The academic dimension in craft education: Anomaly or opportunity?

Abstract

There is an interesting dichotomy in the teaching of crafts as a subject in UK tertiary institutions. It is taught as an academic degree – but in what is essentially a vocational manner. After all, students are expected to be able to “do” ceramics, glass or jewellery when they graduate. There is an underlying ambivalence at the heart of educational institutions concerning the valuing of subjects that are taught by doing – iteratively - by the body, rather than by the mind.

One option is to divorce craft from academia; to teach it as a purely vocational subject, as an apprenticeship, and in some cases this would be an excellent option. But it is not the only option. Academic work and studio work can exist in harmony and indeed complement each other. But there is a need to define what academic study in crafts needs to provide for the student, for the institution, and for the wider society. The challenge is to make the academic work that students do relevant, not just in an institutional sense (where a dissertation, for example, “proves” that students have a right to represent themselves as academic degree level students to society at large) but to their wider lives.

It could be argued that the process of making in itself creates a kind of meta-learning, if students are encouraged to see the wider picture of their processes of problem solving in materials and to relate it to the rest of their work and lives. But there may be a way in which theoretical cultural study and research can deepen students’ engagement. We might do this by drawing attention to the contention that making needs to be underpinned by a deep understanding of the culture and conditions under which it is produced. This view is mirrored by my experiences both as a teacher, and as a researcher into sustainability.

It is my conviction that not just unsustainable behaviours, but the thinking that leads to unsustainable behaviours, must be addressed in order for meaningful change to occur. In most institutions, the focus of sustainability initiatives is on stuff. But if we take a more critical and analytical approach to the ideas of sustainability we might begin to, for example, apply the ideas of Marx and the fetishisation of the commodity to sustainability, perhaps finding that when we focus on the end commodity, even if that commodity is something as nebulous as energy use or carbon credits, we still think we have no intimate relationship with these units or with their producers, and we still think we can buy our way out of trouble. It takes an understanding of culture, in other words, to be able to fully investigate and understand processes and materials.

This way of thinking can be taught and nurtured to become a systemic approach, in institutions and in lived experience. Such an approach could lead to a more robust and resilient approach, not only to the ideas around sustainability, but to those around materiality, process and craft.