Skip to page content...
View Submissions
- Please choose an option:
- Title of Abstract:
the poetics of making (Ref #163)
- Date:
- 06-10-2006 08:41:00
- Status:
-
Accepted
- Rating:
- 8
-
Details:
- Critical writing has the potential to shape practice into something that is more easily written or talked about within it?s own conventions. It tends to the belief that meaning is, first and foremost, something that sentences have. That meaning is principally to be found in language, in words contextualized in sentences.
The critical and theoretical focus that currently dominates in the crafts regards the craft object as the primary site of meaning and main area of significance. An essentially literary critical culture regards the object as something to be 'read'. The word is valued over the deed, or the deed becomes meaningful only once it has been interpreted. In these terms, in this kind of language, craft is elusive because it is so rooted in a world of experience, of materials and processes, of things and the life of things. I believe that this focus neglects those things that define craft. Whilst these things are acknowledged as belonging to craft, they are hard to write about within the conventions of critical language.
Many makers express a sense of alienation from critical discourse and of dissatisfaction with the language of discourse. For some, far from illuminating or feeding their practice, it is disempowering.
So what sort of language might be adequate to support an authentic discourse?
Whilst many makers will shy away from theoretical writing they often find something of their experience evoked in other forms of writing and whilst makers will often say that they don?t think of their work in theoretical terms, they will be able to offer a considered explication of what they do. Indeed, they will often talk about their work in startlingly evocative terms, and the idiom is usually the subjective language of poetry.
I believe that we need to ascribe proper value to practitioners accounts, and to the chosen language of practitioners. There is also a need to develop research tools that make these accounts available to researchers, that make evident inadequately theorised aspects of practice and which contribute to an expanded and enriched discourse about craft.
In this presentation I will talk about what I see as some problems with language in general and with the language of theoretical discourse in particular. I intend to demonstrate the potential of digital video as a strategy for generating a model of craft that comes from the voice of the maker, as a tool for documenting practice, but also for revealing the ways in which the context and the processes of practice contribute to meaning. In support of my argument, I will show some short excerpts from case studies and discuss some of the methodological questions that have arisen during the filming and editing of the material.
Reviewer Comments:
Public Comments:
- Comment left by L.D. on 08-11-2006 12:27:22 #
- Great!