To be completely honest I have some trouble maintaining interest in architectural semantics. Generally speaking architects take themselves way to seriously, especially the published ones. Now i am not suggesting that all architectural theory is worthless, i just think that some arguments are moot, and not worth exploring.
This McCullough reading, for example, seems to be interested in exploring the condition of Craft within a society that finds itself increasingly subject to technology. McCullough is asking whether or not the growth of technology means the death of craft? I dont see this as a mystery....
As i understand it technology is a byproduct of human learning. Like learning, technology is unavoidable because it is a product of the human experience. From the early stone tools, to our modern day computers technology aids humans in their individual daily experience. Craft is also a byproduct of this experience, and from day one (cave painting, basket weaving) craft has also been influenced by technology. Often times leaps in technology further the refined quality of the craft of its day(optics and Renaissance painting). Because of this intertwined relationship the growth of technology cannot mean the death of craft, it means the redefinition of the form of craft. Otherwise there would never have been craft to begin with.
While i question the reason for discussing this question, i do not find fault in McCullough's conclusion: Craft is care (or as Prof Cabrinha suggests: craft is commitment). I feel that the most important part of defining craft is the human contribution. Whether it is at the computer, the lathe, the foundry, the canvas, or the studio; craft is a product of interaction between human and material, aided by the technology of the day. Is that an obvious a connection? Or is it just clear in my head?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think you are trying to find fault with McCullough, but are actually making his argument. In fact, he is trying to do exactly what you say: "Because of this intertwined relationship the growth of technology cannot mean the death of craft, it means the redefinition of the form of craft. "
And as you say...Craft as the interaction between human and material - absolutely. but I do think you need to take one step further, and describe the intensity of interaction...and this is why I see craft as commitment - a finely crafted object is the demonstration of the commitment to care between human and artifact. Even if that means many hands are involved, and multiple artifacts.
Nice post.
Post a Comment