craft (London: Bloomsbury, 2013) p.166

[2] Justin McGuirk, Fashion, Fetish and Craft, (Crafts Council 2013) pp.19, 20

Is Design just about rearranging the Cushions...?

Heading north in the Quiet Zone of the 18.30 out of London Euston is an ideal setting for reflecting on the days activities. I was on my way back to Kendal after attending the British Design Summer Reception at the House of Lords. 

Organised by the Associate Parliamentary Design and Innovation Group, it brought together many leading and influential designers, along with MPs, members of the Lords, journalists and representatives from the various organisations that sponsored the tables. Being on the Crafts Council table, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself seated between Tristram Hunt, MP for Stoke-on-Trent and Michelle Ogundehin, editor of Elle Decoration. 

Speeches by both Sir John Sorrell and Lord Bichard championed British design, and stressed the need for a strong united voice to convince Parliament that design is more than just making things look pretty, but something that should be at the core of business thinking. 

Apparently the Financial sector spent £92 million lobbying the government last year and that has appeared to have paid off. Design doesn’t have that sort of money, so we are going to have to use some of our creative thinking if we want to be heard. 

However, it seems to me that 'design' is one of those shape shifting words with a different definition according to the context in which it is used. 

My definition is something along the lines of 'the creative application of materials and/or processes.' That's probably over simplistic, but to make an impact surely that's the sort of definition required, as it not only covers making stuff, but can be applied to systems and services.     

And it's inclusive, so the Crafts Council shouldn't feel left out. 

OK, so we can dress that up with great examples, lots of lovely images, but what are we asking for? 

For me it would be some joined up thinking in government, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer doesn't stand at the dispatch box going on about how he “want(s) the words: Made in Britain, Created in Britain, Designed in Britain, Invented in Britain to drive our nation forward. A Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers" to be the battle cry that will save the economy, when down the road Education are undermining or should that be destroying Design and Technology in schools.  Where do they think the next generation of makers and creative thinkers are going to come from?

And I would also ask that there should be far more support for research that brings together art and science. There are so many great examples where collaboration has benefitted both camps.  

Vince Cable has been busy with his Made by Britain and Make it in Great Britain campaigns, with an exhibition starting in London’s Science Museum on the 24th of July. But as Michelle Ogundehin points out in her blog, why doesn’t the government recognize the central role that design plays in the success of companies like Apple, Dyson etc etc? And ‘why is it taking government so long to catch on when the UK’s design sector could be such a spur to economic growth?’

A poorly advertised exhibition in the Science Museum is not enough, what we need is a new Festival of Britain, an event that will clearly demonstrate the wealth of great design that we have in the UK, demonstrate how companies will benefit by embedding design thinking into their core activities, demonstrate to parents that Art and Design are relevant subjects for their children to choose at school and if the government would put some money into apprenticeships, give some disaffected young people a place in society. (That last bit might be going too far, but we can dream…)

The Midwife and the Gravedigger

Having spent a few more days thinking about the Craft Matters campaign the more strongly I feel that the Crafts Council should encourage a more inclusive definition of craft and its place in society.
As I said before, Craft is not just concerned with exquisite, hand made, bespoke objects. Though there is a need and place for work of that type in society, if craft is to matter when it comes to its recognition, promotion and support by governments, the public needs to know how craft affects them in almost every area of life.
As Glenn Adamson says, "Craft only exists in motion. It is a way of doing things, not a classification of objects, institutions or people"*
As such, both the midwife and the person that buries you are craft experts, they have developed the tacit knowledge and skills necessary to safely bring you into this world and to leave it with dignity. At every stage in between craft shapes our lives, it is what differentiates us from the other species on this planet. Craft has even helped to shape our bodies, both in an evolutionary sense and in the way our bodies are affected by physical activity.
In getting this message across a recent Radio 4, Point of View programme could be very helpful. It was the last of a series by Professor Lisa Jardine who used the example of crystallographer, Dorothy Hodgkin to demonstrate how science and the arts can both benefit through collaboration. Lisa jardine referred to a letter to the Observer signed by many eminent thinkers who are concerned that future government spending cuts will sacrifice the arts in favour of the sciences, a policy that appears extremely short-sighted.


Adamson, G. Thinking through Craft. Berg 2007, p4.