An extract from my text:
I am interested in the concept of imperfections in design; whether engineered or accidental. There are three designers I intend to use as case studies in my investigation into the concept of imperfection as beauty vs imperfection as flaw; Simon Hasan, Hella Jongerius and Eley Kishimoto.
I ask the question: Is the purpose of technological advances to erase the possibility for error and consequently the evidence of the human touch and signs of the maker? When we look at historical examples of craft it is the presence of the human that we relate to and we respect the level of skill required to make something as there is evidence of their process. Are hand crafted, often flawed objects inferior or superior to their mass produced counterparts? The physical outcomes of craft vary; does this add or take away from the value of an object? Does this mean the pieces are flawed or more beautiful?
‘In a world of easily achieved perfection flaws may become rather special.’ (Dormer)
Louise Schouwenberg: ‘You opposed the human perfection of craftsmanship to the anonymous perfection of industry. Is it human because it bears a signature, both of the craftsman and of the designer.’
Hella Jongerius: ‘Misfits are my perfection’
(Louise Schouwenberg on Hella Jongerius in Misfit)
We are currently exploring a modern, non-nostalgic, forward thinking approach to craft and craftsmanship. Designers are pushing what it means for something to be ‘craft’ and some are rejecting technology and digital processes in favour of traditional, comparatively uncontrollable, ways of working; developing a twenty first century interpretation of craft. Is it naive or innovative to dismiss these digital developments? Can we extract the best of both to develop a new approach?
No comments:
Post a Comment