Discussing two texts

This is a work in progress...

From the two texts What is a Designer by Norman Potter and Industry of One - Designer-Makers in Britain 1981-2001 published by the Crafts Council I have focused on the discussion of processes and how they are relevant to my own practice in contemporary crafts.

In his book What is a Designer Norman Potter includes a chapter on Problems with Method. He writes that

“the supposed freedoms available from randomly ‘intuitive’ approaches are notoriously treacherous when the work is technically and functionally complex or demanding” (Potter 1969:60).

This relates to my previous work, where I would often take an idea not very well thought through and carry it out using time consuming techniques. This left little or no time for me to develop the initial idea which resulted in a limited range of work.

However, he does add that “the best ideas often occur at moments on the back of old envelopes” (Potter 1969:75) and I think it is important to recognise these ideas as valuable and to record them. He also writes that

“the scientific hypothesis takes the form of a hunch or an intelligent guess, which is then scrupulously examined” (Potter 1969:75).

I think I could improve my design process by recording all my ideas, but then thinking though and analysing them before I embark on lengthy making processes.

I feel that this text is relevant to twenty first century design practice, maybe this is because he is talking about design method; does this change with time even with the event of new technologies? I only checked the date after I had read it and was surprised that it was first published in 1969.

I agree with most of Potter’s statements about problems with method, but I am struggling with the opinion he expresses below. I think it would make an interesting start for a debate. He writes that

“The textile designer (or other specialist) who conceives the work as self expression, and works solely with other like minded specialists, may make or design some very nice things. In the long run, however, the work will be deprived of connection, of ‘due weight’ in its context of use, of appropriateness, it will tend to become, in short, self-contained” (Potter 1969:66).

It is important to contextualise work by looking at a broad range of design, and sharing ideas with other designers is very helpful. However, I think his tone here could be seen as quite patronising, for example labelling the work produced as ‘nice things’. Perhaps I am being overly defensive of craftspeople who specialise in a certain area and achieve high levels of skill, which I admire. Potter is looking at this from a design perspective which might explain his opinion.

In her introduction to Industry of One Louise Taylor explains that the exhibition

“deconstructs the perception of designing and making as two apparently separate professions and activities, a perception which too easily leaves out the untidy realities of the variety of processes and ideologies involved in prototyping and production at whatever level” (Taylor 2001:6).

This reflects accurately how I feel about my practice, which is guided by both the techniques I choose and my 'ideologies'. I feel she is perhaps more sympathetic than Potter about the ‘untidy realities’ of most designers processes.

Taylor shows how relevant Industry of One is to contemporary design practice when she describes it as

“a defining exhibition, putting a marker for an area of practice that is not sufficiently hand-made to be ‘craft’ in one arena, but not sufficiently ‘commercial’ to be ‘design’ (Taylor 2001:9).

I think this a very accurate assessment of the current situation which is reflected in degree courses I have encountered, people’s ambitions for their future practice and current designer-makers. Unfortunately, as Taylor points out, this practice is not always very commercial.

However, although designers are often adept at working within limitations, trying to mimic industrial scale production using workshop techniques and constraints is probably a losing battle, as is having the funds and market to produce larger, more expensive pieces of work. This is reflected in the work produced, as Taylor explains,

“It is striking for example how the size and value of the average designer-maker object has decreased as the years have gone by” (Taylor 2001:41).

It is easy to look at this in a negative way as I have above, but many designers want their work to be accessible to everyone, and also if reducing costs means that they can continue to practice it can be seen as a good thing.

I feel that the much debated ‘divide’ between craft and art is illustrated by the value the designers or artists themselves feel they can place on their work. Although a lot of technical experience, workshop facility costs, expensive materials and skill go into many craft pieces I find that the crafts person is usually trying to work out the minimum they can sell their work for to cover basic costs. In contrast art pieces often have a higher value placed on them automatically.