pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 7 oct 03
as do confuse matters reliably enough for us to count on it...
Lee, and all...
My own sense of it, is that 'technology' is any phsical
thing one
uses as is not their body.
Hence, 'Rawson' saying one's Pots must avoid the 'tyrrany'
of technology, seemed confused, or at best, merely shallow
and naive to me.
As too, the (resulting) 'Pot' itself IS 'technology',
regardless of 'how' it is made or by whom.
The Wasps as make little 'pots', do so, to qualify as
having, useing, making, some technology...which is the
little 'Pot' itself...into which the Wasp tenderly places
her Eggs...
So too may they ( these 'Wasps') be supposed I think, to
posess some notion of 'Craft', to do so...and to do so so
nicely.
Spiders may be observed to 'spin' and organize their
Webs...to me, the 'Web' is something of their technology,
and, their Craft.
Maybe confusions have occurred in thinking only some Tools
or only some methods of useing them, or some degree of
ostensible complexity of the Tools or Mechanization or
methods, qualifies something as 'technology'...or only some
extentions
of the hand or eye are
'technology'...and others are not?
A 'Chimp' as uses a little 'twig' to pull Termites from a
rotting Log's crevises...is employing technology, whilst the
Termite, having symbiotic Aminaculae pals in his gut as
digest the
cellulose for him, exemplifies maybe a more courteous and
reciprocal
political accomidation than had the unilateral interests of
the Chimp...but maybe, even
the Termite can be supposed to employ
technology by some delicate definition within the notion to
'hold' another being and care for it, whilst useing it as a
reduceing chemical 'Tool' to benifit one's own interests...
I used to 'hold' out youg Quail I was raising, for them to
peck Roaches up on the walls...a co-operative passtime they
enjoyed a great deal, and, looked forward to it, in their
own way of fun things to do.
Now, is my holding a Bird at arm's length, for it to peck at
and eat Roaches, an example of technology?
Or is it technology only 'when' one employs a dead animal
part, or dead botanical part to 'do' something with?
Maybe there have been confusions of how there are differing
dimensions, orders, levels, layers, vectors, convergences
and divergences, and one might say 'Charm
Schools' of (and in) various technologies...?
It seems to me that within technology, there are many
such possible divisions or
distinctions for one to make.
AND there is a depth at which it merges on a continuum with
Life and the negotiiations and continuities of them as Life
may eb imagined to occupy itself with.
One could say 'Craft' occupies such a sub-division...or even
as a
Catagory unto itself as is just as large in it's own
right as technology is, or, that Craft may govern the use
one make of
technology? The methods or aesthetics or what...of one's
pragmatism to use technology for some result or other...
And that Craft maybe is not limited to being a sub-division
of
technology at all, or that it actually occupies a wider and
overlapping or
co-existing space in the same larger
arena...and, it seems to me, a
very large arena it is.
One could say 'Craft' is a physical object as a 'noun' of
some kind, or, as a physical product or physical Artifact.
One could say 'Craft' is an emotionalizeing and intellecting
and intangible integration of insights and
experience and intuition or deferences, constellated about
some discipline poised to do something, or to make things,
to do something, or, to
make a certain thing, or to manage an effect of some
process, or to manage something where the
product is not physical, even if the means of making it or
manageing it, are...
( Music for example, Writing...Acting...)
Unless the effect on the Air of the Soundwaves one makes,
or, on the Light of the reflections and refractions by which
others see one, ARE the 'physical' Artifact, whose reception
then is maybe a mite seeming of 'intangible'...ephemeral, or
unrecognised as to it's physical properties.
One could say 'Craft' is (or necessitates to eventually
have, ) a
philosophy...whether or not the philsophy seems to proceed
it, or, to
be deduced or interpolated after the fact.
One could say 'Craft' is a process...
There is 'Statecraft', 'Stagecraft', 'Aerocraft',
'Spacecraft',
'Witchcraft' and many
sorts of so called 'Craft'...
There are various tenses or dimensions to the term
'Craft'...
Some Craft employ or evolve from technology, and some as do
not
appear to do
so...maybe do as well...
Yes?
No?
Or...?
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Love"
> Was thinking about it today, and I think part of the
problem we are
> having, is related to various use of terminology. Ron
doesn't seem to
> see a difference between technology and craft. I
think they are two
> different things.
>
> When I look at potter here and recall the work of
potters back home,
> I see a basic division of three different categories:
Craftskill --
> Technology -- Creativity/Innovation..
>
> Talking to my wife Jean about these divisions at
lunch, comparied to
> "back home" , (back home being Minnesota,) when I
mentioned the
> comparision of craft skills, Jean said, "The craft level
here is much
> higher. No comparision." I said I agreed. I took
over the next
> category, technology: The strength of the ceramic
technology is somewhat
> different. Of course, I am only comparing what I know,
so we are speaking
> about the MidWest and Mashiko, but the main difference is
that the
> technology back home is, to a large degree, industrially
based, while the
> technology here is based in traditional technology, that
goes back thousands
> of years. Both cultures are strong in technology, but
the approaches are
> different. This is what I've tried to point out in the
past.
>
> Now, in the area of Creativity and Innovation,
the area I have been
> primarily supporting in the discussion here, I believe
that we have the edge
> back home. Our education is geared toward problem
solving and innovation.
> This helps with creativity. For example, out of a
workshop of 8 people, I
> was often the problem solver. In the traditional way of
learning here
> that I observed in the Shokunin, they usually solved
problems by comparing
> them to their experience. If they had the problem in
the past, they would
> recall how it was solved in the past. Sometimes problems
were not easily
> figured out with new equipment, because the problem had
never happened
> before. Myself, being trained in the Western
scientific way of problem
> solving, would solve problems by deduction. That,
along with my Gerber
> Multi-pliers on my belt, made me a general handiman around
the workshop.
>
> I think there is creative strength in the
Studio Arts and
> workshop systems back home. If we lack in craftskill, we
make up for it in
> creativity and innovation.
>
> I'm speaking in generalizations because there are
always exceptions
> to the rules. And things are changing very quickly here.
Modern
> technology is taking over and much of the old craft
knowledge is quickly
> disappearing. If we are not careful, before long, every
place in the
> world is going to be just like every place else.
>
> Lee In Mashiko, Japan
>
>
____________________________________________________________
__________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached
at melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
