CRT, August 2007 In his 1894 lecture ‘How I became a socialist’, William Morris confessed that ‘Apart from the desire to create beautiful things the leading passion of my life has been and is hatred of modern civilization.1 The history of craft that followed this statement has been a noble resistance to the lure of efficiency and standardisation. This craft is naturally at odds with technologies, such as the Internet. From a craft perspective, the constant drive in computer-based activities for innovation can be seen as the restless work of capital, eager to find reasons why we should upgrade products that are already working. From this critical perspective, the current craze for online networking, such as blogs and myspace, is only a distraction from real social bonds, based on face-to-face contact. It offers a karaoke version of celebrity, where anyone can think of themselves as a journalist or rock star. Ah, it is more honourable to be at the bench, keeping alive a skill that has been honed by generations over the millennia. That’s a real contribution to history. There’s much to be said about this moral position. Google and Microsoft represent monocultures that can reduce our cultural diversity—not so much as information but as the way we engage with knowledge. However, of late there has been a push to align craft with the ‘new’ version of Internet known as Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 is an evolution of the online world towards a more ‘democratic’ distribution of voices. Web 1.0 had the effect of globalising knowledge by making information available regardless of time and space. You could read the New York Times wherever in the world and whenever you life. However, certain elements of the circulation of information did not change. There was still the divide between professional writer and amateur reader. Web 2.0 is seen to democratise the origin of information, providing anyone with the opportunity to be a point of dissemination by starting their own blog. Web activity is about making contact with others, rather than being part of a passive mass audience. Myspace and Facebook provide systems for creating links between people that exist outside of institutions like companies, brands or clubs.
So how does this relate to craft? At Craft Victoria, we have been developing an annual event, the Melbourne Scarf Festival, which draws energy from the ‘knitting revolution.’ It reflects the way craft has become more a way of people to come together rather than a pursuit of individual excellence. Following a similar path, sister organisation Craft ACT have just opened an exhibition Knit1 Blog1 which draws on the extraordinary amount of making now associated with online diaries (see www.knit1blog1.blogspot.com). Curator Barbara McConchie recruited knitting bloggers to produce work for the exhibition and then arranged the work by blog of origin. This provided her with an instant audience, and one that seemed very eager for some offline recognition. Knit1 Blog1 shows the potential complementary nature of online and offline activities. Bloggers do need something tangible to comment on, and an exhibition provides the hard currency of public exposure. Similarly, publishers are now looking to blogs as potential books: the books offer a less ephemeral medium while blogs provide an immediate relevance and readymade audience. In Melbourne, the current craft boom is being driven mostly by independent makers who are creating quirky objects that have an idiosyncratic meaning. Local maker Tim Flemming has a series of objects based around the idea of ‘flatland’—an obscure notion that has very loyal and local appeal. The meaning of the work is as much based on our perceived relationship with Tim Flemming’s world as it is in the objects themselves. This kind of craft becomes a literal conversation piece. So it might seem that there is a craft that can flourish in our flatter, networked universe. Craft 2.0 is a highly socialised activity based on regular communication and conviviality. So is this a win-win situation? That depends on what you define as craft. There is reason to believe that skill does not play a major role in Craft 2.0. Skill is inherently hierarchical—some are better than others. It tends to select a few as the experts, rather than the many as collaborators. So our enthusiasm about Craft 2.0 is partly dependent on how much we value skill. Personally, I think cultural diversity is critical to our long-term future as a global community. We need a variety of languages of expression in order to have a healthy understanding of our world. We do need someone who understands the kinds of subtle expressions of clay that only a lifetime of ceramics can lend. So Craft 2.0 is great, but unlike the mania for technological upgrades, we shouldn’t throw away Craft 1.0 right now. The challenge is to see how these two operating systems—the collective and individual—might be compatible. Just like Mac and PC, sort of. Kevin Murray is Director of Craft Victoria and his own blog is www.craft-unbound.blogspot.com. Endnote William Morris ‘How I became a socialist’, in (ed. Asa Briggs) News from Nowhere and Selected Writings Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980 (orig. 1894), p. 36