Basic  competences  and  linguistic  skills

Latour’s Translating Interests

Latour’s (1999, pp.108-121) “translating Interests” consist of the following:

Translation 1 I want what you want Translation 2 I want it why don't you

Translation 3 If you just make a short detour….

Translation 4 Reshuffling interests and goals, consisting of four tactics:

Tactic 1 Displacing goals: maybe you don't know you have a problem Tactic 2 Inventing new goals: but you have

Tactic 3 Inventing new groups: you need help

Tactic 4 Rendering the detour invisible: if you are not convinced let your doubts be put aside by these rewards and advantages

Tactic 5 Dissolving responsibility: after all these manoeuvrers you’ll no longer know or care whether it was you or us who solved your problem.

Translation 5 Becoming indispensable

The analysis

The contents of the two reports, the Craft Council/Craftsouth’s Annual Report and the President’s and Executive Officer’s Report, are scanned as one for the purposes of analysis.

1980

The dominant interests in 1980 centred on Craft Council endorsed displays of member’s work held in popular non-elitist venues and tuition in craft techniques.

Displaying objects and makers was still important in 1980. The main display venues were the Royal Show, Elder Park and the Craft Council’s foyer.

Nevertheless changes in display strategies are foreshadowed by the Miniature Objects exhibition in the Jam Factory gallery and a calculated attempt to reach design, architectural and business communities with a promotional display in the Council's foyer.

The success of the Royal Show display, seemingly happily ensconced in a popular public venue, provided the participating craftsperson members and the Council with broad public exposure. But it was also measured by how it enlarged the market and the size of its monetary return, perhaps a hint of things to come (although $3,339 of sales was not a remarkable proportion of the estimated $50,000 value of the objects). The Elder Park fair was claimed as a huge success as it booked 108 stalls and attracted an attendance estimated at 70,000 and a Council profit of $925. The fair was a craft market open to anyone who paid for a space to set up a stall. As an

“experimental first” the Council opened up its foyer and office for invited interior designers, decorators and architects to view the works of a selected craftsperson.

The event was intended to promote the craftsperson and increase the visibility of the Council to professionals in the design industry. Collaborations with designers in a range of fields were seen to be a strategy to create a market for the craftsperson’s skills and products.

Although the President’s Report underplayed the economic and marketing aspects of both the Royal Show and the Elder Park craft market the Executive Officer’s Report paid considerable attention to money and markets, signs of changing interests and objectives.

Craft skill training was still a priority in 1980 although the previously successful Tatachilla summer school appeared to be running out of steam. This was partly blamed in the reports on “a disenchantment with the sameness of the format.”

Tatachilla, a sort of craft version of Woodstock was, in effect, an opportunity to indulge in craft in an environment not possible in everyday life.

Country Workshops mentioned in the Report were also at risk. They were an attempt to bring together the Council's country members, to touch many of craft’s country roots and to acknowledge and service practitioners who had chosen a country way of life. These too were seen to be failing not because of their sameness but because the Council lacked the “time and energy” to organise them.

In house workshops were streamlined to match resources, for example four day workshops in Backstrap Weaving, Enamelling and Glaze Technology could only be run if they conformed to the “Council’s policy of only running classes in response to perceived needs”: responding to, rather than creating needs.

The Council was tenuously hanging on to the “club” like mode of its early years by still looking inside to member’s needs and interests. The only mention of outside interests referred to affiliations with sub-groups such as the Fibreworks Collective and the Leather Group and to member meetings with esteemed craftspeople.

The reports of 1980 contain the first hints of change in the Council's outlook whilst hanging on to old practices such as the Council endorsed displays of member’s work in popular non-elitist venues at the Royal Show and the Elder Park craft fair.

It was, at the same time, tentatively looking outside to the market and reconsidering the effectiveness and popularity of craft workshops and schools such as Tatachilla and country and local workshops.

Translation 1 (I want what you want)

The Council, at this point, was what its people want it to be rather than what it thinks it should be: relying to a significant degree on the maker’s hand and the display of the material object to justify its existence.

Although slightly uneasy with its image the Council was still making itself by carrying out the traditions of craft and the wishes of members and interested others.

It was overtly using the hand and the object to construct an image by displaying in public venues the skills of the maker. Workshops where craftspeople could learn new skills and hone old ones under the tutelage of “master craftspeople" endorsed the primacy of hand and object. The Council, although starting to question how its current “image” is shaped by popular displays and skills workshops “tailored” to meet the perceived interests of the members, was still using member’s interests to represent itself. By assuming the perceived needs of craftspeople in display and workshops, the Council declared itself and its members as a unified body of makers.

The Hand and the Object

The hand is overtly represented by displaying its skills en masse in public venues where objects can be measured by the skill of the hand, and where art is perceived to be akin to craft. The hand is still considered worthy of further training by the Council at workshops and summer schools. Nevertheless the Council was growing uneasy with these activities and was tentatively looking beyond and behind the hand to the market by reconsidering the way it represents craft. The object was still being released in the public domain as a means of shaping the Council's profile and representing craft and the skills of its members. Nevertheless, the Council's interest in the non-material use of the object was now coming to notice.

1987

The notable changes from 1980 to 1987 concerned the Council’s attitudes to, and evaluation of, exhibitions and displays and the shift in emphasis from communal craft activities (summer schools, workshops) to an information service: helping members to sell the skills they have rather than helping them acquire new skills or honing old ones.

Nevertheless Council sponsored exhibitions are still important during this period;

references to them constituted approximately two thirds of the word space in both the President and Executive Officer’s reports. It is a change in the nature of exhibitions and what the Council expects from them rather than the notion of exhibitions themselves which was significant.

For example the Council sponsored Maker’s Choice exhibition was curated, the participants carefully selected and the venue a mainstream exhibition space, in fact, packaged in the style of an elite art exhibition. It was promoted as a prestigious show where esteemed makers were selected (rather than taking all-comers) and asked to choose other esteemed makers to exhibit with them. The craftspeople were referred to as makers, not crafts people, and one of the aims was to “enable the Crafts Council to widen its audience and its contacts with the rest of the arts industry” a conscious effort perhaps to shed the mantle of "rustic crafts" and be seen as part of the wider arts community and the arts industry. The exhibition incorporated theory and discussion, at the time rarely associated with a display of craft objects: "as well as the exhibition itself a series of lectures and workshops given by some of these artists who came from interstate to attend".

Although this exhibition did not tour, touring was considered as a desirable objective. The craftspeople with their objects for sale at the Royal Show or in a public park were replaced by a prestigious “high craft” exhibition as a new representation for the Council, not in the wider community, but in the arts industry.

The Craft Fair discussed in the 1980 Reports also underwent a change in format. In its new format it was described as a major event devised in 1987 for the 1988 Festival of Arts. It was to be renamed as Contemporary Crafts in South Australia or Contemporary Craft in South Australia and was to vacate the lawns of Elder Park and go indoors to the Banquet Hall in the Festival Centre complex. The craftspeople were to be selected and the format based on the Crafts Council of Australia’s Craft Expo. It was intended “provide a splendid opportunity for South Australian craftspeople to present themselves and their work to a prime audience at a prime time.”

It was felt that the Royal Show display should also go upmarket by changing its location in the show grounds because “it was clear that we had to distance ourselves from other things presented there… the decision was made to go it alone in our own pavilion.” Consideration was given to abandoning the Royal Show display completely, but instead an interim compromise was decided upon complete with a name change, “Crafts: The Living Arts”, and a separate location in the show grounds. The move from the Royal Show "low" crafts pavilion to the more

prestigious Walter Duncan Pavilion and the name change was also an effort to lift the public status of the Council. The new name, Crafts: The Living Arts, itself suggests a tentative effort to ally craft with art and a desire for a place in the art world and the new site in the show grounds, the transformation from a display to an exhibition.

The other significant development in the 1987 Reports was the Council's interest in its role as an information service. Disseminating information was considered in several forms, for example the production of a magazine and a yearbook and by more thorough publicity of exhibitions and events. It was moving consciously towards a role as an information dispenser: “at the centre of the Councils activities is the Information Service. We see all of the projects of the Council as being based on the dissemination of information – whether it be in publications, exhibitions, or events like the Royal Show”. This was a significant change in the mission of the Council and a prediction of future directions.

The information considered to be of value to its members was expressed in business terms such as assistance in "applying for grants, dealing with galleries and buyers, promotion, sales tax, etc" and on a wider front the practical advantages of being affiliated with the national crafts body, the Crafts Council of Australia,.

In 1987 a discernible change in the Councils attitude to display is exemplified by the end of low craft (Royal Show and craft fair) and the advent of high craft (Maker's Choice and the craft expo). A re-evaluation of its image saw a shift from promoting craftspeople to promoting the Council and from display to exhibition. A shift also occurred away from communal teaching and display to an information service: from directly teaching and promoting the hand and object to informing the world of their existence and value.

Translation 2 (I want it, why don’t you)

The organisation scrutinises itself – and says I want something different – things that improve my look – why don’t you want it as it will benefit you as well.

Over the period 1980 to 1987 a marked change took place in the relationship between the Council, the object and its maker. Although it is difficult to know from

the reports where the changes came from they heralded new attitudes towards the Council's public profile.

The two exhibitions mentioned in the 1987 reports differed from their 1980 counterparts by their exclusivity and focus on a small number of selected participants (especially in the Makers Choice exhibition). Nomenclature became important for example from the word craft to art/craft, from fair to expo, from Royal Show display to “Crafts: The Living Arts.” By excluding those who did not

“enable the Crafts Council to widen its audience and contacts with the rest of the arts industry” the Council asked why the members and public wouldn’t want it too.

A reading of Latour's (1999. p.111) translation 2 could infer that in order for the organisation to get what it wanted it had to cut of (if their usual way is cut off) members who it did not want what the organisation wanted.

The advent of the Council as an information service was clearly articulated in the reports. A discursive object, (information) was replacing the material object and the hand and exhibitions and events repackaged as information carriers. The hand and the object become mediators in a network of information actants. Did the hand and object as mediators in an information network “cut off” those who are not considered by the Council to be information producers?

The hand and object is further marginalised by the Council when it suggests that its obligation to craftspeople is to enable them to apply for grants, deal with galleries and buyers, promote themselves and deal with tax etc.

The Hand and the Object

The hand is changing venues; it is going places where it will not necessarily get quite as much overt respect or attention. It is still there in the objects it makes but its new audience might not be as interested as before, they might not notice how it made objects but rather what the objects it made might mean or how they react to its aesthetic appeal. The hand is no longer only grounded in the earthy world of the workshop and its tools and machines it has now itself a tool – a marketing tool for craftspeople and a making tool for the Council. The hand graduated from a maker of objects to a medium of communication between Council, the arts industry and the market. The object is divorcing the hand; separated from the lowly status of the

hand it can be groomed to climb the social ladder and while it seeks respect in the art world it is also being groomed to reconstruct the organisation representing it.

1992

The advent of craft professionals in the market place

There are no exhibitions, displays, workshops, skills training or craft camps mentioned in the 1992 report, its right down to business. The President’s Report opens with a definitive statement –

The priority reflected in the Boards 1993-95 Strategic Plan was a focus on marketing as a means of assisting practitioners to deal with the present recessionary period. By placing an emphasis on marketing in its service programme, professional development workshops and special projects, the Board aimed to develop the potential of crafts practitioners to present and market their products and skills and to aid in realising new ventures and opportunities.

The emphasis on marketing not only concerned assisting members to market their products and skills but also for the Council to market itself as a particular type of organisation. Craft was now portrayed as an industry and thus needed to be represented by an organisation with an appropriate industry/corporate image. In order to construct such an image the Council set out to develop relationships and partnerships in projects which opened up new audiences outside the narrow confines of the craft world. Hence marketing techniques and educational outreach became a priority. Participation in state and national committees was also considered necessary to cast a wider net for audiences within and outside the craft world. The Council’s role as an advocate for the craft industry was significantly stepped up during this period.

New premises were established in a shift from the suburbs to the Jam Factory in the city. A city centred location permitted accessibility to the Council as a resource centre, an advantage over the old premises and a reflection of the desire to be a service organisation and connect with a wider audience and bigger market. The “up to the minute style of the new building was said to reflect the messages we have been sending out about ourselves …as an efficient, professional service organisation…”.

In the 1992 reports little mention was made of exhibitions, displays, skills training or craft camps. Instead the emphasis was on marketing, professional development and special projects such as business skills and product marketing. Rather than imparting skills or making objects efforts were re-directed towards initiating new ventures and providing opportunities for members to become professionals.

Translation 3. (If you just make a short detour…)

The short detour taken during this period diverted scrutiny from the prestigious exhibition and exposition which at least cursorily acknowledged object and hand, to what the object and hand could do to shape the new profile envisaged by the Council. But the Council, in taking this detour, must offer its members and public something which embodies the hand and object and a place in the market and the community if it is to keep and expand membership and public interest. The notion of mutual dependence justifies the detour sanctifying the diversion of interest from exhibitions and expos to the professional in the marketplace. The detour is further justified by the organisation by accepting the things practitioners are going to do anyway, making and presenting objects to the world, to take up the task that most practitioners may not want, or be able to do, become professional marketers of their work. The organisation is re-defining its goals to help practitioners market and sell their work and reach the goal as a professional marketer. The organisation risks being seen to take over the maker's practice or as Latour (1999, p.113) said,

“hijacking” it by diverting their primary aims (to make and display work) to the primary aims of the organisation (to be an efficient, professional service organisation). Marketing the organisation by marketing the maker is reinforced by the implications of a change of location, a short detour in one sense but a significant one because there is no turning back. The new location and the atmosphere created by the building design, floor plan, fittings etc. can thwart those who resist change.

The shift, from the suburbs to the city and the homespun to the corporate is a powerful symbol of change. The Council saw it as a means of capturing a wider audience and a bigger market as they claimed the “up to the minute style of the new building reflected the messages we have been sending out about ourselves…as an efficient, professional service organisation…”

The Hand and the Object

The hand has slipped from sight, exhibitions, events and hand skills training are not overtly mentioned in the report. Nevertheless the hand must be there somewhere;

marketing training and new ventures still need hands and objects to put them into

marketing training and new ventures still need hands and objects to put them into