Craftsmanship by Richard Sennett

[bugbear]

Article/Summary;

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/stor ... 25,00.html

Glowing review:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/stor ... 02,00.html

Well, I feel the need to vent; he appears to be talking solely about the most indulgent kind of craftsman - "the artist/craftsman", with a rich patron, which means no time pressure at all.

I'm afraid I have a deep contempt for art-potters, who spent years studying glazes, have a failure rate in the kiln of 10:1 and charge 500 quid for a teapot that drips.

This isn't craftsmanship - it's self indulgence.

And yet I think this is a central archetype of the sort of craftsmanship Sennett adores.

I recall Toshio Odate's words about the contempt in which a slow craftsman is held in the Japanese craft traditions. That's better.

I'd be a time-travelling fly on wall, and see Sennett talking to an 18th century cooper or bodger.

BugBear

 

[catface]

hello Bugbear,
where to start ? It seems from the article that the writer is conflating craftsmanship with artistry, the former depending mostly on a highly developed level of specialised manual skills, the latter not necessarily doing so. I guess its possible to admire separately - the person, the product, the skills evidenced in the production of the product. Unfortunately there is little relationship between manual skill level and price / income for many "craft" products. Nevertheless some craftsmen manage to scrape a reasonable living from their activities ; such people surely deserve our admiration and respect. They manage to do what needs doing, usually to a good (read acceptable) standard, and in an economic amount of time.
THe problem really arises when things get stretched to extremes. For example, if a client offers you, say, three times as much as normal to produce a cupboard, will the product produced show superior workmanship ? Probably not - rather it would tend to use more expensive materials, or gaudy showy designs, or over elaborate decoration, or unnecessary "handwork". Thus such pieces are not a demonstration of good craftsmanship, but of the deep pockets of the patron. Usually a simple product from a good maker displays just as much quality of workmanship as does an expensive one. You could argue that such pieces only really show how deep are the pockets of the patron, and often the oddness of the design or inappropriate use of materials is infact chosen to emphasise this fact ie. ostentation and display of wealth, not necessarily display of great craft skills.

Part of the problem is "art" ie the divorce between production cost and value ; and , the historical point at which the craftsman ceased to be an employee contracted for specific projects, and instead became "artistically inclined" themselves. This is what gives rise to "one in ten pots fail", and also to the kind of furniture which looks odd, is unusable, misuses the materials from which it is made, and evidences no unusually high degree of craft skill in its production (furniture colleges turn out funny looking chairs like this every term - the more weird looking & harder to sit on the better, apparently). This doesnt mean there is no space for the making of merely beautiful things, for those having the resources to do so, but these are not necessarily evidence of high levels of craftsmanship so much as deeper pockets (more time and money to do a job).

In may martial arts (and certainly in the more traditional JApanese forms) innovation is anathema, certainly until master level has been achieved (perhaps after 20 years, and then some still never do) - and this is to preserve the content of what genuinely able and experienced persons have already discovered and can pass on. We dont alter a movement to make it a little easier, a bit more showy, or more suited to competition uses. In this way the skills and content are preserved and passed on.
It is unfortunate that manual craft skills are not given the same respect.

Personally I like the work of Krenov, but I wouldn't pretend they are an economic proposition for most makers, and I am sure if he made simpler items the standard of workmanship he displayed would be equally as good !

Hope you're still awake. regards, Catface.

 

[bugbear]

hello Bugbear,

In many martial arts (and certainly in the more traditional JApanese forms) innovation is anathema, certainly until master level has been achieved (perhaps after 20 years, and then some still never do) - and this is to preserve the content of what genuinely able and experienced persons have already discovered and can pass on.

Thanks for picking out that; in the midst of all the other things he said, I missed his (bizarre?) claim that innovation and experimentation is needed on the way to mastery, which seems to deny the role of teachers, which would seem most odd.

Hmm. I may have found the main-spring of the oddness.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 328493.ece

Sennett defines craftmanship as “an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake”

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

BugBear

 

[Pete W]

BB, I agree with your position in both posts - but I'm not sure I can see where Sennett is opposed.

For example, the only place I can see that raises the issue of pursuing goals with no respect to time or money is the bit about the conductor rehearsing the orchestra. And I think it's a bit of stretch to take that example, and what Sennett says about it, to allocate to Sennett the views you so despise.

Similarly, I can't see where he argues that innovation and experimentation is needed on the way to mastery. But if he did, surely that's just part of the old 'craftsmanship of risk' - that you have to try stuff, and fail, that you have to learn from mistakes. If all I ever do is precisely what I've been taught, am I a master? What if I encounter a situation that my teacher never encountered? Am I stymied, or do I display my mastery of the craft by experimenting and innovating?

As to the Humpty-Dumptyism (one of my all-time favourite quotes, BTW), I'd be reluctant to condemn him on the basis of The Times evidence. Consider the difference in these two sentences:

"I define craftsmanship as 'an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake.'"

"Craftsmanship is an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake.”

Either would form the basis for the Times attribution, but they imply very different things, I think.

I may have to buy the book.

 

[bugbear]

BB, I agree with your position in both posts - but I'm not sure I can see where Sennett is opposed.

For example, the only place I can see that raises the issue of pursuing goals with no respect to time or money is the bit about the conductor rehearsing the orchestra. And I think it's a bit of stretch to take that example, and what Sennett says about it, to allocate to Sennett the views you so despise.

The carpenter might sell more furniture if he worked faster; the technician might make do by passing the problem back to her boss; the visiting conductor might be more likely to be rehired if he watched the clock.

Similarly, I can't see where he argues that innovation and experimentation is needed on the way to mastery.

But the ideal of fit-for-purpose can work against experiment in developing a tool or a skill; it should properly be seen as an achievement, a result. To arrive at that goal, the craftsman at work has instead to dwell in waste, following up dead ends.

But if he did, surely that's just part of the old 'craftsmanship of risk' - that you have to try stuff, and fail, that you have to learn from mistakes. If all I ever do is precisely what I've been taught, am I a master? What if I encounter a situation that my teacher never encountered? Am I stymied, or do I display my mastery of the craft by experimenting and innovating?

As to the Humpty-Dumptyism (one of my all-time favourite quotes, BTW), I'd be reluctant to condemn him on the basis of The Times evidence. Consider the difference in these two sentences:

"I define craftsmanship as 'an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake.'"

"Craftsmanship is an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake.”

Either would form the basis for the Times attribution, but they imply very different things, I think.

The killer phrase (IMHO) is "the desire to do a job well for its own sake".

Consider the simple case of an apprentice, put under a master by his parents in order that he might learn a skill, and earn a living.

The apprentice may have no great love for the craft, but may (also...) get quite good at it; 7 years full time at something inevitably implants a degree of competance. But if he doesn't love what he does, he'll never fit Sennett's idea of a craftsman.

I may have to buy the book.

I'm going to the library.

BugBear

 

[mr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed
6th Feb 08 “Thinking Allowed’ podcast - very interesting conversation between Sennet and Grayson Perry on the subject.
Not read the Grauniad pieces yet, but I intend to buy the book at some point. Highly unlikely the library will have it or be able to get it - but that's a different rant.

Cheers Mike

 

[bugbear]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed
6th Feb 08 “Thinking Allowed’ podcast - very interesting conversation between Sennet and Grayson Perry on the subject.
Not read the Grauniad pieces yet, but I intend to buy the book at some point. Highly unlikely the library will have it or be able to get it - but that's a different rant.

Cheers Mike

I HATE podcasts. You can't search them, skip them, or do much with them.

A large write up, I can skim, and read selectively, but a 15 minute podcast always take 15 minutes.

BugBear

 

[BradNaylor]

I intend to buy the book at some point. Highly unlikely the library will have it or be able to get it

Why not?

My local library will get any book I want. If they don't have a copy, they'll buy one and charge me £1.50!

Is the library service patchy across the country, then?

Dan

PS That impenetrable article once again justifies my policy of never buying the Guardian.

Since it ceased being the Manchester Guardian it's gone right down the nick!

 

[mr]

I intend to buy the book at some point. Highly unlikely the library will have it or be able to get it

Why not?

My local library will get any book I want. If they don't have a copy, they'll buy one and charge me £1.50!

Is the library service patchy across the country, then?

My local library won't buy a book in on request and won't always transfer from another library even if it's within the county. If the library is in a different county they don't even consider it that's the end of the conversation right there. I thought it was something they would always do but apparently not so.

Cheers Mike

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I feel the need to vent; he appears to be talking solely about the most indulgent kind of craftsman - "the artist/craftsman", with a rich patron, which means no time pressure at all.


BugBear

Bugbear

I don't entirely agree with you on this point.

Take me for example, throughout my life whether studying for my degree, or working in one of many jobs, i have always strived to be the best i can, and to develop and improve and understand.... and move on to better things

Over the years, I have written and delivered several hundred lectures to sudents, industrialists and academics, and after every one I sit down, think about how it went, the audience response and engagement, did I feel the message was understood? could I do it better? Always, I end up making notes and changing the lecture before it is delivered again.
I usually have other, more pressing things I should do, and often this reflection and modification is carried out in the dining room at home late at night. I do not get paid overtime, and could simply deliver the same material again the next time, but....

This is reflective practice and is just another example of the focus of the early part of the article, the desire to be the best one can, to strive for ones own perfection regadless (up to a point) of time or other constraints.

I have no problem at all with artistic artisans - and often admire their skill, vision and work.

 

[StevieB]

Tony, a pleasure to hear of someone who actually delivers lectures and then reflects on the teaching and learning experience from both sides! In the academic environment I work in you would be a rarity indeed :shock:

Steve.

 

[bugbear]

Well, I feel the need to vent; he appears to be talking solely about the most indulgent kind of craftsman - "the artist/craftsman", with a rich patron, which means no time pressure at all.


BugBear

Bugbear

I don't entirely agree with you on this point.

Take me for example, throughout my life whether studying for my degree, or working in one of many jobs, i have always strived to be the best i can, and to develop and improve and understand.... and move on to better things

Over the years, I have written and delivered several hundred lectures to sudents, industrialists and academics, and after every one I sit down, think about how it went, the audience response and engagement, did I feel the message was understood? could I do it better? Always, I end up making notes and changing the lecture before it is delivered again.
I usually have other, more pressing things I should do, and often this reflection and modification is carried out in the dining room at home late at night. I do not get paid overtime, and could simply deliver the same material again the next time, but....

This is reflective practice and is just another example of the focus of the early part of the article, the desire to be the best one can, to strive for ones own perfection regadless (up to a point) of time or other constraints.

I have no problem at all with artistic artisans - and often admire their skill, vision and work.

All agreed, and most commendable. But I don't feel that any of this reflection and desire to do the best possible work is a neccessary precondition to being a craftsman.

BugBear

 

[Anonymous]

All agreed, and most commendable. But I don't feel that any of this reflection and desire to to the best possible work is a neccessary precondition to being a craftsman.

BugBear

Agreed, not a neccessary precondition, but the end result usually shows the effort and thought expended.

 

[Anonymous]

Tony, a pleasure to hear of someone who actually delivers lectures and then reflects on the teaching and learning experience from both sides! In the academic environment I work in you would be a rarity indeed :shock:

Steve.

Unfortuantely, a rarity here I fear (research pressures often preculde an interest or effort in the teaching)

 

[Benchwayze]

Tony, a pleasure to hear of someone who actually delivers lectures and then reflects on the teaching and learning experience from both sides! In the academic environment I work in you would be a rarity indeed :shock:

Steve.

Unfortuantely, a rarity here I fear (research pressures often preculde an interest or effort in the teaching)

Hear Hear!
Regards
John !

 

[woodbloke]

I think this guy hasn't read any of the David Pye books where he explains at length the 'workmanship of risk' vs. the 'workmanship of certainty'...makes the whole argument much easier to understand if you have - Rob

 

[bugbear]

Call me obsessed.

I've now got the book from the library and read it.

It was hard work - the guy speaks in academic gibberish and generalisations most of the time.

The stuff from the radio and reviews was the "friendly" stuff, mainly from the backcover and introduction (which make you wonder about the "craftmanship" of reviewers, in passing).

Once he gets going, it gets objectionable, at least to me.

For example, he thinks "training wheels" i.e. shortcuts or assistance when learning are a bad thing. His cites the (famously successful) Suzuki method, where coloured pieces of tape are are placed on the violin fretboard to show the finger positions, like frets on a guitar. He opines that the students only start to "really" learn music when these tapes are removed. I guess guitarists never "really" learn music (!).

He states that "craftsman" prefer general purpose tools to specific (which he calls "fit for purpose") tools. One of his examples was the introduction of the scalpel for dissection, which he says is a general purpose tool, which allowed the "craftsman" to explore the best way to use it. Since the scalpel superceded the butchers knife for dissection it is a special purpose tool, and in fact, many specialised scalpels are used.

He states that a flat bladed screwdriver is superior to a philips, since a philips is a non-versatile "fit for purpose" tools, whereas a flat bladed screwdriver is versatile, and can be used as an awl or a gouge. Nice "craftsmanship"...

Presumably coopers don't fit his definition of craftsmanship. They use specialised tools (his despised "fit for purpose"), and aren't known for exploring the possibilities of their tools. As I understand it, coopers purely make barrels, but I would definitely consider them craftsmen.

Some his language is odd. He uses the word "virtuoso" in an archaic sense (which he then has to explain).

"An aristocratic person who experimented in science, usually as an amateur, in the seventeenth century, giving science respectability and a wider audience".

Sennett later uses the word later of a musician. It is (of course) hard to know wether he mean that the musician is talented or a dabbling aristocrat. I would be inclined to not worry about this ugliness, except that later in the book I learn that Sennett teaches writing skills.

In his praising of repetition he cites architects using CAD as a bad thing, asserting than the continual redrawing (in hand methods) encourages deeper thought and understanding. Clearly lack of thought is a bad thing, but I don't see how how CAD makes thought impossible; in fact the visualisation that CAD brings allow the architect to check things more thoroughly than otherwise. Some wonderful modern buildings would have been impossible without CAD (e.g. birds nest stadium).

Many of his arguments seem either poorly supported or even contradictory, although some of them are quite "clever, clever". It strikes me that it is little more than a few "dinner party" discussions with his academic friends, padded out into a book, in order to hit a publishing deadline.

It is certainly not (in my opinion) a useful analysis of craftsmanship.

BugBear

 

[Benchwayze]

I haven't read this book, but after readiing BB's post I'll point out that:

"One way to shut up a guitarist, is to put a piece of music in front of him."

Just an old muso's 'joke', but it's true that 90% of guitar players don't read music.

Also, this guy seems to have forgotten; you can use a screwdriver as a pry to open tins of paint. You can use a hammer to drive screws, which makes any form of screwdriver more or less redundant, especially if you pre-bore! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I wish he'd teach me to write. I could be a best-selling author by now! I don't think I'll be bothering to buy 'Craftsmanship' by RS.

Regards

John

 

[big soft moose]

He states that a flat bladed screwdriver is superior to a philips, since a philips is a non-versatile "fit for purpose" tools, whereas a flat bladed screwdriver is versatile, and can be used as an awl or a gouge. Nice "craftsmanship"...

I presume he has never tried to remove a phillips screw using a flat bladed screw driver - my own thought would be that a craftsman would use the right tool for the right job.

mind you that said I find a small phillips makes a much better awl as it can twists its way into the wood grain much more easily than a flat blade (when i cant find the awl in the heap of shavings that passes for my workshop)

 

[Pete W]

Call me obsessed.

Okay, you're... Ahem; Groucho Marx mode off

Thanks for the review, BB. It does sound disappointing. And the stuff about general vs specific tools sounds ridiculous.

I'm envious of your library - couldn't get a copy through mine!