Introduction

I am a glassblower. I am a maker. I am a thinker. I am a designer. I am guilty.

It is difficult to make an argument for glassblowing as a sustainable craft practice.

Hand making a drinking glass takes three kilns heated between 500-1200°C. It is an energy guzzling making method. Recognising this problem, however, allows artisanal glass to become a space to explore key problems in the relationship between the ethical and aesthetic dimensions of neo-artisanal practice.

Because it relies on a different kind of engagement between consumers and the material world, there is an understanding that craft, and ‘slow’ production is an antidote to the climate crisis caused by industrialisation and mass manufacturing (Adamson, The Invention of Craft, 140). This position is important, but as the example of artisanal glass shows, some craft production cannot easily defend itself against the accusation that it is highly energy inefficient.

For makers concerned with sustainability, we face a conundrum, and an ethical question - are we being sustainable by creating material objects? ‘If we are truly concerned about sustainability, we should just stop making things’ (Procter, The Sustainable Design Book, 6). Proctor’s question is indeed one we should consider as makers; however we must also question whether our greater contribution to sustainability will come from refraining from ‘making things’, or could it be from a continuation of creating material objects that encourage a closer consumer-product relationship, which affects the sustainability of the complete life cycle of the object? I will argue that it is not the things, themselves as Proctor put it, that are the issue, it is us as producers and consumers, and our relationship to these things that is the problem. I will argue that it is not the energy intensive production of artisanal glass that is the issue but that neo-artisanal practice makes possible a reflection on the relationships that link the object, its production, and its consumption. Although it is important to consider efficient use of energy, it may be equally important to consider the invisible dynamics of consumer culture that influence how we use and reuse material objects. I will discuss how the problematic symptoms that have contributed to the current environmental crisis came from a focus on extrinsic characteristics of materialism rather than intrinsic characteristics of materiality. I will build the argument that the solution is in the problem and that indeed a possible antidote to materialism is in materiality - in exploring the relationship between the material and the producer and consumer.

Through case studies of my glass practice, I will illustrate how the use of digital design with traditional glass processes can affect the efficiency and sustainability of artisanal glass production and consumption. Turning to David Pye’s theories (Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship) on risk and certainty in making, I will discuss how the risk associated with handmade production can be influenced by the certainty associated with mass automated manufacturing to create a middle ground where artisanal making can become more sustainable.

My research is practice-led, and my understanding of it has come through daily material engagement, and reflective journaling. Therefore, this piece of writing will use examples of my material research, as well as drawing upon my reflections of theory from the fields of sociology, craft, design, pedagogy and environmentalism. This article will present a critical analysis of the research I conducted as part of my postgraduate research in 3D design crafts. This body of research output has been analysed in this text as it gives an account of the evolving human-material relationship throughout some of the most pivotal years of my glass practice.

In their writing The New Materialism: How Our Relationship with the Material World can Change for the Better, Simms and Potts discuss how within the green movement there can be a viewpoint to reject materialism. Production and consumption happen, to reject a lifestyle that has produced and consumed goods is not a solution to the current environmental crisis we are finding ourselves in because it is not realistic to how we live now. For the majority, complete self-sustainable living by consuming only what we produce, is not possible in its entirety. We must consume in order to exist, and we rely on others who produce to do the same. So instead, as Simms and Potts discuss, rather than focusing on the rejection of consumption in the material world, the solution, or at least working towards a solution will instead come from an examination of the sociological and anthropological relationship with material goods.

As a designer, it is imperative to examine all aspects of this relationship, including my own relationship to the material and making process. Within an artisanal craft practice like glass making, there can be a tendency to view the artisan as opposing industry and consumer culture. This belief that craft is opposing industry is something Glenn Adamson discusses in his book The Invention of Craft (2013), and how it is a hindrance to continue to perpetuate this standpoint, he argues persuasively that this influential craft ideology misrepresents the relationship between craft and industry, creating a false binary between them. In order to continue to exist artisanal craft relies on consumers investing in small scale industries. However, there is a space in which craft can still be grounded in a rich historical tradition, without opposing innovation and industry. ‘Craft’s claim to cultural memory can be retained, without fixing it as backward looking or conservative.’ (Adamson, The Invention of Craft, xiii). A concern would be whether or not the neo-artisanal sphere is an area for the romantic veneration of traditional craft practices, or is it instead an area where craft practitioners can innovate and evolve their practice? If the latter is the case, and I believe it can be, how will the craft audience’s and consumer’s notion of handmade authenticity change with the introduction of digital manufacturing processes? There is an opportunity to continue the romantic veneration of craft, which often is an essential selling quality of the crafted object, without it obscuring attempts to become more sustainable through innovation.

It is this very duality of old and new, traditional and innovative that initiated my practice-led research. Rather than seeing handmade craft, and industry as opposing modes of manufacture, I have used the industrialised glass process as inspiration for developing my small batch making methods in my artisan glass. David Pye who was a furniture maker and craft theorist has, prior to Adamson’s writings, elaborated on the idea that there is a blurred area between the certainty that comes from automated production, and the risk involved in the handmade (Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship). It is in this relationship that I seek to explore not only to change my manufacturing methods, but also to encourage the audience’s acceptance of the use of mass manufacturing methods in small batch production. Educating the audience’s taste is not a contemporary occurrence, however it can be used to move beyond a romantic fixation on the handmade which threatens to stifle innovation within the craft industry. By embracing this crossover, by both audience and maker craft design can move forward and thrive within neo artisanal manufacturing (see figure 1).

Further along in the article he deconstructs another linked binary, artificial/organic, which relates to the ones mentioned by Adamson. ‘Neon makes up 0.00046 per cent of the atmosphere. There is nothing synthetic about it. [...] Neon, often used as a metaphor of artificiality, began its career as an organic product.’ (Ribbat, Tomorrow’s Neon: A History).

With associations in urbanity and synthetics, it is interesting for me to note that compared to my usual making practice of glass blowing which has associations of the romantic, nostalgic days of old, neon making is, in actual fact, more handmade. Unlike my glass blowing process, neon making does not use jigs or moulds but rather a keen eye and a knowledge of where to heat the material, and for how long before bending it to resemble the chosen design. In order to produce a design from which a neon sculpture could be made, I decided to explore the forms and drawings that appear throughout my practice. It became apparent that the feeling of flow, and weight were a common theme in my work (see figure 2).

Though important to examine my own relationship with the material and put it under the sustainable design scrutiny I have set myself, I also have an audience to consider as it is also their use of what I create that helps to determine the overall sustainability of the object. During a lecture on Eco Design in the University of Gijon, Ramón Rubino discussed the complete life cycle of a product and the stages at which it could be redesigned to have an impact on the sustainability of the product. ‘The biggest effect we can have as eco designers is to re-design how our products are used by the consumer’ (Rubino, Eco Design). With this in mind, makers who look to make their practice more sustainable must consider how what they create is used. The audience I engage with through my public profile is the perspective/potential user of what I produce, and they will have their own relationship to the material that is different from mine. The next section will detail how I have aimed to design how the audience sees my relationship to my material by designing my public profile, and how I aim to redesign their relationship through tactile engagement.

As I have experienced through developing the public profile for my work, the notion of authenticity is not only a complex thing to design, but the idea in itself to design authenticity seems paradoxical. If it is designed, fuelled with agenda, reshaped to suit different audiences can it really be authentic? ‘It (authenticity) is one of the central notions of modern moral thought. Yet it is a puzzling and paradoxical notion. Surely I am always myself and necessarily so? How can it be otherwise?’ (Sayers, The Concept of Authenticity, 2).

As interesting as this moral debate may be, for establishing my profile I have been designing the notion of authenticity with tenacity throughout my research. It is a marketing tactic, but I have also used it as a sustainable design tactic. I hope that the authentic nature of the product will encourage care from the user, as well as an emotional connection. This method of attempting to understand and design the communication to the audience has led me to research writings from a sociological point of view, embedded in artisan craft production, looking particularly to writings from sociologist Richard E. Ocejo.

In his book Masters of Craft (2017) Ocejo discusses the type of trust relationships that exist between small scale independent businesses and their audience/user, compared to large manufacturers and their audience/user. Ocejo discusses how typically in artisan industries it is not the best makers that thrive, but rather it is the ones who can make, but who also have exceptional interpersonal and communication skills to make connections and build trust with their audience through public profile, referring to them as ‘new elite culture workers’ (Ocejo, Masters of Craft, Old Jobs in the New Urban Economy, 8).

A way of developing the trust and authenticity with my audience is by using my social media platforms to perform what Ocejo calls ‘Service Teaching’ (Ocejo, Masters of Craft, Old Jobs in the New Urban Economy, 209). Service teaching is a method by which the artisan guides their customer through the making process - thus providing an entertainment service in itself. In doing so, artisans aim to develop the vocabulary and taste of the customer as well as trust (Ocejo, Masters of Craft, Old Jobs in the New Urban Economy, 209). The Did you know? posts on my public profile platforms contribute to the service teaching between me and my audience, as well as developing a public image of me making the work myself (see figure 6).

I hope to promote the use and care through a closer engagement and relationship between the user and the object. It is this relationship that I have established with the Vortex Whiskey Decanter Set that I intend to foster in the lighting and jewellery designs. The traditional and primary identity of ‘glassblower’ was too restricting for the practice that I want to foster. Instead, I have attempted to adopt the terms of thinker and designer. The work I have created throughout my master’s degree is reflective of that. It is not a line of enquiry into glass design, but rather a line of enquiry into design, with a glass practice as a provider of material knowledge.

It seems this emigration from the traditional glass blower status has started to be received by my audience, evidenced in being featured in the online jewellery magazine Benchpeg, and on their homepage (see figure 11), and to be listed as one of ‘six exciting new jewellery designers to watch from New Designers 2019’ (Benchpeg, 2019).

Conclusion

As neo-artisans we are in a unique position to explore sustainable manufacturing methods. Artisanal practice allows for a complex dialogue in relation to the ethical demands of sustainability, because of the scale at which it operates.

‘Smaller decentralised units in large-scale networks can react with greater success to complex problems than large, singular, centralized ones. Dinosaurs are not as nimble as shoals of fish’ (Klein, “What Design Can and Should Be Doing in the 21st Century: Ten Proposals”, 30).

A simple example that could evidence this statement would be the use of the custom designed, laser cut acrylic and rubber washers and grommets made through co-design processes between myself and Owen Groombridge in the FabLab Plymouth (see fig 12). These fixtures and fittings were made to fit the Sisyphus Light Pieces, in a modular, and interchangeable way. They are stackable, which means that they can be built to suit whatever the thickness of the glass they fit through.