PixelRaiders

PixelRaiders was a conference that explored how digital practices are related to making processes. They produced a cd with the conference papers, and presentations from the invited speakers.

‘Finding Beauty Through Craft in Digital Technology’
Jayne Wallace and Mike Press

Jayne Wallace and Mike Press introduce the paper by saying

“This paper draws on practice centred research combining craft practice and digital technology to illuminate the role of beauty in facilitating the engagement with digital complexity”

They explain that digital technology has the potential to be both captivating and enchanting yet also frustrating . They write that our senses are important in how we relate to digital technology,

“Beauty we argue, plays a vital role in humanising technology and ensuring its cultural relevance”

Wallace and Press go on to define beauty in several ways,

“Beauty in our view, is not found by design, rather it is discovered through craft, the fullest sense of the term. Beauty is in the making of it, through engagement with material and process and through craft’s sensibilities and sensitivities. Craft finds beauty, and design puts that beauty to work”

I question how they have used ‘craft’ and ‘design’ in this context. It is probably not helpful to try and divide them up so neatly. Later on they go to say

“craft objects possess qualities of intimacy, beauty and sensitivity, while designed objects do not”

This is very flattering to craft and I agree that craft objects can possess these qualities, but they can also lack them where ‘designed’ objects achieve them. Again, this abrupt statement seems to leave little room for anything else, where does a ‘designer maker’ fit with this? To put it in context this quote was part of a discussion about how the making process is central to craft. They describe this as its ‘defining factor’, as a craftsperson is the only one who creates their object and therefore has an ‘intimate relationship’ with it. Whilst I would agree that making is central to craft, sometimes a craftsperson is not the only person who is involved in creating their work. Their definition of craft seems idealistic and narrow to me.

Wallace and Press are very positive about what the crafts can do for digital technologies,

“Craft, while it is rooted in the making of physical objects, provides the conceptual and empathetic means of addressing a far broader range of experimental issues that extend the relevance and value of new technologies”

In my critical review I plan to look in part at how makers can engage with digital technologies in the production of their work. This paper shows another side to the story in arguing that craft can be used to help create value and relevance in digital technologies.

I will post my thoughts on the other papers as I read them.