Craft, Instruments and Computation

This blog reflects investigation and thoughts regarding work through three themes: craft, instruments and computation. As separate entities each one of the themes represents serves as a means to unpack particular modes of making. When combined they reveal the complexities associated with design practices and the byproduct (outputs) associated with the work.

Craft is defined as an occupation that requires skill and creativity. As an architectural concern, craft has always been linked to an ability demonstrate ideas or intent. More specifically, the ability to effectively use modes of representation such as the drawing and the model have been historically tied to talent of the designer.

Embedded in the use of craft in this context, is the implicit assumption that the architect is working by hand. The drawing and/or model are products of a proprioceptive process, created through a feedback loop connecting the hands, eyes, brain and page. Contemporary modes of practice have reduced the need for hand drawing to a minimum through the use of digital mediums.

In some respects this has created a dichotomy between the practice of making and the act of seeing. There are camps in which digital byproducts are evaluated in mental framework that is based primarily in analog methods. It would be too easy to label these people simply as the old guard, given that there are countless people who still new software that favors orthographic projections. On the other hand there are individuals who are dogmatic in their use of digital media, they consider any references to craft as a nostalgic mode of thought. This position negates any consideration of craft in a digital environment, suppressing the implication of how code is structured and the subsequent impact on the byproducts. In fact, the need to understand how lines of code are written to script is central to the act of making the desired outcome.

This need to understand the procedures associated with making a desired outcome point towards another important aspect of craft- process. This is a word gets  affair amount of use, and to some degree- abuse. Process requires two key elements. This first is a desired outcome or solution. The second of these-which is more important in my opinion- is familiarity with the material being used. In manual practices of craft, feedback (or resistance) is  critical part of the loop, being the basis for haptic relationships between the material and the hand. Granted, digital methods lack a the direct physical relationship, but still provides feedback. Often this loop is even more severe, lacking degrees of adjustment, demonstrating it’s capacity to operate in a binary pattern.

As has been suggested, instruments play an equally important role in formulating work. More accurately, understanding instruments and material is critical in the process of making, given that this is where resistance (feedback) is present. Instruments are defined across a range of experiences and outcomes. Instruments can be defined objects that are manipulated to   orchestrate a series of cause/effect relationships, serving as a means towards and end. They are are things capable of measurement and performance, with embedded rigor and whimsical elements. All of the qualities point towards the agency of the instrument in making.

Typically, when we refer to material, we are suggesting a physical condition, such as paper, clay, wood or metal. The relationship, or interface that a person has with the material is defined by the instruments that are used to modify the surface. While this part is a given, the lesser considered point is that the relationship between material and instruments creates a metric by which outcomes can be predicted and evaluated. This is a mode of thinking that allows craft to be an active part of the discussion of making. Given the increased reliance on digital interface (note: feedback loops), “the computer” is also a form of material capable of generating a work that is equally as important. It is also capable of emulation, creating a byproduct of that is similar in many respects to its analog counterparts while having a significantly different work process.

This leads to computation, the last of the triad. Computation has most recently been associated with computer processes and interfaces. However, at it’s most fundamental level, computation refer to the process of making mathematical calculations.  Certainly, a digital operating environment is more efficient as a computational tool, but is still present in the most fundamental analog practice. One that comes to mind immediately is the use of  scale to represent spatial condition that do not correspond to the page size (1:1), or to create relationships between multiple types of scales and conditions. This requires a translation, a mental calculation, to transform the subject into something that is able to be represented within the boundaries of the page.

The ability of computation to enable emulation also creates a problematic for the tool. in one sense, “the computer” is little more than a material, a ground that seemingly lacks a ground or material property. In another sense, it is a tool capable of manipulating a ground that is internal or external, depending on how it has been optimized for perform a given task. Once it has optimized with the appropriate code, it becomes an instrument capable of performing task with high levels of specificity. These ever present conditions allow the computer to repeat work previously associated with the body, or to manifest innovative solutions.

Two points come out of this. The first is that as a ground, the digital environment is incredibly generic, lacking any clarity in it’s intent. Software becomes the means by which intent is expressed and implemented. Intent creates the basis for evaluating the clarity and efficiency of the software, which provide a basis for evaluating the craft within the code. Secondly, as a limitless ground, the digital environment requires an mean by which to record work. This often takes the shape of a monitor, but can also manifest itself in a host of mechanisms including printers and robotic arms. This presents yet another means to evaluate the craft of the digital.

Therefore the digital presents a great opportunity to evaluate the direction of craft. This is based on it’s ability to represent a range of processes along with the ability to couple  with multiple forms of output. But that is not to say that analog methods are going the way of the dinosaur. Code still must be written, and output devices still must be made. Therefore it may not be the matter of asking “is craft going away, but instead asking where craft is present in the work of making.