Corpus  of  data

Overall summary

The argument that organisations such as Craftsouth make objects enables an exploration of their modus operandi and lineage. Included is a discussion on the form and function of craft organisations and their evolving relations with both their membership and the wider community.

The first task to be undertaken is an analysis of the practices and operations of a craft organisation, a site where craft should find representation. A craft organisation is an ideal place to start because it is where fledgling craftspeople are integrated into a craft community, where they can access opportunities to start and support a practice and tap into resources such as grants and mentors. It is also a public site of craft production and consumption. The analysis is in five parts:

Part 1, the evolving organisation, traces the hand and object over a twenty-year period and sets the scene for the current modus operandi of Craftsouth and the other organisation research projects which follow. Part 2 outlines the positioning of Craftsouth in the field of Western craft organisations by associating the words guild, association, society and council in titles and introductory promotional statements with particular modes of practice. Part 3 is an analysis of the public texts emanating from Craftsouth and Part 4 is a discussion of an accreditation document used to introduce the notion of the masterpiece in the context of a craft organisation. Part 5 uses the discussion of the accreditation document to explore the antecedents of the masterpiece, the medieval guilds, their relation to the accreditation document and its influence on the proceeding thesis.

Public organisations which represent and manage craft abound. They manage and dispense resources and provide a community base for the independent and collective professional and non-professional craftspeople set adrift from the mainstream by changes in industry and/or domestic life. They also provide a refuge for craftspeople in the visual art world where the values of craftspersonship and utility are not disparaged.

Craft organisations have a lineage and a modus operandi that extends back to the once powerful medieval guilds and early industry unions. The guilds, and later the unions, managed and protected craftspeople and their place in the world by collectively acting on their behalf. Unwin (1963, p. 16) described the rise of the

“fellowship” of the guilds as a “collective lordship”, in order to “fight lordship with its own weapons”. It is in the medieval guilds the roots of contemporary unionism are found, where collectivism was seen as a bastion against industrial and corporate power. But traditional guilds differed from present day unions in the way they overtly managed a greater part of the life of the craftsperson. Contemporary guilds, associations, councils and societies have more in common with their medieval ancestors than they have with unions although there is, of course, considerable overlap.

The contemporary version of the traditional guild, association, council and society re-emerged not so much to strengthen the bargaining power of the unionised employee but rather to represent both the self-employed craftsperson and perceived social and cultural interests of the wider community. Although industrialisation and post-industrialisation have dealt the deathblow to the primacy of the hand made object rendering it superfluous to industry and a novelty in the home, craft organisations have proliferated as the desire to make, experience and represent the hand-made linger. The number of organisations claiming to represent craft, the proliferation of craft education programs and the number of practising craftspeople attest to this contention.

Ironically the so-called art/craft binary is, to an extent, maintained by craft organisations because they provide a venue which represents the subjugated craft in the binary enabling an identifiable target for visual art elitists. Thus two features of visual object making, art and craft, can be institutionally pitted against each other, rather than embraced as common to both and open to scrutiny and contemplation.

Although organisations often overtly align themselves with either art or craft they covertly acknowledge each other in their practices and operations.

Craft organisations come in a number of forms differentiated, among other things, by their nomenclature, such as guild, association, society and council. Although

they may be separated by these names, they nevertheless have many things in common, significantly craft as their predominant interest.

The organisational research is predicated on the assertion that craft organisations make objects, not necessarily on their premises or by directly employing craftspeople or managing workshops but by shaping and forming objects made by the craftspeople they choose to enroll as members. In this sense, they could be said to be making objects by remote control. It, of course, can be counter argued, that as they do not make objects on their premises and, in the case of Craftsouth, are seemingly indifferent to them they have nothing to do with their shape or form.

Nevertheless in order to fulfill the criteria for accredited membership objects have to exist, they have to be made, exhibited and sold for the craftsperson to gain membership. The hand and the object may not be in sight but they must lurk somewhere in the organisation for it to fulfill its self ordained functions. Thus the presence of the hand and object is a tool to both understand the organisation, making the organisation an ideal site to explore one way craft is represented and maintained in the contemporary world.

In spite of their choice of nomenclature, differing aims and profiles, organisations have in common the resources to exercise power in the community, shape careers and inform practices by their authority to form public opinion, dispense scarce community resources and shape personal profiles.

Craftsouth is a craft organisation in Adelaide, South Australia which represents craftspeople members on several levels of accreditation and craft in the wider community. It was established in the 1960s during the heyday of the alternative craft movement and has adapted over the years to the changing fortunes of craft in the visual arts, industry and society. Necessarily the first port of call of its study is an analysis of its evolution over a significant part of its history to trace its adaptation to an ever-changing craft scene. This is carried out in an analysis of the President's and Executive Directors Reports 1980 - 2000.

Part 1: The evolving organisation, an analysis of a selection of the President's and Executive Director’s Reports 1980-2000

Summary

Part1 entails an analysis of selected annual reports, 1980 to 2000, using Latour’s

“Translating Interests” as a methodology/method. Each report is transcribed and subjected to a general discourse analysis and to one of Latour’s five translations to plot changes in practices and operations in the organisation as it evolves over a twenty year period. Finally the hand and the object are used to locate the organisation’s connections with the traditions of craft.

A combined sequential selection of The Craft Council/Craftsouth’s Annual Reports and the President’s and Executive Officer’s reports over a twenty year period (1980, 87, 92, 96 and 2000) is subjected to discourse analysis. The analysis is interpreted in two ways, firstly, using an adaptation of Latour's "translating interests", to track changes in direction and structure as it evolves over time and secondly by locating the hand and object in the practices and operations of the organisation

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.