Workmanship of Risk and Workmanship of Certainty - Literature review Example

Introduction David Pye’s theory of the workmanship of risk encompasses a scenario in which the workman himself determines the resulting object. Much depends upon his own “care, judgment and dexterity.” (Pye, 1995, 110) Conversely, Pye theorizes that the workmanship of certainty applies when man uses modern technology to aid him in the production of objects, the results are practically uniform and predictable. (Pye, 1995, 110) In today’s contemporary craft practice, Pye’s theory of the workmanship of risk accounts for the modern hand made object. This is particularly so when the craft’s man today can choose to utilize modern tools to perfect his outcomes. Obviously when he does not and relies on manual tools he subscribes to the workmanship of risk theory. The discussion that follows demonstrates how. The Stages of Craft According to Edward Luci-Smith, craft has endured three stages throughout history. In the first stage, craft endured a period where all objects were created purely by hand. The emphasis was on craft and it mattered not whether the object crafted was decorative, ritual or purely utilitarian. The second and third stages occurred from the Renaissance period onward and during the second stage there was marked distinction between fine arts and craft. This was primarily during the Renaissance period. By the time of the Industrial Revolution craft was distinguished from those objects handcrafted and those objects produced by machine. (Lucie-Smith, 1981, 83-85) It was this last stage of craft that gave rise to Pye’s Workmanship of Risk and Workmanship of Certainty theories. With the advances in technology craft took on a different dimension. Man could rely on his own skill to create an object or he could rely on the advances in technology to create objects with a greater certainty that those objects would turn out the way they were designed. Contemporary craft has evolved into a “high-quality, unique one-off art object and limited-quantity design work.” (Kikuchi, 2004, 235) Craft by definition requires a specific knowledge and skill to a point where it reflects workmanship, function and art. (Kikuchi, 2004, 236) To this end contemporary craft challenges the mass production of objects that are turned out automatically because this kind of production: “brings about the degradation of work by deskilling and compartmentalization of the wholeness of human being.” (Kikuchi, 2004, 236) Others align craft to special knowledge and skill to such an extent that it is impossible to describe contemporary craft outside of the realm of workmanship of risk. Workmanship of Risk In distinguishing between the workmanship of risk and the workmanship of certainty, Pye maintains that the latter is not possible without the former. (Pye, 1995,23) While the dynamics of workmanship of certainty permits mad to put out objects in mass quantities with precision, the tools that make this possible were constructed by virtue of the workmanship of risk.(Pye, 1995, 23) This is perhaps one of the ways in which the workmanship of risk accounts for the hand-made object of contemporary craft practices. In other words: “Nothing can be made in quantity unless tools, jigs, and phototypes, both of the product and the plant to produce it have been made first and made singly.” (Pye, 1995, 23) Rather than categorize craft into the realm of skill, Pye put forth the notion that craft was a result of both workmanship of certainty and workmanship of risk. Both are well within the category of “manufacturing industry” and one “compliments” the other. However, the workmanship of risk: “...involves a disparity between idea and achievement in the process of making, and therefore produces unidentical, one-off objects with diversity.” (Kikuchi, 2004, 237) Workmanship of certainty: “...on the other hand, has little or no disparity between idea and achievement and therefore produces identical and uniform objects in quantity.”(Kikuchi, 2004, 237) It is therefore this hypothesis of craft that best describes contemporary hand made objects of contemporary craft. The are by and large produced by virtue of workmanship of risk. By dividing the production of craft into two categories, workmanship of risk and workmanship of certainty, there is no difficulty concluding that hand made objects in contemporary craft are produced by virtue of workmanship of risk. Workmanship of risk takes the position that the work under production is wholly within the workman’s control and it is by his hand that the outcome is determined. Whereas craft turned out by virtue of workmanship of certainty is predetermined and therefore outside the control of the workman. Handmade objects are certainly well within the control of the workman and the final object may differ vastly from the original design. The opposite holds true with respect to workmanship of certainty and it would necessarily imply that the object is not produced by manual means, but rather by mechanical means. Peter Dormer expounded upon Pye’s theory of workmanship and developed what he referred to as “craft knowledge”. (Dormer, 1997, 11) For Dormer, craft involves “making as its central activity.” (Dormer, 1997, 11) Craft is all tied together by virtue of “tacit knowledge and connoisseurship.” (Dormer, 1997, 13) Dormer’s theory is no different from Pye’s and reflects the same idea that contemporary craft with respect to hand made objects is a product of workmanship of risk. For Dormer, craft: “...is a body of knowledge gained through experience...and impossible to articulate precisely but can be demonstrated.” (Dormer, 1997, 11) Contemporary hand made craft is easily characterized by Pye’s workmanship of risk because it contains the following elements: 1. Craft is a practiced art requiring both theoretical and practical skill and training. (Dormer, 1997, 11) 2. Craft is a culmination of tradition and convention which is not only followed but valued. 3. Craft follows a school of thought and knowledge which is passed down from one generation to another and cannot be placed in a step by step instructions booklet. (Dormer, 1997, 11) 4. Craft knowledge is more adequately defined as tacit and cannot be assigned a single definition and is aligned to “knowhow” and “experience.” (Dormer, 1997, 11) 5. A craftsman typically practices his skill without paying attention to what he is actually doing. (Dormer, 1997, 11) 6. Acquiring a craft requires slow learning or apprenticeship.(Dormer, 1997, 14) 7. Craft requires commitment. Each of these elements of craft by implication involve the handmade object and are consistent with the workmanship of risk. The workmanship of risk is “colloquially called ‘hand-made.” (Pye, 1995, 23) Although Pye ventures to imply that mass produced items also require an element of exclusivity, the workmanship of risk necessarily involves a myriad of qualities. (Pye, 1995, 23) It therefore follows, that hand-made craft requires special skill, tradition, tacit knowledge, commitment, a certain body of information, learning and apprenticeship. Each of these elements are neatly nestled in the workmanship of risk since each is within the control of the craftsman and not some mass producing tool. Mass production is accomplished by virtue of a set of rules, a discipline which cannot be successfully applied to hand-made craft because it implies predictability a notion diametrically opposed to hand-made craft. There is one certain means of distinguishing workmanship of risk from workmanship of certainty that adequately defines contemporary handcraft. Workmanship of certainty is a creature of science whereas workmanship of risk is purely based on man’s own creative skill and as such is an art. As Langdell stated: “If it be not a science, it is a species of handicraft, and may best be learned by serving an apprenticeship to one who practices it.” (Schlag, 1997, 897) In order to produce craft by virtue of the workmanship of certainty one only needs to learn to use the tools at ones disposal. An apprenticeship is not typically necessary. However, unless one is born with unprecedented talents, in order to produce by virtue of workmanship of risk one will often be required to undertake some sort of apprenticeship to learn the practice of the craft. With science comes mass production and with mass production comes the workmanship of certainty. It therefore allows for a distinction between handmade craft or workmanship of risk and workmanship of certainty. As Lucie-Smith notes: “...there arrived a separation between a craft object and the thing made by a machine – an industrial product.” (Lucie-Smith, 1981, 11) Going back to Pye’s theories of workmanship of risk and workmanship of certainty, his distinction between the two clearly place handcraft within the realm of workmanship of risk. By its very nature, handcraft is certainly not a creature of mass production. As Pye observes, workmanship of certainty has been able to cultivate an aura of ingenuity leaving many to regard products of workmanship of risk as “infantile.”(Pye, 1995, 128) The reality is, products of workmanship of risk have a quality that cannot be duplicated and that is diversity.(Pye, 1995, 128) Certainly, handcraft by its very nature is diverse in its final outcome. As Robertson notes the advantages of mass production, which is a product of the workmanship of certainty is the relatively low cost of production and more uniformity of products. (Robertson, 1961, 17) Pye’s theory of workmanship of risk unequivocally distinguishes craft from the realm of mass production. As Pye explains: “The term ‘crafts’, that sadly tarnished name, may perhaps be applied to the part of the productive workmanship of risk whose justification is aesthetic, not economic (and not space-exploratory or particle-pursuing.)” (Pye, 1995, 132) Bruce Metcalf maintains that the very nature of craft infers creation by hand. (Metcalf, 1993, 40) Moreover, craft is a product of the past and mass productivity is a thing of science and the future. (Metcalf, 1993, 40) As Metcalf explains: “Each of the craft disciplines has a multicultural history that is document mostly by objects, many from societies that have long since disappeared.” (Metcalf, 1993, 40) Metcalf goes on to maintain that the handmade quality contained in craft objects is: “...the primary root of all craft, the wellspring and reference point for everything in the field.” (Metcalf, 1993, 40) Taking this observation and placing it in the context of Pye’s theories of workmanship of risk and workmanship of certainty the obvious conclusion is that contemporary hand craft is best described by the workmanship of risk. Since workmanship of certainty is clearly Pye’s way of describing mass production and factory-made goods the logical conclusion is that handmade craft cannot possible be placed into this category of products. It therefore follows that handcraft goods are more properly defined as and characterized as products of workmanship of risk. Workmanship of certainty by definition requires mass production since it aims to produce uniform objects by a standard application of craft. Workmanship of risk by definition cannot be done by virtue of mass production and requires careful and committed energy, natural elements of handmade craft. The obvious consequences for handmade craft is that it cannot be produced in volume at a rapid pace. Handcraft will therefore be the product of slow and deliberate application of skill and knowledge, features that are alien to mass production, a key element of workmanship of certainty. T.J. Cobden-Sanderson, on the subject of the craft of binding books said: “...a well bound beautiful book is neither of one type, nor finished that its highest praise is the ;had it been made by a machine it could not have been better.’ It is individual; it is instinct with the hand of him who made it...it is the original work or an original mind...” (Cobden-Sanderson, 1905, 134) Drawing on Pye’s workmanship of risk, the diversity of the finished article and the measure of control involved in producing the article speaks to its originality. Originality, like diversity cannot be duplicated and duplication is a thing of mass production. Therefore, workmanship of risk is the best means by which to describe contemporary handmade craft. Conclusion Workmanship of risk clearly contemplate that the object crafted has a unique quality that distinguishes it from any other. It is that uniqueness that necessarily infers that its maker was aesthetic and experienced all at once. Mass produced articles are mere imitations of the genuine article which was first produced by hand. This process is coded and uniform and designed for duplicity. The workmanship of risk does not allow for duplicity since it involves singular application of a learned and acquired skill and tradition. It is therefore the most accurate means of describing the contemporary hand craft practice. Bibliography Dormer, Peter. (1997) The Culture of Craft: Status and Future. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Cobden-Sanderson, Thomas, James. (1905) The Arts and Crafts Movement. Hammersmith: Hammersmith Publishing Society. Kikuchi, Yuko. (2004) Japanese Modernization and Mingei Theory: Cultural Nationalism and Oriental Oreintalism. Routledge. Lucie-Smith, Edward. (1981) The Story of Craft. Cornell University Press. Metcalf, Bruce. “Replacing the Myth of Modernism.” American Craft. February/March, 1993, 40-47 Pye, David. (1995) The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Cambium Press. Robertson, Seonaid, Mairi. (1961) Craft and Contemporary Culture. George G. Harrap and Co. Ltd. Schlag, Pierre. (1997) “Law and Phrenology.” Harv. Law Review. Vol. 110, 877 Read More