Skip to page content...

View Submissions

Please choose an option:


Title of Abstract:

Form Follows Fabrication (In That Order) (Ref #175)

Date:
13-10-2006 04:36:38
Status:
Accepted with revisions
Rating:
6
Details:
In today?s age of plurality, with distinctions between art, craft, and design constantly being made, qualified, disputed, defended and eroded, it is crucial to develop a strategy of bringing future ?makers? (this includes students studying sculpture, design, trades, architecture, crafts, and all affiliated history programs) into the fold with firm fundamentals of making that are inherently interdisciplinary are not type specific. While some craft practitioners are trained in apprenticeships or at craft centers, many more come from universities and colleges where they awaken to material and process. Crucial to the support of a sound craft curriculum is the foundation or first-year program. My research and proposal for ?The pedagogy of craft? panel promotes a making-based approach to foundation education that teaches from the method of making rather than the form desired (as seen in university art programs) or the material employed (as seen in craft and design programs). It is based on a textbook I am currently writing titled 3-D Fundamentals: Design Strategies for Makers in which I argue for a replacement of this form- or material-centric foundation curriculum (the current norms) with a solid material science and method based course that deals only secondarily (although still actively) with formal issues. It is my hope to get the ball rolling through discussion with the individuals that can be the most effective in this push as well as those that can benefit the most from it?educators of craft.

In my eight years teaching both foundation, sculpture and metals courses I have found that content strategies are best delivered on top of a more making based structure of method and material science that can be applied to individuals working traditionally, experimentally and even through contract or out-sourcing. The structure is based on method. There are essentially four methods of making [subtractive, additive, replacement, and plastic deformation] (with many ways of arranging), however there are varying degrees to which the workmanship of risk (as per David Pye) is applied. It is may hope that as we instruct, we impress upon young makers not the difference in media or form, but the similarity in method. When our students understand the fundamentals of these categories, and are introduced to the myriad methods of operating within them, innovative hybrids are able to form and become new and fresh manifestations of artistic creativity.


The idea is a simple one. Teach artists how three-dimensional work is made and allow them to experience and practice within the four methods, but also familiarize them with the basics of each method as well as the variations that exist in the realms of industry, art, and craft. Do this at the foundation level, from day one. This will increase the breadth of our discipline, encourage the inclusion of non-traditional possibilities, and ensure fresh and innovative sculpture, craft, and design for generations to come.

Reviewer Comments:

Review #1 : Left on 25-10-2006 09:47:07 #
Controversial approach to education. The abstract does not refer to the intellectual basis behind this approach but rather to a material science base. It is unclear why or how this would improve the outcome of practice which is the product. If evidence can be put forward to demonstrate that this approach results in products with high quality thought and making, then viability can be established. The paper needs to be re-drafted to emphasis these aspects of the proces of learning.

5
Review #2 : Left on 11-11-2006 12:08:03 #
I am all for an approach to craft education that celebrates hands on experimentation with materials and making methods as a compelling learning experience, but this proposal appears to ignore the broader issue of why make anything at all. Surely in educating new makers we need to get them to think about what kinds of objects/structures are needed and why, before deciding how these might be formed/manufactured. How does this proposal take craft thinking and practice forward?

3
Review #3 : Left on 13-11-2006 22:39:35 #
6

I'm with the first reviewer on this. Great challenging approach underlying the paper - but we need tighter arguments and justifications. Tighter focus, and more robust arguments, and better engagement with the status quo - do this and the paper will be listened to and engaged with.