Unpacking Object Agencies in Craft Production towards Sustainable Development

Hendriana Werdhaningsih

doi:10.52265/jdi.v7i1.491

Hendriana Werdhaningsih Universitas Paramadina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52265/jdi.v7i1.491

Keywords: Objects, Agency, Craft, Sustainability

Abstract

Sustainable development (SD) is a global agenda that needs multi stakeholders participation to ensure it reaches the goals, including craft and design practitioners intervention. It shall begin with understanding what a certain kind of sustainability means at the practical level. Learning that traditional craft practice reflects the SD principles and the significance of objects as agencies, this paper unpack the kinds of objects in craft production and its agency endorse sustainable development principles. It used multiple sources within one research design by triangulating the data from multiple data collection methods: designer interviews; field research in a bamboo craft production in Tasikmalaya (Indonesia); and in a glassblowing workshop in Chicago (North America). The result shows that objects, such as material, tools, and space contribute to the harmony of social, environmental, and economic systems. Objects ‘kick back’ formulates production constraints in material sourcing and treatment, and capacity of production. It facilitates social capital that strengthens the social system in the community, and shapes craft production to focus on well-being instead of great income. Object agencies in craft production could inspire design intervention in sustainable development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

P. Lloyd, ” You make it and you try it out: Seeds of design discipline future,” Design Studies vol. 65, pp. 167-181, November 2019, DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.008.

W. Gunn, T. Otto, and R. C. Smith, “Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice,” New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.

C. Groth, “Design and craft thinking analyzed as embodied cognition,” FORMakademisk, 9 (1), pp. 1-21, 2016.

D. Fallman, “Supporting Studio Culture in Design Research,” International Association of Societies of Design Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2007, https://daniel.fallman.org/resources/papers/studioresearch-IASDR final.pdf

D. Vyas, A. Nijholt, and G. van der Veer's, “Creative practice in design studio culture: Collaboration and communication,” Cognition Technology and Work, vol. 15 (4), pp. 1-29, 2012, DOI:10.1007/s10111-012-0232-9

B. Purvis, Y. Mao, and D. Robinson, “ Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins,” Sustainability Science, 14 (3) , 2018, DOI:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

I. Sachs, “Environment and development-key concepts for a new approach to education,” Prospects, 8, pp. 438-445, 1978.

E. Barbier, “The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development,” Environmental Conservation, vol. 14 (2), pp. 101-110, 1987, DOI: 10.1017/S0376892900011449

J. D. Sachs, The Age of Sustainable Development, New York: Columbia University Press, 2015.

P. Bourdieu, “The forms of capital,” Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, J. G Richardson (Ed.), pp. 241–248, New York: Greenwood, 1986.

T. Boeck, J. Fleming, “Social Policy – A Help or a Hindrance to Social Capital?,” Social Policy & Society 4:3, pp. 259–270, Cambridge University Press, 2005, doi:10.1017/S1474746405002381

R. Sennet, The Craftsman, UK: Penguin Books, 2008.

R. Sennet, Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation, London: Yale University Press, 2013.

S. Walker, M. Evans, T. Cassidy , A. T. Holroyd, and J. Jung, Design Roots: Culturally Significant Designs, Products and Practices, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.

D. Gumulya, “Pembelajaran dari Pengajaran Sustainable Product Design pada beberapa Universitas di United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States”, JDI, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1-17, Sep. 2023, DOI: 10.52265/jdi.v5i2.234

B. Latour, “Reassembling the Social,” Oxford University Press, 2005.

K. Barad, “Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices,” The Science Studies Reader, M. Biagioli (Ed.), pp. 1-11, New York: Routledge, 1999.

G. Adamson, The Invention of Craft, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013.

A. Albers, On Weaving, London: Studio Vista, 1974.

K. Townsend and K. Niedderer, “Craft and emotional expression: Connecting through material engagement,” Craft Research, 7(1), 2016, DOI:10.1386/crre.7.1.3_2

E. O’Connor, “Inter- to intracorporeality The haptic hotshop heat of a glassblowing studio,” I. Farias and A. Wilkie (Ed), Studio Studies: Operations, Topologies & Displacements. Routledge, 2015.

T. Ingold, Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, Routledge, 2013.

J. Honorene, “Understanding the Role of Triangulation in Research,” Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 4(31), pp. 91-95, 2017.

P. Fusch, G. E. Fusch, and L. R. Ness, “Denzin's Paradigm Shift: Revisiting Triangulation in Qualitative Research,” Journal of Social Change, 10(1), 2018.

K. Soiferman, “Compare and Contrast Inductive and Deductible Research Approach,” Inductive and Deductive Research Approach, 2010.

L. Vaughan (Ed.), Practice based design research, New York: Bloombury Academic, 2017.

D. A. Schon, Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, 1983.

H. Werdhaningsih, “The Studio Practice for Sustainable (Craft) Production”, Illinois Institute of Technology ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2022, 29996572.

W. Aulia, I. Santosa, M. Ihsan, and A. Nugraha, “Utilizing the Appropriate Technology Paradigm in Industrial Design: A Literature Review”, JDI, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 70-86, Sep. 2023, DOI: 10.52265/jdi.v5i2.276