I engaged in dialogues with practitioners that relate to my field of enquiry in different ways. Jazmin Morris, creative computing artist, and Freya Olsson, weaver and textile artist. My conversation with Morris was contextualised by her knowledge of coding and computerised automation, whereas my conversation with Olsson was rooted in her practice of weaving, and my research into this process.
I am interested in moving my project forward by researching the social dimensions of weaving, automation, and computation; specifically through a feminist lens. Last term my project focused on systems that connected weaving and computation; starting by looking at punch cards and early algorithmic development. Through this enquiry I also touched on the notion of developing languages to engage in systems in different ways, be it through pattern drafting or binary code.
During my conversation with Morris, we spoke about the unseen labour that goes into modern computation systems, automated / generative artwork, and hidden biases within technology. My last project investigated analog modes of computation, systems-building and code-languages; which I explored through letterpress printmaking. In this way, I assumed the role of labourer and/or computer in outputting my work. Considering my enquiry, one of the logical steps forward seems to be to investigate basic computer based coding programs like p5.js to create work with by following similar algorithmic approaches. With Morris, I spoke about my preference for producing work through analog modes of technology (i.e. weaving, letterpress, printmaking etc), where the hand of the maker is a determining factor in the quality or characteristics of the work.
While we were talking, the following questions came up:
- What is the women’s history in these processes?
- How do you work with technology in a feminist way?
- How do we engage with a feminist practice through the screen?
- How is technology inherently masculine?
- What happens when women create systems?
This line of questioning reminded me of the foundations of my enquiry; weaving and language. During Methods of Iterating earlier this year, I looked at the relationship between text and weaving; namely considering and exploring weaving as a mode of communication. Threaded through this was the knowledge that weaving is historically rooted in collaboration, pedagogy and shared knowledge. Teachings often extend through generations and communities of women — as is the case with many textile arts — reflecting what Sarah Ahmed might call ‘feminist collectivity’1 (2017, p.2) in this cooperative, learning-based practice. These themes lead me to consider my dialogue with Olsson, as I was intrigued to learn about her experience of learning to weave through vocational means.
I wrote up a series of questions to discuss that captured the themes explored in my previous two enquiries, as well as emerging interests:
- How did you learn weaving?
- How do you communicate through weaving, and/or, do you see the process of weaving as a kind of language?
- How do you build your patterns / pattern draft?
- Do you see weaving as inherently feminist?
- Could you speak about weaving and its relation to coding?
- Do you see weaving as ‘digital’?
- Do you think the process of weaving can be collaborative?
Olsson spoke about her experience learning through the Guild of Weavers, Spinners and Dyers in her hometown of Frome, Somerset. The members were mainly older women, and she learnt by proximity through studying their skills and listening to their advice. The learning was collaborative and the work was completely vocational — there was no ‘goal’ at the end of her membership. We spoke a lot about this type of learning and the way in which this embodies a certain feminist approach to knowledge production and sharing, as well as the notion of ‘craft’ or ‘crafting’ in the contemporary.
This, combined with my conversation with Morris, led me to think about the language, systems, and connotations around ‘crafts’, and how this has or has not shifted in the age of digital technology. There is a tension between the use of craft as noun (i.e. arts and crafts) vs. craft as verb (i.e. to craft an object). One implies ‘hobbyism’, domesticity and amateurism, where the other implies artisanal making, commitment to a skill, and profession. With Olsson I touched on this tension, and the way the lines between hobby and business are being blurred because of overconsumption and capitalist influences over ‘free time’.
I am interested in exploring the politics around craft in a broader sense; thinking about domesticity and the binaries within crafts that are more ‘male’ or ‘female’, but also what it means to craft in the contemporary. Is craft still associated with ‘manual dexterity’[citation] and the hand of a specific maker? There are knowledge systems which underpin many crafts. Like learning a language, the craftsperson learns the nuances of these systems in order to execute their skill. I find this particularly evident in textile crafts, where these language systems (i.e. patterns) are developed in order that the craftsperson can create the work. Is, then, the language system itself not a craft too? If this language is developed through the use of screen-based technologies (e.g. CAD) can it still be considered a craft? If the language from which you are working is a predetermined set of variables, are you computing rather than crafting?
These questions lead me to the same point; what is craft? More specifically, what was craft and what is craft now?
Leave a Reply