1981
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2040-4689
  • E-ISSN: 2040-4697

Abstract

In a making process, a craftsperson starts a dialogue with the environment, tools and materials that are essential to their professional practice. During this materially and bodily entangled process, the act of making is thinking per se: the forming of the material emerges through the interaction with the material and is thus simultaneous with, and intrinsic to, the creative process itself. This article presents a practice-led case study of material thinking in the context of contemporary ceramics that one of the authors experienced during a research period in New Zealand. By utilizing walking along the changing landscapes as a creative method, as well as interacting with local practitioners, the craftsperson collects natural minerals and follows the material’s flow, letting it actively shape the creative events. The encounter with soil-based materials in their different forms and working with them in renewed ways reveal how the material’s behaviours influence the craftsperson’s thinking and making. This study shows that walking can facilitate the entanglement between the craftsperson’s knowledge and newly discovered materials, generating emotional and dialogical relationship with the environment, including human collaborators.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • The Academy of Finland (Award 331778 and 266125)
This article is Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows users to copy, distribute and transmit the article as long as the author is attributed, the article is not used for commercial purposes, and the work is not modified or adapted in any way. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/crre_00064_1
2022-03-01
2023-02-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/crre/13/1/crre.13.1.9.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/crre_00064_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aktaş, B.. ( 2019;), ‘ Using wool’s agency to design and make artefacts. ’, RUUKKU: Studies in Artistic Research, 10, https://doi.org/10.22501/ruu.453632. Accessed 2 March 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aktaş, B., and Mäkelä, M.. ( 2019;), ‘ Negotiation between the maker and material: Observations on material interactions in felting studio. ’, International Journal of Design, 13:2, pp. 5567.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennett, J.. ( 2010), Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things, London:: Duke University;.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolt, B.. ( 2007;), ‘ Material thinking and the agency of matter. ’, Studies in Material Thinking, 1:1, pp. 14.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolt, B.. ( 2013;), ‘ Introduction. ’, in E. Barrett, and B. Bolt. (eds), Carnal Knowledge: Towards a ‘New Materialism’ through the Arts, London:: I. B. Tauris;, pp. 113.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brink, I., and Reddy, V.. ( 2019;), ‘ Dialogue in the making: Emotional engagement with materials. ’, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 19:1, pp. 2345, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-019-09629-2. Accessed 8 July 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F.. ( 2004), A Thousand Plateaus (trans. B. Massumi.), London:: Continuum;.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Falin, P.. ( 2014;), ‘ Connecting to materiality: Engaging with ceramic practice. ’, RUUKKU: Studies in Artistic Research, 2, https://doi.org/10.22501/ruu.44836. Accessed 2 March 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fuchs, R. H.. ( 1986), Richard Long, London:: Thames and Hudson;.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuley, L.. ( 2014;), ‘ Use of Kokowai in traditional Māori society. ’, in C. McIntosh. (ed.), Five Māori Painters, Auckland:: Auckland Art Gallery;, pp. 7579.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gherardi, S., and Perrotta, M.. ( 2013;), ‘ Doing by inventing the way of doing: Formativeness as the linkage of meaning and matter. ’, in P. R. Carlile,, D. Nicolini,, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas. (eds), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts and Materiality in Organization Studies, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;, pp. 22759.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Groth, C.,, Mäkelä, M., and Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P.. ( 2015;), ‘ Tactile augmentation: A multimethod for capturing experiential knowledge. ’, Craft Research, 6:1, pp. 5983.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hannula, M.,, Suoranta, J., and Vaden, T.. ( 2005), Artistic Research: Theories, Methods and Practices, Helsinki:: Academy of Fine Arts, Finland;.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Heidegger, M.. ( 1977), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (trans. W. Lovitt.), New York:: Garland;.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ingold, T.. ( 2004;), ‘ Culture on the ground: The world perceived through the feet. ’, Journal of Material Culture, 9:3, pp. 31540.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ingold, T.. ( 2010;), ‘ The textility of making. ’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34:1, pp. 91102.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ingold, T.. ( 2013), Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art & Architecture, London:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ings, W.. ( 2014;), ‘ Narcissus and the muse: Supervisory implications of autobiographical, practice-led Ph.D. design thesis. ’, Qualitative Research, 14:6, pp. 67593.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kontturi, K.-K.. ( 2015;), ‘ Between and beyond ceramics and geology. ’, in M. Mäkelä. (ed.), Earth-Dialogue, Auckland:: AUT University;, pp. 67.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kontturi, K.-K.. ( 2018), Ways of Following: Art, Materiality, Collaboration, London:: Open Humanities Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Latva-Somppi, R., and Mäkelä, M.. ( 2020;), ‘ Exploring ecological and material sensitivity through craft practice in the context of the Venice Lagoon. ’, Aisthesis, 13:1, pp. 3146.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mäkelä, M.. ( 2007;), ‘ Knowing through making: The role of the artefact in practice-led research. ’, Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20:3, pp. 15763.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mäkelä, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Personal exploration: Serendipity and intentionality as altering positions in a creative process. ’, FormAkademisk, 9:1, pp. 112.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mäkelä, M.. ( 2019;), ‘ A nourishing dialogue with the material environment. ’, in K. Fletcher,, L. St Pierre, and M. Tham. (eds), Design & Nature: A Partnership, London:: Routledge;, pp. 17378.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mäkelä, M., and Löytönen, T.. ( 2015;), ‘ Enhancing material experimentation in design education. ’, in R. VandeZande,, E. Bohemia, and I. Digranes. (eds), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, vol. 1, LearnXDesign , Chicago, IL and Helsinki:: Aalto University;, pp. 16883.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mäkelä, M., and Löytönen, T.. ( 2017;), ‘ Rethinking materialities in higher education. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16:2, pp. 24158.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mäkelä, M., and Nimkulrat, N.. ( 2018;), ‘ Documentation as a practice-led research tool for reflection on experiential knowledge. ’, FormAkademisk, 11:2, pp. 116.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mäkelä, M., and O’Riley, T.. ( 2012), The Art of Research II: Process, Results, Contribution, Helsinki:: Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture;.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Malafouris, L.. ( 2008;), ‘ At the potter’s wheel: An argument for material agency. ’, in C. Knappett, and L. Malafouris. (eds), Material Agency: Towards a Non-anthropocentric Approach, New York:: Springer;, pp. 1936.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Niedderer, K.. ( 2012;), ‘ Exploring elasticity as a medium for emotional expression in silver design. ’, in D. Durling,, P. Israsena,, T. Poldma, and A. Valtonen. (eds), Proceedings of the International DRS Conference 2012, Bangkok, Thailand, 4–7 July.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Niedderer, K.. ( 2013;), ‘ Explorative materiality and knowledge: The role of creative exploration and artefacts in design research. ’, FormAkademisk, 6:2, pp. 120.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Niedderer, K., and Reilly, L.. ( 2010;), ‘ Research practice in art and design: Experiential knowledge and organized inquiry. ’, Journal of Research Practice, 6:2, pp. 111.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Niedderer, K., and Roworth-Stokes, S.. ( 2007;), ‘ The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge. ’, Conference Proceeding of the IASDR 07 Conference, Hong Kong, 12–15 November.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nimkulrat, N.. ( 2012;), ‘ Hands-on intellect: Integrating craft practice into design research. ’, International Journal of Design, 6:3, pp. 114.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pedgley, O.. ( 2007;), ‘ Capturing and analysing own design activity. ’, Design Studies, 28:5, pp. 46383.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pink, S.. ( 2011;), ‘ Multimodality, multisensority and ethnographic knowing: Social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception. ’, Qualitative Research, 11:3, pp. 26176.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Schön, D.. ( 1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York:: Basic Books;.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Springgay, S., and Truman, S.. ( 2018), Walking Methodologies in a More-than-Human World: WalkingLab, New York:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mäkelä, Maarit, and Aktaş, Bilge Merve. ( 2022;), ‘ In dialogue with the environment: The environment, creativity, materials and making. ’, Craft Research, 13:1, pp. 934, https://doi.org/10.1386/crre_00064_1
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/crre_00064_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/crre_00064_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): artistic research; clay; collaboration; craft; process; soil; walking
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error