I’ve been thinking about craft recently and how over the years what I do has been adopted into the craft arena. This is something that I have readily agreed with, I love the idea of connecting to a method of doing something with a long history. My work has often straddled several worlds and I have engaged with taxonomy, the art craft debate has fueled many an evening. On reflection, often the categorization would appear to of been about the outcome, whether the work looked like craft was one way of engaging with the argument. This was to neglect examining the impetus, the intention around the engagement with the process of making. Reflecting on a recent body of digital 3D printed structures has meant that I have been asking the question What is the role of the digital in this word? I have been thinking how technological procedures can have similar properties to what some would deem traditional craft practices. I can see this, both in my own current work and within recollecting discussions around what is needed to make work – idea, process, materials, and equipment.
I'm deep into assessment on a course I teach on, and a student’s research report leant on Malcolm McCullough’s Abstracting craft to build a similar argument. McCullough touches on the idea of the soul of craft, that ‘The possibility or craft lies not so much in the technology as in the outlook you bring to it’. It talks about how you use and look at this technology to create a product. In that way the current work is an indicator of my relationship between craft and digital practices. However I'm also in some way drawn to the sentiments expressed by Ivan Pope who admits that whenever he hears about 3D printing a part of him still screams, "WITCHCRAFT!". We are all adding to the discussion of what we deem to be craft for the 21st century.
