An Intersectional Investigation
Robotics is the field of study focused on the research and application of robotic systems. This definition, however, doesn’t provide much insight. So, what is a robot? Robots are machines that can operate autonomously or through programmed input to perform specific tasks, often replacing human effort. These tasks are typically complex and involve sensors and actuators, allowing the robot to interact with its environment. On the other hand, craft is a technique that utilizes skill and expertise to produce something artistically, traditionally done by hand, with an emphasis on attention to detail. When considering these two definitions, a juxtaposition emerges: robotics leans toward automation and replacing human effort, while craft prioritizes handiwork and meticulous attention.
Yet, our premise focuses on the intersection of these two domains. Fundamentally, we believe that despite their apparent differences, there is a zone where robotics and craft overlap. The significance of this intersection lies in exploring how these two seemingly opposing practices can inform and enhance one another.
Core Investigation
What we are trying to understand through our research
Many questions arise about the nature of the interaction between craft and robotics. We examined the timelines of these projects, the types of materials used, and the processes employed. One of the more contentious and sensitive questions concerns the state of crafts and craftsmen. In a world facing aging populations and rapid technological advancements in fabrication and construction, the role and value of the craftsman are increasingly uncertain. Questions emerge about whether the advanced construction industry and robotics will replace craft and whether crafts, as we know them, will partially disappear over time.
To address these concerns and have meaningful discussions about these topics, we believe two main questions must first be answered: “What is craft?” Once this is understood, we can then explore the next question: “Can robots participate in craft?”
Unpacking Craft
The Etymology
One of the most challenging aspects of this process was defining what exactly constitutes craft, or identifying when something is not considered craft. One of our initial discoveries was that craft is a subjective label, often attached to a process or the performance of a task or action. It is not necessarily product-based; rather, understanding craft requires understanding the process. However, this realization alone did not bring us closer to a clear definition of craft. To explore further, we examined the etymology of the English word “craft” and its Spanish equivalent, artesanía. Four root concepts emerged: art, hands, skill, and strength. By focusing on these four terms, we aimed to simplify and better understand how they relate to the projects we analyzed.
“Craftiness” as a Measure
Unearthing the data behind subjectivity
In examining the interactions designers had with craft through robotics, we identified two distinct types of interactions: craft-inspired and craft-imitating. Craft-inspired projects involve abstract interactions that do not necessarily employ traditional craft techniques but reference crafts in some way. Craft-imitating projects, on the other hand, use robots to perform actual craft operations, replicating traditional craft practices.
When analyzing craft-robotic interactions, the question arises: to what degree does this interaction align with craft? In other words, how “crafty” is a specific project? This subjective evaluation poses a challenge—how can one reliably determine the level of “craftiness”? To address this, we avoided assigning arbitrary criteria as the basis for evaluation. Instead, we employed a small-scale version of the “wisdom of the crowd” method. Group members rated each project on a scale of 1 to 5 for “craftiness,” and we then calculated an average craftiness rating for each project.
Parameters of Enquiry
Understanding our Data Visualization Process and What we Prioritized
In exploring our central questions—“what is craft?” and “can robots participate in craft?”—we aim to determine whether data visualization can reveal correlations between materials, operations, institutions, and “craftiness.” Starting from the left, we analyzed the various projects we examined. These projects are filtered and categorized by organizations, such as universities, companies, and individuals. Each organization is further sorted by material, which not only highlights commonly used materials but also reveals any material-specific focus of a given organization. Projects are then plotted based on material and operation. The data points are color-coded to distinguish between “craft-inspired” and “craft-imitating” interactions, while the size of each data point represents the project’s level of “craftiness.” This visualization provides an at-a-glance understanding of the relationships between material, operation, interaction type, and the resultant craftiness.
General Graph
Project Comparison
Comparing 3 projects along the scale of “Craftiness”
We selected three projects from the lower, middle, and upper ranges of our “craftiness” scale. This selection highlights the criteria associated with varying levels of craftiness, enabling an emergent understanding of this property.
Project Analysis
Concrete Choreography utilizes clay 3D printing to produce irregularly shaped columns. We observed that most projects scoring low in “craftiness” shared common traits, such as the use of industrial and artificial materials, as well as non-craft-based fabrication processes. In this case, concrete is generally not considered a “crafty” material. Furthermore, 3D printing is a relatively new technology, not rooted in any specific craft tradition. However, we still consider this project “crafty” due to the skillful application of 3D printing techniques and its homage to the historic tradition of decorative columns.
The ITECH Research Pavilion falls in the middle range in terms of “craftiness.” It makes use of flax fiber, a natural material. Additionally, although winding and weaving are different practices, the use of winding in this case is highly reminiscent of weaving and “rimpie” furniture. Intuitively, the project demonstrates a sensitivity to both making and material, which are qualities inherent in craft.
When considering the last project and the fact that it came close to achieving a 5/5 on our craftiness scale, the question arises: why? What about this project resonated with the three of us? Examining the process, it is evident that it stemmed from a deep understanding of the material through hands-on engagement. This physical interaction made the aspects of “hand” and “expertise” more apparent. Therefore, it could be said that craftiness in this case is closely tied to the time and patience invested in understanding both the material and the process.
“Craftiness” Over Time
What this data projection represents and limitations of the data
One of the trends revealed by our data was an increase in “craftiness” over time. This suggests a possible shift in the relationship between designers and how they employ robotics. Traditionally, technology and robotics have focused on the pursuit of material innovation. However, the often-neglected question concerns the motivations underlying this innovation—specifically, where humanism and robotics intersect.
Reflections
Our Definition of “Craft” and where that leaves us
Coming back to the initial question of “what is craft?” we identified a relationship between four elements. The three core elements are “material,” “hand,” and “expertise.” The fourth element, which is almost always present in craft but not essential, is “tool.” When looking at all of these elements literally, you arrive at a definition of craft that is valid; however, the true nature of craft lies in a nuanced understanding of the concepts these words represent.
“Material” refers to that which is processed or transformed—it is the object of craft. For example, when writing, “material” refers to the words rather than the paper; when dancing, “material” refers to the dancer’s body rather than their shoes. “Hand” refers to two concepts: intent and embodiment. It encompasses attention to detail and the meticulous application of intent. “Expertise” refers to knowledge and understanding of both the process and material of craft, while also pointing toward the historical tradition within which craft exists. Expertise involves both innovation and tradition.
The aspect of craft where robotics interacts is in the category of “tool.” As mentioned earlier, tools are not necessary for craft; however, they play an integral role in it. This non-essential nature allows for a flexible understanding and application of tools. In this way, robotics can have a place in craft. As long as there is a material being handled meticulously and with sensitivity to its significance in a historical context, robotics can participate in craft.
