James Freeman on wed 9 dec 09
I received an email requesting that I repost this message under a
descriptive subject line, both to make it easier to find in the archives an=
d
because it addressed many issues still being argued under the Purist (or is
it Elitist?) thread. As the original post is lost within a thread on
jiggering, this seemed a reasonable request. I apologize for consuming mor=
e
of your bandwidth.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
It is always a slippery slope deciding at what point the product ceases to
be "handmade" when you are using assisted technologies (jolly, jigger,
slip-cast, ram-press), and this is something each studio artist needs to
consider very carefully.
Vince, et alii...
If I hold a patterned rib against the spinning clay on my wheel in order to
give it a profile, I don't think anyone here would argue that my piece was
no longer handmade, or even that it was no longer hand thrown. If I now
screw that patterned rib to a metal arm and move that arm into position wit=
h
my hand, what has really changed? Is the pot still handmade? Next I
install a set of stops so that my hand guides the mounted patterned rib to
precisely the same point every time. Is my pot still handmade? Next I
install a servo which pulls the arm down for me whenever I press a button.
Still handmade? Lastly, I wire my computer to the servo and write a few
lines of code which triggers the servo that pulls the arm. Still handmade?
Has anything really changed?
David Pye, the late professor of design at the Royal College of Art in
London, wrote an amazing book entitled "The Nature and Art of Workmanship",
which addresses precisely this issue. I highly recommend this book for
anyone who cares a whit about craft. In this book he states:
"Workmanship of the better sort is called, in an honorific way,
craftsmanship. Nobody, however, is prepared to say where craftsmanship end=
s
and ordinary manufacture begins. It is impossible to find a generally
satisfactory definition for it in the face of all the strange shibboleths
and prejudices about it which are acrimoniously maintained. It is a word t=
o
start an argument with."
Pye divides processes into two categories, the workmanship of risk, and the
workmanship of certainty. He gives as an example the difference between
writing, typing, and printing:
"The most typical and familiar example of the workmanship of risk is writin=
g
with a pen, and of the workmanship of certainty, modern printing. The firs=
t
thing to observe about printing, or any other representative example of the
workmanship of certainty, is that it originally involves more of judgment,
dexterity, and care than writing does, not less: for the type had to be
carved out of metal by hand in the first instance before any could be cast;
and the compositor of all people has to work carefully, and so on. But all
this judgment, dexterity, and care has been concentrated and stored up
before the actual printing starts. Once it does start, the stored up
capital is drawn on and the newspapers come pouring out in an absolutely
predetermined form with no possibility of variation between them, by virtue
of the exacting work put in beforehand in making and preparing the plant
that which does the work: and making not only the plant but the tools,
patterns, prototypes and jigs which enabled the plant to be built, and all
of which had to be made by the workmanship of risk."
"Typewriting represents an intermediate form of workmanship, that of limite=
d
risk. You can spoil the page in innumerable ways, but the N's will never
look like U's, and, however ugly the typing, it will almost necessarily be
legible. All workmen using the workmanship of risk are constantly devising
ways to limit the risk by using such things as jigs and templates. If you
want to draw a straight line with your pen, you do not go at it freehand,
but use a ruler, that is to say, a jig. There is still the risk of blots
and kinks, but less risk."
So where does one draw the line? At which point in my patterned rib example
does craftsmanship and handwork cease and manufacturing begin? Pye states,
"...it is not difficult to decide which category any given piece of work
falls into. An operative, applying the workmanship of certainty, cannot
spoil the job. A workman using the workmanship of risk assisted by no
matter what machine-tools and jigs, can do so at almost any minute. That i=
s
the essential difference. The risk is real."
If we accept Pye's reasoning, which I personally find reasonable, logical,
rational, and satisfying, then wheel throwing, even when using a patterned
rib, is workmanship of risk, and is therefore "handmade". Even if I screw
the rib to a free arm, we are still within the limits of the workmanship of
risk, as I can still very easily mess things up. If I hand press a slab of
clay into or over a mold, we still have to at least some small degree the
workmanship of risk, as I can press too hard, not hard enough, or too
unevenly, though the risk is admittedly quite limited, and far less that is
involved in throwing, for example. In both cases, the workmanship of risk
is involved, so in both cases the pieces are handmade. However, once we
install stops to limit the range of motion of the arm and thus control the
shape of the top of the piece, and install a mold to limit the shape and
position of the bottom of the piece, then we have very clearly crossed the
line. As in Pye's printing example, though craftsmanship and the
workmanship of risk went into building our jigger or jolly machine, and int=
o
making our mold and patterned rib, absolutely no craftsmanship or
workmanship of risk is involved in spinning out a plate or bowl on the
machine. The product of a jigger or jolly machine is of an absolutely
predetermined size and shape, with no possibility of variation, and is
strictly the product of the workmanship of certainty. The product is
therefore not handmade at all, but rather machine made, even if we made the
machine and it's jigs or pulled the lever ourselves.
The same reasoning, unfortunately, dooms slip casting to the same
categorization. While your prototype and molds are clearly handmade,
involving the workmanship of risk, the pots you pull from the mold are not.
While they are certainly hand cast, they are the product of a manufacturing
process, the workmanship of certainty, and are therefore not handmade.
Now what of the person who starts with a slip cast or jiggered or jollied
piece, then decorates, paints, or glazes it by hand? Despite the
workmanship of risk employed in decorating the piece, it's manufacture stil=
l
employed the workmanship of certainty, so while we can honestly say the
piece is hand painted, hand glazed, or hand decorated, we still cannot say
that it was handmade. Decals? Even if we designed the prototype ourselves=
,
the making of the decal image, and hence the decorating of the pot, involve=
s
no workmanship of risk at all, and hence the pot is not even hand decorated
(unless you really want to split hairs and claim that placing the decal on
the pot involved, even if in an utterly insignificant amount, some risk).
What of the person who uses slip cast, jiggered, or even extruded forms as =
a
raw material; cutting, joining, and altering them to create a new object?
In this case, though the raw material was not handmade, all of the processe=
s
applied to those manufactured raw materials in order to create the new form
involve the workmanship of risk, so the piece is handmade. This is no
different than a studio furniture maker who starts with commercially milled
boards. The boards are not handmade, but the desk, chair, or bench
fashioned out of them certainly is.
Do read Mr. Pye's book. He spends 140 pages fleshing out this line of
reasoning in far greater depth than is possible in my already overly long
email. You shall not regret the time nor shekels invested.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
Dave Lyons on wed 9 dec 09
Hello James and Clayart,
What is at the bottom of the slippery slope? When labels are involved the
ultimate bottom is the spawning of another bureaucracy that certifies what
is handmade or not. We've seen this done with labels such as "organic".
Who is to say what is "organic" until some group "certifies" what is
"organic" or not. In our craft world I cannot see this ever happening, nor
do I want it to happen. It is not in our best interest to dictate or
certify what is or isn't "handmade". It is in our best interest to show an=
d
share how we make by hand our objects. So, this thread amounts to quibbling=
,
or in a higher sense "exploring the meaning of handmade". However, in a
deeper sense, this quibbling or exploration should not stop. We who are
making "handmade" art and craft should have some sort of a loose consensus
what is handmade or what is art or what is craft. These are meaningful
discussions but hopefully they will remain irreconcilable in the small
details, and we will not be forced to visit the bottom of the slippery
slope.
Dave Lyons
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of James Freeman
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:56 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Handmade or Not? -repost-
I received an email requesting that I repost this message under a
descriptive subject line, both to make it easier to find in the archives an=
d
because it addressed many issues still being argued under the Purist (or is
it Elitist?) thread. As the original post is lost within a thread on
jiggering, this seemed a reasonable request. I apologize for consuming mor=
e
of your bandwidth.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
It is always a slippery slope deciding at what point the product ceases to
be "handmade" when you are using assisted technologies (jolly, jigger,
slip-cast, ram-press), and this is something each studio artist needs to
consider very carefully.
| |
|
