Contemporary Craft in Iceland: Communicating Culture Through Making A Thesis submited in partial fulfilment for the degre of Doctor of Philosophy By Thomas Hawson Design Faculty Buckinghamshire Chilterns University Colege Brunel University May 206 This copy of the thesis has ben suplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understod to recognize that its copyright rests with its author under the terms of the United Kingdom Copyright Acts. No quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. i I dedicate this thesis to Jeny ii Abstract This doctoral project develops an interdisciplinary colaborative aproach to furniture designer\maker practice. At its core is a practice-based framework that can be used to assess and reflect upon the tacit, primarily visual nature of makers’ knowledge and the way that this can be communicated in order to develop design outcomes. The nquiry takes as its focus a two-year colaboration betwen the author – a British-based furniture designer/maker – and six indigenous Icelandic craft practitioners in which the ultimate goal was the creation of artefacts that, it was hoped, would be expressive of Iceland’s native craft traditions. During the ‘Iceland Project,’ as it came to be known, interaction betwen and among participants was grounded in a predetrmined plan developed emocraticaly through consultation and ialogue. The project successfuly develops new knowledge through a contemporary reinterpretation of indigenous Icelandic craft-making knowledge and demonstrates this through the making of artefacts imbued with recognized cultural status. It also extends furniture designer/maker research by developing an inovative practice-based method of colaboration rooted in the multimedia archiving of the making process which can then be used to iluminate and facilitate futre practice. The project is a scholarly display of makers’ knowledge: the process is shared emocraticaly among pers; the decisions that articulate design and methods of making are reviewed; and inter-subjective outcomes are generated. To facilitate learning from designer/maker practice-based research, the creative narrative is necessarily partly articulated through visual media nd artifacts. iv Contents Page Contents...................................................iv List of Multimedia Discs.....................................vii List of Ilustrations...........................................x List of Tables...............................................xi Acknowledgements.........................................xii Author’s Declaration........................................xvi Abreviations.............................................27 Language Notes...........................................278 Glosary of Terms Within the Context of this PhD................279 References................................................281 1. Introduction.............................................17 1.. The Author’s Background..............................17 1.2. The Icelandic Parliament Speaker’s Chair Commission: The Projects Background.......................................18 1.3. Project Overview.....................................29 2. Research...............................................32 2.1. People.............................................34 2.. Objects............................................39 2.3. Related Research Projects.............................41 2.4. Literature...........................................43 3. The Interaction Plan: Development of a System to Share the Design and Make Experience........................................49 3.1. Definig the Table and Chairs Design Brief.................52 3.1.. Questionaire Methods................................52 3.1.2. Questionaire Findings................................54 3.1.3. The Amended Table and Chair Design Brief................5 3.2. Proposing the Interaction Plan to Icelandic Makers...........57 3.2.1. Icelandic Makers Responses and the Amendments Made to the Proposed Interaction Plan...................................59 3.2.1.. Amended Interaction Interview Method.................60 v 3.. Pilot Interaction Interview..............................62 3..1. Amended Craft Practitioners Interaction Interview Method.....64 3.4. Selection of makers to participate in the interaction process....65 3.5. Schedule for the Interaction Interviews....................67 4. The Interaction Interviews.................................71 4.1. Edited Video Recordings: Interaction Interviews with Makers...73 4.2. Artefacts...........................................76 4.3. Audio Diaries........................................81 5. Design Proposals........................................82 5.1. Drawing............................................83 5.2. Models and Mock-ups.................................84 5.3. Specifications.......................................84 5.3.1. Dinig Table Specifications.............................86 5.3.2. Dinig Chair Specifications.............................8 5.4. Selected Makers Amend the Design......................89 5.4.1. Makers’ Comments on Proposed Design..................90 6. Making the Table and Chairs..............................101 6.1. Method of Recording the Making Process.................106 6.2. The Completd Table and Chairs.......................108 7. Feasibility Study: Production of the Project Table and Chairs in Iceland...................................................109 7.1. Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson..............................109 7.2. Fjolnir Hlynsson.....................................10 7.3. Geir Odgeirsson...................................11 7.4. Ása Hatún.........................................12 7.5. Combined Summary of Makers Returned Information........12 8. Exhibition Tour and Evaluation of Artefacts..................13 8.1. Methodolgy for Exhibition and Questionaire.............17 8.2. Results of Exhibition Survey...........................120 8.3. Interpreting Exhibition Dat............................121 8.3.1. Would the Market Buy the Table and Chairs...............121 8.3.2. Does the Market Recognize the Cultural Content and is it Important?.............................................121 8.3.. Project Success....................................12 vi 8.4. Summary of Exhibition Process and Information Gathering....124 9. Reflect Review Apraise.................................125 9.1. Literature Review of Reflective Practice..................125 9.1.. Paradigm of Inquiry..................................125 9.1.2. Social Science and Anthropolgical Theories of Reflective Practice................................................128 9.1.3. Visual, Social and Anthropolgical Research..............134 9.1.4. Practice-Based Research in Art and Design...............136 9.1.5. Practice-based Research in Art and Design in Iceland.......145 9.1.6. Video in Practice-based Research......................146 9.1.7. Colaborative Visual Arts Practice.......................149 9.1.8. Summary of Theories Relating to ‘The Makers’ Journey’.....150 9.2. Reflections on the ‘Makers’ Journey’.....................152 9.2.1. Apprenticeships....................................153 9.2.. Practical Experiments................................159 9.2.3. Making Decisions...................................164 9.2.3.1. Critical Decision Point Example 1....................164 9.2.3.2. Critical Decision Point Example 2....................165 9.2.3.. Critical Decision Point Example 3....................16 9.2.3.4. Critical Decision Point Example 4....................167 9.3. Summary of Chapter.................................167 10. Conclusion............................................169 Apendices...............................................179 Appendix 1 Leter from Nicola Wod..........................179 Appendix 2 Definig the Product Brief Questionaire Results.......180 Appendix 3 Proposed Formal Interview Questions, Recording Method and Archive Presentation Structure...........................184 Appendix 4 Transcription of Interviews to Consider Proposed Interaction Plan….................................................192 Appendix 5 Amended Formal Interview Questions and Archive Presentation Structure....................................197 Appendix 6 Final Interaction Interview Questions and Presentation Structure...............................................207 Appendix 7 Media Formats.................................217 vii Appendix 8 Lists of Images Used in the Interaction Interview Discs..218 Appendix 9 Fjolnir Hlynsson’s Response to Work in Progress Photgraphs............................................29 Appendix 10 Design Comments Form........................231 Appendix 1 Feasibility Study Form..........................24 Appendix 12 Table and Chair Specifications....................248 Appendix 13 Exhibition Tour Venues 204.....................253 Appendix 14 Pilot Exhibition Survey Questionaire...............25 Appendix 15 Exhibition Survey Questionaire..................260 Appendix 16 Exhibition Survey Qualitative Dat Abbreviations......267 Appendix 17 Potential Market that Would Like Table and Chairs in Own Home.................................................268 Appendix 18 What the Market Thinks the Table and Chairs Would Cost….................................................270 Appendix 19 Successful Use of Traditional Crafts...............273 Abreviations.............................................27 Language Notes...........................................278 Glosary of Terms Within the Context of this PhD................279 References................................................281 Printed Sources.........................................281 Books..................................................281 Journals...............................................283 Conference Paper........................................284 Academic Dissertation....................................287 Non-Printed Sources......................................28 Internet................................................28 Academic Projects.......................................290 Interviews..............................................291 Site and other Visits......................................291 Museums and Exhibitions..................................291 Workshop Visits.........................................292 vii List of Multimedia Discs The discs are atached to the back of this thesis. Disc 1 Interaction Interview Presentations (DVD) Birger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark. Asa Hatun, Wol Worker, Faroe Islands. Fjolnir Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland. Disc 2 Interaction Interview Presentations (DVD) Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, Goldsmith, Iceland. Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinetmaker, Iceland. Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker, Iceland. Interaction Interview Transcriptions file (Windows Word files) (DVD-ROM) Disc 3 Image and Data Files (CD) Interactive Interview Artefacts Sketchbok Pages Models and Mock-Ups Web Site Photgraphs of Work in Progress Completd Table and Chairs Exhibition Dat Disc’s 4 and 5 Interactive Interview Diaries (audio CD) 21 Audio Diary Entries from 24..03 to 1.8.03 ix Disc 6 Telphone Design Amendments (audio CD) 5 Telphone Cals With Makers from 25.2.03 to 27.2.03 Disc 7 Making the Table and Chairs (DVD) Video presentation of the making process with G. Thorvaldsson, T. Thorgeirsdotir, G. Odgeirsson and F. Hlynsson in Iceland betwen, 27.3.04 and 7.5.04. All video n discs filmed, recorded and edited by the Author. All photgraphy on discs by the Author unless referenced otherwise. x List of Ilustrations Page Fig. 1 The Gokstad Ship.......................................19 Fig. 2 Cherry picking lader writing desk, made by the author, 200......20 Fig. 3 Coat rake, made by the author as undergraduate, 196..........21 Fig. 4 First sketch design of the Iceland Parliament Speakers Chair......2 Fig. 5 Hand print signature by the author in the Icelandic parliament visitor’s bok……………..............................................23 Fig. 6 Icelandic parliament speakers chair..........................24 Fig. 7 Map of the Nordic Region. Copyright, Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen, Denmark………..............................................32 Fig. 8 Sketch of 14th century Viking trader’s helmet by the author........40 Fig. 9 Author wearing the 14th century Viking trader’s helmet he made....40 Fig. 10 Viking ship uper deck kne made by the author under instruction from Birger Andersen at the Roskilde Viking Ship Museum, 203........76 Fig. 1 Felt seat made by Ása Hatún and the author, in the Faroe Islands, 203……………..............................................7 Fig. 12 Viking lady’s Knife made by the author with Fjolnir Hlynsson, 203.7 Fig. 13 Reinder horn handled knives, made by author with Fjolnir Hlynsson, 203……………..............................................78 Fig. 14 Poem Fence, by Fjolnir Hlynsson assisted by author, 203.......78 Fig. 15 Silver and bone handled spon, made by the author while aprentice to Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, 203................................79 Fig. 16 Cast aluminum spons, made by the author while aprentice to Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, 203..................................80 Fig. 17 Woden patern and aluminum casts, sculpture made by the author while aprentice to Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, 203...................80 Fig. 18 Celtic knot work art.....................................83 Fig. 19 Design sketch for table top................................84 Fig. 20 Dinig chair outline proposal drawing........................85 Fig. 21 Dinig table outline proposal drawing........................85 Fig. 2 Dinig table and chair presentation drawing...................86 Fig. 23 Birger Andersen’s amendment sketch.......................90 xi Fig. 24 Eight leg table.........................................92 Fig. 25 Steam bent leg table....................................92 Fig. 26 Viking navigation aid....................................93 Fig. 27 Model chair...........................................93 Fig. 28 Chair sketches.........................................94 Fig. 29 Fjolnir’s chair sketch....................................95 Fig. 30 Fjolnir’s chair detail sketch................................96 Fig. 31 New table legs sketch...................................9 Fig. 32 New table legs sketch 2..................................9 Fig. 3 New table legs model..................................10 Fig. 34 Completd table and chairs..............................108 Fig. 35 Viking navigation aid...................................230 All ilustrations by the Author unless referenced otherwise. xii List of Tables Page Table 1 Project Time Plan......................................50 Table 2 List of Questionaire Recipients...........................54 Table 3 Interaction Interviews Schedule...........................67 Table 4 Time Schedule for Making the Table and Chairs in Iceland.....102 Table 5 Iceland, Faroe’s and Shetland Exhibition Time Schedule.......14 Table 6 Glasgow and Denmark Exhibition Time Schedule............15 Table 7 Recognized Nordic Traditional Crafts (sample 35)............12 Table 8 Stainless Stel A2 Screws and Bolts for Table...............250 Table 9 Chair Woden Components.............................251 Table 10 Stainless Stel A2 Screws and Bolts for Chair..............252 xii Acknowledgements Without the enduring patience and wiling commitment made by the makers who shared their skils, time and workshops with me, this project could not have hapened. I am indebted to Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Grein Odgeirsson, Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Biger Andersen, Ása Hátún and many more makers who di not get directly involved in the project, but gave me their time, knowledge and enthusiasm. My first supervisor Dr Simon Thorne must be thanked for considering the project proposal as a PhD, suporting its progress with enthusiasm, patience and concise criticism of my writing. My second supervisor Professor Poly Bins has shared her experience of writing about making and the visual world and together with Simon helped evelop the structure of this thesis. I am also indebted to Tom Burnham, the UK Government’s Trade Promoter for the Nordic Region (at the time of starting this project) and friend. From the begining of my relationship with Iceland he has given me confidence in my ideas and helped realise some of them, with assistance and advice. Thanks is due to Elsa Einarsdotir, Trade and Investment Oficer, in the Commercial Section of the British Embassy Reykjavik, for being a reliable contact throughout the project, providing valuable information, advice, translations, and personal suport. I was honoured by the British Ambassador Alp Mehmet, for his generous suport of the project, and for providing a reception and spech at the openig night of the xhibition tour in Reykjavik. Thanks go to Odin Gunar Odinsson at The East of Iceland Development Agency for providing some travel expenses and the first suport for the project in Iceland. Thanks also go to the makers Hlynur Haldórson (father of Fjolnir B. Hlynsson), the partners at Malmsteypan HELA and Geir Odgeirsson, who al agreed to play a part in the project at the begining. I must give warm thanks to Gisli Thorsteinsson, Assistant Professor of Craft Design and Technolgy, at the Iceland University of Education, for sharing xiv with me his broad knowledge of the craft culture in Iceland, organising and accompanying me on tours of makers’ workshops, museums and exhibitions, providing translations, accommodation with is family and the use of a car. I owe much to Gisli’s generous and enthusiastic suport and friendship. I thank Sigrun Kristjansdotir, curator in the Ethnolgy and Inga Lára Balduinsdótir, phot librarian from the National Museum of Iceland, for giving me boks, advice and finding phots for my specific neds. Warm thanks goes to Thórthur Tómthson, curator of the Skogor Folk Museum, for sharing his unique insight into Icelandic crafts and his generous hospitality. The librarian at the Icelandic National Library, Guthrún Egertsdótir, I thank for providing exceptional service, advice and arrangement of metings. The curators of the exhibition tour venues must be thanked for their patience and sympathy for the project, Suneva Hafsteinsdotir and Fjóla Guðmundsdótir at Handver Og Honun (Handwork and Design) in Reykjavik, Skúli Björn Gunarsson at Gunarsstofnun, East Iceland, Randi S. Vang from the Faroes Crafts Society, Tommy Wat at the Shetland Museum, Lucy McEachan at The Lightouse Design Museum in Glasgow and Søren Nielsen (head of the Boat Yard) at The Viking ship Museum, Roskilde, Denmark. Randi S. Vang must also be thanked for providing accommodation and warm hospitality. My father, Timothy Hawson, must be thanked for instiling into me at an early age the virtues of craftsmanship and patient observation. I know he wil apreciate the acknowledgment and clear visual presentation of the skils of makers. My mother, Sue Hawson, can also be thanked for agreeing once again to do my proof reading. The hospitality and friendship given to me by Hala Bogadótir minutes after meeting me of the street in her Goldsmith shop in Reykjavik, was most gratefuly received. I owe thanks to Kate and Robert Neil for repeatedly providing at short notice, sustenance, entertainment and hospitality in their London home on visits to meet my supervisors. Robert has also shared his knowledge of documentary filming and editing and Kate her professional xv writing skils reading and correcting my text. Dan Malsen, film making professional, can be thanked for providing me with a crash course and technical backup in digital video and editing. Many times and for some weks I have ben resident at Mithus, the farmstead and family home of Fjolnir B. Hlynsson’s parnts, Eda Kr. Bjornsdótir and Hlynur Haldórson and I am very grateful to them for making the East of Iceland fel like home. Finaly I give dep gratitude to my wife Jeny and son Fergus for their enduring encouragement and suport. Jeny’s company during part of the nie-wek exhibition tour, marketing experience, and assistance with dat colection, dat presentation and comments on my first drafts was much apreciated. xvi Author’s Declaration The practical knowledge of making, handed down from maker to maker, is the primary resource of this project. This making heritage has ben interpreted to design and make a table and chairs, which are part of the project submission. The author and the folowing partners share an equal part in the designig and making of the table and chairs submited. Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland. Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith, Iceland. Grein Odgeirsson, Cabinetmaker, Iceland. Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker, Iceland. Biger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark. Ása Hátún, Wol Worker, Faroe Islands. The author coordinated the designig and making of the tables and chairs with the above list of partners and recorded this process on audiovisual multimedia. 17 1. Introduction The author’s vision was to share skils and ideas betwen makers from diferent making traditions, typical of Icelandic culture, with the aim to develop an artefact suitable for colective batch production in Iceland, with a strong cultural identity that would demonstrate futre potential for Iceland’s indigenous making traditions. The folowing describes the vents and findings that led the author to put forward the research proposal to BCUC. 1.. The Author’s Background The author has ben runing a business since 197 as a furniture designer/maker based in the Scotish Borders. Throughout his childhod he has made experimental objects such as woden boats with nails and scrap wod in his father’s garden shed. Learning to respect the traditional practice of making things; he loked to historic, contemporary objects and makers as a source of inspiration. Throughout a period of higher education there grew an understanding of the world by reflection through drawing, making and writing. Pursuing a degree course focused on English traditional furniture making which complemented his interest in traditional making practice, he was finaly awarded a BA (Hons) degre in Furniture Design and Craftsmanship, from Buckinghamshire Colege. After graduation in 197 he found workshop space in the Scotish Borders and started a business with a detrmination to manage my own business afairs and design and make furniture from wod. A variety of commissions from public and private clients were completd. One commission marks the begining of the relationship betwen Iceland and the author. This commission was from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Ofice and was to design and make a chair for the Icelandic Parliament Speaker. The chair was a gift from the Scotish Parliament Speaker to the Icelandic Parliament Speaker, to mark the 100 th aniversary of Christianity in Iceland, in Reykjavik, Iceland, on 1st July 200. 18 1.2. The Icelandic Parliament Speaker’s Chair Comision: The Projects Background The design brief for the chair given as a gift to the Icelandic Parliament Speaker, came from Tom Burnham, the UK Trade Promoter for the Nordic Region. Tom Burnham worked for the then Trade Partners UK and now UK Trade and Investment. This is a joint agency reporting to the Department of Trade and Industry and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Ofice. The brief was to design and make a chair that expressed the Icelandic culture, that would be suitable to replace the xisting Icelandic Parliament Speaker’s Chair, which retained the Danish coat of arms, a symbol of Danish Rule before the independent republic of Iceland was established in 194 1 . The author started the design process by researching the history of Iceland, loking for a typical craft tradition 2 of Iceland and the Nordic region that could be translated and used to make a chair, along with historical evidence that would link a chosen craft tradition to the history of Iceland. As a designer/maker the author finds visual information and observation are essential references for making things. Historian Gwyn Jones, in ‘A History of the Vikings’ described how Iceland was colonized by the Vikings and the original setler, Ingolf Arnerson, is described as a Norwegian Norseman (Viking), in the Viking age sailing to Iceland around 870 AD to find a new home and land of his own 3 . It was from this bok that the ilustrations and plate of the elgant Viking ship found in Gokstad (Fig. 1) in Norway struck the author as an obvious cultural symbol of Ingolf’s time. The Gokstad ship symbolises to the author the importance of hand skils, material knowledge, and the high status of wod within the Nordic culture. 1 G. Karlsson, Iceland’s 10 Years, C.Hurst & Co., London, p. 32. 2 craft tradition – methods of making artefacts by hand that are handed down through the generations specific to a region or culture. 3 G. Jones, A History of the Vikings, Oxford University Press, Oxford, second edition, 1984, p. 275. 19 Fig. 1 The Gokstad Ship. In The Oxford Ilustrated History of the Vikings, Jan Bil, Research Felow at the Centre for Maritime Archaeolgy, National Museum of Denmark, Roskilde, wrote that; Although shipbuilding traditions in Viking-Age Scandinavia wer not fundamentaly diferent from those in other parts of northern Europe, archaeolgical evidence shows that Viking Ships wer lighter, slimmer, faster, and thus beter sailers than the heavier vessels used by the English and presumably, the Franks at that time. 4 The Viking ship is unmistakably related to the foundation of Icelandic history. The author saw this as a starting point and oportunity to explore the 4 J. Bil, ‘Ships and Seamanship’, in The Oxford Ilustrated History of the Vikings, ed. P. Sawyer, Oxford University Press, New York, 197, p. 182. 20 technolgy of Viking shipbuilding to influence the design and making of the chair. The process of using traditional craft methods of manipulating materials with hands and hand tols, relatively uncommon to furniture making, was already a familiar method of creating inovative furniture designs by the author. Two examples made by the author as an undergraduate at BCUC that ilustrate the use of traditional making methods not normaly related to making furniture, are the cherry picking lader writing desk (Fig. 2) and coat rake (Fig. 3, page 21). Fig. 2 Chery picking lader writing desk, made by the author, 200. Hand skils used to make this ladder include: ladder sides and rungs shaped and finished with a drawknife; spliting of the Oak rungs with a froe. 21 Fig. 3 Coat rake, made by the author as undergraduate, 196. Hand shaped and finished with a drawknife and made from gren (unseasoned) Ash. Folowing some brief sketches of ideas for the Speakers Chair (Fig. 4, page 2), that might express the ship building methods of the time the author loked for a practising boat builder who was prepared to share his practical knowledge and help resolve the sketch design. The first boat builder to be found who was making boats in the Nordic (Viking) tradition was Peter Matheson who was building boats with the Galgael Trust in Glasgow. The author visited him and received a practical and emystifying demonstration of the elments of boat building required to complet the design of the Speakers Chair and make it. Working with Peter Matheson, a master boat builder, alongside the boat he was in the process of building, was a deply rewarding and stimulating experience. Peter Matheson’s explanation, with hand gestures, of how to handle the tols, and the half built boat constantly being referred to for explainig the making methods required for the 2 Speaker’s Chair design, was a ‘learnig to make’ experience never before received with such efectiveness. Fig. 4 First sketch design of the Iceland Parliament Speakers Chair. During the process of making the final chair the author felt overwhelming confidence in his hands. 23 “My hands were making the chair by themselves, like a reflex, without consciously controling them. I have xperienced this feling of my hands working automaticaly at complex but repeated tasks and ben impressed at their skil, but never have they operated in such a way while carrying out a making task so unfamiliar to them.” While this experience of hands having a mind of their own, may sound a litle strange to non-makers, it is probably familiar to most wel practised makers. What it sugested to the author was that elments of the boat making process demonstrated by Peter had come through generations of boat builders in the same way. Having completd the Speaker’s Chair with the help of Peter’s demystifying explanation, the author felt he had no wnership of the skils required to make the chair and therefore could not cal the chair a product of his own. Hence when visiting the Icelandic Parliament the folowing year to see the Speakers Chair in situ, the author, when asked to sign the visitors bok as the maker of the chair, signed on behalf of generations of Scotish makers, by signig the outline of his hand “Scotish Makers”, (Fig. 5). Fig. 5 Hand print signature by the author in the Icelandic parliament visitor’s bok. The Icelandic Parliament Speaker’s Chair commission (Fig. 6), demonstrated the author's ability to physicaly imitate another maker’s physical actions and 24 description of their specialised discipline, and to reinterpret this tacit and visual knowledge into the design and making process of his own discipline. Fig. 6 Icelandic parliament speakers chair. It was felt by the author that, because he had ben working for some time as a professional furniture maker in wod and was wel practised at making within his own discipline, his abilities, as an observing aprentice, wer greatly enhanced. The potential for inovation by cross-referncing making methods by brief aprenticeships with other makers was an oportunity the author wanted to explore further. This self awareness of the author’s making 25 and imitating abilities had not ben realised in this way before, and recognition of the inteligence that lies within the hands of the maker was unfolding. This is not to say that the author fuly understod his imitating and making ability or the implications of it, only that he recognized it as a practised skil in its own right, with futre potential and that the artefacts made represent very complex creative journeys, ful of meanig. Frans de Wal, Professor of Primate Behaviour at Emory University, wrote that; Imitation is seen as one of the highest cognitive feats. Think about it: how does one get from watching another individual's actions to performing the same actions for the same purpose? Imitation requires that visual input is converted into motor output, teling the body to re-nact what the eye saw. 5 The design of the Iceland Parliament Speaker’s Chair was led by the making process, using the methods of traditional making processes as a decorative elment to convey cultural meanig. Visual and physical communication has led the development of traditional making practices over generations, making them undoubtedly part of most cultures, embeded in remnants of traditional making practice, artefacts of the past and our environment. Deborah Schnebeli-Morrel, a maker who works in paper maché, spoke at the Ideas in the Making: Theory and Practice Confernce at the University of East Anglia, 198, wrote in her paper. ‘That somehow vital knowledge and inteligence and even perhaps ancestral history is carried through manual work’. 6 To explore further new skil in imitating crafts of the past and to influence one-of designs that carry cultural meanig, potential was seen in the possibility of influencing industrialy made products. From the development of these new skils an idea for a project was forming. For the maintenance of cultural continuity, traditional practice can play a role in the forming and influencing of the modern industrial process and industrialy made product. 5 F. Wal, The Ape and the Sushi Master, Penguin, St Ives, 201, p. 219. 6 D. Schnebeli-Morel, ‘She’s Clever with Her Hands’, in Ideas in the Making: Theory and Practice, H P. Johnson, Crafts ouncil, London, 198, P.49. 26 The modern maker, with knowledge of traditional practice and an understanding of areas of industrial production, can rapidly make inovative demonstration artefacts, chalenging design for industrial practice. Making demonstration artefacts almost entirely by intuition and a creative making process provides artefacts that could be exposed to a potential buying audience for assessment. This assessment would consider its viability as an industrialy made artefact and its success at carrying cultural content, and it would also stimulate the market to consider alternatives to the norm and the value of cultural content in repeat production artefacts. The Parliament Speaker’s Chair commission inspired the author with a growing interst in Icelandic culture and its economic climate and it created an oportunity to develop a project in partnership with Icelandic makers. The author’s vision was to share skils and ideas betwen makers from diferent making traditions, typical of Icelandic culture, with the aim to develop an artefact suitable for colective batch production in Iceland, with a strong cultural identity that would demonstrate futre potential for Iceland’s indigenous making traditions. In January 201 the author made a trip to Iceland 7 to propose a project to Icelandic makers from diferent fields, government development agencies and other relevant bodies, to gauge their interest and potential commitment in participation and suport of the proposed project. The proposed project was to develop a new export from Iceland. To do this the author proposed to select a group of Icelandic makers from diferent disciplines who could share their skils and workshops, and with them he would design and make a demonstration artefact. He would then propose a production process for the artefact in Iceland, and test the market for the artefact. The project was received with suport from the East of Iceland Development Agency, who were prepared to fund some internal travel expenses of the author’s to complet the project. Icelandic makers also ofered their suport for the 7 This trip was made, as part of an organised Export Explorer Mission, subsidised by the British Governent Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). 27 project and agreed to share their facilities and traditional Icelandic making skils, to make a demonstration artefact in colaboration with the author. Further funding and suport was gained in the UK in the form of a bursary to complet the project as a PhD with Buckinghamshire Chilterns University Colege (BCUC). Iceland was an atractive place to carry out the project because: • Iceland has a living indigenous making heritage, tied to Nordic traditions. • Iceland as a member of the Nordic community has a sympathy and commitment to suport a project that aims to preserve and promote its cultural heritage. • To minimise the mass depopulation of rural communities, as agriculture becomes less and less profitable, diversification is required. • Their reliance on fish exports forces them to lok at diversification. • Oak and aluminium were materials processed with renewable geothermal and hydroelctric energy and ready for use in large quantities in Iceland. • Icelanders are familiar with distance communication, via the internet. • Icelanders are familiar with the English language, using it for most international communication. The proposed project included a design brief for a dinig rom table and chair. The choice to design and make a dinig table and chairs was made because they are typical domestic artefacts of the West European home, and were familiar commissions in the author’s professional furniture making experience. A dinig room table and chairs would be familiar as artefact 28 types with al the makers participating in the designig and making process. The folowing was the proposed esign brief: • Artefact to be a domestic dinig table and chair. • Its design to be influenced by the traditions of Icelandic making. • To carry or represent in the nature of its design, Icelandic culture. • Made from oak and aluminium. • The artefact to be sold to the home market and exported to ther Nordic countries. 29 1.3. Project Overview The ambition for the project was to design and make a dinig table and chairs in partnership with Icelandic makers, physicaly involving and sharing the whole process with them. The author saw the project as an oportunity to explore the potential for makers across diferent disciplines and levels of expertise to learn from the experience of sharing physical and cultural making knowledge. The author positioned himself as the medium and facilitator to a selected group of 6 makers from diferent disciplines and Nordic locations. Taking a role as aprentice, he physicaly worked for each of the selcted makers for 1 to 2 weks, empathising with their work while making alongside them, responding to their materials, watching their hand control, emulating it and learnig from them. While working as aprentice to the makers their potential input into the making of a table and chairs was considered through experimental making, discussion and reflection. These learning experiences and the work of each maker were then considerd while drawing up design proposals for a table and chairs. These designs aimed to reflect the work of the selcted makers. Having gone through a process of amending the designs on paper with the selected makers the author traveled to Iceland to make the table and chairs. In the workshops of Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Geir Odgeirsson and Fjolnir Hlynsson (joined in Gretar’s workshop by Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir another of the selcted makers from Iceland), the table and chairs’ design developed considerably during the making process, and the final table and chairs were made. The author and the selected makers physicaly shared the making process, and, during this physical interaction and iscussion, the influence of the non-present makers was shared also. 30 This process of interaction to design and make the table and chairs was primarily a physical and visual one with some discussion. To capture the process of interaction diferent media nd methods wer used including: • Digital video recordings - these were made during the author’s aprenticeship with each maker as formal interviews and at moments where design decisions were being made during the making of the table and chairs. • Audio recordings - conversations on the telphone, face-to-face metings and the author's personal reflections wer recorded throughout the project. • Stil images - were taken to reference artefacts and moments of the designig and making process. • Artefacts - wer made throughout the project and can be considered as the outcome of shared experiences and shared experimental making. These include: experiments made during the two-wek aprenticeship to the makers; models, ful scale mock ups and more experiments made in prepartion for the design proposal; finaly the table and chairs made in Iceland with the selected makers. The above can be sen as refrences to the shared physical making experiences of the author and the selected makers. These refernces when reviewed by the selected makers having completd the project and other makers outside the project wil serve as the most apropriate medium for reflection. They also serve as important references within the presentation of the project thesis. 31 The table and chairs, along with DVD presentations of the audio and visual reference material recorded during the author’s aprenticeships and the designig and making of the table and chairs, were exhibited at the folowing six venues in the four countries from which the diferent participants came from: • HANDVERK OG HÖNUN (Handwork and Design), Reykjavik, Iceland. 14 August - 20 August 204 • Gunarsstofnun, Egilsstaðir, Iceland. 2 August - 29 August 204 • Faroes Crafts Sociaty anual show, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands. 4 September - 7 September 204 • Shetland Museum, Lerwick, Shetland. 1 September – 16 September 204 • The Lightouse Design Museum, Glasgow, Scotland. 21 September – 24 September 204 • The Viking ship Museum, Roskilde, Denmark. 29 September – 4 October 204 The exhibition shared with a broad audience the outcomes and activities of the project. Fedback from the exhibition audience was recorded via questionaires and used to reflect on, and assess, the project’s success in developing a table and chairs suitable for repeat production in Iceland raising suport in the broader community for the activities of makers and outcomes of the project. 32 2. Research Fig. 7 Map of the Nordic Region. Copyright, Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen, Denmark. 8 From January 202 the author received bursary funding from Buckinghamshire Chilterns University Colege for a Project Led PhD. The project would be a practical one, the author working in partnership with Icelandic makers to design and make, in their workshops, artefacts suitable for batch or larger scale production in Iceland. The project would then go n to assess the artefacts reception during a touring exhibition. Due to the practical nature of the project, primary sources of information including, physical interaction with makers, semi-structured qualitative interviews, qualitative and quantitative questionaires and artefacts account for most of the research. In efect, the knowledge in the hands of makers is the primary source of refrence for this project. These references are physicaly represented in the demonstration artefacts, and with the video recordings 8 Nordic Council, ‘Map of the Nordic Region (Copyright, Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen, Denmark)’, Facts about the Nordic Region and Nordic Co-peration’, 30.4.04 (accessed 2.3.05) 3 made while developing and making the artefacts, form central research references. This material is submited with the thesis. It is an ambition of the author within the scope of the projects thesis submission as a whole (including the demonstration artefact and video recordings) to articulate the grounded theories that lie in the hands and practice of makers. With variable aproaches to academic research in this area, few secondary sources can be found of reflective analysis of these grounded theories, or of this type of project. Research using video to record craft makers, has helped inform the process. This research includes Nicola Wod’s project to record crafts as a reference to show how to do a craft and the National Electronic and Video Archive of the Craft (NEVAC) directed by Mathew Partington at the University of the West of England, (both described in more detail in Section 2.3. page 41). The intelectual practice of the hands of makers is often taken for granted and unarticulated in words, only represented by the methods they use and artefacts they make. Secondary sources of information would provide background refernce material into the historical, cultural, political and economic context and for drawing up methodolgies from other disciplines. 34 2.1. People. Makers in Iceland and the Nordic region have ben the focus of the research, from a broad view of the maker community, to a focused interaction with a select group of makers. The author has visited makers at their workshops from diferent fields and backgrounds in Iceland, Faroe Islands, Shetland and Denmark, seen their work and had lengthy conversations with them about their work. These informal meetings have continued to provide a general feling of sympathy and understanding for an extended Nordic makers’ community. This general sense of empathy and kinship to Nordic makers developed by the author has shaped the methods and means of communication with Nordic makers throughout the project. The folowing list of makers includes al those visited by the author during the project: Nigro A. Hermansen, Wod Carver, Faroe Islands, 24.01.01. Søren Nielsen, Boat Builder at The Viking Ship Museum, Denmark, 12.08.01. Ásgeir Reynisson, Goldsmith at Gul og Silfursmidjan Erna hf. Iceland, 05.04.02. Gutormur Jónsson, Sculptor in Stone, Iceland, 05.04.02. Kolbrun Bjorgolfsdotir, Ceramic Poter and Sculptor at Koga Potery, Iceland, 10.4.02. Ragnhildur Magnúsdótir, Wod Carver, Iceland, 3.1.02 Gudmundur Magnússon, Green Wod Worker and Carpenter, Iceland, 3.1.02. Hildigunur Haldórsdótir and Guðmún Hamelen, Weaving, Kniting, Felting, Wol at Ularvinslan Thingborg, Iceland, 4.1.02. Sigithur J Kristjánsdotir, Wod Carver, Iceland, 4.1.02. 35 Edda Björnsdótir and Hlynur Haldórsson, Wod, Bone, Horn Carving at Listithjan EIK, Iceland, 5.1.02. Lára Vilbergsdótir, Papier-mâché Decorative Objects, Iceland, 8.1.02. Hala Bogadótir, Goldsmith, Iceland, 20.7.03. Vignir Jónsson, Artist, Iceland, 20.7.03. Ófeigur Björnsson, Master Gold and Silversmith, and Sculptor, Iceland, 24.7.03. Kolbrún S. Kjarval, Ceramics and Sculpture, Iceland, 25.7.03. Óthin, Black Smith at Járnsmithja Óthins ehf., Iceland, 20.4.04. Cecil Tait, Furniture Maker at Paparwark, Shetland Islands, 10.8.04. Suein Olafsson, Wod Carver, Iceland, 17.8.04. Ole Jakob Nielsen, Wod Turner and Sculptor, Faroe Islands, 8.9.04. In adition to the above list of makers, six makers (listed below) were visited by the author for formal interviews and physical involvement in the designig and making of the table and chairs. Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinet Maker, Iceland, 24.01.01. Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Foundry Man and Patern Maker at Malmsteypan Hela ehf., 05.04.02. Fjölnir B. Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland, 5.1.02. Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith, Iceland, 1.1.02. Birger Anderson, Shipwright at The Viking Ship Museum, Denmark, 27.4.03. Ása Hátun, Wol Worker, Feroe Islands, 25.6.03. 36 The author spent a minimum of two weks with each maker from this selected group, working as their assistant and formaly interviewing and recording the nature of their work with video. The same makers were in correspondence and close contact with the author betwen April 203 and March 204 designig and making the project artefacts. The communication has ben recorded in many ways including recorded telphone conversations, audio recording, stil photgraphy, video, writen responses and the final outcome of the communication, the project artefacts. It is important to recognize that these selected makers are the most important references within the project, their making knowledge handed to the author has made the project artefact. This project is in a new field of academic research, the thesis and the submission material, represents a record of the creative journey made by the author and selcted makers in designig and making the project artefacts. Professor Mike Press, Head of Grays Schol of Art, Aberden, wrote in 195, concerned with the ned for designers to develop their own research culture with craft skils and tacit knowledge at its core: … we are navigators of uncharted waters… 9 Throughout this project many people have ben contacted for information and assistance. This has ben particularly relevant in Iceland, with litle published in English, people have ben relied on to provide their professional opinion when required. The list below provides the names, organisations and a summary of the professional guidance and information they have provided throughout the project: Elsa Einarsdótir, Commercial Assistant at the British Embassy Reykjavík 24.01.01. She provided general advice about Iceland’s economic and political environment. 9 M. Press, at ‘The European Academy of Design: Design Interfaces Confernce’, paper, It’s research, Jim…, April 195. 37 Eyjólfur Pálsson, owner and Director of Epal (contract furniture shop), Iceland, 24.01.01. He gave positive criticism of the project concepts. Sigrun Kristjansdotir, Curator in Department of Ethnolgy at the National Museum of Iceland, 09.04.02. She ofered guidance on the selection of visual sources and Icelandic craft tradition. Suneva Hafsteinsdotir and Harpa Björg Guðfinsdótir, Director and Assistant of the Icelandic Government funded, Handverk og Honun (Crafts and Design) 10.4.02. She provided assistance in the selection of makers to participate in the project. Thórthur Tómthsson, Curator of Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland, 4.1.02. He gave access to and escriptions of Museum artefacts. Werner Karrasch, Photgrapher at, The Viking Ship Museum 28.4.03. He gave positive criticism of filming and editing techniques. Vibeke Bischof, Ship Reconstruction, Draughting and Boat Builder, at the National Museum of Denmark Centre for Maritime Archaeolgy, 7.5.03. She provided a thorugh explanation of the authenticity of Viking ship reconstruction at the Viking Ship Museum. Pétur B. Lúthersson, Furniture Designer, PBL Design, Iceland 24.7.03. He gave positive criticism of the project and overview of the furniture design community in Iceland. Stephen Jackson, Curator of Scotish and European Furniture, at the National Museum of Scotland 16.08.02. He gave advice on the choice of venues and methods of aproaching them for the project’s exhibition tour. Paul Western, Curator of Crafts, at the National Museum of Scotland 16.08.02. He gave advice on the choice of venues and methods of aproaching them for the project’s exhibition tour. 38 Guðmundur Ásgeirsson, Director of Contract Furniture Manufacturer Á. Guðmundsson EHF, Iceland, 24.7.03. He provided his considerations in manufacturing the project artefact in Iceland and an overview of the furniture manufacturing industry in Iceland. Guðrún Eggertsdótir, Librarian at the National Library of Iceland, 25.7.03. She retrieved relevant publications and information for the project. Gisli Thorsteinsson, Assistant Professor at the University of Education, Craft and Design Department, Iceland, 05.04.02. He provided positive criticism of the project and assistance in finding makers and general sources of information. Inga Lára Balduinsdótir, Photgraphic Archivist at the National Museum of Iceland, 30.7.03. She found and provided relevant photgraphy sources. Ula Boje Rasmussen, Freelance Film Director, Denmark, 19.10.3. She gave positive criticism of filming and editing techniques. Hazel Hughson, Shetland Arts Trust (Indigenous Crafts Project), Shetland, 10.8.04. She gave positive criticism of the project and information regarding the links betwen the Shetland Islands, Faroe Islands and Nordic region's craft traditions. Robert Neil, Researcher and Assistant Producer of Science Programmes for the BBC, London. He provided advice on video interviewing methods. Dan Malsen, Freelance Filmmaker, London. He provided advice on digital video technolgy, computer editing and interview recording methods. 39 2.. Objects Given that this is a practical project the most important reference material is the selected group of makers and the nature of their work. The next most important refrences are the artefacts of these makers, their tols, and the tols and artefacts of their related craft traditions and their contemporaries. As wel as the tols and artefacts seen and handled when visiting and working with makers, every oportunity was taken to see the work of contemporary makers along with the artefacts and tols of historical craft traditions. These artefacts were sen in exhibitions and museums in Iceland, Faroe Islands, Shetland Islands, Scotland and Denmark. The visual and tactile refrences that these objects represent are a visual rather than verbal language, but they have ben fundamental in influencing the design and methods of making the project artefacts. As references these objects and tactile xperiences have ben presented as the folowing: on the interaction interview presentation DVD discs (which are to be viewed by the reader when introduced in chapter 4.1, page 73); as video and stil photgraphy; in sketch boks; expressed in the making of experimental artefacts; the project table and chairs. One example of an experimental artefact made during the project by the author was a copy of a 14th century felted wol Viking trader’s hod, as worn by traders sailing open boats across the North Atlantic to Iceland from Norway. The hod sketched by the author (Fig. 8, page 40) at the Culture House in Reykjavik, Iceland 10 was made for a number of reasons, to further understand methods of felting wol, to sympathize with istoric Nordic culture and to reflect, while making, on the experience of working for and interviewing Asa Hatun (wol worker from the Faroe Islands selected to participate in the designig and making of project artefacts, page 35). 10 The Culture House, is a museum of Icelandic culture in Reykjavik. 40 Fig. 8 Sketch of 14th century Viking trader’s helmet by the author. Fig. 9 Author wearing the 14th century Viking trader’s helmet he made. The author's reflections while making the hod (Fig. 9) represent just one way in which an artefact (the hod) can be used as a ‘maker’s refernce’. These experiences of how objects influence the project and the making of the project artefacts are not put into words but the presentation of this information is provided for in a visual format in the interaction interview presentation DVD discs (chapter 4.1). 41 2.3. Related Research Projects Three academic research projects were found which put the practical activities of makers at the centre of their research. The folowing three projects were identified by the author to help inform his research processes and identify methods for referencing the making process. The Tacitus project. 1 This project is co-ordinated by An Marie Shilito research felow at the Edinburgh Colege of Art. Ann is a jeweler and the main interest of her research is touch, and touch sensitive computer interfaces in design and rapid prototyping. Ann’s project explores the limitations and possibilities of transferring the sensitivity and tacit skils from the hands of makers into computers and computer controled methods of production. During a visit to see Ann at the Edinburgh Colege of Art in February 203 to discuss areas of shared interest, the author experimented with a 3-dimensional haptic drawing computer interface. Ann showed enthusiasm and suport for the use of video as a means of referencing the practical activities of makers, of which she has had some experience and provided some fedback of the author’s ideas. Ann considerd her field of research was breaking new ground in the area of aplied arts and design, puting makers and the viewpoint/touch of makers at its centre, and that ther were few examples of this type of research to draw references from. This confirmed the author’s dificulty in finding refrences in the area of maker- centred research. Apart from a general discussion about An’s project, no useful refernces could be taken by the author. National Electronic and Video Archive of the Craft – NEVAC. 12 Directed by Mathew Partington at the University of the West of England, Bristol Schol of Art, Media and Design. This unique archive of craft is not orientated to the physical practice of making and visual images, but towards 1 Edinburgh Colege of Art, ‘Tacitus Research Project’, , 201 (accessed 16 May 205). 12 M. Partington, ‘NEVAC’, htp:/ww.media.uwe.ac.uk/nevac/, 1th May 205 (acessed 16 May 205). 42 the nature and cultural context of the craft person / maker in their own words. NEVAC is an archive of interviews, carried out most recently as open-ended qualitative interviews with craft people talking about their work. This method of interviewing contrasts with the author's structured aproach during the Iceland project, wher structured questions orientated more to practical aspects of the interviewed maker’s work, and how they could influence the design of artefacts to meet the project demonstration artefacts brief. The methodolgies used by NEVAC were not used in the Iceland project. Nicola Wod, a PhD post graduate in the department of art and design at Shefield Halam University, uses video to capture craft practice. In a leter to the author dated 06 September 202, (see Appendix 1 – Leter from Nicola Wod, page 179) Nicola explained her research interests. My research is into the teaching of crafts and recording craft skils in a way that could be used by someone wanting to teach themselves. Ther are many craftsmen who are the last of the line for their particular skil and, rather than just recording an archive of what they used to do, I would like it to be something that could be used to make the craft skil live again. In the same leter Nicola goes on to confirm the author's findings that there is litle academic research activity in the area of recording with video the activities of makers / craftspeople. The only precedents (within academic research) I have found so far for recordings of craftspeople are NEVAC (National Video Archive of the Crafts) based at UWE, Bristol The author found no academic research project led by a maker that put the relationships and practical communication betwen makers to resolve a colective design brief at the centre of their research. Furthermore, a project where the prime objective was to instal cultural content from the hands of makers into demonstration artefacts and gauge the success of this cultural expression via an international exhibition tour, and survey of visitors to that exhibition, could not be found. The nature of the author's project is unusual and references, especialy for methods, had to be taken from diferent apropriate fields. 43 2.4. Literature Due to the individual nature of the project and that litle relevant academic research exists within the field, writen references were hard to find. What could be found served to reinforce the nature and irection of the project and came from a broad area of sources. As the project developed the review of relevant literature along the way strengthened the author's understanding and evaluation of the choices made throughout the project. The choice to carry out the project in Iceland as a PhD developed out of the Iceland Parliament Speaker’s Chair commission and a continuing professional interest with Iceland. Only a few generations from its pre-industrial past, Iceland is a place where makers have close links to their own distinctive craft traditions and a strong cultural identity. It was definitely not true that ancient Nordic culture in Iceland had ben kept dep frozen for centuries as the young Danish romantic Orla Lehman maintained in the 1830s. On the other hand, Iceland was stil throughout the 19th century a primitive, underdeveloped society. 13 It is this rapid change from primitive underdeveloped society that gives some Icelandic makers, now, a close afinity with their pre-industrial past. It was an objective of the project to select makers to work with who demonstrated a commitment to the continuity or contemporary re-interpretation of the craft traditions of Iceland. Makers with these commitments were not dificult to find in Iceland. The craft traditions of Iceland are unarguably rooted in their Nordic heritage 14 but remain unique within the Nordic region (see Fig. 7. Map of the Nordic Region, page 32) perhaps because of their physical isolation and the dramatic nature of their landscape and environment. As described on the web site of Handverk og Hunun (craft and design), the Icelandic 13 G. Karlsson, p. 248. 14 G. Karlsson, p. 62. 4 government funded a long-term project to suport and develop craft and design: The craft and design tradition has developed richly here in the midle of the Atlantic Ocean, thousands of kilometres away from most other countries. The beauty of Icelandic nature is the paramount source of inspiration for most Icelandic craftspeople, who transfer - in modern and ynamic ways – nature’s shapes, colours and materials to their work. The outcome is often striking artistic expression in creations designed even for everyday use. 15 After receiving so much suport and enthusiasm for the project in Iceland from individuals who apreciated the cultural commitment in the project, it was rewarding to read of the commitment to culture Nordic countries have. As stated by J. Fin, writing about public suport of culture and arts in the Nordic region. …they have also felt themselves to be threatened by the more populous countries and have undertaken a cultural mobilisation in order to preserve and protect their traditions and istinctive character. 16 Iceland's reliance on its fisheries for its foreign income was also in the projects favour, as it would test a system to develop new exports and help in the diversification of Iceland's economy. G. Karlsson wrote. One must lok at export statistics to apreciate the sense in which Icelandic life is fish. From the 1940s until late 1960s marine products usualy made up over 90 percent of the total export value of gods, while the rest mostly consisted of agricultural products. Since the 1970s, the share of marine products has usualy ben 70 to 80 percent, with manufacturing products providing most of the remainig 20 to 30 percent. Around 190 the xport of gods made up aproxiately three-quarters of the total export income compared with the exports of services (tourism, transport, work at the Keflavík base etc.). So because thre-quarters of 15 Handverk og Hunun ‘The objectives of CRAFT AND DESIGN’, (accessed 1/2/05). 16 J. Fin, ‘Public suport of culture and the arts’, in Nordic democracy, ideas, issues and institutions in politics, economy, education, social and cultural afairs of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Det Danske Selskab. Copenhagen, 1981, p. 505. 45 75 percent is 56.25, Iceland sems to earn a litle more than half of its foreign currency from fish products. 17 The project also aimed to utilize some of the by-products of Iceland's recent and large-scale commitment to hydropower and geothermal energy, respectively aluminium and American oak. In the 1960s a search was begun for foreign firms wiling to launch energy intensive industries in Iceland, run by hydroelctric power. The result was an aluminium smelter located in Straumsvík, south of Hafnarfjorthur, opened in 1969. It was fueled by a new hydroelctric power station on the Thjórsá river. The factory, which is owned exclusively by Swiss Aluminium, processes imported ra material and exports al its products, but the power station is in Icelandic ownership. 18 The most recent hydropower development in Iceland is a 690 MW, £651M power station under construction for Iceland’s national power company Landsvirkjun. Damon Schunman, in the UK New Civil Enginer periodical, reported, Sigurdur Arnalds, public relations manager for national power company Landsvirkjun, explains: it is not possible to export elctricity to Europe as it is to far away, so we atract industry here. The industry in question is energy intensive aluminium smelting. 19 Geothermal resources suply 50 percent of the total primary energy for Iceland and 7.9 percent of this resource is used as industrial process heat. 20 One industrial aplication for the use of this geothermal energy is kiln drying wod, as described by A. Ragnarsson an Icelander and geothermal specialist. The most recent industrial aplication is drying of hardwod in Husavik. This plant has ben in operation since 196. Hardod logs are transported from North America to Husavik where they are sawn and kiln dried with geothermal hot water. In the begining the products were 17 Karlsson, p. 358. 18 Karlsson, p. 358. 19 D. Schunman, ‘Power Stering’, New Civil Enginer, 9//04, p. 16. 20 A. Ragnarsson, ‘Geothermal Development in Iceland 195-199’, OS Orkustofnun, ww.os.is, accessed 10.2.05. 46 mainly exported to Europe without further processing. After financial dificulties the plant was reorganised in 199 with emphasis on further processing of the hardod as flor parquet, until now mainly for the domestic market. 21 The litle domestic utilization of the large quantities of aluminium and oak (the by-products of the natural energy resources of Iceland) was an important factor in starting the project with Iceland. The author recognized in the situation an oportunity to demonstrate how the creativity and skils of indigenous makers could produce a demonstration artefact and develop a system of production that could use these materials. The use of imported materials is not new to the Icelanders, in fact, it is quite natural for people living on an island with few natural resources, materials as essential as wod have ben imported to Iceland since the first setlement. Jesse Byock a Professor of Old Norse and Medieval Scandinavian languages at University of California, Los Angels, wrote, After the first relatively few big trees had ben cut down, the birch available was of only limited use in shipbuilding and house construction. From early on god timber had to be imported. This expense raised the cost of maintainig ships, a factor that overtime severely limited the Icelanders ability to compet with Norwegian merchants. 2 Quality timber was not a natural resource available in Iceland, this however di not stop the development of an Icelandic wodcarving tradition. Dr. Ellen Marie Mageroy (whose doctorate examines ‘flower ornament in Icelandic wod carving’ from Oslo National Academy of Art) described in her essay about the Icelandic history of ‘Wod carving and woden sculpture’, In Iceland the art of wodcarving must be as old as the setlement of the country and it continued to flourish for a thousand years - a pardox in a land so lacking in trees. 23 21 Ragnarsson. 2 J. Byock, Viking age Iceland, Penguin, London, 201, p.3. 23 E. M. Mageroy, ‘Wod carving and woden sculpture’ translated by C. Long, in Árbók, ed. . Snaesdótir, Útgefandi Hid Íslenzka Fornleifafélag, Reykjavík, 201, p. 106. 47 The author working in practical colaboration with other makers to colectively develop designs and emonstration artefacts suitable for repeat production is not a new experience. Puting this activity and the related tacit and visual knowledge at the centre of academic research, is a new field. One paper writen by K. Yair, A. Tomes, M. Press, confirms the lack of research in this field titled ‘Design through making: crafts knowledge as facilitator to colaborative new product development’ 24 , documents and discusses an example of best practice. The case study was conducted in the context of doctoral research into aplications for crafts knowledge to design for industry. The methodolgies chosen reflect a relative lack of academic research in the field of enquiry. 25 This study iluminates that makers and craft, distinct from industrial designers and esign have a growing and significant role to play in influencing product development for industrial production. 26 The positive benefit of alowing design to develop during colaborative making processes betwen makers from diferent disciplines has ben debated. In a paper titled ‘Knowledge and the Artifact’, the potential of the artefact within design research to be central rather than secondary to a text and how the design and production of an artefact can be used to create knowledge is discussed. 27 Central to the author's Icelandic project are processes and artefacts, the ‘Knowledge and the Artifact’ paper was a useful reference confirming how artefact can play a central role in academic research. …artefacts, in this case drawings and prottypes, can provide clear descriptions of designs, principles and processes. They can communicate across boundaries of discipline and experience. They can suport the 24 K. Yair, A. Tomes, M. Press, ‘Design through making: crafts knowledge as facilitator to colaborative new product development’, Design Studies, Vol. 20, No. 6, November 199. 25 K. Yair, A. Tomes, M. Press, p. 497. 26 K. Yair, A. Tomes, M. Press, p. 496. 27 C. Rust, S. Hawkins, G. Whitely, A. Wilson, J. Rodis, ‘Knowledge and the Artifact’, Proceedings of Doctoral Education in Design Confernce, La Clusaz, France, July 200. htp:/ww.chrisrust.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/academic, (accessed 02/05) 48 progress of research and they can be instrumental in eliciting knowledge, including tacit knowledge, in and from individuals. 28 28 C. Rust, S. Hawkins, G. Whitely, A. Wilson, J. Rod. 49 3. The Interaction Plan: Development of a System to Share the Design and Make Experience This chapter lays out the planing, development and methods used for seting up the interaction process. The interaction process is how the selected group of makers and the author would colaboratively design and make the table and chairs. This part of the project was the preparation before the practical colaboration with the selected makers could begin. It included: • A survey to confirm the table and chairs design brief. • The proposal of the interaction process to Icelandic makers. • Pilot interaction interview. • The selection of makers to participate in the interaction process. A time plan for the whole project including the designig and making of the table and chairs and the exhibition tour was also drawn up as part of this prepartion (Table 1 Project Time Plan, page 50). 5 0 T a b l e 1 Pr o j e c t T i m e Pl a n 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M 1 . R e s e a r c h I c e l a n d i c / N o r d i c c r a f t d e s i g n h i s t o r y c u l t u r e a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y p e e r g r o u p . 2 . I d e n t i f y i n g I c e l a n d i c a n d N o r d i c c r a f t p r a c t i t i o n e r s . 3 . C a r r y o u t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u r v e y t o d e f i n e t h e p r o t o t y p e d e s i g n b r i e f . 4 . D e f i n e t a b l e c h a i r s d e s i g n s b r i e f . 5 . P r o p o s e a n i n t e r a c t i o n m e t h o d a n d p i l o t . 6 . S e l e c t c r a f t p r a c t i t i o n e r s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s . 7 . C a r r y o u t t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i n t e r v i e w s w i t h c r a f t p r a c t i t i o n e r s . 8 . E d i t , p r e s e n t m u l t i m e d i a D V D ’ s . 5 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M 9 . M a k e d r a f t d e s i g n s f o r t a b l e a n d c h a i r s , p r e s e n t t o c r a f t p r a c t i t i o n e r s a n d a m e n d d e s i g n s . 1 0 . C a r r y o u t t a b l e a n d c h a i r s p r o d u c t i o n f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y . 1 1 . M a k e t a b l e a n d c h a i r s . 1 2 . D e s i g n , p i l o t a n d c a r r y o u t e x h i b i t i o n s u r v e y s . 1 3 . E x h i b i t i o n t o u r o f t a b l e c h a i r s . 1 4 . R e p o r t o n t h e f i n d i n g s f r o m t h e e x h i b i t i o n s u r v e y s . 1 5 . W r i t e p r o j e c t r e p o r t / t h e s i s . T a b l e 1 Pr o j e c t T i m e Pl a n 52 3.1. Definig the Table and Chairs Design Brief To confirm that Icelandic makers shared the author's vision of the project and the proposed design brief for the table and chairs, a survey was carried out betwen September and December 202 with a quantitative questionaire. It was important to confirm that the author’s understanding of the conomic and cultural climate was the same as the Icelandic makers and that the project and an amended esign brief would be accepted by them. The results of this survey are provided in Appendix 2 – Definig the Product Brief Questionaire (page 180). The questionaire was designed to confirm and make any necessary changes to the original design brief which was the result of an investigation made by the author in January 201, on an “Export Explorer Mission” suported by the DTI (as discussed on page 26). 3.1.. Questionaire Methods The questionaire was posted to Icelandic craftspeople, with questions they could answer easily yes or no in tick boxes and return by post. The questionaire was translated and piloted by Gisli Thorsteinsson Assistant Professor in Craft Design and Technolgy at the Iceland University of Education. Of the 24 posted questionaires in September 202, 8 were returned and a further 9 wer completd by craftspeople visited by the author betwen 1st and 12th November 202. It should be noted that to maintain consistency, craftspeople given questionaires personaly by the author, were not given any more information about the project, or the questionaire, than those who received it by post. The recipients of the questionaire consisted of amateur or professional craftspeople practising mainly in wod, metal and wol, whose work 53 demonstrated a continuation of traditional Icelandic crafts or a modern development of them. These people were sourced from: • British Embassy, Iceland. • Handverk og Honun, Icelandic government funded Handwork and Design organization. • Iceland University of Education. • The author’s own research, from exhibitions and travel. The British Embassy provided 2 names of craftspeople who were leaders in their field. Hnadverk og Hönun gave 14 names, from their datbase of aproximately 160 names. They were selected by the Director, Suneva Hafsteinsdótir, and Assistant, Harpa Bjorg Gudfinsdotir, as best fiting the criteria. Gisli Thorsteinsson, Assistant Professor of the Craft Design and Technolgy Department in the Iceland University of Education, provided 16 names of craftspeople of an Icelandic traditional nature. When comparing the lists of names it was noted that some names came up in two or more lists. All the suplied lists of craftspeople were included in the questionaire mailing list. Six more craftspeople who satisfied the criteria wer aded, who were met by the author on his travels and no sorting or preferences wer made in compiling the mailing list. Gender, materials used or degree of professional status was not considerd important, only that their name had ben put forward in consideration of the criteria. Table 2 List of Questionaire Recipients (page 54), is a list of al the craftspeople who have either ben posted a questionaire in September 202 (al names up to 24) or were given a questionaire to answer personaly by the author (al names above 24) betwen 1-2 November 202. 54 Table 2 List of Questionaire Recipients ID org introduced by name town country 1 ULLARVINSLAN ÞINGBORG Hildigunnur Halldórsdóttir 801 Selfoss Iceland 2 handverkstofa H Philippe Ricart 300 Akranes Iceland 3 Rita Freyja Bach & Páll Jenson Páll Jensson H R. F. Bach & P. Jensson 310 Borgarnes Iceland 4 Sculptor museum man TH Guttormur Jónson Akranesi Iceland 5 GALLERÍ HNOSS GT Bjarni Þór Kristjánsson 101 Reykjavík Iceland 6 Beate Stormo H Beate Stormo 601 Akureyri Iceland 7 HADDA VINUSTOFA H,GT HADDA VINUSTOFA 603 Akureyri Iceland 8 Birkir Fanndal Haraldsson H Birkir Fanndal Haraldsson 660 Mývatnsveit Iceland 9 Valdimar Bjarnason GT Valdimar Bjarnason 801 Selfoss Iceland 10 LISTIÐJAN EIK H,GT,BE Edda Kr. Björnsdóttir 700 Egilsstaðir Iceland 11 Þórey S. Jónsdóttir H Þórey S. Jónsdóttir 531 Skagafjörður Iceland 12 LISTIÐJAN EIK H,GT,BE Fjölnir B. Hlynsson 700 Egilsstaðir Iceland 13 Gull og Silfursmidjan Erna hf. GT Gull 105 Reykjavk Iceland 14 ULLARVINSLAN ÞINGBORG GT,H Guðmún Hamelen 801 Selfoss Iceland 15 ULLARSELIÐ H ULLARSELIÐ 311 Borgarnes Iceland 16 Black smith TH Poul H justinusen FO-100 Torshaun Faroe Islands 17 Sculptor GT Vignir Johannsson 105Reykjavik celand 18 Tresmidjan Grein ehf. BE Grein Oddgeirsson 200 Kopavogur Iceland 19 Sueinn Olafson H Sueinn Olafson 105 Reykjavik Iceland 20 Stick carver TH Nigro A. Hermansen FO-100 Tórshavn Tórshavn Tórshavn Faroe Islands 21 The Viking ship Museum TH Søren Nielsen DK-4000 Roskilde Denmark 22 Malmsteypan HELLA ehf. BE Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson 220 Hafnarfjordur Iceland 23 Kogga GT Kolbrun Bjorgolfsdotir 101 Reykjavik Iceland 24 LISTIÐJAN EIK H,GT,BE Hlynur Halldórsson 700 Egilsstaðir Iceland 25 Þórhildur Þorgeirsdóttir TH Þórhildur Þorgeirsdóttir 101 Reykjavík Iceland 26 Sigriður Kristjánsdottír GT Sigriður Kristjánsdottír 801 Salfoss Iceland 27 Lára Vilbergsdóttir TH Lára Vilbergsdóttir 700 Egilsstaðir Iceland 28 Þingborg GT,H A. Saem Selfoss Iceland 29 Þingborg GT,H Hilur Hákonardóttir Selfoss Iceland 30 Helga Magnusdottir GT Helga Magnusdottir 845 Flúðir Iceland 31 Ragmlúldur Magnúsdóttir GT Ragmlúldur Magnúsdóttir 801 Selfoss Iceland 32 Gudmundur Magnússon GT Gudmundur Magnússon 845 Flúðum Iceland 3.1.2. Questionaire Findings Comments made as aditional information on the questionaire were few. Two craft practitioners at the wol workshop said that wol should be used, because the resource was going to waste in Iceland at the time. Lára Vilbergsdótir also said the same thing. This comment on wol being an under-utilized material in Iceland made it atractive to the project. As a material wol has a lot of potential and given the potential quantity available it also makes it an abundant resource. One craft practitioner sugested that Asp wod, as an indigenous natural resource, should be explored as a 5 potential resource in the design brief. This comment is ofset by the fact that Asp as a raw resource, or a pre-processed one, does not exist in any large quantities in Iceland unlike kiln dried Oak. Its potential is not ruled out as a useful natural resource for some aplications, but it is neither apropriate for furniture making nor is there the potential scale for production, as it is very soft and is only available in very limited amounts. This ruled it out of the design brief. It was decided from the aditional comments made on the questionaire to change the original brief, and include the adition of wol as a material to be used on the seat of the chair. Also it was felt by the author from the start of the project that his position as the design team leader may not be welcome amongst such resourceful Icelandic craftspeople, who may prefer to lead the project themselves. The results of question 12 (Appendix 2, page 182), “would Icelandic craftspeople be the best equiped to design and produce demonstration products made from oak and aluminum”, were negative, sugesting that craftspeople di not have the confidence to lead the production of prototypes themselves. Question 8 (Appendix 2, page 181) however confirmed that Icelandic craftspeople could influence and provide inspiration for designs. These results strengthened the position felt by the author that he could work betwen industry and traditional crafts and lead the design/making development process with confidence. 3.1.3. The Amended Table and Chair Design Brief The table and chairs were to be designed and made colectively by a selected group of craftspeople and the author. They would al contribute to the designig and making process, via n agred method of interaction. The folowing design brief was developed after considering the results of definig the product brief questionaire (Appendix 2, page 180). 56 Table and chairs design brief: • Product to be a domestic dinig table and chair (and carver). • Made from oak, aluminium and wol. • Its design to be influenced by the traditions of Icelandic crafts. • To carry or present in the nature of its design, Icelandic culture. • The product to be sold to the home market and exported to ther Nordic countries. 57 3.2. Proposing the Interaction Plan to Icelandic Makers The next stage of the project involved proposing a plan of interaction with makers to design and make in close partnership with them a table and chairs to meet the design brief. The interaction plan was designed to provide a framework in which selected makers could contribute in a measured way to a colectively designed and made table and chairs. The folowing overview of the interaction process and the proposed formal interview questions, recording method and archive presentation structure provided in Appendix 3 (page 184), were presented by the author in November 202 in Iceland to two Icelandic makers and potential partners in the project, Fjolnir Hlynsson and Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir for their opinion and criticism of the plan. Overview of the interaction process, as presented to the Icelandic makers for their consideration: • Define method of interaction. • Prepare presentation of interaction method. • Expose interaction method to craft practitioners and ask for their opinion on and their wilingness to participate with the defined interaction method. • Redefine interaction method with consideration of their opinion. • Chose craft practitioners to work with. • Carry out practical work with craft practitioners, work alongside craft practitioners for as long as seems necessary or possible to provide insight into, and sympathy with their work. • Carry out formal interview, colecting any refernce material. Record interview and reference material with video/audio and igital photgraphy methods. 58 • Prepare multimedia rchive of interviews. • Consider interview findings, draw conclusions and produce draft designs. • Expose draft designs to craft practitioners for their opinion. • Amend raft designs considering craft practitioner’s opinion. • Draft design complet. • Produce prottypes with the assistance of craft practitioners where apropriate. • Record craft practitioners direct contribution to the prottype production and apend to apropriate multimedia rchive. The folowing question was asked to Fjolnir Hlynsson and Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, having presented the proposed interaction plan to them. Do you think this method of interaction is acceptable, god or bad, please explain your thoughts, in your own words and how you would improve on this method of interaction? Transcriptions of their responses to the proposed plan are in Apendix 4 (page 192). A summary of their responses and the amendments made to the interaction plan are provided in chapter 3.2.1. page 59. 59 3.2.1. Icelandic Makers Responses and the Amendments Made to the Proposed Interaction Plan From the interview ith Fjolnir Hlynsson on 8.1.02, the folowing points and sugested amendments were raised: • The questions and interaction method provide a way of geting to the essence of each craft practitioner’s work and practices. • There should be no problem in obtainig reference materials and information from the practitioners once they have agreed to participate in the project, as it was quite clear in the introduction to the project what is to be xpected from participants. • The language of the questions should be made simpler for people from diferent countries to understand. From the interview ith Thorhildur Thorgeirsdótir on 1.1.02, the folowing points and sugested amendments were raised: • The project is a god thing. • We should evelop on from these traditions that we craftspeople practice. • Yes, we could try the project out and see what hapens it would be interesting. • Within the interaction process we could see how it develops, by leaving the questions more open. The response to the questions would be more individual and the presentations of the interviews would represent more of the individual nature of each craft practitioner. • The project should include Faroese craft practitioners, idealy in wol. This strengthens the idea of using wol in the project and points to the Faroes as the place to find a craft practitioner with whom to work. 60 3.2.1.. Amended Interaction Interview Method Consideration was made to the Icelandic makers sugested amendments and the folowing interaction interview method was prepared: • The interview structure was a qualitative, semi-structured, in-depth method. Within basic interview sections i.e. background, materials, workspace etc, open questions were given to the craft practitioner to answer. For each open question the checklist of specific questions are sought to be answered by the interviewer and ticked of in the provided tick box. With the minimum input the interviewer was to guide the conversation so the craft practitioner might answer the checklist questions. This open and conversation style of interview 29 was designed to make the interviewe as comfortable as possible. It was hoped this method would provide an in-depth view of the craft practitioners’ thoughts and ideas, it was important that the interviewer was conscious enough not to lead the conversation towards their own bias or opinion. This potential bias would be considerd in the outcome of the interviews. • When carrying out the interviews it was important to find as much reference material to substantiate statements by the craft practitioners as possible. This refernce material would include photgraphs, documents, video etc. After each set of questions, sources of reference material should be requested from the craft person being interviewed and noted own for colection at the nd of the interview. • A new set of formal interview questions wer prepared, these questions were to be recorded on video along with the refernce material and edited together in the same format, as an archive 29 From Reneus experience as a researcher interviewing craftspeople in Scotland “an open interview, lead more by the interviewed participant was considerd to provide more reliable and a larger quantity of information about the interviewed participant.” A. Reneus, ‘Contemporary Wodcarving in Scotland’, Decorative Arts Diploma Dissertation, University of Glasgow, History of Art Department, 198, p. 2. 61 presentation for each maker. A copy of the amended formal interview questions and archive presentation structure is provided in Appendix 5 (page 197). 62 3.. Pilot Interaction Interview The interaction interview method and amended formal interview questions and archive presentation structure is provided in Appendix 5 (page 197). It was piloted betwen 13.02.03 and 14.04.203 with Janis Embelton, a practising weaver from Coldstream, in the Scotish Borders. The pilot interview tested the general method and the technical side of recording the interview and reference material with video and photgraphy and editing this material into a presentable format on DVD. Having completd the pilot interaction method, including; working alongside Janis, carrying out the interview, colecting refrence material and producing a DVD video presentation, the folowing points in the method wer considered for amendment. It would be beter to: • Carry the interview out in two parts. The interview as carried out in two parts to fit in with Janis’ working schedule. This was a beter way of conducting the interview hich is quite long and in two parts it was less tiring for the interviewe. This is an advantage to the quality of the answers to the questions. • Record al material for DVD presentation directly onto digital video camera. The method of recording the interview and the reference material for the purposes of the DVD presentation were completd using only the video camera. It is easier in the diting process if al refrence material visual or audio is recorded irectly to digital videotape. • Record a visual and audio diary. As a separate refrence to the project, a visual and audio diary wil be kept. This diary wil be recorded with a digital camera and mini disc recorder and stored on CD’s in JPEG digital file format for pictures and as a normal audio CD for use on any CD player. During the interaction process keeping the diary wil be most 63 important for futre refrence in the final project, for the presentation of findings. • Record more refernce material. During the interview, notes must be made by the interviewer of possible refrence material and the interviewe must be encouraged to refer to reference material where possible, to highlight their ideas and thoughts. As much reference material must be recorded, including material that may not seem relevant, to put the craft practitioners, and what they say, in context and underpin the final presentation. • Change angle and scale during interview. While recording the interviewe speaking, it is important to change the angle and scale of the camera shot. This provides material for the presentation that wil keep the viewer interested. • Have the same thing said twice. Having the same thing said twice by the interviewe but in a diferent way wil provide material for the editing process that wil beter convey the ideas of the craft practitioners. • The order in which the checklist of questions is answerd in each section is not important. It is only that the questions in the checklist are answerd. The interviewe should be alowed to speak as freely as possible. The quality of what the interviewe says is improved given more freedom. • Make the questions from the checklist simpler. Some of the check list questions are complicated and long, these should be made as easy to understand as possible. • The universal openig introduction should be made shorter. The introduction was to long and complicated for a listener to take in. The folowing formal interview method is the result of the above considerations having completd the pilot interview. This interview method would be conducted with al the participating craft practitioners in as similar a way as possible. 64 3..1. Amended Craft Practitioners Interaction Interview Method The folowing interview structure is a qualitative, semi-structured, in-depth method. Within basic interview sections i.e. background, materials, workspace tc, open questions are given to the craft practitioner to answer. For each open question the checklist of specific questions are sought to be answerd by the interviewer. With the minimum input the interviewer is to guide the conversation so the craft practitioner might answer the checklist questions. This open and conversational style of interview is designed to make the interviewe as comfortable as possible. This method aims to provide a more in-depth view of the craft practitioners’ thoughts and ideas. It is important that the interviewer is aware not to lead the conversation towards their own bias or opinion. This potential bias would be considerd in the outcome of the interviews. When carrying out these interviews it was important to find as much reference material, to put in context and underpin statements etc, by the craft practitioners as possible. This refernce material included photgraphs, documents, video etc. After each set of questions, sources of refernce material wer asked for from the craft person being interviewed and noted down for colection at the nd of the interview. It would be necessary from time to time during the interview to ask the craft practitioner to repeat what they had just said and change the camera ngle and or scale. It was also important to continue changing the camera angle and scale whenever possible betwen the questions. The final interaction interview questions and presentation structure is provided in Appendix 6 (page 207). Appendix 6 provides a copy of the blank form used during the interaction interviews that were filed in by the author. These completd forms included notes of the reference material given by the interviewes that was then captured by the author on video and digital photgraphy. This refrence information aided the process of editing the video and igital photgraphy into the DVD presentations. The format of the form also represents the structure of the DVD presentations. 65 3.4. Selction of makers to participate in the interaction proces The selection process was conducted betwen January and March 203. The selection was made with the purpose of finding makers with specific characteristics. These characteristics included: • wiling to participate in the project • ability to speak English • professionaly practising • being from a separte discipline/craft tradition to the other participants • being from a discipline relevant to the table and chairs design brief This method may not have provided a ful cross-section of the Icelandic maker's community because the selction size was to smal but it tok makers from a discipline relvant to the prototype brief. The selected participants came from wel-recognized sources and are representatives from the top of their profession. Gender di not play a part in the selection process. The folowing makers from diferent disciplines wer selected. Birger Anderson, Shipwright at The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, Denmark. The author requested to work with someone from the Viking Ship Museum because they use the same methods of building ships as the Vikings di. Birger Anderson’s name was put forward as one of their most experienced shipwrights. There was no one working in shipbuilding of a Viking nature in Iceland. Ása Hátun, Wol Worker, Tórshaven, Feroe Islands. The chairman of the Faroe Islands craft association Randi S. Vang, put Ása Hátun’s name forward as an artist in wol and expert in the field of hand working it. 6 Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, Sculptor, Egilsstathir, Iceland. He is the third generation in a family of recognized Icelandic wod carvers, and has an inherited understanding of this tradition. He works as a contemporary artist, using mixed materials and film. Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith, Reykjavik, Iceland. She combines wod and silver in her work. The author saw her work in ‘SPOR’, an exhibition of contemporary Icelandic crafts, organized by Handverk og Honun (Handwork and Design, page 53), on the 9.1.02, in Hafnarfjordur, Iceland. She recently exhibited in ‘Nordic Col: Hot Women Designers’, at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, in Washington D.C., USA, betwen 23 April and 12 September 204. Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinet Maker, Vogar, Iceland. He has the longest established cabinet making business in Iceland. Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Foundry man and Patern Maker at Malmsteypan Hela ehf. Hafnarfjordur, Iceland. He is the only working Icelander both trained as a Foundry Man and Patern Maker. He has experience of making a wide variety of artefacts. 67 3.5. Schedule for the Interaction Interviews Formal arrangements were made to visit the selected makers betwen one to two weks for the author to work as their aprentice and carry out the formal interviews. The schedule for these visits can be sen below in table 3 interaction interviews schedule. Table 3 Interaction Interviews Schedule DATE 2003 MORNIG AFTERNOON 21 April 1400 check in Newcastle Royal Quays for Gothenburg 22 April Arrive Gothenburg, drive to Denmark Drive to Denmark. Camp out on the way 23 April Arrive Roskilde Viking Ship Museum Work for Birger Andersen 24 April Work for Birger Andersen Work for Birger Andersen 25 April Work for Birger Andersen Work for Birger Andersen 26 April Work for Birger Andersen Work for Birger Andersen 27 April Rest Rest 28 April Work for Birger Andersen Work for Birger Andersen 29 April Work for Birger Andersen Work for Birger Andersen 30 April Work for Birger Andersen Work for Birger Andersen 1 May Work for Birger Andersen Interview Birger Andersen 2 May Work for Birger Andersen Interview Birger Andersen 3 May Record reference material Record reference material 4 May Record reference material Record reference material 5 May Record reference material Work for Birger Andersen 6 May Work for Birger Andersen Work for Birger Andersen 7 May Pack and Rest Drive to Gothenburg 68 8 May Depart Gothenburg 1000 for Newcastle 9 May Arrive Newcastle 1000 gap 23 June 1700 check in at Aberdeen North link ferry terminal. 1900 dep. for Lerwick 24 June Arrive Lerwick Shetland at 0700. Check in Lerwick Smyril line 2400 25 June Depart Lerwick at 0200 Arrive Tórshavn Faroe Islands 1500. Find a place to stay and meet Ása Hátún 26 June Work for Ása Hátún Work for Ása Hátún 27 June Work for Ása Hátún Work for Ása Hátún 28 June Interview Ása Hátún Record reference material 29 June Record reference material Rest 30 June Interview Ása Hátún Record reference material 1 July Record reference material Record reference material 2 July Prepare to leave Check in Smyril line Tórshavn 1600 depart 1800 3 July Arrive Seyðisfjörður 0800 Find a place to stay/camp and meet Fjölnir B. Hlynsson 4 July Work for Fjölnir B. Hlynson. Work for Fjölnir B. Hlynson. 5 July Work for Fjölnir B. Hlynson. Work for Fjölnir B. Hlynson. 6 July Interview Fjölnir B. Hlynson. Rest 7 July Interview Fjölnir B. Hlynson. Record reference material 8 July Record reference material Record reference material 9 July Record reference material Record reference material 10 July Prepare to leave. Drive west. Drive west. Rest. Camp out. 11 July Drive west. Visit Skógar Folklore museum, and meet keeper Þódður Record reference material. Camp out. 69 Tómasson. 12 July Drive west Meet Thórhildur Thorgeirsdóttir and work for her. 13 July Rest. Rest. 14 July Work for Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir. Work for Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir. 15 July Work for Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir. Work for Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir. 16 July Interview Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir. Record reference material. 17 July Interview Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir. Record reference material. 18 July Record reference material. Record reference material. 19 July Record reference material. Record reference material. 20 July Rest. Rest. 21 July Meet Geir Oddgeirsson and work for. Work for Geir Oddgeirsson. 22 July Work for Geir Oddgeirsson. Work for Geir Oddgeirsson. 23 July Interview Geir Oddgeirsson. Record reference material. 24 July Interview Geir Oddgeirsson. Record reference material. 25 July Record reference material. Record reference material. 26 July Record reference material. Record reference material. 27 July Rest. Rest. 28 July Arrive at Malmsteypan HELLA ehf. Meet Gretar Mar Thorvaldson. Work for Gretar Mar Thorvaldson. 29 July Work for Gretar Mar Thorvaldson. Work for Gretar Mar Thorvaldson. 30 July Interview Gretar Mar Thorvaldson. Record reference material. 31 July Interview Gretar Mar Thorvaldson. Record reference material. 1 August Record reference material. Record reference material. 2 August Record reference material. Record reference material. 3 August Rest. Rest. 70 4 August Rest Rest 5 August Rest Drive east. Camp out. 6 August Drive to Seyðisfjörður Camp out. 7 August Check in Smyril line Seyðisfjörður 1000, depart 1200 8 August Land Tórshavn 0500. Record reference material. Camp out 9 August Rest. Record reference material. Rest. Camp out 10 Aug. Rest. Record reference material. Rest. Camp out 11 Aug. Check in for Smyril line departure to Lerwick 0630, depart 0830 Arrive Lerwick 2130. Camp out. 12 Aug. Record reference material. Check in for Northlink departure to Aberdeen 1700, depart 1900. 13 Aug. 0700 arrive Aberdeen. Drive Home for 1300. 71 4. The Interaction Interviews Visiting the 6 selcted makers, being their aprentice for one to two weks and sharing with them the vision of the project and the nature and commitment they have to their work, was a two-way sharing experience betwen the author and makers. Having no previous experience of working alongside makers in diferent disciplines prior to the project, and having the observation skils of a professional maker himself, the author absorbed practical, physical, visual and other information during these aprenticeships. With the focused aproach of the formal interviews and the colection of visual refrence material, an in-depth understanding of each maker, and how they might influence the demonstration artefacts, was developed. Learning so many new making skils in a short space of time opened up unforesen creative potential for the author. This quote from the author’s audio diary expresses these felings while aprentice to Ása Hatún in the Faroe Islands. “Working with Ása Hatún, she has ben quite an inspiration when I start to ad up everything she is teling me, she just does not stop teling me new things I have never heard of before, to do with wol, felting, kniting, weaving, nedlework, embroidery. Her commitment has always ben pedagogical but realy it's much broader than that. She travels idely and studies quite hard her felting craft..” 30 As wel as being inspired about how ol could be integrated into the design of the project table and chairs the author was also inspired to make experimental felt artefacts such as the 14th century Viking traders helmet (fig. 9, page 40). The majority of what the makers discussed with the author during his aprenticeship to them was suported by observation of the makers’ physical gestures and actions. The artifacts and tols made and used by the makers, their working environment and refernce images/artifacts provided by the makers and museums also suported what was discussed. The xperience 30 Interaction diary Ása 30.6.03, track 1, Interaction Audio Diary 203, T. Hawson, 205, (Audio CD). 72 of observing the diferent makers’ working methods, physicaly and visualy demonstrated to the author how to make like them with the same hand and body movements, rhythms and mental aproach. This knowledge of how to make within diferent disciplines gave the author sympathy with the difernt makers’ ways of working and how their making methods could be used to design and make the demonstration table and chairs. The information absorbed by the author during his aprenticeship to the makers canot efectively be described in word. Words are felt to be inadequate at describing the intimacies of physical and visual observation experienced by the author. To best present these experiences as refernces for the project, edited video recordings, artifacts, and audio diary recordings are provided. These visual, audio and physical records represent the reference points for learning, as experienced by an aprentice. The formats used for recording and presenting images, audio and video are described in Appendix 7 media formats (page 217). For the continuity of presentation the reader is reminded to view the multimedia refrence material when they are instructed to do so in the text. 73 4.1. Edited Video Recordings: Interaction Interviews with Makers The dialogue in these presentations is only the background and basic introduction to the visual media. During the editing process atention was given to not change the meanig of what the makers said, but to condense the interviews. The folowing points should be considered when viewing these presentations: • The facts to be found are visual. The shape, form, rhythm and proportions of the maker’s work, the aproach to the work and other unspoken unwriten information are the points of reference that are most relevant betwen the makers and the author. • Each interview has ben conducted and presented in the same way as described in apendix 6 (page 207). • These presentations of the interviews represent the experience of the author working as aprentice/assistant to the interviewed makers. • The visual media within these presentations provide refernces of the makers’ influence on the design of the project’s demonstration artefacts. • The presentations represent evidence of the author’s observation of the working methods of the makers interviewed. 74 Considering the above points the reader should now view the interaction interview presentation DVD discs labeled: Multimedia Disc 1 Contents: • Birger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark, Interaction Interview, May 203. • Ása Hatún, Wol Worker, Faroe Islands, Interaction Interview, June 203. • Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203. Multimedia Disc 2 Contents: • Thórhildir Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203. • Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinetmaker, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203 • Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203. A list with refernce information for the images used in the generic title sequence and slide shows for each maker is provided in Apendix 8 (page 218). Transcriptions of the interviews are provided on the multimedia disc 2 Interaction Interview presentation (DVD) as DVD-ROM Microsoft Windows Word files. Refrences from the DVD discs that show how the makers have influenced the design of the demonstration artifacts are numerous. One example can be seen in the first nie slides of the slide show on Birger Andersen's DVD, 75 'uper deck knes' made by the author while aprenticed to Birger Andersson. 31 The form and the way of making this Viking warship component was used to make the woden patern for the aluminum back legs of the demonstration chairs. The tol marks from the spoke shave used to make the woden chair leg patern wer left visible as they are on the Viking warship component and the finished aluminum casting of the woden leg patern retains these tol marks as part of the intended surface finish. The closing scene of Birger Andersen’s interaction interview film shows Birger shaping a uper deck kne with an axe, the rhythm and pace in which he works is that which the author adopted to learn how to make a kne like Birger. 31 T. Hawson, ‘Birger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark, Interaction Interview, May 203.’ Slide Sho, slides 1-9, DVD 1, T. Hason, 203. (DVD) 76 4.2. Artefacts Artifacts made by the author with the assistance of the makers represent the physical nature of his aprenticeship experience with them. Some of the artefacts are experiments in preparation to make the demonstration table and chairs and others were made with no direct intention to influence the table and chairs design. The folowing eight ilustrations, (Figs. 10 to 17), are the artefacts made with the makers during the interaction interviews. Comments are provided as to how these artefacts or their making have influenced the author and/or the table and chair design. These images can also be sen on the multi media disc 3 in the folder titled, Interaction Interview Artefacts. Fig. 10 Viking ship uper deck kne made by the author under instruction from Birger Andersen at the Roskilde Viking Ship Museum, 203. The author made 5 of these Viking ship components (Fig. 10). They influenced most directly the design and making method of the woden patern for the chair back leg, which was cast in aluminum. 7 Fig. 1 Felt seat made by Ása Hatún and the author, in the Faroe Islands, 203. The felt seat (Fig. 1) was made as an experiment to se how directly flece from a shep could be processed to make a seat for the chair. Part of a shep’s flece was raped in a cloth and roughly stitched through to make it a flat shape before puting directly into a washing machine. It was hoped that this simple process would produce a seat pad for the chair, it was, however, to uneven, making repeat production to variable. Fig. 12 Viking lady’s Knife made by the author with Fjolnir Hlynson, 203. 78 Fig. 13 Reinder horn handled knives, made by author with Fjolnir Hlynson, 203. Fig. 14 Poem Fence, by Fjolnir Hlynson asisted by author, 203. The artefacts made while aprenticed to Fjolnir Hlynsson (Figs. 12, 13, 14) provided an insight into Icelandic culture. The Viking lady’s knife (Fig. 12) was made with the tang as the handle, because in early Icelandic history, Fjolnir told the author while making it, a law as passed that ladies could not have knives with handles, because of repeated incidences of lady’s using 79 knives as weapons in passion motivated atacks. While making the reinder horn handled knives (Fig. 13), the author was told many stories about hunting and the non-indigenous reinder’s impact on the landscape. The Poem Fence (Fig. 14) was a site-specific artwork by Fjolnir Hlynsson. The poem was by a local shep farmer about two lovers going behind the hil. The Poem Fence was sited in front of this hil. While assisting to make and erect this fence, stories about the lives of people in the area, where this artwork was sited, were told to the author by Fjolnir and his father. Fig. 15 Silver and bone handled spon, made by the author while aprentice to Thorhildur Thorgeirsdottir, 203. The scratched surface finish of this spon (Fig. 15) is a method used by Thorhildur and was used to decorate/finish the aluminum inlays in the project demonstration table. The cast aluminum artefacts (Fig. 16, 17, page 80) wer experiments in surface finishing. The transfer of the tol carved faceted surface of the woden paterns onto the surface of their aluminum castings and the diferent processes available in the foundry workshop wer studied. 80 Fig. 16 Cast aluminum spons, made by the author while aprentice to Gretar Mar Thorvaldson, 203. Fig. 17 Woden pattern and aluminum casts, sculpture made by the author while aprentice to Gretar Mar Thorvaldson, 203. 81 4.3. Audio Diaries Audio diaries wer recorded throughout the interactive interview process by the author. These diaries were kept as a personal record for the author to remind himself at a later date of thoughts, felings, new ideas and things of interest learnt while carrying out the interviews. During the initial stages of the design process for the table and chairs, the diaries wer listened to by the author while sketching and making models, reminding him of his experiences with the makers and strengthenig their influence on the designs. These audio diaries are provided on the Interactive Interview Diaries discs 4 and 5, (audio CD). Refrences are made to these diary discs in the text of this thesis. 82 5. Design Proposals Design proposals, including ilustrations and specifications, wer prepared betwen October 203 and January 204 by the author. These proposals were presented to the selected makers for their comments and amendments in February 204. With consideration to these comments, some final amendments wer made by the author before departure to Iceland, to begin the making process on the 28 th March 204. The design process for these proposals involved the author sketching, model making, building a ful-size mock up, preparing outline and presentation drawings and writing specifications. Whilst reflecting on his experiences with al the makers during the interaction interviews, the author also loked at the sketches and listened to the audio diary recordings he had made during the interaction interviews, strengthenig his memory of these xperiences, while designig. The diting of the video and photgraphic material into DVD presentations also helped to remind the author of these experiences. The design proposals wer influenced as much as possible by the selected makers via the author’s interaction interview experiences. It was not the author’s intention to produce designs to be made xactly as presented, but to begin the process and leave the final development of the designs to be done during their making in the company of the selected makers in their workshops. During the design process, photgraphs of the drawings, models and mock- ups wer uploaded onto the author’s website 32 for the selected makers to comment upon, and these images can be sen on the, multimedia disc 3, (file name ‘website photgraphs of work in progress’). Only Fjolnir Hlynsson made a response to these photgraphs uploaded onto the website. He sent two e-mails, see Appendix 9 (page 29). 32 T.Hawson, ‘Se pictures of the first model making and sketching of first prottypes’, Work in progress, ww.thomashawson.co, 204 (accessed 4 April 205). 83 5.1. Drawing The drawings in the author’s sketchbok provided on multimedia disc 3, image files P1 to P8, show sketchbok entries made while carrying out the interaction interviews, and the image files P9 to P21 show sketch bok entries made during the process of designig the table and chairs. One example of an idea that is represented in the sketchbok and became part of the finished design is the aplied tabletop patern. The sketchbok drawing shown on image P8 (Fig. 18), Celtic knot work art, was drawn from George Bain’s bok 3 . Thóthur Tómassen, curator of the Skógur Folk Museum, lent this bok to the author while at the museum betwen the interaction interviews in Iceland, July 203. The Vikings used the same knot work paterns as the Celts for their decorative wodcarving, and the same construction methods for them. Later in the sketchbok image P13 (Fig. 19), the influence of this marking out technique can be seen in a design sketch for the tabletop, which was the patern used on the finished table. Fig. 18 Celtic knot work art. 3 G. Bain’s, Celtic art the methods of construction, 24 th edn, Constable, London, 202, p. 28. 84 Fig. 19 Design sketch for table top. 5.2. Models and Mock-ups Models and ful size mock-ups of dinig table and chair designs were built at the author’s home studio and Buckinghamshire Chiltern University Colege, Fine Craft workshops, betwen October 203 and March 204. These models and ful size mock-ups were made as part of the design process along with sketching. The models and mock-ups can be seen on multimedia disc 3. 5.3. Specifications Writen specifications, outline and presentation drawings were finished in January 204 ready for the selected makers to sugest amendments. The outline and presentation drawings are ilustrated in Figs. 20, 21 and 2, on pages 85 and 86. 85 Fig. 20 Dinig chair outline proposal drawing. Fig. 21 Dinig table outline proposal drawing. 86 Fig. 2 Dinig table and chair presentation drawing. The folowing writen specifications give a basic description of the proposed design, sugested materials and methods of construction. Specific influences from the work of the makers on the design were given. These elments are only an indication of the selected maker’s ful influence on the design. 5.3.1. Dinig Table Specifications The table top was to be constructed of eight separate woden segments with a central disc in the midle, this central disc may have had the option of spining round. The ight separate woden segments of the tabletop wer to be conected with eight aluminium castings. The castings would come to the surface of the table at the corners of each segment, and interconect under the tabletop to make an under frame and provide conection points for the eight woden steam bent legs. The eight legs wer to be conected to a woden cross frame on the flor. The surface of the tabletop could have had a shalow groove cut into it, to visualy interconect the aluminium details that 87 would come to the surface and the ight separte woden segments. Place mats made of wol, of a rounded triangular shape, could fit betwen the interconecting shalow grooves on each segment. The composition of components that made up the table top wer described by Fjolnir Hlynsson, having viewed the sketchbok images uploaded onto the author’s website, as being reminiscent of Viking shield esigns and also early Icelandic jewelery. The interconecting lines carved into the tabletop are references to the marking-out lines used in the preparation of Celtic knot work, as used by Vikings as a decorative medium. The ight steam bent and twisted legs, are references to the boat building tradition. The square cross frame on the flor is left purposefuly simple as if it wer made from driftwod found that size. The woden elments of the table were to be made of oak. A 5 mm gap would be left betwen the table top components including the woden segments, central disc and surface aluminium details. This gap would be open under the surface of the table so as not to trap fod crumbs. The table top components would be conected by narrow fins of aluminium. The aluminium components would be sand cast from a patern. The patern could have had a decorative surface texture that would be left on the visible parts of the finished components. Additional surface finishes and efects could be aplied to the castings. The aluminium castings would be screwed to the underside of the woden table top wher apropriate slots would be made in the aluminium screw holes to alow for shrinkage and expansion in the wod. The eight legs would be steam bent on to jigs before assembly. These legs would conect to the aluminium castings by bolts idealy in a shalow socket. The legs would conect to the cross frame on the flor into a narrow socket and be secured with a lose dowel. The table was to be shiped as finished components that can be assembled by the distributor/agent or by the end user. The wol tablemats wer to be felted and to sit on the surface of the table. 8 5.3.2. Dinig Chair Specifications The chair seat was to be made of an aluminium frame with a woven or plywod infil panel with a felt cover. The aluminium seat frame was to be atached to the aluminium back leg and the woden front legs. The influence for this chair design was from Viking shipbuilding. The surface finish on the aluminium castings could have the apearnce of hand carved wod. The steam bent curved arm/backrest could have lines or a profile scratched onto its surface along the inside dges to ilustrate where the nails or screw fixings should go, this would be in keeping with Viking shipbuilding methods. The profile and shapes in the aluminium seat frame are organic and curved, in contrast to the square section of the front legs. The crude square section of the front legs matched the square section of the table flor frame. The aluminium seat frame and back leg wer to be sand cast. A seat infil panel made of plywod was to be screwed into a rebate in the frame or a woven seat could have ben threaded through oles in the seat frame. The seat frame was to be atached to the aluminium back leg and the woden front legs with bolts. The felted wol seat was to be fastened to the seat to stop it sliding. The woden paterns for the sand cast aluminium back leg and seat frame, were to have a fine hand carved surface finish (not to be sanded out) to be left as detail in the final sand cast components. The front legs and armrest were to be made of oak. The curved arm/backrest component was to be steam bent from oak and fixed into position with coper boat nails or screws. The chair was to be shiped as finished components that could be assembled by the distributor/agent or by the nd user. 89 5.4. Selcted Makers Amend the Design The specifications including the writen descriptions (chapter 5 sub headings 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, pages 86 and 8) and rawings, (Figs. 20, 21 and 2, pages 85 and 86), wer posted to the selected makers for their comments and sugested amendments to the designs. A form for this purpose was prepared, and subsequently piloted with Hala Bogadotir, an established goldsmith from Reykjavik, Iceland, on 24.1.204, at Hundale Mil Farm. Below are the recommended amendments to the comments form after the pilot exercise and iscussion with Hala on 26.1.204. These are as folows: • The makers should be advised to lok at the technical drawings and presentation drawing together, to get the best understanding of the design. • A telphone conversation betwen the makers and the author would be useful during the form filing exercise. This would iron out any misunderstanding and provide for a beter outcome. This telphone conversation should take place when the form filing exercise has ben done, then the form should not be returned for five days to alow for further comments to be made. • Ensure that the craft practitioners put their name and the date on al papers, a name and ateline should be provided for. These comments were taken into account, the form amended and posted out. The amended form is provided in Appendix 10 design comments form, page 231. The telphone cals made were recorded and are provided on multimedia disc 6 telphone design amendments and parts of them have ben aded to the making a table and chairs DVD presentation, multimedia disc 7. 90 5.4.1. Makers’ Coments on Proposed Design Gretar Thorvaldsson and Geir Odgeirsson both chose not to fil in the form because they felt that the design discussions could not easily be made on the phone or on paper. They both agreed that it would be best to make them when the work was in their hands to be done in their workshops. Gretar made the folowing point on the phone to the author, “I don’t see the point to draw something down..it is best to do these things when you are working on it in your hands..” 34 Geir made comments on the phone which are included on the multimedia disc 6. These comments concerned the complexity of the table and the sugestion that the table could be made much simpler by having a solid top. Birger Andersen’s wrote the folowing on his returned form: Steaming: one hour per inch, from when the box is warm. The shape of a plank on a Viking ship wil be narrow towards the stern and wider at the midle like this (Fig. 23): Fig. 23 Birger Andersen’s amendment sketch 34 T. Hawson, ‘Gretar Phone amendments 26.2.04’, Multimedia disc 6 Telphone design amendments, 203. (Audio CD) 91 The conection of the legs. We don’t see this solution on Viking ships, or the few places where ther is things like it, it is locked by itself. I think the lose dowel is perfect. The steam bent wod, wil not stay in shape when losened from the jig, how much it has to be over bent is hard to say. Fjolnir Hlynsson di not fil in the form itself but sent the folowing leter with his thoughts about the design. Fjolnir Hlynsson Mithús 70 Egilsstathir Iceland 9.2.04 Dear Thomas. I have ben loking at the designs that you have sent me and I must say they are very clearly and nicely presented. You ask me for my opinion and critic on this design and I wil give that to you, but before I start writing negative and form-altering things. I would like to state that the basic design is god. However there are things that I would like to mention: The table: I like the table top, it is very nice. The round-cornered triangles are very interesting, and link the chair a litle bit beter to the table. I would efinitely get rid of the cross underneath the steam bent legs (Fig. 25, page 92) and strongly consider to get rid of the steam bent legs also. It is way to heavy in context to the fine detailed tabletop. You have made a ful size “mock-up” of another kind that is much beter, and also a photgraphy set up of a 8 leged and 4 leged version (Fig. 24, page 92). The 4 leged is simple and god. I would like to see some more of that or the first mock–up type. I can imagine that if the arches on the table legs were altered a bit and moved more in line with the chair back arch it would be very god. I would also consider the number of table legs, it loks a bit crowded under the table, maybe 4 would be nough? 92 Fig. 24 Eight leg table The design I like more (and also the 4 leged photgraphy set up version) Fig. 25 Steam bent leg table I don’t know hat you said to Dr Simon Thorne and Prof. Poly Bins, and I miss that. Maybe you gave reasons for various elments in the design – I don’t know. I do however think that you were expressing the drawn – up lines in the table top in those steam bent legs, and extending a eight segment design down into a four point foundation. Right? It is god thinking but it somehow loses conection to the tabletop. It is way to crazy – and we want calm, we have got the crazy part in the tabletop. They bend in to arches (and one could argue that the back of the chair di that to), but also twist after the length of the leg – due to the round form. To many – to crazy, baroque, I get a seawed feling (I’m not sure if I speled that right, but it is basicaly a plant that grows in the sea). I also think that you have to have the table foundations cast in aluminium, not wod. If you lok at the watercolour picture you sent me, you wil see unbalnced the materials are betwen the chair and the table. It is also likely that you have to have “shoes” or “bots” from wod or you wil again unbalnce it. Think about this. 93 Here is the “Húsasnotra” that Vikings used to navigate across the ocean, and tabletop reminded me of. Fig. 26 Viking navigation aid At last: I don’t vote for a spining disc in the midle, ther is no ned for it in this design (Fig. 26, same as Fig. 35, page 230). The chair: Fig. 27 Model chair 94 This is a phot from the internet web page – and the one I originaly saw. At that point I di not see any aluminium, now that I do, it changes the design and opens up the ned for a dialog beten the two materials. In the watercolur picture you have expressed the aluminium in the back and in the seat. In this dialog the “organic” lines up with the aluminium and now I get this feling that the front legs and back are from another design. There in one thing that I would efinitely do, extend the back/leg above the level of the back/armrest (Fig. 28). Fig. 28 Chair sketches You have drawn this yourself, and some elments are useful her. I fel you have to move some “organic” over to the wod, or change this balnce somehow. The back arch and the thre legs format have to stay no mater what, they are the essence and the briliance of the design. I have mentioned to you before that I fel ships, and I fel bones and skeletons when I lok at this. Both are god. Viking ships were just boards of wod that covered a skelton. Ribs are in the left page of your sketchbok, or you can also see a ship structure, and that might be something to think about. Maybe it is possible to think of the back arch as a spine that has steam bent fine wod arches atached to it, and lose the armrest? Just a thought, but I’l thro in a sketch (Fig. 29, page 95). 95 Fig. 29 Fjolnir’s chair sketch When I first glanced at the watercolour drawing I saw the round cornerd triangles, and I saw them mirrored in the seat. But no I have loked at the technical draings and I realise that it is not so. Is this something to consider? Can the felt in the seat mirror this form? Again just a thought. I have also seen a version (in my mind) of a table and chair where this felt extends the edge and slopes of like a tablecloth does. Maybe this could be an option? Could be removed and washed? 96 Fig. 30 Fjolnir’s chair detail sketch Summary In few ords: • The cross and the steam bent legs away • Replace with the other mock–up design, but made of aluminium • Think about “shoes” or “bots” of wod • Consider 4 leged photgraphed set up version • Change the armrest /front leg to try to match the aluminium beter - it is to diferent Sincerely yours Fjölnir Björn Hlynsson, Sculptor 09.02.04 97 Ása Hatun wrote the folowing on her form. Torshaven 2.3.04 Hi Thomas I think that the new table design is very elgant – I supose that the legs are sterns of a Viking-boat? Have you droped the table-and-chair mats/covers? They are not apropriate now, are they? But the chair y ned something soft and warm. But you tel me about further plans. I chose to make al my comments together. About the proposal of table and chairs: I find that felted material wil be apropriate material for table-mats and chair-seats. The design for both can very wel match in colour and shape. The tablemats, of course, have to be thiner, but not thiner than they can keep structure and firm. They also have to be asily washable. The mats for the chairs must be about 4-6 times thicker, hard felted and strong. This wil be hard work as handicraft, but wil be a fine option to go with this furniture. The wol to be used for the purpose could be mixed coat and botom wol, Faroese or Icelandic, in natural shades from white to grey shades, light to dark brown shades. I find this proposed esign very elgant and beautiful. I can easily imagine the legs as sterns of a Viking-boat. Could the lines from the legs (the boards of the boat) faintly be seen in the chair or on the table top? I realy have no idea about architecture other than what I fel, so you may not care about what I say. I wonder if felted mats and seats are apropriate to this version of furniture? But you tel me what you want me to do, and I wil do my best. As to how to fasten the seats to the chair, it is possible to felt felted strings in beten the layers of wol, so that the seat can be tied to the legs of the chair. About design; I like the idea of the runes, but also floating paterns that the wol creates can be interesting. You tel me. Asa 98 Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir wrote the folowing replies on her form: The dinig table top at least on the drawing proposal is to thin compared to the cross frame. I like it as it is. It reminds me of the sun – mytholgy – original. In answer to the folowing question: What surface finish could be aplied to the surface of the castings? Thorhildur wrote: We wil have to see at the aluminium foundry. In answer to the folowing question to Thorhildur on the form: Does the patern the table top components make, remind you of paterns in early Icelandic jewelery? Thorhildur wrote: Yes the breast brooches from the first Icelandic – women – (Vikings) Regarding the dinig chair Thorhildur wrote: I like shape/form of the dinig chair the triangular shape of the aluminium casting reminds me of a whale bone, the spine and the ribs, (it was used back in the arly days as a “chair”), it is stil possible to find them in some gardens her in Iceland as a garden decoration. The surface finish – we wil have to se and experiment about that at the aluminium factory. It is possible to get a special piece to put in the polishing machine, with “lose nails” I wil se about that. The finish wil be a bit hammered? We wil have to think about when this chair goes to mass production that the one aluminium leg has to get some “ending” so it won’t harm the flor The comments made by the makers in writing and by phone (multimedia disc 6, telphone design amendments, from 25.2.03 to 27.2.03) can be summed up as below. • The chair was generaly liked. • The table was to complex in construction. • The patern on the table top was liked but not the cross on the flor. • The work neded to be developed in the workshops of the makers with experimentation during the making process. 9 Before leaving for Iceland to make the table and chairs the author began sketching a new design for the table under-frame and legs, and for a table with a solid top. A new idea for the table developed in the author’s sketchbok (Figs. 31 and 32). Fig. 31 New table legs ketch Fig. 32 New table legs ketch 2 10 This new leg design is an interpretation of the stern posts from a Viking ship, to be cast in aluminium. A model was also made of these new legs (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 New table legs model 1:5 scale model in wood 101 6. Making the Table and Chairs The making process was conducted in Iceland betwen 29 March and 8 May 204, in the workshops of the selected makers: Gretar Thorvaldsson; Fjolnir Hlynsson; Geir Odgeirsson. A time schedule for the making process is provided in Table 4, page 102. The author shared the work with the makers, including Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, who visited Gretar Thorvaldsson’s workshop. The author, under the guidance of the selected makers, di most of the making work. During this part of the project the author captured with photgraphy, video and sound recordings the continued experimentation and evelopment of the design throughout the making process (multimedia disc 7, making the table and chairs). The recorded media exposes the influence of the selcted makers on the design and the creative making experience shared betwen the makers and the author. After the table and chairs had ben made in Iceland, templates wer taken for the felted wol seat covers and tablemats to be made by Asa Hatun. These were made by Asa in the Faroe Islands and posted to the author. 102 Table 4 Time Schedule for Making the Table and Chairs in Iceland DATE 204 Morning Afternon 28 March Check in Glasgow airport 0915, FN:FI431, depart 115 Arrive Keflavik Int’l 125, 29 March Meet and work with Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson. Patern making and casting workshop. Aluminium comp. 30 March Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 31 March Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 1 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 2 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 3 April 4 April 5 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 6 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 7 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 8 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 9 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 10 April 1 April 103 DATE 204 Morning Afternon 12 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 13 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 14 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 15 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 16 April Patern making and casting Patern making and casting 17 April Rest Rest 18 April Rest Rest 19 April Meet and work at Geir Odgeirsson Workshop. Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Table top and other woden on- steam bent components at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. 20 April Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. 21 April Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. 2 April Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. 23 April Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Timber components Tresmidjan Grein ehf. 24 April Travel to East of Iceland Travel to East of Iceland 25 April Meet and work with Fjölnir B. Hlynsson, Miðhús. Chair assembly, steam bending. Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair 104 DATE 204 Morning Afternon 26 April Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair 27 April Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair 28 April Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair 29 April Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair 30 April Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair Fjölnir B. Hlynsson at Miðhús. Chair 1 May Rest Rest 2 May Rest Rest 3 May Travel West Travel West back to Reykjavík 4 May Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Complet the table and chairs. Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Complet table chairs 5 May Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Complet table chairs Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Complet table chairs 6 May Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Complet table chairs Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Complet table chairs 7 May Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Complet table chairs Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Pack into packing case and eliver to air cargo. 105 DATE 204 Morning Afternon 8 May Rest Rest 9 May Check in Kaflavik Int’l Airport, 050, FN FI430, depart 0720. Arrive Glasgow 1025. 106 6.1. Method of Recording the Making Proces Due to the nature of this part of the project, it was unpredictable in what sequence things would hapen, how they would hapen, and how the design would be developed as work progressed. To capture this spontaneous design development in the hands of the makers, an unstructured method of recording in digital audio and visual media was used. The formats used wer digital photgraphy, mini disc audio recording and mini DV (video). The folowing areas, or events, in the design development and making process, were the key areas to be captured: • Initial sketching, drawing and discussion of proposed design with selected makers, the mphasis being on their comments. • Making ful size drawings, models, experiments with the selected makers. • Making the table and chairs, and any discussions on further design decisions. • Talking about finished table and chairs or experiments. The author, while recording the making process, considered the folowing points: • While capturing the above it is the individual nature of each maker’s working method or style that was to be recorded. • The selected makers neded to understand the importance of the recording equipment right from the begining. • The use of the recording equipment, from the begining, helped reduce camera and microphone shyness. • The quipment must be to hand, set up and ready to record at al times during the making process. 107 • Predicting when an intersting moment might hapen neded to be foreseen, in order to capture and record it successfuly. • Gathering evidence of a colective working method was an important part of the process which neded recording. The video, photgraphy and audio media capturing the shared making experience was used to make the presentation on multimedia disc 7, making the table and chairs (DVD). The presentation is a montage of media, focused on exposing the shared nature of the making experience. When viewing this presentation the reader should note that the visual and physical communication betwen the makers, is the most relevant to the making process. The reader is now advised to view the multimedia disc 7, making the table and chairs (DVD). 108 6.2. The Completd Table and Chairs The completd table and chairs were shiped back to the author’s home on the 12 May 204, where an oil finish was aplied. Images of the completd table and chairs can be seen on the multimedia disc 3, and one of these is provided in Fig. 34. Fig. 34 Completed table and chairs Table is 153 cm in diametr and 71 cm high, made of Oak and Aluminium. Over a period of 6 weks the author, with a group of makers in Iceland, made the table and chairs (Fig.35). Through a series of shared making sessions in diferent workshops, the design for the table and chairs was resolved and made. This designig and making process was shared democraticaly betwen the makers and the author by the communication of ideas through physicaly making and experimenting and talking. 109 7. Feasibility Study: Production of the Project Table and Chairs in Iceland This study was carried out during the making process and before the exhibition tour began, betwen March and August 204. Its purpose was to assess whether or not the table and chairs could go into production in Iceland, at what scale and what the estimated cost per unit would be. This was done by direct correspondence with the makers who had made the table and chairs in their workshops, Gretar Thorvaldsson, Geir Odgeirsson, Fjolnir Hlynsson and Asa Hatun. A feasibility study form (see Apendix 1, page 24), was sent to each maker with a copy of the specifications, provided in Appendix 12 (page 248). The makers wer asked to fil in the form and provide information with respect to their part of the production. The forms were designed to help assess the potential costs of producing the table and chairs in Iceland, for orders of one item at a time, and for batches of 10 or 100 items. It was thought that the larger batch sizes would bring the costs down. The requested elments of production and summaries of the returned information provided by the diferent makers are provided below. 7.1. Gretar Mar Thorvaldson Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, was requested to provide: Cast aluminium components for both the chair and table, prepared to a finished state ready for final assembly with woden elments. Summary of returned information from Gretar: • He could produce up to 10 sets of aluminium components for 80 chairs and 10 tables. • It would take one wek to complet an order for one set of aluminium components for 8 chairs and 1 table. It would take 3 months to complet an order for 80 chairs and 10 tables. 10 • Gretar di not want recognition or a royalty for helping to develop the table and chairs. • It would be acceptable and cheaper to have it made in another country. • It would costs £1240 for the production of one set of aluminium components (4 table leg brackets and 8 chair back legs/seat-frames). No cost was provided for larger quantities. • The table and chairs could be sold on the internet. 7.2. Fjolnir Hlynson Fjolnir Hlynsson, was requested to: Make woden chair components including oil finish and assemble with aluminium parts, to a finished state. Disassemble the chairs and pack into packing crate, eight chairs to a crate. Packing crate also to be made and suplied. Summary of returned information from Fjolnir: • He could produce up to 1 set, 8 chairs and 1 table. • He was not equiped or interested in heavy production, was not interested in large orders. • The production of 8 chairs would take 1 month, at an estimated cost of £2616 (these figures do not include aluminium component costs). • If someone lse made the table and chairs recognition in its development and a royalty was requested. • Production could take place outside Iceland. • The table and chairs should be sold in furniture shops Fjolnir wrote the folowing statement at the back of the form. 11 I’m prety sure that this chair and table are “unfeasible” to produce from hand. To produce them I think it would be necessary to ask professional furniture making companies that have specialized machinery, and a lot of experience. However it is a god design and it has built in some “hand- made” elments and serves the goal: “to make use of craftspeople skils to design a product for industrial production”. I am not sure that is should be the goal to get craftspeople to actualy make the product, and I am not sure that craftspeople would like making things on such a scale, siply because that takes away the freedom they have. I would like to see an estimate price from a factory also. 7.3. Geir Odgeirson Geir Odgeirsson was requested to: Make woden table components, insert aluminum discs into tabletop and aply cut line decorative details. Apply oil finish to woden components. Make final assembly of table components. Disassemble table and pack into a secure packing crate. Packing crate to be made and suplied also. Summary of returned information from Geir: • Could produce up to 10 tables. • It would take 9 weks to complet an order for 1 table. It would take 24 weks to complet an order for 10 tables. • 1 table would cost aproximately £2735 and 10 tables would cost aproximately £191,845 (these figures do not include aluminium component costs). • It would be acceptable for another company in another country to make the table, in return for development expenses paid and published recognition. • The table and chairs could be sold in exhibitions. 12 7.4. Ása Hatún Ása Hatún, was requested to: Make felted wol seat covers and table mats. Pack mats and seat covers into parcels of 8 ready for delivery. Summary of returned information from Ása: • She could produce up to 1 set of 8 tablemats and seat covers. • It would take 10 to 12 days to make one set of these items. • No objection for others to make these items. Does not know about royalties or published recognition. 7.5. Combined Sumary of Makers Returned Information With consideration to the information returned from the makers it can said that: • Production of the table and chairs by the selected makers could only be produced one set at a time, 1 table and 8 chairs. Tables on their own could be made in batches of 10. • From the aproximate costs provided, not including the costs of the wolen elments or delivery, £2975 for one table and £452 for one chair, would make the point of sale price to high for retail sales. As a wholesale price is normaly half of the retail price, this mean the table would have a retail price of £600, which is to high for the retail market. • These products could only be made for an exclusive or one-of market and would be competing with bespoke furniture. • The possibility to produce this furniture in quantity in Iceland can be ruled out, as the specialist manufacturers required for this do not exist in Iceland. 13 8. Exhibition Tour and Evaluation of Artefacts The xhibition's purpose was to expose the table and chairs to as broad an audience as possible across Northern Europe and assess the response. It was also the purpose of the exhibition to expose elments of the Icelandic/Nordic culture of craftsmanship and design. The exhibition demonstrated what a valuable commodity the traditional crafts are, how they contribute to cultural identity and how modern industry could be influenced by them. The xhibition tour tok place betwen 9 August and 9 October 204. The author traveled with the exhibition to HANDVERK OG HÖNUN (Handwork and Design), Reykjavik, Iceland, wher the British Ambassador, Alp Mehmet opened the first exhibition in the tour, on the 16 August. On tour the xhibition spent aproximately a wek in each of the folowing venues: HANDVERK OG HÖNUN (Handwork and Design), Reykjavik, Iceland. This is an Icelandic Government funded project representing Icelandic crafts, with a permanent exhibition venue. Gunarsstofnun, Egilsstaðir, Iceland. This is a cultural centre in the east of Iceland, hosting regular exhibitions and events, including Icelandic craft and art. Faroes Crafts Society, Torshaven, Faroe Islands. The Iceland project exhibition would join the Faroes Crafts Society’s two wek anual show in the centre of Torshaven, a cultural venue. Shetland Museum, Shetland, Scotland. This is the local Government funded museum, a cultural centre in Shetland with a permanent exhibition space. The Lightouse, Design Museum, Glasgow, Scotland. This museum has a permanent exhibition on the work of Charles Renie Mackintosh, the architect of the venue building. The venue hosts a number of temporary and touring, design orientated exhibitions, throughout the year. 14 The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, Denmark. This museum houses a permanent colection of Viking ships found nearby and a boat yard making reconstructions of them and other boats. The exhibition tour venues are detailed in Appendix 13 (page 253). The folowing tables 5 and 6 provide details of the xhibition tour time schedule. Table 5 Iceland, Faroe’s and Shetland Exhibition Time Schedule DATE MORNIG AFTERNON 9 August Depart Hundale mil farm 130 (175 miles to Aberden) Check in Aberden North link ferries 150 Depart 170 10 Aug Arrival Lerwick 730 check-in Lerwick on Norröna 240 1 Aug Depart Lerwick 020 Ariv. Dep Tóshavn 150 180 12 Aug Arrive Seyðisfjörður Iceland 080. Drive West (543 km 37 miles to Skógar) (70 km 434 miles to Reykjavík) Drive West to Skógar Foss and camp. 13 Aug Drive West to Reykjavík Meet and stay with Thórhildur, and family. 14 Aug Meet HANDVERK OG HÖNUN Set up Table and chair 15 Aug Set up Table and chair Set up Table and chair 16 Aug HANDVERK OG ÖUN Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition - Exhibition opened by British Ambassador. Diner at Hala’s House. 17 Aug Exhibition Exhibition 18 Aug Exhibition Exhibition 19 Aug Exhibition Exhibition 20 Aug Exhibition Take down Exhibition. 21 Aug Drive east Drive east Camp on the way. 2 Aug Meet Skúli Björn Gunarsson at unarsstofnun, set up table and chairs etc. 140 open exhibition 23 Aug Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 24 Aug Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 25 Aug Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 26 Aug Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 15 DATE MORNIG AFTERNON 27 Aug Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition. 28 Aug Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 29 Aug Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 30 Aug write thesis draft 31 Aug write thesis draft 1 Sep write thesis draft 2 Sep Check in at Seyðisfjörður 100 for Norröna Depart 120 3 Sep Arrive Tórshavn 050 4 Sep Set up Exhibition with Faroes Crafts Society Exhibition 5 Sep 6 Sep Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 7 Sep Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 8 Sep write thesis draft 9 Sep write thesis draft 10 Sep Check in Tórshavn for Norröna 0630, Depart 0830 Arrive Lerwick 210 1 Sep Set up Exhibition at Shetland Museum Exhibition 12 Sep Spon carving workshop Project Lecture to crafts community 13 Sep Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 14 Sep Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 15 Sep Exhibition write thesis draft Exhibition 16 Sep Exhibition write thesis draft Check in Lerwick North Link Ferries 170, depart 190 17 Sep Arrive Aberden 070, Drive home to Hundale. Table 6 Glasgow and Denmark Exhibition Time Schedule DATE MORNIG AFTERNON 20 Sep Set up Exhibition at The Light House, Glasgow. (90 miles) Exhibition 16 DATE MORNIG AFTERNON 21 Sep Exhibition Exhibition 2 Sep Exhibition Exhibition 23 Sep Exhibition Exhibition 24 Sep Exhibition Drive home 25 Sep 26 Sep 27 Sep Check in Newcastle 130, Depart 150 (50 miles) 28 Sep Arrive Gothenburg 170 29 Sep Drive to Roskilde (175 miles) Set up Exhibition 30 Sep Exhibition Exhibition 1 Oct Exhibition Exhibition 2 ct Exhibition Exhibition 3 Oct 4 ct Exhibition Exhibition 5 Oct 6 ct Drive to Gothenburg 7 Oct Check in othenburg 080, Depart 100 8 Oct Arrive Newcastle 100 17 8.1. Methodolgy for Exhibition and Questionaire The type of exhibition venue aproached (advised by Stephen Jackson and Paul Western, page 37) was that of a cultural centre, a museum or art galery. The type of venue space asked for was a smal auxiliary space, which would be surplus to normal requirements. The xhibition went betwen diferent countries, so similar venues and spaces were requested in order to find similar audiences in the diferent countries. This was important so the assessment of the surveys carried out during the exhibitions would be from comparable audiences. A quantitative tick box type questionaire and a qualitative open question interview type questionaire was conducted in each venue during the exhibition tour. A minimum of 15 interviews was required in each venue for both questionaires, however, the more questionaires that there wer completd the more compeling the results. The questionaires wer designed to find out the folowing information: • How likely are people to buy the table and chairs? • What elments are the most apealing? • Would people like the product in their own home? • Would the product sel wel over the internet aided by word of mouth? • What do people think the table and chairs would cost to buy? • Do people like to be aware of the cultural origin of their dinig table and chairs? • How wel does the product express its Icelandic and Nordic cultural origin? • How is the product seen to express its cultural origin? 18 • Can the influences of Icelandic/Nordic traditional crafts be recognized, and can any of these be identified? • Does a product with Nordic cultural identity have aded value in the Nordic market? • Does a product foreign to the Nordic region with a clear cultural identity of its own have aded value in the Nordic market? • After learning how the table and chairs were designed, made, and how the Icelandic/Nordic traditional crafts have influenced the design, does it change the viewer’s perception of the table and chair? • How does it change their perception? • How intersted are people in the story behind this product? • How much would it influence a purchase decision? • Having heard the story behind the table and chairs, how much would they pay for the table and chairs? • Is the choice of materials, oak, aluminium and wol apealing? • Do the table and chairs apear to be traditional or modern in their design? • Is there cultural value in the continued practice of traditional crafts? • Has this project demonstrated the successful use of traditional crafts in a modern way? • What bit of the design do people like the most? • What bit of the design would they change? General information about the Interviewes was required for consideration when compiling the results. • Where they are from and age to filter these who are most likely to buy the table and chairs in the Nordic region. 19 • Prior knowledge of the project, or no prior knowledge. A draft questionaire was writen as provided in Apendix 15 (page 25) and with it a pilot interview was conducted on Peter Hawson (relative of the author) on 29.7.04. With consideration to this pilot and correspondence with Tom Burnham, 35 an experienced international marketing consultant, the folowing points for amendment were raised: • As the questions repeat themselves if the same person goes on to do the longer questions, it was thought a beter idea to make them into ne, with green colour-coded questions. • Some of the questions could have a scaled answer from 1 to 5 instead of yes/no. • Reading out the names of craft practitioners sounded boring, but it was felt necessary to read out al people responsible to be fair • Some answers should have areas for separte answers regarding chair, table, oak, aluminum, wol. • Where the product would sel wel, does not answer what neds to be known, that is, would the internet and word of mouth method work. • Space at the nd should be made for any other comments and sketching. • The diferent currencies should be worked out. Appendix 16 (page 260) provides the amended questionaire as used for the exhibition survey. 35 Tom Burnham, who since 197 has ben an International Trade Adviser working for UK Trade and Investment, a British Government branch of both the DTI and the Foreign Ofice. Betwen 1985 and 197 he ran his own marketing consultancy business. 120 8.2. Results of Exhibition Survey Eighty-seven questionaires were completd during the exhibition tour. The raw dat from these answered questionaires has ben put into a Microsoft Excel spreadshet, file name ‘exhibition dat copy.xls’ and is provided on the multimedia disc 3, image and at files (CD). This raw dat has ben filterd to make 3 separate spreadshets, which are referred to in the text and provided in Apendix 17, 19 and 20 (pages 268, 270, 273). On the spreadshet the qualitative answers have ben abreviated and a copy of these is provided as a Microsoft Word document, on the multimedia disc 3, image and dat files (CD) and abreviations referred to in the text are provided in Appendix 16 (page 267). The abreviations were made with the folowing uilde-lines: • Qualitative comments meanig the same thing such as ‘I like the table’, and ‘I think the table is nice’, have ben given the same abreviation, ‘LT’. • Answers which say something particular e.g. What part of the table design do you like the most? Answer: The whole design, have ben recorded with a ‘/’. • Answers that have ben unclear, sometimes due to language problems have ben given the abreviation, AU. • Q8 regarding cost of table and chair? The first category recorded as ‘1’, second category recorded as ‘2’ etc. If the answer given was less than minimum amount in first category, this was recorded as ´0´. • Q1 Are you familiar with Nordic culture? ‘yes’ was recorded even if only familiar with Icelandic culture. • If a reply to a question was that they would have to think about it, or they di not know, it was recorded as ‘dk’ or ‘/’. • Entry numbers with the star sign * in front of them only completd the quick green colour coded survey. 121 8.3. Interpreting Exhibition Dat The folowing is a presentation of statistics from the exhibition survey dat that assess whether the table and chairs were a success, would the market they wer made for buy them, was the Icelandic/Nordic culture expressed in the design recognized and id this cultural elment have aded value. More information was recorded in the survey than was necessary for the purposes of the project; this aditional dat has broader relevance with respect to potential postdoctoral aplications. 8.3.1. Would the Market Buy the Table and Chairs The dat has ben filterd to give the opinion of those that are most likely to buy the product, ages 26 – 65, from within the home market (Scandinavia/Nordic region). Appendix 17 (page 268) is the filtered at that shows a mean 84 % (sample 43) of the potential market would like the table and chairs in their home. Appendix 18 (page 270) shows dat (sample 36) of the potential market that would have the table and chairs in their home. It shows they think the chairs would cost betwen £250 and £50 and the table would cost betwen £150 and £200. Considering the predicted cost from the feasibility study of £2975 for one table and £452 for a chair, both without the cost of the wol components or delivery, the potential markets expected costs for the table and chairs wer low. Appendix 18 also shows (mean) that the potential market thinks that quality and aesthetic apeal is just under very important (4.75/) and price is only litle over (3.5/) mid way betwen not important and very important, when considering to buy domestic furniture like a dinig table and chairs. 8.3.2. Does the Market Recognize the Cultural Content and is it Important? The filtered at, in Appendix 19 (page 273), of those who are most likely to buy the table and chairs (sample of 43), shows that the table and chairs wer 12 thought to express Icelandic and Nordic culture wel, a mean answer of 4, on a scale of 1(not at al) to 5(very wel), was given. A mean 70% of this sample felt that products with Nordic cultural identity had aded value. From the same sample the Nordic traditional crafts were wel recognized in the design of the table and chairs, a mean 4 was given from 1(not at al) to 5(very wel). Thirty-five people from the filter dat in Appendix 19 (page 273) (sample of 43) gave answers to question 15, which asked; what specific Nordic traditional crafts can you recognize in the table and chairs design? Table 10 gives the frequency of descriptions for the diferent crafts recognized (abreviations provided in Appendix 16, page 267). Of the 19 people who recognized Viking ship shapes in the design, 4 of them saw the xhibition at the Roskilde Viking Ship Museum, which may have given them an unfair advantage. It can be said however, that al the main traditional crafts influencing the design were clearly recognized within the sample. Abbreviation Description of abreviation Frequency of description VS Viking ship shape 19 W Wod work 9 F Felting/wol work 7 C Carving 4 CA Metal casting 1 Table 7 Recognized Nordic Traditional Crafts (sample 35) 8.3.. Project Suces Towards the nd of the questionaire, after receiving the description of how the table and chairs were designed and made as part of question 18, nearly al of the most likely buyers thought that the project di demonstrate the successful use of traditional crafts in a modern way. A median of 5 and mean 123 of 4.6 was given on a scale of 1(no) to 5(yes) in reply to this question, dat provided in Appendix 19 (page 273). 124 8.4. Sumary of Exhibition Proces and Information Gathering The xhibition of the project’s dinig table and chairs, designed and made in partnership with the six selected Icelandic and Nordic makers, went on tour from Iceland to Denmark betwen 14 August 204 and 8 October 204 (se map, page 32). The exhibition went to the folowing six venues (see schedule, Tables 5 and 6, pages 14, 15): HANDVERK OG HÖNUN (Handwork and Design), Reykjavik, Iceland. Gunarsstofnun, Egilsstaðir, Iceland. Faroes Crafts Society, Torshaven, Faroe Islands. Shetland Museum, Shetland, Scotland. The Lightouse, Design Museum, Glasgow, Scotland. The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, Denmark. During the xhibition tour, a survey was conducted on the visitor’s response to the dinig table and chairs (se chapter 8.1. page 17). The raw dat (‘exhibition dat copy.xls’, multimedia disc 3, image and dat files CD) from this survey was analysed and the results (page 121) show that the table and chairs were thought (by a filterd sample) to express Icelandic and Nordic culture wel, a mean answer of 4 on a scale of 1(not at al) to 5(very wel) was given, and a mean 70% (of the same filtered sample) felt that products with Nordic cultural identity had aded value (page 121). 125 9. Reflect Review Apraise This chapter provides a literature review of projects and theories from the field of reflective practice and practice-based research, that relate to the results of the Iceland project. Using this knowledge of reflective practice the chapter reflects and apraises the phases of the project related to cultural and practical learnig through making. These project phases include: the aprenticeships with the six makers, practical experiments made with the makers and by the author, and the making decisions during the construction of the demonstration table and chairs. This chapter exposes the intuitive methods developed out of the practice of the author and participating makers during the Iceland project and puts them in context with existing reflective practice and related theory. 9.1. Literature Review of Reflective Practice This literature review focuses on reflective practice and practice-based research, and how these relate to the project and its methods. This literature review does not exhaust al literature on reflective practice and practice- based research, but provides only the foundations and most relevant material on the subject. 9.1.. Paradigm of Inquiry This section is a short account of the present academic paradigm relevant to the field of reflective and practice-based research, which includes the most relevant and current ideas on reflective, action and practice-based research and wher they have come from. Understanding the theoretical pardigm, in which reflective and practice-based research has developed, provides a philosophical foundation from which to consider the Iceland project. Before considering the most present and relevant pardigm of inquiry it is useful to lok briefly at previous ways of understanding knowledge. 126 Among philosophers of science no one wants any longer to be caled a Positivist, and there is a rebirth of interest in the ancient topics of craft, artistry, and myth-topics whose fate Positivism once claimed to have sealed. 36 Positivism considers observation and experimental investigation as the only ways of gainig substantial knowledge. It has ben the dominant methodolgy and pardigm of inquiry within science for the past 30 years. 37 Schon, a social scientist and a leader in the field of reflective practice, makes the point that positivism is no longer the most acceptable form of knowledge acquisition because it fails to recognize its own limited utility in practice. 38 Positivism has brought us knowledge specialy in the sciences and given us an advanced understanding of the laws of nature 39 , but it fails to account for an individual’s interpretation of their environment or to provide a rigorus method of inquiring into tacit knowledge, unspoken/on-literary knowledge and knowledge acquired and emonstrated through practice. The focus of the Iceland project has ben the creative, dynamic and mostly unspoken but demonstrative and visual communication of practical knowledge, embodied in the actions of craft practitioners colaboratively designig and making artefacts. The paradigm in which this activity has taken place is most closely related to constructivism. Constructivism is summed up wel by C. Gray and J. Malins, in their guide to the research process in art and esign: …the constructivist pardigm is characterized by a ‘relativist’ ontolgy (multiple realities exist as personal and social constructions) and the epistemology is subjectivist (the researcher is involved); as a 36 D. A. Schon The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate, Aldershot, 1983, p. 48. 37 C. Gray, J. Malins, Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design, Ashgate, Aldershot, 204, p. 19. 38 Schon, p. 49. 39 Schon, p.32 – 3. 127 consequence, methodolgies are hermeneutic (interpretative) and dialectic (discursive). 40 Schon sugests that if the technical rationale of positivism canot account for professional knowledge having practical competnce in real, divergent situations, 41 Let us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes, which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict. 42 Within a constructivist paradigm the pistemology is subjectivist: the inquirer and the inquired act together as one and the findings are the outcomes of an interaction process betwen the two. 43 In the context of the Iceland project the author and the selected makers worked together sharing their making experiences to both become inquirer and the inquired in the process of designig and making the table and chairs. The projects method of enquiry developed out of the author’s designer/maker practice and was later shaped by the relationships with the selcted makers, and not from theories in reflective practice. The methodolgy used to create this colaboration and sharing of making knowledge was predominantly naturalistic. The author in partnership with the selected makers loked to experience a new ay of developing a table and chairs, and recognised the potential of learning from this activity. It maybe said that participation in the project was motivated by a recognition that this was an oportunity to learn and evelop rofessional practice, and not one to develop a marketable table and chairs. The quantitative and qualitative elments of the project wer aditions beyond the more useful learning experience. On reflection the quantitative and qualitative aditions were put in place to fulfil traditional expectations in academic research and provided only minor suport to the 40 Gray, Malins, p. 19. 41 Schon, p. 49. 42 Schon, p. 49. 43 Gray, Malins, p. 20. 128 more useful visual and physical learnig experience. A constant processing of physical and visual experiences (experientialy based knowledge) amongst the participants shaped the successive focusing of the making process 4 . The Iceland project was led by the dynamic, divergent and intuitive nature of the creative making process. Reflecting in action and reflection of action amongst the participants shaped the constant refocusing within the process of making the table and chairs. 9.1.2. Social Science and Anthropolgical Theories of Reflective Practice The folowing theories from social science and anthropolgy are the most relevant theories for use in reflecting on the Iceland project. The Iceland project has loked to develop its own theories and methods out of the existing practice of the author and participant makers. This has ben done for the development of apropriate theory for the designer/makers’ field, wher there is only recently emerging theory and no standard practice. It is useful to compare these developments in the Iceland project with known and relevant theories in other fields. Schon describes reflection-in-action as thinking and learnig while doing, and being aware of the knowing-in-action, while reflecting. 45 Reflection-in-action and knowing-in-action is what the professional practitioner uses to develop their specialised artful skil and to solve ver changing problems in workaday life. It is something often taken for granted and not put into words. Recognising one’s own knowing-in-action and also reflecting on what is at hand is a chalenging task to reflect on. Schon writes: There is some puzzling, or troubling, or interesting phenomenon with which the individual is trying to deal. As he tries to make sense of it, he also reflects on the understandings which have ben implicit in his action, 4 Y. Lincoln, E. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, London, 1985, p. 1. 45 Schon, p. 49-54. 129 understandings which he surfaces, criticizes, restructures, and embodies in further action. 46 This account of reflection-in-action makes explicit, for craft practitioners or makers, an area of their knowledge often overloked and taken for granted. It provides a framework in which to try and become more conscious of the reflective process embodied in their practice. For the transfer of such knowledge Lincoln and Guba recommend the case study as the reporting mode of choice. 47 The Iceland project is a case study and is partly represented by the table and chairs, the multimedia DVD’s of their making and the interviews with the makers. It is recognized that further reflection on the process by the author as facilitator of the project would be of value in transferring knowledge, especialy back to the participating makers for further reflection by them. P. Reason and H. Bradbury have a vision of reflective practice they cal action research and give a working definition: …action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview hich e believe is emerging at this historical moment. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generaly the flourishing of individual persons and their communities. 48 Action research is a holistic aproach to research focused on making the research relevant to the researchers and making the participants, traditionaly the subjects, the researchers to. It has its roots in social science and methods of naturalistic inquiry. It has relevance to the Iceland project in providing a framework of enquiry and for unpacking the dat or outcomes of participatory enquiry and analysing them for critical review. In his study of 46 Schon, p. 50. 47 Lincoln, Guba, p. 1. 48 P. Reason, H. Bradbury, Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration, Introduction to P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds), Handbok of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (p. 1-4). London, Sage 201, (accessed 8 August 205). 130 action research cases, Participation in Human Inquiry, Reason makes an interesting observation that the initiators of projects go to great lengths in …developing participatory group relationships. The group first has to be created and established with enough clarity of purpose and method that it has some chance of success, a culture of colaboration developed over time, and then space has to be provided for initiatives from participants to take over and transform the inquiry beyond the original dreams of the initiator. 49 The unpacking of the inquiry within the Iceland project has ben achieved partly through the colaborative making of the table and chairs, with the participants leading the process beyond the author’s initial designs. Further unpacking is provided in the reflection on the makers’ journey section of this chapter (page 152). Other aspects of action research that are relvant to the Iceland project are some of the motivations and aims behind it. This is ilustrated by Reason’s argument, …that the creation of knowledge is in the hands of the rich and powerful elments of an increasingly global society, and works to enhance their interests against those of the disenfranchised majority world. 50 With this in mind an aim of action research is to, …empower people at a second and deper level through the process of constructing and using their own knowledge [learnt through action research]: they "see through" the ways in which the establishment monopolizes the production and use of knowledge for the benefit of its members. 51 In the case of the Iceland project the making knowledge of the makers was ilustrated clearly as developing the design of the table and chairs. This is often covered over by the presence of the ‘designer’ who comes with a proposal to the maker, who then has to subsequently develop it during a prototype-making phase. The designer then walks away with an amended 49 P. Reason, Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage, London, 194. 50 P. Reason, Learnig and Change through action research, 201, (accessed 8 August 205). 51 Reason, 201. 131 design he cals solely his own, including licensing and royalty rights. This is endemic in a hierarchical, non-democratic and repressive situation, and oes not put the maker in a fair situation. This type of situation may be rare in a developed country like Iceland, but perhaps not untypical in a developing country. In the Iceland project the author’s motivation has ben in part to expose the disenfranchisement of the makers. In the multimedia interview presentation of Geir Odgeirsson, he points to this situation when in response to the question by the author, “where wil your skils be, in influencing the product brief”. 52 Geir Odgeirsson responds through his interpreter and workmate, Björn Hrafnsson, “we are not architects, we don't have, you know, legal taste. For example an architect comes with or a designer comes ith a chair, you canot say to him it's ugly, but you can say it's impossible to sit in it. So you have to be a diplomat.” 53 Geir Odgeirsson does not want to fend the designer, and at the same time he does not want to make a bad chair. So sugestions for the design changes have to be made diplomaticaly, and, unfortunately for Geir Odgeirsson, he retains no rights invested by him in the design. Action research does not make a separation betwen the knower and what is to be known, in other words, the researcher does not distance himself from the subjects or participants, … action research is rooted in each participant’s in-depth, critical and practical experience of the situation to be understod and acted in. 54 52 T. Hawson, ‘Transcription of interview ith Geir Odgeirsson and translator (Geir´s work mate) Björn Hrafnsson’. 23 July – 24 July 203, Multimedia Disc 2, T. Hawson, 203, (DVD). 53 Hawson, ‘Transcription of interview ith Geir Odgeirsson’, (DVD). 54 P. Reason, Learnig and Change through action research, 201, (accessed 8 August 205). 132 This description fits wel with the making activities of the Iceland project participants, who expressed their criticism and knowledge of the situation in the decisions made in making the table and chairs. Another aspect of action research described by Reason that is useful to compare with the Iceland project is, …that truth is not solely a property of formal propositions, but is a human activity that must be managed for human purposes which leads action research practitioners to take into account many diferent forms of knowing-knowledge of our purposes as wel of our ideas, knowledge that is based in intuition as wel as the senses, knowledge expressed in aesthetic form such as story, poetry and visual arts as wel as propositional language, and practical knowledge expressed in skil and competnce. 5 Translating this to the Iceland project, truth is to be found in making artefacts, the process and the outcomes, and the motivations behind making. The Iceland project has engaged the participants in consciously exposing the truths behind making. It has not chalenged them to provide an in-depth and critical review of their participation in words, this would be un-atural to their making practice. There are similarities betwen action research and the participatory research described by B. Hal, A. Gilete and R. Tandon in their bok Creating Knowledge: A Monopoly? – Participatory Research in Development. This bok published in New Delhi by the Society for Participatory Research in Asia, is writen from a social anthropolgical perspective and cals for a democratic and humanistic aproach to participatory research. The folowing quote mphasises the importance of the subjects of research to be involved in the research themselves as active participants, and how this teaches critical thinking and the implications of the finished research to the community it was researching. If I am interested in knowing the people's ways of thinking and levels of perception, then the people have to think about their thinking and not be only the objects of my thinking. This method of investigation which 5 Reason, 201. 13 involves study-and criticism of the study-by the people is at the same time a learning process. Through this process of investigation, examination, criticism and reinvestigation, the level of critical thinking is raised among al those involved. Thus, in doing research, I am educating and being educated with the people. By returning to the area in order to put into practice the results of my investigation, I am not only educating and being educated; I am also researching again, because to the extent that we put into practice the plans resulting from the investigations, we change the levels of consciousness of the people, and by this change, we do research again. Thus, there is a dynamic movement betwen researching and acting on the results of the research. 56 If the consciousness of the participating makers has changed as a result of the Iceland project and the author returns to them this thesis presentation, this wil be a continuation of the reflective research and constitute post- doctorate work. With no mention in the text to reflective practice or action research, A. Colins, J. Seely Brown and A. Holum’s article in the American Educator, ‘Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible’, has many similarities to this subject and the Iceland project. Coming from a pedagogical perspective their description of the traditional aprenticeship and how this can be interpreted to develop methods of teaching reading, writing and mathematics, by participatory, naturalistic and heuristic methods is useful. Some of their thoughts are that, …standard pedagogical practices render key aspects of expertise invisible to students. To litle atention is paid to the reasonig and strategies that experts employ when they acquire knowledge or put it to work to solve complex or real-life tasks. 57 56 B. Hal, A. Gilete & R. Tandon, (Eds.). (1982). Creating Knowledge: A Monopoly? - Participatory Research in Development. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia, p. 30. 57 A. Colins, J. Sely Brown, A. Holum, Cognitive Aprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible, This article originaly apeared in the Winter, 191 issue of American Educator, the journal of The American Federation of Teachers. (acsessed 31 August 05). 134 These are familiar ideas to reflective practice and action research and many of the basic underlying ideas in this paper on ‘cognitive aprenticeship’ are similar. The methods given in this paper to facilitate the use of these ideas in teaching practice are specificaly useful in loking at the relationship betwen the makers and the author, and the transfer of knowledge betwen them. The definitions of the aspects of traditional aprenticeship: modeling (master providing a demonstration), scafolding (suport given to aprentice to carry out the task), fading (slow removal of scafolding), and coaching (overseeing the learner) 58 , provide a frame work to lok at the author’s traditional aprenticeship experience with the participating makers. This framework is also used to suport the idea of teaching the thinking behind actions, ‘cognitive aprenticeship’, which is useful in loking at the way in which the author explained the ideas behind the project’s design process to the participating makers. The social sciences and anthropolgy have during the 20 th century begun to lok at knowledge and go about finding it in places that are ever changing and from an individual’s or communities perspective. They have made the subjects of research the researchers and exposed knowledge and knowing in action, intuition and experiences. They sugest that the reflection, reinterpretation and redistribution of this knowledge be shared with the researched, by a democratic and humanly responsible process, to gain substantial consensus. 9.1.3. Visual, Social and Anthropolgical Research Although the folowing literature on the use of image in social and anthropolgical research does not refer to the terms ‘reflective practice’ or ‘action research’, a brief review is provided, as the image is clearly a reflective tol in research. J. Colier, an anthropolgist, uses photgraphy and film to help understand human behaviour. In his bok Visual Anthropolgy: 58 Colins, Sely Brown, Holum. 135 Photgraphy as a Research Method, he makes some relevant points concerning the apropriate use, and the limitations of, visual media in research. Colier points out that, Film is the tol for analysis of process wher technolgy inovation or subtle abstraction on technolgical change is neded. 59 This statement helps to confirm the use of film/video to record the making of the table and chairs and some of the making action witnessed by the author during his aprenticeship experiences. The folowing quote from the same bok further validates the use of film/video in capturing those moments of design decision while making and the relationship betwen the makers and the author at those moments. Only the moving picture film can record the realism of time and motion, or the psycholgical reality of varieties of interpersonal relations. 60 Colier also makes the point that visual media in research remains ilustrative in its nature and has its limitations. …we have not succeded in completing research with the camera unless we can place the photgraphs aside in our final statement. The part of our study which has not ben interpreted in this way remains ilustration, not research conclusion… 61 M. Banks a reader of social and cultural anthropolgy at the University of Oxford, in his bok Visual Methods of Social Research reminds us, that the researcher who records visual media in the field should o so in colaboration with the subjects of his research and perhaps has no choice but to do so. 62 59 J. Colier, Visual Anthropolgy: Photgraphy as a Research Method. London, Holt, Rinhehart and Wiston, 1967, p.128. 60 Colier, p. 129. 61 Colier, p. 67. 62 M. Banks, Visual Methods in Social Research, Sage, London, 201, p. 19. 136 9.1.4. Practice-Based Research in Art and Design The use of artefacts and visual material to document the creative process or narrative comes naturaly to designer\makers. To designer/makers, professional practice is predominantly visual and physical in nature. In designer/maker practice, visual media, physical processes and artefacts provide stimulation for holistic and non-linear creative thought processes that develop inovation. Likewise the tacit and experiential knowledge of the designer/maker is embodied in the related visual media, physical processes and artefacts. If designer/maker practice-based research is to be articulated and its creative narrative exposed, visual media and artefacts must be employed. Professor C. Rust (from the Art and Design Research Centre at Shefield Halam University) writes of the advantages of visual media and artefacts in communicating tacit knowledge and related thought processes behind creative inovation. He considers his experiences in supervising design-related PhD projects and writes: It was aparent that the colection of drawings and 3D objects provided a record of the research in which al aspects of the work could be seen and encompassed, in a holistic fashion by the researchers. 63 In the same paper Rust describes how the use of a record of artefacts aids the researcher: The artefact record was quite diferent from writen noteboks which do not provide a complet picture ‘at a glance’ and require their oner to maintain a complex mental picture (not accessible to colaborators) of their work if they are to navigate and exploit their records. 64 The folowing two quotes from the same paper by Rust describes some of the reflective potential of images and artefacts to the research process: 63 C. Rust, ‘Design Enquiry: Tacit Knowledge and Invention in Science’, Shefield Halam University, Art and Design Research Centre working paper 8 July 203, (accessed 8 August 205), p. 7. 64 Rust, 203, p. 8. 137 The provision of a rich set of images or artefacts provides an environment in which an individual can dwel in their work and employ their tacit knoledge. 65 … a designer’s ability to embody ideas and knowledge in artifacts can give us access to tacit knowledge, and can stimulate people to employ their tacit knowledge to form new ideas. 6 The designer, in research, can develop their role by making artefacts to assist and/or communicate the design process or demonstrate a design. Rust writes: If an energetic and able designer can find any role at al in a research environment they can quickly develop that role by creating and eploying artefacts that afect the work in hand and emonstrate their ability to make a diference. 67 In the Iceland project, knowledge regarding design-and-make practice, embodied and communicable within artefacts and images, was used to continuously analyse, reflect (holisticaly) and reform the ‘essentialy experiential and heuristic’ 68 research process. The artefacts and images used as a reflective and communicative tol amongst project participants also becomes the archive or narrative of the designig and making journey. With regard to the subject of reflection in design inquiry, Tim Marshal and Sid Newton from the Schol of Design, at the University of Western Sydney, Australia, in their paper given at The Research into Practice Conference 200 at the University of Hertfordshire (UK), sugest the folowing: Design inquiry might therefore be described in terms of reflective practice itself: as a conversation with the situation where understanding the back- talk from the situation is essential to the process of inquiry itself. In the context of reflective practice, Schon (1983) proposes story-teling as an efective genre for the translation of research back into practice. Story- 65 Rust, 203, p. 8. 6 Rust, 203, p. 12. 67 Rust, 203, p. 13. 68 K. Bunel, ‘The Integration of New Technolgy into Ceramic Designer-Maker Practice’, PhD Thesis, Robert Gordon University, Aberden, 198, (CD-ROM), p. 86. 138 teling discloses relevant themes, rather than theories. Story-teling both facilitates and actively promotes a transformation of the story themes into a specific situation context. In this sense, the stories themselves represent design knowledge. 69 Having described esign inquiry as a form of reflective practice, Marshal and Newton go n to propose that: In place of scientific inquiry we propose scholarly design. In this sense, design inquiry (as with scientific inquiry) represents a valid form of scholarship. The value of design inquiry is as a contextual and situated engagement with practice: it is a means of grounding research in practice. The validity of this engagement is not embodied in the rigour with which a particular method is aplied, but rather the agency the enacted propositions carry with them for practice: the facility of the research work to reframe or provoke further action. 70 Marshal and Newton position scholarly design as a valid form of academic research. In designer/maker research it is important that the knowledge embodied and communicated in visual media, making processes and artefacts holds enough information to make the design-and-make process transparent to those within the knowledgeable per group. If this communicable knowledge is reflected upon and put back into action during the research process, this can be considered ‘scholarly’ making. It is important however that this reflective activity is made transparent and accessible to a broad academic community. This makes ‘generalizable answers’ 71 from case studies transferable to other fields. Ken Friedman, Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design from the Norwegian Schol of Management in his adress at the ‘Sensuous Knowledge 2’ conference, Norway, 205, reminds us 69 T. Marshal, S. Newton, ‘Scholarly Design as a Pardigm for Practice-Based Research”, paper at The Research into Practice Confernce 200, The Centre for Research into Practice, bienial international confernce at the University of Hertfordshire (UK) 200, (accessed 6 November 205). 70 Marshal, Newton, 200. 71 K. Friedman, ‘Theoretical and Philosophical Chalenges in Artistic Research and Developent’, Adress delivered to Sensuous Knowledge 2, Norway, November 205 (from corespondence with K. Friedman, December 205). 139 …that it is not experience itself, but interpretation of the experience that makes us learn. 72 In C. Gray and J. Malins’s bok Visualizing Research, they describe reflective practice, in relation to research: Reflective practice therefore atempts to unite research and practice, thought and action into a framework for inquiry which involves practice, and which acknowledges the particular and special knowledge of the practitioner. It is a framework that encourages reflection in diferent ways. Retrospective reflection - 'reflection-on-action' - is a critical research skil and part of the generic research processes of review, evaluation and analysis. 'Reflection-in-action' is a particular activity of professional practitioners and involves thinking about what we are doing and reshaping action while we are doing it. In this sense it is improvisational and relies on feling, response and adjustment. Schon likens it to conversation, especialy in relation to design. He sugests that designig is a 'reflective conversation with the materials of a situation' (Schon, 1983, chapter 3, p. 78). 73 This description of reflective practice interpretd from the designer/makers point of view sugests that ‘reflection-on-action’ is a legitimate academic framework to reflect on the physical actions of the designig and making process. Likewise ‘reflection-in-action’ can be interpretd as being subjective in nature and peculiar to the individual, and the process of designig while making suits very wel Schon’s sugestion of a ‘reflective conversation’. With regard to the inevitable one-sided view and lack of objectivity of the ‘practitioner-researcher’, Gray and Malins provide a strategy of per review to combat this problem: It can be adressed to some extent by always exposing ideas and practices to other professionals for fedback, suport and advice. In seeking the views of others, which wil inevitably be subjective, we can develop inter-subjective vies, hich are less likely to be one-sided. Of course, keeping a critical view of your research at al times is essential. However, the advantages of the practitioner-researcher role are compeling: your 'insider' knowledge, experience and status usualy lends your research credibility and trustworthiness in the yes of your pers, that is, you are not an 'external' researcher. Most importantly, you are inquiring 72 Friedman, December 205. 73 Gray, Malins, p. 2. 140 as a reflective practitioner, acknowledging the complexity, dynamism and unpredictability of the real world. 74 During the process of designig and making the table and chairs during the Iceland project, the participant makers, who wer efectively part of the research team, provided per review. This designig and making process, however, was further reviewed by the touring exhibition and is presented in this thesis for extended per review. Throughout the Iceland project it was aparent that methodolgical models of colaborative designer/maker research practice were not known to the author. The lack of standard practice in designer/maker research practice made it necessary to invent methods and borrow them from other fields. In practice- based esign research, Gray, Ure and Malins write that: Adopting a practice-based methodolgy entails making use of the inhernt knowledge, understanding and experience of the practitioner, acquired through the designer's own informal research, but to which a further 'tolbox' of practice-based strategies could be aded or invented. This is entirely logical since the research questions, methods and outcomes are derived from, and aplied to, issues of direct relevance to the field. 75 They go on to say that borrowing ‘pseudoscientific or social science methodolgies’ 76 may be inapropriate or unsympathetic to the nature of the designer’s enquiry. This is al fuel to suport the specific development of methods for the Iceland project, which wer drawn from a mix of sources including the existing practice and experiences of the author and colaborating makers. Instead of the scientific idea of transferable methodolgy, Gray and Malins sugest a notion of … explicit ‘rules of conduct’ specificaly related to an individual’s research project, alowing a clear understanding of procedure (transparency), but 74 Gray, Malins, p. 23. 75 J. Malins, J. Ure, C. Gray, ‘The Gap: Adressing Practice-Based Research Trainig Requirements for Designers’, Shefield Halam University, 199, (accessed 8 August 205). 76 Malins, Ure, Gray. 141 acknowledging that complet transferability is not achievable, nor perhaps desirable. 7 This incomplet transferability of a set of rules of conduct, specific to an individual’s research, fits within a constructivist pardigm where research findings are specific to the inquirer and inquired, but aim to generate knowledge for which there is substantial consensus. 78 Within the Iceland project consensus was sought within the group of participant makers for the development of methods and the outcomes of practice. The outcomes of the project’s colaborative practice (the table and chairs) were exhibited in order to achieve a consensus on whether the artefacts successfuly expressed indigenous Icelandic crafts as had ben intended (exhibition tour and survey provided on page 13). Dr Anne Douglas from the Centre for Research in Art and Design at Gray’s Schol of Art, Aberden, in her paper delivered at the RADical confernce, Aberden, 194, presented the relationship betwen practice and research in her own work as a practice-led sculptor researcher. Douglas explains that the creative process can be observed as a phenomenon in the development of methodolgy. 79 In the same paper Douglas goes on to write: The individual orientation of artistic practice requires the kind of methodolgy which can admit choice and the structure within which choice can be xercised. Methodolgy in this sense does not contain procedures which could isprove the thesis (the positivist view point). It simply acts as a prism through which a set of beliefs can be examined. It is relative not absolute in ature. 80 It was important throughout the Iceland project for the creative process to be given the same freedoms enjoyed by designer/makers working outside 7 Gray, Malins, p. 18. 78 Gray, Malins, p. 19 - 20. 79 A. Douglas, ‘Relationship betwen Practice and Research: The crafting of a metaphor’, from the, ADical Confernce Preceedings ’94, at the Centre for Research in Art & Design Gray’s Schol of Art, Aberden, 194, p. 9. 80 Douglas, 194, p. 1. 142 research. What the research elment of the project provided was a framework in which the creative process could evelop freely while making a visual and audio record of actions and events for later reflection. Reflecting on the actions and events of the project facilitated learning, and the new knowledge gained was used to influence the subsequent elments of the designig and making process. Within recent debate about practice-based research in art and design M. Thomas has asked the folowing question: Can practice-based research in a university environment create work of real aesthetic merit and true research value? 81 In answer to this question Dr Anne Douglas provides the folowing and also explains the focus of such research. I think one of the great dangers of the expectations of research is that it can solve everything. There is no guarante within research that you are going to produce the fantastic piece. What it is trying to adress is the thinking, issues and conditions around which art is made. There is no guarante that you wil have, as Susan Teby says, the masterpiece at the end. No research does that, not even medicine. 82 Douglas went on to initiate the ‘On the Edge’ research project in 201, at Gray’s Schol of Art, Robert Gordon University, Aberden. This project initialy loked at the role and value of visual arts in remote rural areas, 83 in the context of living in Northern Scotland. 84 More recently the project has moved on: 81 M. Thomas, ‘Editorial: Practice-based research’, Digital Creativity, Vol. 15, No. 1, 204, p. 1. 82 A. Douglas, ‘Question and Answers Session’, RADical Confernce Proceedings ’94, at the Centre for Research in Art & Design Grays Schol of Art, Aberden, 194, p. 31. 83 A. Douglas, ‘Biographical Statement’, Research Personel, Gray’s Schol of Art, Robert Gordon University, Aberden, (accessed 1 December 205). 84 Gray’s Schol of Art, Robert Gordon University, ‘On the Edge Research Project’ (accessed 1 December 205). 143 In 205 we have arrived at a new position in which art is an action betwen individuals within the everyday. We are currently exploring the value of art practice in these terms. 85 As a Senior Research Felow, Douglas’: … postdoctoral research has focused on the formulation of an aproach to art making that is participatory and exploratory - where individuals with diverse perspectives are involved in detrminig what kind of art should be made. 86 Douglas’ ‘On the Edge’ project has much in common with the Iceland project. Both are interested in the cultural value of artists’/makers’ work, are practice- led and involve and engage creative practice participants within the research process. I am intersted in developing aproaches to visual art practice that evolve a creative relationship with specific place and culture, in particular cultures undergoing radical social and economic change. I am particularly interested in generative metaphor as a specific tol for sharing poetic images that in turn shape the way we understand processes and our behavior towards them. My artistic practice has undergone a transition from ‘maker of objects’, artistic practice as an individualy authored activity, to ‘aker of situations’ through the development of focused art projects from a research base. Formal research ofers me a framework for sharing explicit questions on the value of art across disciplines. Visual art research can, I believe, ofer unique insights into this area of thought. 87 The ‘On the Edge’ project is unlike the Icelandic project in that the participants in the inquiry involved individuals and organisations responsible in diferent ways for the provision of culture 8 and visual arts practice; whereas the Iceland project’s inquiry involved only artists and makers as participants and was not concerned directly with individuals and organisations responsible for the provision of culture. The author would 85 86 87 Douglas, ‘Biographical Statement’. 8 14 position his practice within the Iceland project as, as Douglas puts it, a ‘maker of situations’ and as a formal researcher with ‘a framework for sharing explicit questions on the value of art [indigenous crafts] across disciplines’. 89 From discussions at the Sensuous Knowledge 2 conference in Norway, in November 205, T. Mjaland interprets Douglas’ meanig of artistic research within the context of the ‘On the Edge’ project: Artistic research, according to Douglas, creates a space for questions that is not, to the same extent possible within artistic practice itself. Thus research is more than exploration (which might be understod as a more open-ended process), but rather a structured interrogation through the practice of art. 90 Designer/maker research in the context of the Iceland project can be interpreted in the same way as Mjaland’s description of Douglas’ artistic research, as a ‘structured interrogation’ through designer/maker practice. Closer to professional design practice, and specificaly new product development inside companies, the Centre for Design Inovation, within the Birmingham Design Research Group, at the University of Central England, has made live observations of decision making to identify and study critical decision points. The ‘critical decision points’ in ew product development are useful points of refernce for reflection and understanding the nature of this creative, non-linear and non-logical process. The project leader, Professor Bob Jerrard, briefly describes the reflective potential of this research: The knowledge resulting from this research would contribute greatly to the companies studied as a reflective tol for their creative practice. It wil also be informative to ther smal companies NPD [New Product Development] process in reflecting their decision-making and risk assessments. The academic audience would benefit from the outcomes of this research as a 89 Douglas, ‘Biographical Statement’. 90 T. Mjaland, ‘A sumary from discussions in Group D’, Chair: Nils Gilje, from the confernce, Sensuous Knowledge 2: Aesthetic Practice and Aesthetic Insight, at Solstrand, Norway, 9 - 1 November 205, p. 12. 145 further development to the knowledge in the fields of creativity, knowledge communication, designig and esign management. 91 It is of relevance to the Iceland project to recognize the importance of critical decision points in the designig and making of the table and chairs. During the designig and making process it was a strategy of the Iceland project to try to capture in photgraphs, audio recordings and video these decision- making-moments, specificaly design decisions made during the making process, for later reflection. 9.1.5. Practice-based Research in Art and Design in Iceland. The folowing Icelandic academics in the fields of art, design, craft and technolgy were contacted and asked for any information regarding practice- based research in Iceland: • Jóhanes Thordarson, Dean of the Department of Design and Architecture, Iceland Academy of the Arts, • Kristjan Steingrimur, Dean of the Department of Visual Arts, Iceland Academy of the Arts, • Gudrun Helgadotir, Department of Rural Tourism, Holar University Colege, Iceland, • Gisli Thorsteinsson, Assistant Professor in the Department of Craft, Design and Technolgy, Iceland University of Education, • Jón Erlendsson, Knowledge Network in the Enginering Department, University of Iceland, • Haldor Gislason, Dean of the Department of Design at Kunsthogskolen i Oslo, National Academy of the Arts, Norway. From the correspondence with the above Icelandic academics it is clear that there is, and has ben, litle practice-based research in the area of art, design and craft, in Iceland. The only practice-based research that was found was Gisli Thorsteinsson’s project. In correspondence with the author on 8 December 205, Gisli Thorsteinsson described his PhD project as ‘action 91 B. Jerard, ‘Risk Taking in Design – an investigation of critical decision points in new product development’, Centre for Design Inovation, Birmingham Design Research Group, (accessed 16 August 205). 146 research but in the area of Inovation Education using a Virtual Reality Learning Environment.’ Gisli Thorsteinsson’s research makes case studies of ‘Inovation Education’ design projects in schols and shows how the use of ‘Virtual Reality Learnig Environments’ can aid communication and development within these projects. There is no academic institution in Iceland concerned with postgraduate studies or research in craft practice. In Iceland ther is litle hapenig in the research field of art and esign as a whole, and this situation is confirmed in a survey of art and design universities in Nordic and Baltic countries, conducted by Designium, The New Centre of Inovation in Design, at the University of Art and Design Helsinki. In this report Hana Heikkinen writes the folowing about the current situation in the design field: The situation for the most designers in Iceland is chalenging. There is much creativity but only few manufacturers. To get something produced, the designers have to probably do it themselves or lok abroad, both options requiring a lot of resources. Therefore, the Iceland Academy of the Arts has established an interdisciplinary design program, which focuses on concept more than craft, and with an emphasis on marketing and business trainig. When it comes to Iceland and Lithuania, the whole design sectors are in ned of comprehensive development programs. 92 9.1.6. Video in Practice-based Research B. Hutchinson, P. Whitehouse and P. Bryson, have writen a workbok; Modern Media and Reflective Practice, for the Post Graduate Diploma/Master’s Degre in Education, at the University of Ulster. This provides clear guidance on the use of video in action research and reflective 92 Hana Heikkinen, INOVATION ETWORK OF ART AND ESIGN UNIVERSITIES IN NORDIC AND BALTIC OUTRIES Preliminary Survey, esignium, The ew Centre of Inovation in Design, University of Art and Design Helsinki, 204, htp:/ww.learnigbusiness.fi/portal/research_insights/reports (accessed 7 December 205), p. 45 - 57. 147 practice in teaching. The Iceland project used video to make a record of the predominantly visual transfer of knowledge betwen makers while making, and to provide a tol for later reflection of practice. Of particular relevance to the Iceland project, the workbok of Hutchinson, Whitehouse and Bryson argues for the value of video in capturing more than just what people say: What is much more satisfactory for geting an unbiased record would be to use a tape recorder or beter stil, capture the event on video. The video has the aded advantage of leting us see the gestures people are making as wel as hearing what they say; but more importantly it lets us see the situation in which the vent is taking place which ads to the meanig of what is being said. 93 Video-recording teaching practice and the context in which it takes place for later reflection by the teacher is an empowering reflective tol. In the Iceland project the authors use of video in recording elments of the designig and making of the table and chairs in partnership with the participant makers is an reflective tol for al concerned. The situations and actions recorded during the Iceland project are open to a number of perceptions. Knowledgeable pers and outsiders to the designig and making process can independently review the projects situations and actions from the relatively unbiased multimedia record (multimedia discs 1 – 7). The multimedia record is relatively unbiased because, although the photgraphic and video fotage canot lie, the situations and actions recorded and edited were the choice of the author. It was the intention of the author to record and present the situations and actions in a consistent maner. The record was made within guidelines (page 64 and 106) to provide for consistency of representation betwen the interaction interviews and during the making process, alowing for independent review. In Hutchinson, Whitehouse and Bryson’s words, ‘this openess of the medium is particularly suited to the exploratory nature of 93 B. Hutchinson, P. Whitehouse, P. Bryson, Modern Media and Reflective Practice, Workbok from the Post-Graduate Diploma/aster’s Degre in Education, University of Ulster, 195, p. 6. 148 action research’ 94 and ‘the use of video is closely associated to the thics of action research.’ 95 The Iceland project’s focus is the visual and tacit knowledge communicated through making and the context in which it takes place and thus the use of video and photgraphy is an apropriate method for later reflection. Hutchinson, Whitehouse and Bryson provide the folowing guidance for the action researcher using video: We are a society of face savers, you must be aware of the threat of the medium and sek to assure those you use the medium with. You must atempt to supress your own ego and respect the individuals who participate with you in this project. Always be overt with your aims and intentions, let people get used to the camera, you are not directing you are observing, video in this project is assisting your observation. Therefore you should aim to record as typical as scene as possible, the only way to achieve this is to use the camera with people rather than on them. One last point is always to rember hy you are using the camera, to chalenge your on perceptions and learn more about yourself and your practice, you are the subject in front of the lens not the controler behind it. 96 The above recommendations match up with the methods employed in the Iceland project (page 72 and chapter 6.1. page 106) and are considerd in this chapter, section 9.2 Reflections on the ‘Makers’ Journey’ (page 152). S. Braden from the University of Reading considers the use of video in colaborative action research as a reflective tol, in his 198 PhD thesis, ‘A Study of Representation Using Participatory Video in Community Development: From Freire to Eldorado’. The folowing quote from Braden regarding the use of video to reflect colectively, makes the point that such shared reflections consolidate a group’s identity, alowing for the colective imagination to be communicated: 94 Hutchinson, Whitehouse, Bryson, p. 30. 95 Hutchinson, Whitehouse, Bryson, p. 30. 96 Hutchinson, Whitehouse, Bryson, p. 30. 149 It tests identity cohernce, and when this is done within the insider world, it ofers the freedom to reflect and to imagine colectively – and then perhaps, to represent and communicate or re-presentation to thers. 97 Within the Iceland project the interaction interview process and the colaborative nature of the project created and nurtured the colective imagination among the participant makers. The multimedia presentations of the interaction interviews and the making process presented with this thesis (multimedia discs 1, 2 and 7), strengthens the colective imagination of the participants in developing new methods of practice and further projects. 9.1.7. Colaborative Visual Arts Practice Karen Scopa completd her PhD thesis at Robert Gordon University, Aberden, in 203, on the subject of developing strategies for interdisciplinary colaboration from her own and other visual-art practitioners’ practice. Scopa writes: …this apears to be one of the first practice-led, formal research projects to directly adress strategies for engaging interdisciplinary colaborative projects (betwen a visual artist and other practitioners). 98 To assist with the reflections on the Iceland project it is useful to consider a summary of Scopa’s findings regarding key qualities observed in successful colaboration: …the folowing four key qualities present in successful colaboration and lacking in unsuccessful colaboration were identified: • Common ground: the presence of common understanding established within the shared space created betwen colaborators, upon which a shared creative vision is developed. 97 S. Braden, ‘A Study of Representation Using Participatory Video in Comunity Development: From Freire to Eldorado,’ PhD Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Reading, 198, p. 102. 98 K. Scopa, ‘The Development of Strategies for Interdisciplinary Colaboration from the Visual Arts,’ Ph Thesis, Robert Gordon University, Gray’s Schol of Art and Design, 203, p. 248. 150 • Shared Creative Vision: the presence of common aims and expectations of colaboration developed through dialogue, negotiation and the stablishment of shared colaborative values. • Shared ownership: the presence of an equal sense of shared authorship, control and responsibility in achieving a colaborative outcome, which is felt by al colaborators. • Mutualy Beneficial Transformation: the presence of a shared openess and wilingness to learn from and about co-colaborators through the shared creative processes and to be chalenged and changed through the colaborative process. 9 The above findings of Scopa’s study closely match the author’s experience of colaboration with the makers during the Iceland project. These experiences are discussed further in, 9.2 Reflections on the ‘Makers’ Journey’(page 152). 9.1.8. Sumary of Theories Relating to ‘The Makers’ Journey’ The Iceland project has taken place within a constructivist pardigm, wher the author has worked alongside the participating makers as co-researchers in reflecting on their colaborative practice while designig and making the table and chairs. Throughout the project this reflective process has continued to inform and shape the creative process. The social science and anthropolgical theories of the mid to late twentieth century have provided a framework of theory and methods of reflective and practice-based research. These theories and methods of reflective and practice-based research apear to be most relevant in the development of research in designer/maker practice. The use of visual media including video is suited to reflective and practice- based research. It is particularly suited to the Iceland project and designer/maker practice, which has a focus on visual and unspoken means of communication. 9 Scopa, p. 183. 151 The field of reflective and practice-based research in art and esign is a new and rapidly expanding one, with much debate concernig theory and methods. It is important to recognize the value of developing theory out of art and esign’s own fields of practice and to value the individual nature of such research. 10 If designer/makers are to have a position in research, they must take responsibility for communicating to a broad audience, by providing per- reviewed explanations of their reflective making practice. 101 Colaborative and reflective designer/maker practice can be seen as a method of per reviewing practical and visualy led activities within the field. However, these activities must be xposed to members of the community outside the field by using commonly understod language. During the process of colaborative designig and making within the Iceland project a photgraphic, audio and video record was captured with a focus on, what is described in Jerrard’s bok as, ‘critical decision points’ 102 . This record of ‘critical decision points’ presents elments of the participant makers’ working methods in a new ay and perhaps reveals previously unoticed and taken for granted aspects of their practice. This record of the participating makers’ practice becomes a useful point of refernce for reflection and understanding the nature of their creative, non-linear and non- logical process. These reflections provide insight and new knowledge, which may then inform and reshape subsequent practice. One of the most important outcomes of reflective and practice-based research in the field of art and esign is the narrative of the journey and the interpretation of this, and not necessarily the artefacts produced at the nd, as Dr Anne Douglas has said, 10 Gray, Malins, p. 18. 101 Friedman, December 205. 102 Jerard. 152 There is no guarante within research that you are going to produce the fantastic piece. What it is trying to adress is the thinking, issues and conditions around which art is made. 103 A survey of academics and literature from the field of art, design and technolgy in Iceland has revealed that litle in the way of practice-based research exists and the academic ‘design sectors are in ned of comprehensive development programs’. 104 9.2. Reflections on the ‘Makers’ Journey’ This section of the chapter consists of the author’s reflections on the diferent phases of the ‘makers’ journey’ in designig and making the table and chairs during the Iceland project. Refrences are included where relevant to the reviewed literature on reflective and practice-based research. The diferent phases of the designig and making process reflected on by the author include: • Aprenticeships. Working alongside the six participating makers and carrying out the interaction interviews. • Practical Experiments. Artefacts made by the author and colaboratively with the participating makers, as learning aids and experiments, as part of the designig and making of the project table and chairs. • Making decisions. Decisions made by the participating makers and the author on the design and methods of making the table and chairs. 103 Douglas, 194, p. 31. 104 Heikkinen, p. 45-7. 153 9.2.1. Aprenticeships Professor Peter Senker in a paper concerned with the formal trainig of aprentices for the Teaching and Learning Research Program, University Colege Northampton, provides a useful definition of ‘aprenticeship’: … 'aprenticeship' is defined very broadly to encompass the learnig of workers entering an occupation for the first time, regardless of the type of occupation involved or the qualifications (if any) required for entering the occupation. 105 The author’s experience of being an aprentice for one or two weks to six diferent makers during the project provided insight into the visual and physical knowledge and material culture embodied in their work (page 71). The previous experience of the author as an accomplished maker himself gave him the observation skils for him to absorb this new knowledge eficiently. Less experienced makers begining their trainig have less insight into making and therfore less is learnt when they observe other skiled makers. The requirement of video recording the author’s aprenticeship experience as a refrence for reflection within the Iceland project enhanced his observations. The folowing article, titled ‘The Three Ways to Watch and Learn’ was writen by the author for the Iceland project newsleter A Craftsman. This newsleter was distributed by e-mail to al involved and interested in the project. Having ben an aprentice to my father and to many other skiled craftsmen after him, and now being a skiled craftsman in wod furniture myself, I have ben reflecting on the experiences of my short aprenticeships with the diferent Nordic craft practitioners involved in the Iceland Project. When I set out to be a craftsman it tok me a very long time to learn the skils that I neded. Now I practise with great confidence in my specialist area, fashionig my on tols and developing my own working practices. When I had the oportunity to learn new skils from craft practitioners in other fields and in their own workshops for the first time, I was very surprised at how transferable my skils were and how quickly I could learn. When considering new and acceptable forms of academic 105 P. Senker, ‘An Exploration of the Nature of Aprenticeship’, Teaching and Learnig Research Program, University Colege Northampton, , (accessed 31 August 205). 154 reference for craft practitioners, it is impossible to ignore the importance of observation. Craft practice is learned predominantly by observation and mimicking crafts people’s skils in using tols and manipulating materials. Inuit children are taught many activities when they are very smal and before they are physicaly able to try the real thing. To learn how to padle a kayak a child is sat on the parent’s kne facing forward, while the parent mimics the action of padling a kayak with the child’s hands inside their own. My father taught me to saw a piece of wod in the same fashion but ith a real saw and a real piece of wod. He simply put my hand inside his on the saw handle. Any child that learns skils by mimicking physical actions must learn more quickly. While observing another craft practitioner at work the unskiled aprentice does not easily understand what they are loking at, or what teling signs wil give them the clues to do the same. A skiled craft practitioner learns easily and copies the same actions successfuly with a litle practice. The artistic and skil-seeking craft practitioner not only learns the skils of others quickly but can identify the transferable elments of a practice and successfuly combine them with their own skils knowledge. 106 106 T. Hawson, ‘The Thre Ways to Watch and Learn’, issue 3 of the newsleter, a craftsman, 204, (accessed June 205). The timescale in which the author’s aprenticeships wer conducted was a short period of one or two weks. In this short period of time visiting the makers it was not possible to witness the ful potential of their skils, or to understand and learn al the technical knowledge they have of their materials and processes, and the cultural content of their work. It was, however, long enough to gain a sense of empathy with the makers and their work. The focused aproach to the aprenticeships, with the structured interview and the shared understanding betwen the author and the makers of the design brief that they were to resolve together, brought to the surface demonstrations of physical and visual knowledge that satisfied the shared aims. The period of time taken for the aprenticeships was to short to adequately learn the maker’s skils and related information in order to carry out the occupation independently. In a traditional aprenticeship, the aprentice may be bound by contract for a number of years to a master, 15 learning by observing demonstrations by the master and doing a lot of repetitive and preparative work until they are confident to see a job through themselves. A modern aprenticeship sometimes combines on the job learning with formal trainig provided by a further education colege or other institution. A commitment by the author to do any amount of repetitive work was ofered during his short aprenticeships. The author ofered to do the mundane jobs in the workshops in order to earn the makers two mornigs of time to complet the formal interviews. The author showed wiling and enthusiasm in doing workshop maintenance, and this won the favour and respect of the makers visited. The author felt that such work was a pleasure when carried out in someone lse’s workshop as it was a great way to study the contents, layout and work in progress. The knowledge gained by the author sweping up in another maker’s workshop wil have ben greater than that of an inexperienced aprentice doing the same thing. The time spent by the author with the selected makers during the aprenticeships or interaction interviews and while making the table and chairs was a process of two-way communication, sharing knowledge and learning (multimedia discs 1, 2, 7). While working alongside the selected makers a continual dialogue was maintained verbaly and visualy and by physical demonstration. The author asked questions about the maker’s work and the makers asked questions about the project. This communication continued to inform the research and develop new forms of critical thinking, changing ‘the levels of consciousness’ 107 of the author and the participating makers. Having this communication in the workshops provided readily available material to ilustrate some of what was said in the interaction interview presentations and to carry out smal experiments (page 76). These research experiments exposed the otherwise hiden tacit knowledge of the author and participant makers, so the work could be considered, ‘in a holistic fashion by the researchers’ 108 . These experimental artefacts, and images of 107 Hal, Gilete, Tandon, p. 30. 108 Rust, 203, p. 7. 156 them, alow for other makers ‘to employ their tacit knowledge to form new ideas’ 109 . The author was a traditional aprentice to the makers and they wer cognitive aprentices to the author. 10 These definitions of aprenticeship are provided in an article by American researchers concerned with teaching and learnig, Allan Colins, John Sely Brown, and Ann Holum: in traditional aprenticeship, the process of carrying out a task to be learned is usualy easily observable. In cognitive aprenticeship, one neds to deliberately bring the thinking to the surface, to make it visible… 11 The author provided ‘scafolding’ 12 for the makers to understand the project’s plan, objectives and proposed methods, by explainig the thoughts and experiences that began and developed the project. These open explanations gave emphasis to the continual reflective thought process that went into developing the project. For example, the story of how the author saw new potential in sharing making knowledge betwen makers after visiting the boat builder Peter Matheson as part of the development of the Iceland Parliament Speakers Chair (page 18) provided ‘scafolding’ or suport for the makers to understand the aims of the colaborations. The author’s reflections on this experience were explained and the makers were invited to consider and explain their own reflection on their colaboration with the project. The author made every efort to consider openly the makers’ reflections and demonstrate his wilingness to change the project plan or design of the table and chairs, sharing ownership of the project and esign. This shared ownership and equal sense of authorship rovided for ‘mutaly 109 Rust, 203, p. 12. 10 Alan Colins, John Sely Brown, and An Holum, ‘Cognitive Aprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible’, htp:/w.21learn.org/arch/articles/brown_seely.html, accessed 1 October 205. 11 Colins, Brown, Holum. 12 Colins, Brown, Holum. 157 beneficial transformation’ 13 . This gave value to the makers’ commitment and raised the level of their enquiry and efort in problem solving during development of the table and chairs. During the sharing of visual and physical knowledge betwen the participating makers of diferent nationalities and the author, it was not aparent that diferences in language hinderd the process. It became aparent to the author that betwen him and the participating makers ther existed a common method of communication through visual language, gesture and physical demonstration (page 71). This form of communication was direct and natural to the participants and for the purposes of the project. The use of video and photgraphy to record this communication and the presentation of it in the interaction interview presentations was more apropriate than a fieldworker’s inscribed notebok. Video and photgraphy as a record of material reality provides selective but specific information, ‘with qualifying and contextual relationships that are usualy missing from codified writen otes.’ 14 However biased the author may have ben in his selection of the visual information recorded, this information canot lie and it wil remain open to reinterpretation among the participants and other researchers. The openess of the visual medium, and the explicit way it exposes the context of situation, matches the ‘ethics of action research’ 15 . The main objective of the aprenticeship phase of the project was for the author to experience and learn Icelandic crafts and making knowledge from the selected makers, asking them specificaly how their specialised knowledge could contribute to the designig and making of a table and chairs to satisfy the agreed esign brief (page 5). It was hoped that this method of colecting cultural making knowledge would enable the author to propose outline designs for artefacts that would express Icelandic culture. Later in the 13 Scopa, p. 183. 14 Colier, p. 10. 15 Hutchinson, Whitehouse, Bryson, p. 30. 158 project these proposed esigns were to be amended by the selected makers on paper and during the making process. The proposed method of multi- disciplinary input into the designig and making of a table and chairs (interaction plan, page 57) to express Icelandic culture was the hardest part of the project to explain or for the selected makers to be convinced of. All of the makers di accept their role as cultural mediums (carrying into the futre craft traditions), but some found it harder than others to realise the potential of becoming more conscious in expressing this in their work. The author openly explained to the selected makers the thinking behind his commitment to try and express cultural elments of the makers’ work into a shared process of designig and making a table and chairs suitable for batch production and export from Iceland. The author explained that Icelandic making traditions were becoming undervalued in this area nd a project that would expose the futre value of the makers’ cultural assets might create enthusiasm. It was also sugested by the author that if these cultural assets could not be woven into the futre outcomes of the makers work, including artefacts that could become manufactured gods, then it would be to the detriment of their society’s culture. When trying to explain these thoughts to the selected makers it was dificult to provide ful explanations or examples of the Icelandic making knowledge that could be transferred to the design of the demonstration artefacts. When the makers were asked during their interaction interview what elments of their work could be transferable to the design and making of the demonstration artefacts the replies wer vague and non-specific. The folowing quote from Fjolnir Hlynsson’s edited interview (multimedia disc 1) gives an example of the type of answers given. The author asked: Considering your skils how do you think you would best influence the project product [demonstration artefact]? Fjolnir Hlynsson’s reply was: 159 My knowledge of how the Nordic elments that you are loking for in the thing [demonstration artefact], I would know something about them because, I am of this Nordic origin, and I thereby have them in me. 16 The non-specific comments on the makers’ transferable making knowledge underlines again the importance of visual and physical making demonstrations as the most apropriate communication method for makers. It may have ben more apropriate for the makers to have ben asked to make experimental artefacts to answer these questions instead. The aprenticeships succeeded in the exchange of making-knowledge and ideas about the use of such learnig betwen the author and the makers. This communication was mainly visual and physical in ature. For the benefit of developing ideas to answer the design brief it may have ben more apropriate for the author and the participating makers to have made together a greater number of experimental artefacts. However, it was observed by the author that making experimental artefacts with the participating makers greatly enhanced the communication of tacit, visual and contextual knowledge. The video and photgraphic record of the experimental artefacts and the making of them shares the knowledge invested in them. 9.2.. Practical Experiments Practical experiments refer to the artefacts made by the author and participating makers during the aprenticeship phase of the project (page 76), and to experiments made during the designig of the table and chairs. During the designig process drawings, scale models and mock-ups of tables and chairs were made as practical experiments. This material can be seen, as Chris Rust from Shefield Halam University describes it, ‘as a record of the research in which al aspects of the work could be seen and 16 T. Hawson, ‘Interaction Interview ith, Fjolnir Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland, June 203.’ Fjolnir Talk, 1 minutes and 17 seconds, Multimedia Disc 1, T. Hawson, 203 (DVD). 160 encompassed, in a holistic fashion by the researchers.’ 17 The researchers in the Iceland project include the participating makers, who were given images of the drawings, models and mock-ups to ofer their fedback during the design phase (page 82). The participating makers as co-researchers also tok part in the making of practical experiments during the aprenticeship hase. Some, but not al, of these practical experiments were made to influence the design of the table and chairs. The most ilustrative examples of these wer the aluminium castings made by the author under the direction of Gretar Thorvaldsson (multimedia disc 2). They included the casting of a spon (fig. 16, page 80) and an abstract form (fig. 17, page 80). The intention of this experimental making was to see how the faceted knife cut marks from the woden paterns would be reproduced in the finished castings and how the diferent surface treatments afected this. The knowledge from these experiments in surface treatment was used in the making of the table and chairs. The xperimental pieces made by the author and Gretar Thorvaldsson wer learning experiences for both parties (fig. 16, 17, page 80). It demonstrated to Gretar Thorvaldsson the creative potential of working in partnership with another maker from a diferent discipline. It was a new experience for Gretar Thorvaldsson to fel an equal share and responsibility in a creative project outside the family business. By doing most of the required workshop labour in making the table and chair components, the author minimised the financial cost for Gretar Thorvaldsson to participate in the project. This reduction in financial costs encouraged Gretar Thorvaldsson’s participation in the project. The author further reduced the cost of Gretar Thorvaldsson’s participation by carrying out menial duties around the workshop. The project gave Gretar Thorvaldsson the oportunity to take part in an exploratory creative process outside his day-to-day working practice, with minimum financial implications to his business. During the time spent by the author working alongside Gretar Thorvaldsson, enthusiasm and commitment to the project was developed 17 Rust, p. 7. 161 and a new understanding of both parties own working practices and potential was shared. The author was inspired by the depth and quantity of knowledge it was possible to absorb during the experimental making experience within the company and workshop of another maker from a diferent discipline. Having completd the aprenticeship phase of the project the author assembled a record of the practical experiments made by him and the participating makers, including artefacts, sketches, photgraphs, video and audio recordings. The author used this record during the development of design proposals for the project table and chairs as references and as a means of reflecting on the aprenticeship experiences he had had with the diferent makers. The visual, tacit and contextual knowledge held in this multimedia record informed the design of the table and chairs. By loking, touching and hearing this multimedia record throughout the design process, the author was enabled to relive the aprenticeship experiences and remember the knowledge learnt from the participating makers. This process facilitated the author’s intention to embed in the design of the table and chairs as much of the visual, tacit and contextual knowledge learnt from the participating makers as possible. During the design phase some aditional experimental making was carried out in the author’s own studio workshop. The author, while making the felted Viking trader’s helmet (page 40) in his own studio during the design phase, strengthened his memory of the knowledge learnt from his aprenticeship with Asa Hatun (wol worker from the Faroe Islands selected to participate in the designig and making of project artefacts, page 35). These methods of reflecting while making and designig have ben developed intuitively out of the author’s existing practice as a designer/maker. The Iceland project has adopted a practice-based methodolgy and, as Gray, Ure and Malins describe, this ‘entails making use of the inherent knowledge, understanding and experience of the practitioner, acquired through the designer’s own informal research’. 18 Gray, Ure and 18 Malins, Ure, Gray. 162 Malins go n to sugest that a ‘tolbox’ of practice-based strategies can be aded or invented.’ 19 The author’s invented tolbox of strategies includes the interaction plan (page 57) that was partly invented out of his own practice as a designer/maker. This practice-based research strategy was developed in consultation with the Icelandic makers who wer asked to consider the interaction plan. The interaction plan included, recording and presentation methods of the colaborative process of designig and making the table and chairs (Apendix 6 Final Interaction Interview Questions and Presentation Structure, page 207, and 6.1 Method of Recording the Making Process, page 106). These recording and presentation methods were developed to provide a multimedia narrative of the designig and making of the table and chairs to non-makers and makers outside of the project. This multimedia narrative also provided the participating makers with an aditional means for reflecting on their practice and actions within the project. These methods of reflecting on practice and actions within the project have ben new experiences for the participant makers and the author. These reflective methods have provided for the participant makers, the author and outsiders to the project, an ‘interpretation of the xperience that makes us learn.’ 120 Learning within the project is demonstrated by the development of the democratic and sensitive commitment made by the participants to the colaborative efort. After the interaction interviews and aprenticeship hase, the project participants had time to reflect on this experience and the project interaction plan (page 57). The project was an unusual and unfamiliar experience for al the participants. An example of the depth and openess of communication betwen the project participants is provided on the multimedia disc 7, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’ (DVD), 121 which shows 19 Malins, Ure, Gray. 120 Friedman, December 205. 121 T. Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs, 204.’ 9 minutes and 10 seconds, Multimedia Disc 7, T. Hawson, 204. (DVD) 163 Gretar Thorvaldsson, Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir and the author developing surface finishing and construction details. The project received from the participants a sensitive and democratic aproach to the colaborative reflection-in-making experience and in return ofered an oportunity for learning. The activities of the project can be considerd as a scholarly designer/maker’s inquiry 12 and a rigorus ‘reflective conversation’ 123 with materials and contexts. The participating makers and the author al shared in a reflective conversation through experimental making, focused on answering the table and chairs design brief (page 5). This reflective conversation included reflection-in-making and reflection-on-making practical experiments. The outcomes and record of this reflective conversation via practical experiments includes: drawings, photgraphs, audio and video recordings and the artefacts. The participating makers and knowledgeable pers wil find this record accessible, but outsiders to the field may find it less so. In a discussion on this subject with the author, Chris Rust said, I believe the inclusion of visual material alows knowledgeable people to access the quality and validity of activities or materials used in research. 124 Outsiders to the field, it may be argued, wil find the tacit and contextual knowledge present in the Iceland project of litle relevance or transferable value. What outsiders may find of transferable value to their field is the reflective, democratic and interdisciplinary nature of the methods developed out of creative designer/maker practice. Regarding the transferability of methodolgy developed out of the subjective nature of creative practice, Gray and Malins write: ‘complet transferability is not achievable, nor perhaps desirable.’ 125 12 Marshal, Newton. 123 Schon, p.79. 124 Chris Rust, from conversation with the author on 5 October 205. 125 Gray, Malins, p. 18. 164 Inter-subjective views 126 of the participant makers have ben developed and considered throughout the designig and making of the table and chairs, providing the colectively reflected outcomes of the project with some objectivity. 9.2.3. Making Decisions This section reflects on decisions made with regard to the design and methods of construction during the making of the project table and chairs by the participating makers and the author. Some of the decisions made may be described as ‘critical decision points’ 127 and further reflection of these reveal the ‘learning through making’ achieved in the process of making the table and chairs. The table and chairs wer made in three diferent workshops in Iceland, betwen March and May 204 (page 102). 9.2.3.1. Critical Decision Point Example 1 The first participating maker to be visited by the author to begin making the table and chairs in Iceland was Gretar Thorvaldsson. On arrival at his workshop the author explained the proposed designs for the aluminium components to be made with him. The author explained that the design for the table legs at that time had ben criticised by Fjolnir Hlysson for being to heavy. 128 Gretar Thorvaldsson had the same opinion that the amount of aluminium in the casting was to much. 129 To resolve this situation, which may be described as a ‘critical decision point’, the author drew a new design for the underframe of the table in his sketchbok and he presented it to 126 Gray, Malins, p. 23. 127 Jerard. 128 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 1 minutes and 45 seconds (DVD). 129 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 3 minutes and 51 seconds (DVD). 165 Gretar Thorvaldsson for his thoughts and aproval. 130 This new table underframe design was also shown to Geir Odgeirsson and Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, for them to share their thoughts 131 . In explainig the new underframe design the author showed Gretar Thorvaldsson the visual reference that had influenced the form of the aluminium bracket. The visual reference was a sketch from the author’s sketchbok 132 , made while aprentice to Birger Anderson, of a beam, an internal component from the hul of the Viking ship; Skuldelv 6, at the Viking Ship Museum. Hearing and seeing the author’s explanation, Gretar Thorvaldsson made the folowing comment ‘do you think someone is going to see that’. 13 While making the design changes the author learnt about and reflected on Gretar Thorvaldsson’s practice and workshop capabilities. Making the design changes while in Gretar Thorvaldsson’s workshop iluminated the author’s reflections and learning. The author’s use of visual refernces was a surprise to Gretar Thorvaldsson and this provided an oportunity for him to recognize the potential for this unfamiliar method in his own work. Through working and solving problems together Gretar Thorvaldsson and the author have shared their reflections and learnig, through making. They have both reflected upon the tacit and visual knowledge, within their own and each other’s practice, to colaboratively reshape and inform the making of the table and chairs. 9.2.3.2. Critical Decision Point Example 2 As a goldsmith the surface finish of metal is an important aspect of Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir’s work and her sensitive knowledge in this area was specificaly requested in the design comments form (page 234) and during the making of the aluminium components for the table and chairs. Thorhildur 130 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 1 minutes and 54 seconds (DVD). 131 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 2 minutes and 59 seconds (DVD). 132 Hawson, ‘Image and Dat Files, Sketchbok Pages’, p. 4 (CD). 13 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 2 minutes and 35 seconds (DVD). 16 Thorgeirsdotir and the author had a discussion 134 with the half made aluminium components to decide on the finished surfaces. During that discussion tacit, material and visual knowledge was communicated through the aluminium components and words. The author shared knowledge with Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir and answered questions concernig Gretar Thorvaldsson’s workshop and practice and how diferent surface finishes could be achieved. Shortly after this meeting Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir came to Gretar Thorvaldsson’s workshop to discuss and confirm the surface finish treatment of the metal components with him and the author. 135 This group discussion around the aluminium components, the woden paterns, and drawings, in the context of the workshop, was a moment of rapid decision- making. It was the only time in the making of the table and chairs that two f the participating makers were together in a workshop with the author, direct sharing of knowledge and confirming of ideas was made possible. The combined knowledge and openess within the group made solving problems and making decisions straightforward. It would have ben of benefit to the project and the making of the table and chairs, if meetings with more than one participating maker could have hapened more often. 9.2.3.. Critical Decision Point Example 3 When making the woden elments of the chair with Fjolnir Hlynsson in his workshop, the infil panel of the chair seat proved to be the hardest part of the design to resolve. Fjolnir Hlynsson and the author considerd the original seat design as described in the proposed Dinig Chair Specifications: a seat infil panel made of plywod was to be screwed into a rebate in the frame or a woven seat could have ben threaded through oles in the seat frame (page 8). Fjolnir Hlynsson and the author discussed their ideas around the half made elments of the chair in the workshop 136 . The half made chair gave 134 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 8 minutes and 49 seconds (DVD). 135 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 9 minutes and 8 seconds (DVD). 136 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 12 minutes and 26 seconds (DVD). 167 ‘access to tacit knowledge’ 137 and stimulated Fjolnir Hlynsson and the author to ‘employ their tacit knowledge to form new ideas’ 138 and proposals for a chair seat. Fjolnir Hlynsson di not like the proposed ply wod or woven nylon string infil panel and instead proposed one made of thin oak boards. The author di not recognize Fjolnir Hlynsson’s seat description as having any reference to woden boat deck boards until he described it as such: I would say a thin woden seat of oak, which might have the apearance of a ship deck… 139 Without Fjolnir Hlynsson’s help in developing this chair seat the author may not have thought of this obvious idea for some time, if at al. 9.2.3.4. Critical Decision Point Example 4 The problem of how to cut the aluminium disks to fit holes in the table top as decorative inlay, was solved and explained to the author by Geir Odgeirsson’s assistant Bjorn Hrafnsson. 140 Bjorn Hrafnsson’s explanation is an example of how the tacit knowledge of makers was employed to make decisions about apropriate methods of making. This knowledge was much apreciated by the author, who di most of the making himself. Without the practical knowledge of the participating makers, the table and chairs could not have ben made the way they wer. 9.3. Sumary of Chapter This chapter has provided a literature review of reflective, action and practice-based research relevant to the Iceland project. Considering the 137 Rust, 203, p.8. 138 Rust, 203, p.8. 139 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 12 minutes and 51 seconds (DVD). 140 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 15 minutes and 3 seconds (DVD). 168 literature review, this chapter has reflected upon the diferent phases of the project: aprenticeships, practical experiments and making decisions. This chapter has iluminated the knowledge gained by the participant makers and the author through designig and making the table and chairs and reflecting on one another’s practice. It has provided the outsider to the project a view of the makers’ journey and the knowledge and reflective learning contained within it. 169 10. Conclusion The experience of working with a traditional boat builder to develop a chair design for the Icelandic Parliament Speaker, inspired the author to begin this project (see chapter 1.. page 18). The author’s ambition was to share with makers from diferent Icelandic craft traditions, the experience of designig and making a dinig table and chairs which would express their culture, and be suitable for repeat production and export from Iceland to the Nordic market (se chapter 1.2. page 29). The choice to design and make a dinig table and chairs was made because they are typical domestic artefacts of the West European home, and furniture making is the author’s profession. The choice to make a dinig table and chairs and the design brief for them, was confirmed by a survey with Icelandic craftspeople (see chapter 3.1. page 52). The project has ben concerned with the visual and physical communication of knowledge that takes place betwen makers observing and imitating each others working methods. This communication is presented in the video presentations (DVD multimedia discs 1, 2 and 7) submited as research references to this project. These references are of the physical relationship makers have with their materials, tols, environment and culture. The video presentations, the dinig table and chairs (Fig. 35 page 108), and the artefacts made by the author, while aprentice to the makers, (described in detail in chapter 4.2. page 76), al represent new knowledge identified, and communicated, through making. A second area of research refrenced is the interaction interviews presented on the multimedia discs 1 and 2. These include refernces as to how the physical and visual nature of the diferent makers’ work influenced the design of the dinig table and chairs. One example of this, from Birger Andersen’s interview, is the Viking ship uper deck knes 141 that influenced the form and method of making the back leg of 141 T. Hawson, ‘Birger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark, Interaction Interview, May 203.’ Slide Show, slides 1-9, Multimedia Disc 1, T. Hawson, 203. (DVD) 170 the chair, as described in chapter 4.1. page 74. An example of the cultural insight makers have of their materials is provided in the background section of Asa Hatun’s interaction interview, where she states her belief that “wol is the gold of the Faroe Islands”. 142 The methods used by the hands and body in manipulating materials, the rhythm and pace of the work, is knowledge essential to makers who learn process by physical imitation. Birger Andersen making a Viking ship uper deck kne in the closing video clip of his interaction interview presentation provides an example of physical knowledge. 143 The methodolgy for capturing and presenting the visual and physical knowledge of makers was researched and developed as part of the project. From the related academic research projects, NEVAC and Tacitus (page 41), no refernces could be found to help develop a method for capturing the relationships and practical communication betwen makers while resolving a shared design brief (page 5). To develop a suitable methodolgy, professionals from the film and TV industry shared their experiences of recording interviews and editing, and a pilot interview was completd (as described in chapter 3.. Pilot Interaction Interview, page 62). The project created and articulated a democratic system of making. The contributions made by the makers in the designig and making of the dinig table and chairs is clearly demonstrated on the multimedia disc 7, making the table and chairs. A section of this video 14 captures the shared commitment and the equal influence the makers had in the designig and making process. This section of the video is of the author, and the two makers, Gretar Thorvaldsson and Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, communicating their thoughts openly about design details for the table and chairs. They stand 142 T.Hawson, ‘Ása Hatún, Wol Worker, Faroe Islands, Interaction Interview, June 203.’ Ása Talk, 2 minutes and 9 seconds, Multimedia Disc 1, T. Hawson, 203. (DVD) 143 Hawson, ‘Birger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark, Interaction Interview’. (DVD) 14 T. Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs, 204.’ 9 minutes and 10 seconds, Multimedia Disc 7, T. Hawson, 204. (DVD) 171 together loking and touching aluminium components, gesturing with their hands textures and methods of making, and talking. It demonstrates that makers from diferent disciplines have empathy for each other’s work and share common methods of visual and physical thinking and communication, and reveals these particular forms of knowledge. The dinig table and chairs were taken on an exhibition tour from Iceland to the Faroe Islands, Shetland, Glasgow and Denmark (schedule of tour on page 14, map provided on page 32). During the exhibition tour a survey (page 17) was conducted on the visitors. The results of this survey show that the dinig table and chairs wer thought (by a filtered sample) to express Icelandic and Nordic culture wel, a mean answer of 4 on a scale of 1(not at al) to 5(very wel) was given, and a mean 70% (of the same filterd sample) felt that products with Nordic cultural identity had aded value (page 121). This project has demonstrated that culture is passed on through time in the hands of makers, and, if this making knowledge is used to design and make contemporary artefacts, it can provide those artefacts with cultural value and a higher market value. The feasibility study (page 109) was conducted to consider the commercial viability of the table and chairs to go into repeat production in Iceland, one at a time and in batches of 10 or 100. This presented problems to the relevant Icelandic companies and makers, and when asked to consider these batch sizes they wer found not to be familiar with production on this scale and they wer reluctant to provide estimates. It may have ben more apropriate to request estimates for smaler batch sizes to suit the companies and makers’ production capacity. However the study predicted an aproximate price for one-of production, not including the costs of the wolen elments or delivery, of £2975 for one table and £452 for one chair (page 12). These prices could feasibly compet in the one-of and bespoke furniture markets of Nordic Europe. The research has demonstrated that the democratic making experience was a positive one for the makers that participated in the project. The evidence demonstrates the makers recognized that the table and chairs had cultural 172 expression (confirmed by the exhibition survey to also have value in the Nordic market), and the benefits of a cross discipline aproach were realized. This new and shared experience amongst the makers constitutes new knowledge. This new knowledge gives the makers a new ay of reflecting on and learning from their practice and regional craft traditions. The interaction interviews and the making of the dinig table and chairs presentations (multimedia discs 1, 2 and 7), provide refernces for this new knowledge. These presentations enhance any reflections by the makers of each other’s work and the democratic making experience in which they participated. The project has created and iluminated a template for democratic making, which could be used in other areas. The interactive making process and recording methods developed in this project are part of the ‘tolbox’ 145 of strategies that have ben developed out of the author’s designer/maker practice, and consultation with makers participating as co-researchers in the project. These strategies have provided a practice-based research method, which has enabled project participants to reflect on the visual, tacit, and contextual knowledge embodied in their own and each other’s making practices. The literature review of reflective and practice-based research (page 125) iluminates the constructivist paradigm in which the project tok place. It reviews the founding theories for the present field of art and esign practice- based research. Within the constructivist pardigm the Iceland projects aproach to knowledge is relativist, the epistemolgy is subjectivist and methodolgy is hermeneutic and dialectic (page 125). 146 The making practices, peculiar to each of the participating makers, is the relativist knowledge of concern to the project; it is relative to their environmental and cultural context and is experientialy based. 145 Malins, Ure, Gray. 146 Gray, Malins, p.19. 173 Practice-based research in art and esign has ben developing since the late twentieth century from founding theories in social science and anthropolgical theory. From correspondence with Icelandic academics in the field of art, design and technolgy (page145), it is aparent that ther are no examples known of practice-based research concerned with designer/maker practice. This project brings new knowledge, in theories of reflective practice, and a demonstration of practice-based research in art and design, to Iceland’s designer/makers and the academic art and esign communities. With consideration to the literature review of reflective and practice-based research the diferent phases of the makers’ journey have ben reflected upon (page 152). These phases include; aprenticeships (page 153), practical experiments (page 159) and making decisions (page 164). ‘Apprenticeships’ consisted of working alongside the six participating makers and carrying out the interaction interviews. This was a two way ‘learning through making’ 147 experience that tok place betwen the participating makers and the author. The author used the tacit, visual and contextual knowledge learnt through the aprenticeship experiences as references for preparing the design proposal for the table and chairs. The participating makers were provided with cognitive scafolding 148 by the author, who made the thinking behind the project visible and explained the story, nature, reflective methods and aims of their colaboration with the project. This scafolding invited the participant makers to join the author as co-researchers in reflecting-in-action 149 , and to influence the projects creative enquiry. Shared ownership and an equal sense of authorship were developed betwen the participating makers and the author. This in turn provided for a ‘mutualy beneficial transformation’ 150 of the projects developments and 147 Crafts Council, ‘Learnig Through Making’, Confernce Report, 25 November 198, (accessed 15 August 205). 148 Colins, Brown, Holum. 149 Schon. 150 Scopa, p. 183. 174 outcomes. The colaborative focus of the design brief and the project’s aims provided confidence and a framework for the participant makers to share, in depth, their specialized knowledge. The nature and value of openly communicating through making was explored by the author and participant makers and was reflected upon and recorded in the interaction interviews. These interviews, presented on the multimedia discs 1 and 2, are a record of the knowledge and reflective xperience shared betwen the participants and the author. This record may be used for reflection-on-action 151 and re- interpretation of the aprenticeship phase, by the participant makers, the author and outsiders to the project. Artefacts, made by the author and colaboratively with the participating makers, as learnig aids and practical experiments, are references and evidence of the scholarly 152 inquiry into the practice of designig and making the project table and chairs. A multimedia record of these practical experiments was made by the author and includes; artefacts, sketches, photgraphs, video and audio recordings (multimedia discs 1 to 6). The visual, tacit and contextual knowledge held in this multimedia record informed the design of the table and chairs. Loking, touching and hearing this multi- media record throughout the design process enabled the author to relive the aprenticeship experiences and remember the knowledge learnt from the participating makers. This process facilitated the author’s intention to embed in the design of the table and chairs as much of the visual, tacit and contextual knowledge learnt from the participating makers as possible. This multimedia narrative also provided the participating makers with an aditional means for reflecting on their practice and actions within the project. These methods of reflecting on practice and actions within the project have ben new experiences for the participant makers and the author. These reflective 151 Schon. 152 Marshal, Newton. 175 methods have provided for the participant makers, the author and outsiders to the project, an ‘interpretation of the xperience that makes us learn’. 153 The project received from the participant makers a democratic and sensitive commitment to the colaborative reflection-in-making experience and in return ofered an oportunity for learnig. The activities of the project are considered as an inquiry into the practice of designer/makers and a rigorous ‘reflective conversation’ 154 with materials and contexts. This reflective conversation included reflection-in-making and reflection-on-making practical experiments. The outcomes, artefacts and multimedia record of this reflective conversation, through the making of practical experiments, are accessible to the participating makers and knowledgeable pers, but outsiders to the field may find them less so. Outsiders to the field, it may be argued, wil find the tacit and contextual knowledge present in the multimedia record of litle relevance or transferable value. What outsiders may find of transferable value to their field is the reflective, democratic and interdisciplinary nature of the methods developed out of creative designer/maker practice. Inter-subjective views 15 of the participant makers have ben developed and considered throughout the designig and making of the table and chairs, providing the colectively reflected outcomes of the project with some objectivity. The ‘making decisions’ phase of the project includes the decisions made by the participating makers and the author on the design and methods of making the table and chairs (page 164). Four ‘critical decision points’ 156 in the making of the table and chairs have ben identified as examples that reveal 153 Friedman, December 205. 154 Schon, p.79. 15 Gray, Malins, p. 23. 156 Jerard. 176 the learning through making and reflective ‘conversation with the situation’ 157 that tok place. The first critical decision point is about the redesign of the aluminium table under frame components that tok place at Gretar Thorvaldsson’s workshop (page 164). In his workshop Gretar Thorvaldsson rejected the proposed design and the author drew up a new one. While making the design changes the author learnt about and reflected on Gretar Thorvaldsson’s practice and workshop capabilities. Being in Gretar Thorvaldsson’s workshop and having the visual and physical references of his practice around him iluminated the author’s reflections and learnig. The author’s use of visual references from his sketchbok to influence the form of the table components was a surprise to Gretar Thorvaldsson. This provided Gretar Thorvaldsson with an oportunity to recognize the potential for this unfamiliar method of using visual refrences in his own work. Through working and solving problems together Gretar Thorvaldsson and the author have shared their reflections and learning, through making. They have both reflected upon the tacit and visual knowledge, within their own and each other’s practice, to colaboratively reshape and inform the making of the table and chairs. The second example concerns the benefits of a group meting of participating makers (page 165). Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir came to Gretar Thorvaldsson’s workshop to discuss and confirm the surface finish treatment of the metal components with him and the author. 158 This group discussion around the aluminium components, the woden paterns and rawings in the context of the workshop, resulted in rapid decision-making. It was the only time in the making of the table and chairs that two f the participating makers were together in a workshop with the author and irect sharing of knowledge and confirming of ideas were made possible. The combined knowledge and openess within the group made solving problems and making decisions straightforward. It would have ben of benefit to the project and the making of 157 Schon, p. 79. 158 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 9 minutes and 8 seconds (DVD). 17 the table and chairs if meetings with more than one participating maker could have hapened more often. The third example describes how Fjolnir Hlynsson in his workshop, developed the chair seat with the author (page 16). Fjolnir Hlynsson and the author discussed their ideas around the half made elments of the chair in the workshop 159 . The half made chair gave ‘access to tacit knowledge’ 160 and stimulated Fjolnir Hlynsson and the author to ‘employ their tacit knowledge to form new ideas’ 161 and proposals for a chair seat. Fjolnir Hlynsson di not like the proposed ply wod or woven nylon string infil panel and instead proposed one made of thin oak boards. The author di not recognize Fjolnir Hlynsson’s seat description as having any reference to woden boat deck boards until he described it as such: I would say a thin woden seat of oak, which might have the apearance of a ship deck… 162 Without Fjolnir Hlynsson’s help in developing this chair seat the author may not have thought of this obvious idea for some time, if at al. The fourth example (page 167) concerned the cuting of aluminium disks to fit holes in the table top as decorative inlay, and this construction problem was solved and explained to the author by Geir Odgeirsson’s assistant Bjorn Hrafnsson. 163 Bjorn Hrafnsson’s explanation is an example of how the tacit knowledge of makers was employed to make decisions about apropriate methods of making. This knowledge was much apreciated by the author, who, with such guidance, di most of the making himself. Without the considerable contribution of making knowledge from al the participating 159 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 12 minutes and 26 seconds (DVD). 160 Rust, 203, p.8. 161 Rust, 203, p.8. 162 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 12 minutes and 51 seconds (DVD). 163 Hawson, ‘Making the Table and Chairs’, 15 minutes and 3 seconds (DVD). 178 makers, the table and chairs could not have ben made. The visual and oral dat (on the multimedia discs) presented with this thesis have uses in further research as refernces to the diferent makers and their disciplines. The dat from the exhibition tour survey (page 13) wil have aplications, particularly for Icelandic craft organisations, for interpreting the Nordic communities reaction to the project and their perception of craft traditions and cultural values. Having completd the project the author is inspired to continue developing his skils at initiating projects to work in partnership with makers from diferent disciplines, and in reinterpreting traditional making skils in his own work. 179 Apendices Apendix 1 Leter from Nicola Wod. From: "Nicola Wod" To: "Thomas Hawson" Subject: Re: Nicola's research methods. Date: 06 September 202 0:15 Hi Tom, Thanks for your email and sorry for taking so long to reply. My research is into the teaching of crafts and recording craft skils in a way that could be used by someone wanting to teach themselves. There are many craftsmen who are the last of the line for their particular skil and, rather than just recording an archive of what they used to do, I would like it to be something that could be used to make the craft skil live again. Last year I di the first part of a MA part-time, but now I've some money from the Ernest Cok Trust I can go ful ti , though hether I finish the MA first or just do it as a PhD is stil up in the air. The only precedents I've found so far for recordings of craftspeople are NEVAC (National Video Archive of the Crafts) based at UWE, Bristol htp:/ww.media.uwe.ac.uk/nevac/. They have huge quantities of unedited recordings, nearly al of ceramists. For my next stage I plan to record some craftspeople teaching and try to analyse what they're doing before developing a strategy for my own recordings. I'd be very interested in how you plan to structure your interviews - when do you hope to do your recordings? Do keep in touch and let me know how it's going. Best wishes, Nicola Wod. 180 Apendix 2 Definig the Product Brief Questionaire Results The folowing questions where presented to 32 Icelandic craft practitioners, in the form of a yes or no tick box questionaire. 17 craft practitioners completd the form. The folowing numbers in the tick boxes refer to the results, there is aditionaly the number out of 17 who answerd that question, a percentage as to who said yes and a note on any comments made specific to the question and at the nd any general comments made. 1. Would you agree that Iceland neds to diversify its exports? Number who answerd 17 / 18. Yes 17 No Percentage Yes 10 % 2. Would the development of new Icelandic exports be a god idea? Number who answerd 17 / 18. Yes 17 No Percentage Yes 10 % 3. Would Icelanders prefer to have ownership and control of the investment and evelopment of their new exports? Number who answerd 14 / 18. Yes 13 No 1 Percentage Yes 93 % Two Practitioners put a “/ “ mark betwen the yes and no boxes, perhaps to indicate that this would be 50/50 in their mind. This answer has not ben considered in the results. 4. Do Icelanders consider themselves Nordic? Number who answerd 17 / 18. Yes 17 No 181 Percentage Yes 10 % 5. Is the maintenance of Icelandic culture important to you? Number who answerd 17 / 18. Yes 17 No Percentage Yes 10 % 6. Would a new export from Iceland with an inherent Icelandic/Nordic character be more suported by Icelanders than a product without these characteristics? Number who answerd 15 / 18. Yes 14 No 1 Percentage Yes 93 % Three practitioners made marks to sugest a 50/50 answer and one practitioner made a comment that there are many Icelanders who di not apreciate the character of Icelandic crafts. 7. Do you think it would be of benefit to Iceland if a foreign buyer of Icelandic exports would gain knowledge and understanding of Icelandic culture through the character inhernt in the product? Number who answerd 17 / 18. Yes 17 No Percentage Yes 10 % 8. Would you consider the knowledge and skils of Icelandic craftspeople a god place to start loking for inspiration to develop new exports from? Number who answerd 17 / 18. Yes 16 No 1 Percentage Yes 94 % 9. Given that there are few natural resources on Iceland, and there is an abundance of pre-processed oak and aluminium, would you consider these materials are under utilized? 182 Number who answerd 17 / 18. Yes 15 No 2 Percentage Yes 8 % The two practitioners who said no, would prefr the material that they used, which was traditional Icelandic crafts’ material, the materials were Asp wod for one and wol for the other. 10. Could the production of products from aluminium and oak be developed into a new and successful export? Number who answerd 16 / 18. Yes 14 No 2 Percentage Yes 86 % 1. Would a table and chair be acceptable product types to demonstrate the potential use of these materials? Number who answerd 15 / 18. Yes 14 No 1 Percentage Yes 93 % One of the practitioners that di not answer this question sugested a 50/50 response. 12. Would Icelandic craftspeople be the best equiped to design and produce demonstration products made from oak and aluminium? Number who answerd 1 / 18. Yes 3 No 8 Percentage Yes 27 % Four practitioners who are not counted either yes or no provided indication of a 50/50 response. 13. As for the potential market of these products, would the home market and other Nordic markets be the best place to test the products? Number who answerd 15 / 18. Yes 10 No 5 183 Percentage Yes 67 % One practitioner sugested a 50/50 response. 184 Apendix 3 Proposed Formal Interview Questions, Recording Method and Archive Presentation Structure Instructions to Interviewer. When carrying out these interviews it is important to find as much reference material to back up statements from the craft practitioners as possible. This reference material can include photgraphs, documents, videos, and artefacts. After each set of questions sources of reference material should be asked for from the craft person being interviewed. Universal introduction of the presentations and project For al the interview presentations, this statement and slide show is to be aplied. Audio/voice, of the folowing transcript, over a slide show of black and white photcopies of Icelandic craft artefacts. The folowing presentation is one in a series of presentations that have ben carried out for the purposes of research into Icelandic and Nordic traditional crafts and how they might be utilized into the development of a new product for export from Iceland. The objective of the presentations is to formaly present each craft practitioner in the project in an equal way. These presentations are the product of the same formula of interview given to each participant. The presentations wil be shown to each participant in the project ensuring that al participants in the project understand each other's work in a way which wil promote inspiration and a new way of understanding and reflecting on their own craft practice. The focus within the questions is to open a discussion to consider what elments of the craft practitioner’s practice are imitated or utilized by industry, what elments are not, what elments could be and what elment of their work could be utilized to met the project’s demonstration prottype brief. 185 Introduction Introduction by the craft practitioner of their name, the craft that they practise and where they live and work. Questions. Q.1. What is your name? Q.2. What is the name of the craft that you practise? Q.3. What is the name of the place where you live and work? Video/audio clip of the craft practitioner, stil images and or panorama of their surroundings, including exterior of workshop/shed. 186 Background Craft practitioner provides a brief description of their craft, the historical conection behind it, reason for why they have chosen to practise it and how they learned their craft. Questions. Q.1. Please provide a brief description of the craft that you practise? Q.2. What is the history of your craft, where does it come from? Q.3. How di you learn your craft? Q.4. Why do you practise your craft? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions with complementing stil images. 187 Materials Craft practitioner provides description of materials used along with the historical and cultural significance. Questions. Q.1. What materials do you use in your craft and please describe them? Q.2. Where do the materials you se come from? Q.3. Are there any specific charcteristics or qualities that you lok for when chosing or selecting materials to work with? Q.4. Is there any historical or cultural significance in the materials that you se? Q.5. What qualities and elments of the materials that you use, are also considered by modern industrial production techniques? Q.6. What elments or qualities in the materials that you se have not yet ben considered or fuly explored by modern industrial production? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by stil images, referencing what is being talked about. 18 Workspace The craft practitioner to provide a description of their workspace including the most important elments of the space with regards to their craft practice and how the space has changed over time. Questions This question to be asked in the workspace at the nd of the formal interview. Q.1. Please provide a description of your workspace? Q.2. What are the most important elments of your workspace for the benefit of carrying out your craft? Q.3. How has the workspace changed over the course of time within your knowledge of past craft people? Q.4. Are there any similarities betwen your workspace and similar more industrial production workshops? Q.5. Are there any elments of your workspace that are not considered in industrial production workshops? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by stil images, referencing what is being talked about. 189 Production proces For this area of the interview a brief description of the ful process of production is explained and a few typical examples of the production process are to be demonstrated. Areas of the production process that could be developed in the production of a product to meet the project’s product brief are to be considerd. Questions. The first 2 question are asked in the workspace at the end of the formal interview. Q.1. Please describe in ful your production process? Q.2. Please demonstrate a typical activity within your production process? Q.3. What areas of the production process do you consider most peculiar to your craft? Q.4. What areas of your production process are reproduced in manufacturing? Q.5. What areas of the production process are not carried out or considered by modern industrial production? Q.6. To satisfy the project’s product brief, what areas of your production process could be explored by modern industrial production? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions and emonstrating typical production processes, along with stil images, referencing what is being talked about. 190 Finished product In this area an overview of the craft practitioner’s product range wil be provided, specific atention given to their speciality and favourite products. Also to be considerd are questions that put their products into cultural and historical context, including, what is the diference in their products to similar, production made products, the products of their contemporaries and craft made products of the past. Questions. Q.1. Please provide an overview of your product range? Q.2. What is your speciality or what elments of your product are peculiar to you? Q.3. Of al the products that you make, which is your favourite and explain why? Q.4. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by craftspeople of the past? Q.5. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by other craft people? Q.6. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by industry? Q.7. What quality or value in the products that you make is the most important to you and why? Q.8. Please explain the cultural or historical value of your product? Q.9. What elment of your product or its design, is transferable to the design of an industrialy made product? Video/audio clips of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by video clips and stil images of the products and other refernces being described. 191 Markets, end users and consumers. Who uses the craft practitioner’s product, what for and for how much? Past and present. Questions. Q.1. Where does your product go, who buys it? Q.2. Why do your clients buy your product and not someone lse’s? Q.3. Who di the past practitioners of your craft make their products for? Q.4. What diferences are there betwen past and present users and consumers of your craft? Q.5. Why do these diferences in past and present consumers exist? Q.6. What is the main diference betwen consumers of your craft and consumers of industrialy made products? Q.7. Describe the markets that would be interested in a product made by industry that was designed and influenced by craft practitioners to meet the project’s product brief? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by video clips and stil images. 192 Apendix 4 Transcription of Interviews to Consider Proposed Interaction Plan Fjolnir Bjorn Hlynson. 8.1.02 Transcription of answer. FBH. I think it is probably the best way to put into measure, and into measurable, humm. TH. It is measurable and god? FBH. Yes, and and, but I fel like you could o improvements on, you know, simplifying realy words, TH. Simplify the language, FBH. Simplify the language because I am not sure that everyone you talk to, although I am not questionig their ability in, you know, before, that the language is a bit complicated, so you don’t want to wind up with, with something that is not realy, the right answer to a question, because the person that was questioned id not realy understand it. TH. In the questions themselves I should be able to simplify it, because it is basic stuf, you know, what’s your name, what’s your.. I see what you mean, I wil try and keep the words as simple as possible. FBH. It would be for the benefit of your research, you know, you’re working betwen countries and there is always this language problem, to go betwen. TH. Ok so simplify the language. It is measureable and god, you think it is a fair representation or it is a way of representing each person’s participation in the project. FBH. I think it is a fair representation of a person, you realy try to capture the essence of one’s work. And these things, you are coming to workshops and 193 you are staying there for a while, is realy valuable to your understanding of each person. TH. Yeh. Do you think, apart from the language, can you se anything else. FBH. About the questions. TH. The questions, at the end of each section I am going to ask for reference materials, I want to ask them for any photgraphs or ilustrations in boks which.. FBH. CV’s TH. Almost their CV, in diferent stages but you know, in a question like finished products, am going to say please provide an overview of your product range, what is your speciality or what elment of your product are peculiar to you, or something like that. You know, I wil ask each practitioner for pictures of their work for me to put into the presentation, do you think people wil be hapy to participate like that? FBH. Ya. TH. Providing pictures, and you know, even pictures of themselves working 25 years previous or ten years previous on their own project just to say this is how someone has ben developing. FBH. I don't realy see why people which have already agreed to help or participate with you, TH. Would want to hold that back. FBH. No, because they must, you know, they must realy, once they have said yes I understand the nature of this project. TH. I think that is it. Great. So you are hapy to participate in this project. FBH. No no-no no-no. TH. (Laughing) are you hapy to participate in this project? 194 FBH. Yes TH. God. I am very hapy, ok. Thorhildur Thorgeirsdóttir. Interviewed 1.1.02 Transcription of the answer TH. Do you think this method of interaction is acceptable, god or bad, please xplain your thoughts, in your own words and how you would improve on this method of interaction? TH TH. I think it is a very god thing, it is a very god thing. TH. You can stop ther. Ok. Any other thoughts about it apart from that it is god thing. TH TH. Wel I think it is because of the tradition, we should develop a bit further on, to use it more and work from that to. TH. I think so to, we should evelop forwards from the traditions, TH TH. Yes. TH. And do you understand the maintenance, by doing this we help to preserve the maintenance of these traditions. TH TH. What is that m, m, maintenance. TH. The maintenance, by the continued practice of these traditions we draw light to them as being a great resource. TH TH. Yes. Yes. TH. Do you think this method might demonstrate the potential. TH TH. Yes, we could try it, and see what comes out of it. TH. Yes. TH TH. I think it is a very exciting thing. 195 TH. And can you see in anyway of, I know you've not seen it or thought about it for very long, but can you imagine in anyway improving on the method of interaction. TH TH. Improving it. TH. Yes. TH TH. I think we just have to see how it develops. TH. Ok, yes. So in efect you could say, it might be beter to leave the method a litle bit open while we are doing it. TH TH. Yes. TH. And change it per person. TH TH. Yes. TH. Yes that's a useful way of loking at. So make the questions more open. TH TH. Yes. TH. Yes so each presentation may become less formalized betwen each craft person, depending on their.. TH TH. Background and what they are doing. TH. So develop resentation on from individual nature of each craft person. Yes it would be very interesting wouldn’t it. I think I might be working with some sort of farmers TH TH. Yes. TH. You know it would be an intersting contrast of the diferent people working. TH TH. Here in Iceland or. 196 TH. Maybe in Faroes. I realy want to work with someone in Faroes. TH TH. Have you ben ther. TH. Not yet. TH TH. It is a very interesting place, I've ben there once I was realy taken by it, it was realy intersting. TH. Do you think I should include someone from ther. TH TH. You could o that, they have a similar background… TH. To Iceland. TH TH. Yes, Faroese was very interesting because they, I think as Icelanders we don't think about the Faroese in a way, only, is it okay if we talk about something else. TH. Yes, perfect. TH TH. Because we always think of Europe you know e go to Europe to the Scandinavian nations, to Germany to England or somewhere or to America. But when I was in the Faroese they think a lot about the Icelanders, we are like the big brothers. TH. Aaar, and you don't care about them. TH TH. They lok up to us, and we don't know about them in a way, they come a lot to Iceland, but there are so few that we don't notice it in a way but it was very nice to, to visit them and get to know them. They are very friendly and open, and they have a very long history of tradition, in craft scene, it is very nice. TH. Is it similar to Icelandic. TH TH. Yes. But I don't, maybe more original in a way you know, I don't know I think so, they work a lot with wol. It's diferent but its interesting. 197 Apendix 5 Amended Formal Interview Questions and Archive Presentation Structure Universal introduction of the presentations and project For al the interview presentations, this statement and slide show as to be aplied. Instruction to the presentation editor: The folowing statement was to be dubed over a slide show of black and white photgraphs of Icelandic craft artefacts. The folowing presentation is one in a series. They have ben carried out as part of a research project into Icelandic and Nordic traditional craft practitioners and how they might be utilized in the development of a new product for export from Iceland. The objective of the presentations is to formaly present each craft practitioners input into the project in an equal way. These presentations are the product of the same formula of interview given to each participant. The presentations wil be shown to each participant in the project ensuring that al participants in the project understand each other's work in a way which wil promote inspiration and a new ay of understanding and reflecting on their own craft practice. The focus within the questions is to open a discussion, to consider what elments of the craft practitioner’s practice are imitated or utilized by industry, what elments are not, what elments could be and what elment of their work could be utilized to meet the project’s demonstration prototype brief. 198 Introduction Explanation of section to the interviewer: Introduction by the craft practitioner of their name, the craft that they practise and where they live and work. Open question to the interviewe: In a few ords please tel us your name, the name of your craft and the name of the place where you live and work? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.1. What is your name? Q.2. What is the name of the craft that you practise? Q.3. What is the name of the place where you live and work? Video/audio clip of the craft practitioner, stil images and/or panorama of their surroundings, including exterior of workshop/shed. 19 Background Explanation of section to the interviewer: Craft practitioner provides a brief description of their craft, the historical conection behind it, and reason for why they have chosen to practise it and how they learned their craft. Open question to interviewe: Describe a litle, your craft, its history and how you came to do it? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.1. Please provide a brief description of the craft that you practise? Q.2. What is the history of your craft, where does it come from? Q.3. How di you learn your craft? Q.4. Why do you practise your craft? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented with stil images. 20 Materials Explanation of section to the interviewer: Craft practitioner provides description of materials used along with the historical and cultural significance. Open question to interviewe: Describe the materials you se, the history behind them and what you see as their futre use? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.1. What materials do you use in your craft and please describe them? Q.2. Where do the materials you se come from? Q.3. Are there any specific charcteristics or qualities that you lok for when chosing or selecting materials to work with? Q.4. Is there any historical or cultural significance in the materials that you se? Q.5. What qualities and elments of the materials that you use, are also considered by modern industrial production techniques? Q.6. What elments or qualities in the materials that you se have not yet ben considered or fuly explored by modern industrial production? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by stil images, referencing what is being talked about. 201 Workspace Explanation of section to the interviewer: The craft practitioner to provide a description of their workspace including the most important elments of the space with regards to their craft practice and how the space has changed over time. Open question to interviewe, to be asked in the workspace: Describe your workspace, the parts that are important to you and any similarities it has with industry? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.1. Provide a description of your workspace? Q.2. What are the most important elments of your workspace for the benefit of carrying out your craft? Q.3. How has the workspace changed over the course of time within your knowledge of past craft practice? Q.4. Are there any similarities betwen your workspace and similar more industrial production workshops? Q.5. Are there any elments of your workspace that are not considered in industrial production workshops? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by stil images, referencing what is being talked about. 202 Production proces Explanation of section to the interviewer: For this area of the interview a brief description of the ful process of production is to be explained and a few typical examples of the production process are to be demonstrated. Areas of the production process that could be developed into the production of a product to meet the prototype brief are to be considered. 1. Open question to be asked in the workspace to interviewe: Please describe how one of your products is made and emonstrate a part of its production? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.1. Describe your production process? Q.2. Demonstrate a typical activity within your production process? 2. Open question to interviewe: How do your production methods compare with industrial methods, and how could you influence the industrial production of a product to meet the product brief? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.3. What areas of the production process do you consider most peculiar to your craft? Q.4. What areas of your production process are reproduced in manufacturing? Q.5. What areas of the production process are not carried out or 203 considered by modern industrial production? Q.6. To satisfy the project’s product brief what areas of your production process could be xplored by modern industrial production? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions and emonstrating typical production processes, along with stil images, referencing what is being talked about. 204 Finished product Explanation of section to the interviewer: In this area n overview of the craft practitioner’s product range wil be provided, specific atention given to their speciality and favourite products. Also to be considered are questions that put their products into cultural and historical context, including, what is the diference in their products to similar, production made products, the products of their contemporaries and craft made products of the past. 1. Open question to interviewe: Describe your products, and how they compare to similar products that are made by other craft practitioners and industrialy? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.1. Please provide an overview of your product range? Q.2. What is your speciality or what elments of your product are peculiar to you? Q.3. Of al the products that you make, which is your favourite and explain why? Q.4. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by craftspeople of the past? Q.5. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by other craft people? Q.6. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by industry? 205 2. Open question to interviewe: What value do your products have to you and your culture, and how could you best influence the design of industrial products? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.7. What quality or value in the products that you make is the most important to you and why? Q.8. Please explain the cultural or historical value of your product? Q.9. What elment of your product or its design is transferable to the design of an industrial product? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by video clips and stil images of the products and other refernces being described. 206 Markets, end users and consumers. Explanation of section to the interviewer: Who uses the craft practitioner’s product, what for and for how much? Past and present. Open question to interviewe: Describe the market your products are in, and the market you think would suit the project prototype? Checklist of questions to be answered. Q.1. Where does your product go, who buys it? Q.2. Why do your clients buy your product and not someone lse’s? Q.3. Who di the past practitioners of your craft make their products for? Q.4. What diferences are there betwen past and present users and consumers of your craft? Q.5. Why do these diferences in past and present consumers exist? Q.6. What is the main diference betwen consumers of your craft and consumers of industrial products? Q.7. Describe the markets that would be interested in a product made by industry that was designed and influenced by craft practitioners to meet the project’s prototype brief? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by video clips and stil images. 207 Apendix 6 Final Interaction Interview Questions and Presentation Structure Universal introduction to the project For al the interview presentations, this statement and slide show as to be aplied. Instruction to the presentation editor: The folowing statement was to be dubed over a slide show of black and white photgraphs of Icelandic craft artefacts: The folowing interviews have ben conducted as part of a research project into Icelandic and Nordic craft practitioners and how they can influence the development of a new, industrialy made product for export from Iceland. The focus within the questions is to open a discussion to consider what elments of the craft practitioner’s practice are imitated or utilized by industry, what elments are not, what elments could be and what elments of their work could be utilized to develop a new export from Iceland. 208 Part one Introduction Explanation of section for the interviewer: Introduction by the craft practitioner of their name, the craft that they practise and where they live and work. Open question to interviewe: In a few ords please tel us your name, the name of your craft and the name of the place where you live and work? Checklist of questions to be answerd. Q.1. What is your name? Q.2. What is the name of the craft that you practise? Q.3. What is the name of the place where you live and work? Video/audio clip of the craft practitioner, stil images and or panorama of their surroundings, including exterior of workshop/shed. Notes for reference material. 209 Background Explanation of section for the interviewer: Craft practitioner provides a brief description of their craft, the historical conection behind it, reason for why they have chosen to practise it and how they learned their craft. Open question to interviewe: Describe your craft, its history and how you came to do it? Checklist of questions to be answerd Q.1. Please provide a brief description of the craft that you practise? Q.2. What is the history of your craft? Q.3. How di you learn your craft? Q.4. Why do you practise your craft? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions with complementing stil images. Notes for reference material 210 Materials Explanation of section for the interviewer: Craft practitioner provides description of materials used along with the historical and cultural significance. Open question to interviewe: Describe the materials you se, the history behind them and what you see as their futre use? Checklist of questions to be answerd Q.1. What materials do you use in your craft and please describe them? Q.2. Where do the materials you se come from? Q.3. What characteristics do you lok for when selecting materials to work with? Q.4. What historical or cultural significance do the materials you use have? Q.5. What characteristics in the materials that you use, are also considered by modern industrial production techniques? Q.6. What characteristics in the materials that you use are not considered by modern industry? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by stil images, referencing what is being talked about. Notes for reference material 21 Workspace Explanation of section for the interviewer: The craft practitioner to provide a description of their workspace including the most important elments of the space with regards to their craft practice, how the space has changed over time and how it compares to industry. Open question to interviewe: Describe your workspace, what parts of it are important to you and how does it compare with industry? Checklist of questions to be answerd Q.1. Provide a description of your workspace? Q.2. What are the most important elments of your workspace for the benefit of carrying out your craft? Q.3. How has the workspace changed in the history of your craft? Q.4. What similarities are there betwen your workspace and industrial workshops? Q.5. What elments of your workspace are not considered in industrial workshops? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions, complemented by stil images, referencing what is being talked about. Notes for reference material 212 Production proces Explanation of section for the interviewer: For this area of the interview a brief description of the ful process of production is to be explained and a few typical examples of the production process are to be demonstrated. Areas of the production process that could be developed into the production of a product to meet the prototype brief are to be considered. 1. Open question to interviewe: How do your production methods compare with industrial methods, and how could you influence the industrial production of a product to meet the product brief? Checklist of questions to be answerd Q.1. Describe your production process? Q.2. What areas of the production process do you consider most peculiar to your craft? Q.3. What areas of your production process are reproduced in manufacturing? Q.4. What areas of the production process are not carried out or considered by modern industrial production? Q.5. To satisfy the project’s product brief what areas of your production process could be xplored by modern industrial production? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions along with stil images, referncing what is being talked about. 213 Explanation of section for the interviewer: This question to be asked in the workspace at the nd of the sit down interview. 2. Open question to interviewe: Please demonstrate a typical part of the production process? Checklist of questions to be answerd Q.1of 2. Demonstrate a typical activity within your production process? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner demonstrating typical production processes. Notes for reference material 214 Part 2. Finished product Explanation of section for the interviewer: In this area n overview of the craft practitioner’s product range wil be provided, specific atention given to their speciality and favourite products. Also to be considered are questions that put their products into cultural and historical context, including, what is the diference in their products to similar, industrialy made products, the products of their contemporaries and craft made products of the past. 1. Open question to interviewe: Describe your products, and how they compare to similar products that are made by other craft practitioners and industry? Checklist of questions to be answerd Q.1. Please provide an overview of your product range? Q.2. What is your speciality or what elments of your product are peculiar to you? Q.3. Of al the products that you make, which is your favourite and explain why? Q.4. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by craftspeople of the past? Q.5. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by other craft people? Q.6. What are the diferences betwen the products you make and similar products made by industry? 215 2. Open question to interviewe: What value do your products have to you and your culture, and how could you best influence the design of industrial products? Checklist of questions to be answerd Q.7. What quality or value in the products that you make is the most important to you and why? Q.8. Please explain the cultural or historical value of your product? Q.9. What elment of your product or its design is transferable to the design of an industrial product? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by video clips and stil images of the products and other refernces being described. Notes for reference material 216 Markets, end users and consumers Explanation of section for the interviewer: Who uses the craft practitioner’s product, what for and for how much? Past and present. Open question to interviewe: Describe the market your products are in, and the market you think would suit the project prototype? Q.1. Where does your product go, who buys it? Q.2. Why do your clients buy your product and not someone lse’s? Q.3. Who di the past practitioners of your craft make their products for? Q.4. What diferences are there betwen past and present users and consumers of your craft? Q.5. Why do these diferences in past and present consumers exist? Q.6. What is the main diference betwen consumers of your craft and consumers of industrial products? Q.7. Describe the markets that would be interested in a product made by industry that was designed and influenced by craft practitioners to meet the project’s prototype brief? Video/audio clip of craft practitioner answering questions complemented by video clips and stil images. Notes for reference material 217 Apendix 7 Media Formats Presentation of edited video material is on DVD (Digital Video Disc) for use on computers with DVD drive or domestic DVD players. Video fotage is recorded on mini DV (Digital Video Cassetes). Edited material is recorded and stored for archive on mini DV. Audio material is recorded on mini disc and wil be transferred to CD-R (Compact Disc-Recordable) via computer as AIF (Audio Interchange File Format) files, for archive and playback on any CD (Compact Disc) player. Stil photgraphic material wil be archived at the resolution suitable for multimedia presentations on CD-R in a cross platform JPEG (Joint Photgraphy Expert Group) format. These archiving decisions have ben made after consideration of advice from R. Neil, Assistant Producer for ‘Child of Our Time’ and other science programmes at the BBC, Dan Malsen, Freelance Filmmaker and published material including: • Technical Commite Paper, The International Association of Sound Archiving, ‘The Safeguarding of the Audio Heritage: Ethics, Principles and Preservation Strategy. Version 2’, ww.iasa- web.org/iasa013.htm, September 201 (accessed January 203). • G. S. Hunter, Preserving Digital Information, Neal-Schuman, New York, 200. 218 Apendix 8 List of Images Used in the Interaction Interview Discs Title images used in al Interaction Interview presentations on Multimedia Discs 1 and 2. 1. Carved pine bed board. Made by Torstein Eyjólfssson 177. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 2. Knited wol patern detail. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 3. Spining wol in Faroe Islands, around 190. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands. Origin of phot unknown. 4. Embroidery. Made by Ana Skdringsdótir 180. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 5. Hand spun and braided horsehair ropes for tying hay to a horse’s back. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 6. Silver Brooch, 180. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 7. Lady’s sadle and fet cover blanket. Woven 1859 by Sigridur Jónsdótir. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 8. Carved woden box. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 9. Felting wol cloth, around 190. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands. Origin of phot unknown. 10. Felt hat. Found at Fornusandar farm ruin, dated 16th century. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 1. Lady’s traditional Icelandic dress, from Mödruvelir near Akureyri. Printed in Denmark, 1861. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. 219 12. Embroidery. Made by Runólfur Runólfsson, 1870. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 13. Lom. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 14. Gold Ornament, from woman’s national costume. 18-19C. Árbær Reykjavík Museum. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 15. Einar Gudjohnsen (1879-1968) and his dog. Picture taken 1964 south east Iceland. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Origin of Phot unknown. 16. Silver ornament from woman’s traditional costume, from 190-1920. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 17. Cupboard, made by Gisli Sigurdsson, 1830. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 18. Snuf boxes. Large one, 60th birthday present in 1952. Smaler lady’s snuf box made 1870. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 19. Blanket. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 20. Cross pendent, caled ‘Thor’s Hammer’, from betwen the 10 and 120. National Museum of Iceland. Phot National Museum of Iceland. 21. Chairs. Midle and left chairs made by Runólfur Svensson, 1861 and right chair made by his son Erikur Runólfsson, 1879. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 2. Drinking horns. Three on left made by Jón Einarsson, 1780, two n right made by Simon Davidsson, 1820. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 23. Spining whels and equipment. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 24. Woden eating bowl, made by Runólfur Runólfsson, 1870. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 20 25. Silver broch. Árbær Reykjavík Museum. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 26. Seaman’s Mitens, with two thumbs. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 27. Carved pine bed board. Made by Torstein Eyjólfssson 177. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 28. Gold Ornament, from woman’s national costume. 18-19C. Árbær Reykjavík Museum. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 29. Woden Spons. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 30. Silver Brooch from 1C. National Museum of Iceland. Phot National Museum of Iceland. Images used in Birger Andersen’s Interaction Interview presentation on Multimedia Disc 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Uper deck kne in the making, on re-construction of Viking war ship. Uper deck kne made by Thomas Hawson while aprentice to Birger Andersen at the Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark. Phot Thomas Hawson, April 203. 10, 1. Pine wod Boat Masts in the making, at the Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark. Phot Thomas Hawson, April 203. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Oak tree feled and split, for Viking ship construction. Phot, Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 17, 18. Viking war ship under construction at Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Denmark. Phot, Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 19. Axe marks in original woden Viking ship component. Phot Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 20. Axe marks reconstructed at Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde. Phot Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 21 21, 2. Reconstructed Viking ship at the Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde. Phot Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 23, 24, 25. Oak trees from which bent branches are cut for Viking ship construction. Phot Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 26. Viking ship hul component templates matched up to tree limbs in the forest. Phot Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 27, 28. Viking ship hul components. Phot Viking Ship Museum Boat Yard, Roskilde, Denmark, 200. 29, 42. Sailing reconstructed Viking ship at the Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, Denmark. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. Images used in Ása Hatún’s Interaction Interview presentation on Multimedia Disc 1. 1. Kvívík vilage. Faroe Islands 1930’s. The vilage wher Ása Hátun was born. Origin of phot unknown. 2. Ása Hátun’s mother, 1950’s. Origin of phot unknown. 3. Hanelisa, Ása Hátun’s sister, raking in hay, Faroe Islands late 1950’s. Origin of phot unknown. 4. Kvívík vilage. Faroe Islands 1940’s. The vilage wher Ása Hátun was born. Origin of phot unknown. 5. Ása Hátun’s hand knited jumpers on her two sons Hjálman 8yrs and Dánjal 4yrs. Phot Ása Hátun 1982. 6. Ása Hátun’s hand knited jumper on Hjálman at his first whale kil, Faroe Islands. Phot Ása Hátun 190’s. 7. Hand embroidery by Ása Hátun on her son Hjálman’s traditional costume for his graduation. Phot Ása Hátun 195. 22 8. Traditional costume of relatives in Bøor from 1920’s. Origin of phot unknown. 9. Lom of Viking style used until 190 in Faroe Islands. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 10. Spining wol in Faroe Islands, around 190. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands. Origin of phot unknown. 1. Felting wol cloth, around 190. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands. Origin of phot unknown. 12. Fishermen wearing felting wol cloth coats caled ‘Kot’, as worn until 1930’s. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands. around 190. Origin of phot unknown. 13. Shep shearing, Faroe Islands, around turn of 19-20C. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands. Origin of phot unknown. 14. French felting machine, 190’s. Origin of phot unknown. 15. Ása Hátun’s wol fashion, 203. Origin of phot unknown. 16. Ása Hátun’s wol fashion, 203. Origin of phot unknown. 17. Ása Hátun’s wal hanging, 200. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 18. Felted wol siting mat, Ása Hátun1985. Phot Thomas Hawson. 19. Ása Hátun’s Swiss exhibition catalogue, 200. 20. Ása Hátun’s wal hanging, 200. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 21. Ása Hátun working on experimental chair seat cover in back yard, 203. Phot Thomas Hawson. 2. Ása Hátun’s experimental felted wol on old cane chair, 203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 23 Images used in Fjolnir B. Hlynson´s Interaction Interview presentation on Multimedia Disc 1. 1. Iceland Forestry Service sawmil and processing yard, Egilsstadir. Phot Thomas Hawson, 203. 2. Fjolnir B. Hlynsson standing with the talest Larch trees in east of Iceland forest. Phot Thomas Hawson, 203. 3. Hlynur Haldórsson, father of Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, carving at Mithús, Egilsstadir, date unknown. Phot Fjolnir B. Hlynsson. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Fjolnir B. Hlynsson work in progress on flower sculpture, wod metal and glass, date unknown. Phot Fjolnir B. Hlynsson. 9. Drawing of flower sculpture, Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, 201. 10. Woden flower, Fjolnir B. Hlynsson. Phot Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, 202. 1. Flower Sculpture, Fjolnir B. Hlynsson. Phot Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, 201. 12. Chese Knives, Fjolnir B. Hlynsson. Phot Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, 202. 13. Carved traditional Icelandic woden eating bowl, Hlynur Haldórsson. Phot Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, 202. Images used in Thorhildur Thorgeirsdóttir Interaction Interview presentation on Multimedia Disc 2. 1. Thor´s hammer pendent, from midle ages. Phot National Museum of Iceland. 2. Silver hoard from Viking age, found at Mithús 1980. Phot National Museum of Iceland. 3. Icelandic chalice with patern in Romanesque style, from about 120. Phot National Museum of Iceland. 24 4, 5, 6. First members of the National Goldsmith Union of Iceland. Goldsmith Union of Iceland members’ bok. 7. Kristófer Pétursson, Icelandic goldsmith early 20 th century. Phot National Museum of Iceland. 8. Reconstructed southern Iceland farmstead 19 th century. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 9. . Lady’s traditional Icelandic dress, from Mödruvelir near Akureyri. Printed in Denmark, 1861. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. 10, 1. Silver ornament from woman’s traditional costume, from 190-1920. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 12. Filigre, twisted silver wire brooch, made by Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, date unknown. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 13. Thóhildur at Goldsmith Colege in Germany. Phot Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir. 14, 15, 16, 17. Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir’s drawings of spons and pancake forks, 200-203. Phot’s Thomas Hawson 203. 18. Sugar spon and pancake fork, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 19. Sugar spon, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 20. Sugar spon, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 21. Pancake fork, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 2. Pancake serving set, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 25 23. Pancake serving set, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 24. Spreading knife, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 25, 26, 27. Close up of sugar spons, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 28. Ring, gold and pearl, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 29, 30, 31. Earrings, Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir 200-203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 32. Spon made by Thomas Hawson, as aprentice to Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, 203. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. Images used in Geir Odgeirson’s Interaction Interview presentation on Multimedia Disc 2. 1. American White Oak in Geir’s workshop, Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Thomas Hawson, 203. 2. Bjórn Hrafnsson sawing wod at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Thomas Hawson, 204. 3. Bjórn Hrafnsson planig wod at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Thomas Hawson, 204. 4,5. Geir at his vener press. Phot Thomas Hawson, 204. 6. Bjórn Hrafnsson and Geir sanding wod at workshop. Phot Thomas Hawson, 204. 7. Example of Geir’s cuting list. Phot Thomas Hawson, 204. 8. Cabinet made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 26 9. Pair of cabinets made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 10. Church pews in Reykjavik, made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 1. Massive wod turned stols, made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 12. Kitchen, made and fited at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir dgeirsson. 13. Fume cabinet made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 14. Pair of cabinets made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 15. Hospital fitings made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 16. Ofice meeting table, made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 17. Large boardrom table under construction at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 18. Boardrom table made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 19. Ofice desks made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 20. Reception desk made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 21. Low table made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 2. Occasional table made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 23. Boardrom table made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 24. Boardroom table receiving final finish, made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 25. Round table made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Geir Odgeirsson. 26. Large boardroom table, made at Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 27 Images used in Grétar Már Thorvaldson Interaction Interview presentation on Multimedia Disc 2. 1. First Hálmsteypan Hale ehf. workshop, in 1950´s. Origin of phot unknown. 2. First Hálmsteypan Hale ehf. workshop, in 1950´s. Origin of phot unknown. 3. Hálmsteypan Hale hf. smelter, in 1950´s. Origin of phot unknown. 4. Grétar Már Thorvaldsson´s grandfather at Hálmsteypan Hale ehf. workshop, in 1950´s. Origin of phot unknown. 5. Hálmsteypan Hale hf. workshop, pouring aluminium in 1950´s. Origin of phot unknown. 6. Early Hálmsteypan Hale ehf. product for the Icelandic elctric systems. Origin of phot unknown. 7. Grétar Már Thorvaldsson, turning patern on lathe. Origin of phot unknown. 8. Aluminium apartment block rubish shute dor, product of Málmsteypan Hale hf. Phot Málmsteypan Hale hf. 9,10. Aluminium parts for Icelandic elctrical systems, product of Málmsteypan Hale hf. Phot Málmsteypan Hale hf. 1, 12, 13. Fishing equipment parts, product of Málmsteypan Hale ehf. Phot Málmsteypan Hale hf. 14,15. Fish pumping equipment parts, product of Málmsteypan Hale ehf. Phot Málmsteypan Hale hf. 16. Aluminium ship deck hatch, product of Málmsteypan Hale ehf. Phot Málmsteypan Hale hf. 28 17. Aluminium assorted signs, product of Málmsteypan Hale ehf. Phot Málmsteypan Hale hf. 18. Composite woden patern for bronze, ship bearing. Product of Málmsteypan Hale hf. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 19. Pouring bronze at Málmsteypan Hale hf. Phot Thomas Hawson 203. 29 Apendix 9 Fjolnir Hlynson’s Response to Work in Progres Photgraphs Date: Thu, 30 Oct 203 To: "Thomas Hawson" From: Eik Subject: Re: work in progress Greetings Tom of Hundale. I like your sketch. It is quite god, although you can find the Althingi chair's influence in it - it is somehow beter. The Ship form is very "Viking/Nordic" and very strong in this. It also has a organic/bone structure feling - which I like. If the chair was at the end of the table it would be someho like a ships reflection in ater. The vertical plane of the table gives a horizon to triger these thoughts. Fjolnir 230 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 203 18:51:48 +020 To: "Thomas Hawson" From: Eik Subject: Re: comments please Greetings Tom. I am certain that you are heading the right way. This round table is very exciting, not because it is round - but because it has this conection to a Viking form - shield. It reminds me of a nother Viking instrument, used to navigate - I atach a picture of it (Fig. 18) - it was used before the compass, locate the polestar ..... Fig. 35 Viking navigation aid patern is god. I like those sketches of the table - paterns, flowers and al that. But I ask where is the aluminium, where is the wol, I only see wod. Is it possible to cast the patern for the table in aluminium or other metal (personaly I would use coper/bronze/iron) and use it as inlay? However I think that you ned to make another chair to fit that table. They somehow do not belong together. Straight geometrical lines / soft organic lines do not go wel to together (in my opinion- at least in this case) Do not take this as the chair is bad - It is as I said in my last leter very nice. My comments - interesting and god. keep up the god work - I might comment some more later. F 231 Apendix 10 Design Coments Form Names and adresses of makers receiving the forms. Birger Andersen, Shipwright The Viking Ship Museum Vindeboder 12 DK-400 Roskilde Denmark +45 46 30 2 0 ww.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk Fjölnir B. Hlynsson, Sculptor Mithús 70 Egilsstathir Iceland 471-320 471365 eiksf@mmedia.is Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith Olafsgeisli 39 13 Reykjavík Iceland 35451 681 232 M. +354 8617178 tht@tht.is ww.tht.is Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinetmaker Translator and assistant Bjórn Hrafnsson (M. +354 8973453) Tresmidjan Grein ehf. Litliær 190 Vogar Iceland +354) 57 133 M. +354) 89341 greinehf@binet.is Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker Malmsteypan HELLA ehf. Kaplahraun 5 20 Hafnarfjordur Iceland +354) 565 102 +354) 565 1587 hela@hela.is 23 Ása Hátún, Wol Worker Heiðavegur 18 FO-10 Tórshavn Faroe Islands Telph: 0 298-31819 T-postur: olavasa@post.olivant.fo Covering leter Dear participating craft practitioners Please find atached a comments form, scale drawings and presentation drawing of the proposed dinig table and chair design. Please read the notes before completing the form. Do not return the form until 5 days after receiving phone cal from Thomas Hawson. Return the form, technical drawings if you have drawn over them and any other extra paper in the return envelope provided. Please put your name on al returned material. Keep the project proposal drawing for your own reference. Loking forward to receiving your replies. Yours Thomas Hawson 234 Apendix 10 continued Design Coments Form NAME:………………………………………………….DATE:………………… This document provides: 1. A basic description of the proposed esign. 2. Sugested materials and methods of construction. 3. Sugested areas of interest to craft practitioners. After each of the above sections, an area in the document is left blank to be filed in by the participating craft practitioners with their comments. Notes for consideration while filing in the form. • Please complet the form as soon as possible, Thomas Hawson wil soon phone you to discuss things. After the telphone cal please alow five days to consider the designs and your comments before returnig the completd form. • The design proposal presented in this document does not describe al the details fuly resolved. • It may be helpful to lok at both the technical drawings and watercolour presentation at the same time, side-by-side, to visualise the design. • The proposed design described should not be considerd as the final design. • The proposed design is purposefuly left open as a basic framework on which the participating craft practitioners can ofer their ideas and physical hands on input, in developing the design. 235 • By the craft practitioners returning their writen and sketched ideas on this form, their ideas wil be considerd and recorded by Thomas Hawson and amendments to the design wil be made. • The designs wil belong in equal parts to the six named participating crafts practitioners and Thomas Hawson. • Folowing amendments to the design, practical consultation wil folow in early spring Feb/March 204, when Thomas Hawson wil be visiting the craft practitioners workshops where possible to produce the prototypes with them. • The ‘Sugested areas of interest to craft practitioners’ is only a sugestion, please comment on any area of the proposed esign. • If there is not enough space on this form to provide answers please do not hesitate to return extra shets of paper. • Sketching (of any quality) wil be the best way of communicating some of your ideas. • Please draw ideas over the top of scale drawings provided. • Please sign and ate verything you return. 236 Dinig Table Please find atached scale drawing and presentation drawing. 1. Basic description of proposed inig table. The table top is to be constructed of eight separate woden segments with a central disc in the midle, this central disc may have the option of spining round. The eight separate woden segments of the tabletop are to be conected with eight aluminium castings. The castings come to the surface of the table at the corners of each segment, they interconect under the tabletop to make an under frame and provide conection points for the ight woden steam bent legs. The ight legs to be conected to a woden cross frame on the flor. The surface of the tabletop could have a shalow grove cut into it, to visualy interconect the aluminium details that come to the surface and the ight separte woden segments. Place mats made of wol, of a rounded triangular shape could fit betwen the interconecting shalow grooves on each segment. The composition of components that make up the table top has ben described by Fjölnir B. Hlynsson having viewed the sketchbok images uploaded onto the Internet as being reminiscent of Viking shield designs (Appendix 9, page 29), it is also similar to early Icelandic jewelery. The interconecting lines carved into the tabletop are refrences to the marking- out lines used in the preparation of Celtic knot work, as used by Vikings as a decorative medium. The ight steam bent and twisted legs, are references to the boat building tradition. The square cross frame on the flor is left purposefuly simple as if it were made from driftwod found that size. Craft practitioner’s comments on the basic design of the dinig table: 237 2. Sugested materials and methods of construction for the dinig table. The woden elments of the table are to be made of oak, a 5 mm gap would be left betwen the table top components including, the woden segments, central disc and surface aluminium details. This gap would be open under the surface of the table so as not to trap fod crumbs, the components conected by narrow fins of aluminium. The aluminium components would be sand cast from a patern; the patern could have a decorative surface texture that would be left on the visible parts of the finished components. Additional surface finishes and efects could be aplied to the castings. The aluminium castings would be screwed to the underside of the woden tabletop, wher apropriate slots would be made in the aluminium screw holes to alow for shrinkage and expansion in the wod. The ight legs wil be steam bent on to jigs before assembly. These legs wil be conected to the aluminium castings by bolts idealy in a shalow socket. The legs wil be conected to the cross frame on the flor into a narrow socket and secured with a lose dowel. The table is to be shiped as finished components that can be assembled by the distributor/agent or by the nd user. The wol tablemats would be felted and sit on the surface of the table. Craft practitioner’s comments on the materials and methods of construction for the dinig table: 238 3. Sugested areas of interest to craft practitioners regarding the dinig table. Birger Andersen, Shipwright Are the ight legs reminiscent of boards in a Viking ship’s hul? Could their shape be improved in anyway, could you sketch/make a beter profile/template? How could the ends of the legs be atached to the aluminium brackets and woden cross frame to resemble methods used in Viking ships? Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, Sculptor How does the table xhibit traditions in Icelandic craft? Where could this be strengthened or enhanced? Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith What shapes or forms could be cast in the aluminium that comes to the surface of the table? What surface finish could be aplied to the surface of the castings? Does the patern the tabletop components make remind you of paterns in early Icelandic jewelery? Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinet maker Translator and assistant, Bjórn Hrafnsson. What do you think of the table design? What profile would you put on the dge of the table? Considering the number of individual woden pieces in the tabletop, would this be an area of concern in the cost of this table? 239 Do you have experience of steam bending, and what do you think about it? Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker The aluminum castings. What form could the castings take? What surface finishing would you give the castings? What considerations are there to be made if the castings are to be mass- produced? Ása Hátún, Wol Worker Felt place mats. Is felt apropriate on the table? Is there a design you would like to see aplied to the mat? How could these mats be made in large numbers? Craft practitioner’s comments on the sugested areas of interst regarding the dinig table: 240 Dinig Chair Please find atached scale drawing and presentation drawing. 1. Basic description of proposed inig chair. The chair seat is made of an aluminium frame with a woven or plywod infil panel with a felt cover. The aluminium seat frame wil be atached to the aluminium back leg and the woden front legs. The influence for this chair is from Viking shipbuilding. The surface finish on the aluminium castings could have the apearance of hand carved wod. The steam bent curved arm/backrest could have lines or a profile scratched onto its surface along the inside dges to ilustrate where the nails or screw fixings should go, this would be in keeping with Viking shipbuilding methods. The profile and shapes in the aluminium seat frame are to be organic and curved in contrast to the square section of the front legs. The crude square section of the front legs would match the square section of the table flor frame. Craft practitioner’s comments on the basic design of the dinig chair: 241 2. Sugested materials and methods of construction for the dinig chair. The aluminium seat frame and back leg wil be sand cast. A seat infil panel made of plywod could be screwed into a rebate in the frame or a woven seat could be threaded through oles in the seat frame. The seat frame wil be atached to the aluminium back leg and the woden front legs with bolts. The felted wol seat is to be fastened to the seat to stop it sliding. The woden paterns for the sand cast aluminium back leg and seat frame, could have a fine hand carved surface finish (not to be sanded out) to be left as detail in the final sand cast components. The front legs and armrest are to be made of oak, the curved arm and backrest component to be steam bent from oak (oak would be preferred here for strength) and fixed into position with coper boat nails or screws. The chair is to be shiped as finished components that can be assembled by the distributor/agent or by the end user. Craft practitioner’s comments on the materials and methods of construction for the dinig chair: 242 3. Sugested areas of interest to craft practitioners regarding the dinig chair. Birger Andersen, Shipwright Are components in the chair reminiscent of components in a Viking ship? Could the components shape be improved in anyway, could you sketch/make a beter profile/template? Are there any areas of the chair construction that could beter resemble methods used in Viking ships? Fjolnir B. Hlynsson, Sculptor How does the chair exhibit traditions in Icelandic craft? Where could this be strengthened or enhanced? Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith What shapes and forms would you like to see in the aluminium castings of the chair? What surface finish could be aplied to the surface of the casting? Could the nail or screw fixings the steam bent arm/back rest are fixed with receive any special treatment? Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinetmaker Translator and assistant, Bjórn Hrafnsson. What do you think of the chair design? Do you have experience of steam bending, and what do you think about it? 243 Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker The aluminum castings. What form could the castings take? What surface finishing would you give the castings? What considerations are there to be made if the castings are to be mass- produced? Ása Hátún, Wol Worker How could the felt seat cover be aplied? Is felt apropriate for the seat? Is there a design you would like to see aplied to the seat cover? How could these seat covers be made in large numbers? Craft practitioner’s comments on the sugested areas of interst regarding the dinig chair: 24 Apendix 1 Feasibility Study Form Product or services to be provided: _______________________________ _______________________________ Name of producer or service provider: ______________________ Name of person completing this form: ______________________ Signature:_________________Date:________ Please note this is an academic project and any information provided while completing this form wil be used only for academic purposes. Please provide an answer for each question (even if it is, ‘I refuse to answer this question’), unless you are asked to go to the next specified question. In the futre could you make the product or provide the service as specified above, for the production of 1 set of 8 chairs and 1 table? Yes If yes please go to question 2 No 1a. If you could not make this product or provide this service, please explain why? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ 245 1b. If you could not make this product or provide this service in the futre, who do you know that could? _______________________________ _______________________________ In the futre could you make the product or provide the service as specified above, for the production of 10 sets, 80 chairs and 10 tables? Yes If yes please go to question 3 No 2a. If you could not make this product or provide this service, please explain why? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ 2b. If you could not make this product or provide this service in the futre, who do you know that could? _______________________________ _______________________________ In the futre could you make the product or provide the service as specified above, for the production of 100 sets, 800 chairs and 100 tables? Yes If yes please go to question 4 No 3a. If you could not make this product or provide this service, please explain why? _______________________________ _______________________________ 246 3b. If you could not make this product or provide this service in the futre, who do you know that could? _______________________________ _______________________________ Please estimate how much you would charge for the product or service, as specified, for the folowing quantities: (Answer only for the quantities you are able to make yourself, if you are unable to make any of the quantities go to question 6.) 4a. Production of 1 set of 8 chairs and 1 table? ____________ 4b. Production of 10 sets, 80 chairs and 10 tables?_________ 4c. Production of 100 sets, 800 chairs and 100 tables? _______ How much time would you ned to complet an order for: 5a. Production of 1 set of 8 chairs and 1 table? ____________ 5b. Production of 10 sets, 80 chairs and 10 tables? ________ 5c. Production of 100 sets, 800 chairs and 100 tables? _______ Would you think it OK for someone lse to go into production with the product you had helped to design, develop and make a prototype for? Yes If yes please answer question 6a. 6b. then go to question 8. No If no please go to question 7. 6a. Would you want something in return for your work helping to develop the product, for example, published recognition, royalties etc? Please specify. _______________________________ _______________________________ 247 6b. Would you think it OK to have the product made in another country? Why? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Why would you say no to someone who wanted to go into production with the product you had helped to design, develop and make a prototype for? _______________________________ _______________________________ Do you think an Internet based sales promotion and ordering system would be apropriate? Yes If yes please go to question 9 No If no please answer question 8a. 8b.and miss question 9. 8a. Why would an internet based sales and ordering system not be apropriate? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ 8b. Please specify an alternative sales and ordering system? _______________________________ _______________________________ 9. Why, do you think an Internet based sales system would be apropriate? _______________________________ 248 Apendix 12 Table and Chair Specifications Table Table top: • Dimensions top 3mm thick, 1530mm diametr Under table brace, 1320 x 80 x 3mm • Material American oak, furniture quality • Finish Tung Oil • Table top inlay Aluminium Inlayed iscs 5mm thick 8 @ 40mm Dia. and 8 @ 16mm Dia. • Table top scratched patern. Patern of eight interlocking radius curves to be scratched into table top with jig. Table legs: • Dimensions 70mm sq. (2 laminate) 820mm long • Material American oak, furniture quality • Finish Tung oil Aluminium cast table brackets: • Sand-cast aluminium brackets from suplied patern. • 4 brackets per table. • Overal dim. length 340mm width 230mm depth 90mm • Weight of aluminium 7kg = 4 brackets 249 • 3 x 4mm counter-sunk holes provided for atachment to table top • 1 x 6.5mm hole provided for atachment to table leg. • File of corner edges • Washed with no finish Stainless stel table to leg conection plates: • 3 mm thick, 130mm x 140mm • 8 counter sunk holes. • 4 of these plates are required per table 250 Table 8 Stainles Steel A2 Screws and Bolts for Table Description Size Quantity Table top to under table brace pan head torque drive screw 6 x 50 mm 6 Table to aluminium bracket pan head torque drive screw 4 x 30 mm 12 Stainless stel conection plate to leg Countersunk screw 5 x 30 mm 16 Stainless stel conection plate to table Countersunk screw 5 x 20 mm 16 Aluminium bracket to leg Pan head hex drive bolt (with external wod screw threaded M6 sleve) M6 x 30 mm 4 251 Chair Table 9 Chair Woden Components Description Quantity Length width thick Front legs 2 610 3 34 Arms 2 250 40 34 Steam bent back 1 1080 20 6 Seat (total length required for 3 strips) 1 120 125 12 Seat brace 1 30 20 20 Seat to frame butons 6 30 20 13 • Material Oak, furniture quality, own choice of suply • Finish Tung Oil Aluminium cast chair leg and seat frame: • Sand-cast aluminium back leg and seat frame from suplied paterns. • 1 leg 1 seat frame per chair. • Overal dim. Seat frame, length 480mm width 460mm depth 70mm • Overal dim. Back leg, length 70mm width 10 depth 35mm • Weight of aluminium 6kg = 1 chair • 6 x 6.5mm holes with 10mm countersunk holes for chair frame to legs conection bolts (Allan key M6 bolts) • File of corner edges • Washed with no finish. 252 Table 10 Stainles Steel A2 Screws and Bolts for Chair Description Size Quantity Steam bent chair back to legs pan head torque drive screw 4 x 25 mm 14 chair seat to under brace pan head torque drive screws 4 x 25 mm 6 Chair seat butons 5 x 20 mm 6 Seat frame to legs Allan bolts M6 x 40 mm 6 253 Apendix 13 Exhibition Tour Venues 204 HANDVERK OG HÖNUN (Handwork and Design) Suneva Hafsteinsdotir and Fjóla Guðmundsdótir Aðalstræti 12 P.O.Box 156 121 Reykjavik Iceland (+354) 51 7595 (+354) 51 7495 ww.handverkoghonun.is Gunarsstofnun Skúli Björn Gunarsson Skriðuklaustur IS-701Egilsstaðir Iceland (+354) 471 2910 ww.skriduklaustur.is klaustur@skriduklaustur.is Faroes Crafts Society Randi S. Vang Niðargota 108 Hoyvík Faroe Islanda T. +(298) 314265 or 214265 or 514253 ransiva@post.olivant.fo Shetland Museum Tommy Wat Lower Hilhead Shetland ZE1 OEL Scotland 01595 695057 tommy.wat@sic.shetland.gov.uk 254 The Lightouse, Design Museum Lucy McEachan 56 Mitchel Street Glasgow 1 3LX Scotland +4 (0) 141 25 8427 ww.thelightouse.co.uk lucy@thelightouse.co.uk The Viking Ship Museum Søren Nielsen Vindeboder 12 DK-400 Roskilde enmark (45) 46 30 2 0 Direct +45 46 30 2 60 sn@vikingeskibsmuset.dk 25 Apendix 14 Pilot Exhibition Survey Questionaire Tick box quantative and open question type qualitative interview questionaire. Venue____________________________ Interviewer__________________________ Date_____________________________ Personal details. 1. Where are you from? ___________________ 2. Male/female _____ 3. What age group do you belong to: Under 16 16-25 25-40 40-65 over 65 6. How di you hear about the xhibition?_____________ 7. Did you know about this project before seeing this exhibition? Yes No Response to the xhibition • How apealing are the table and chairs? 256 • What elments are the most apealing? • Would you like the table and chairs in your own home? Yes No • Where would the product sel wel? • How much do you think the table and chairs would cost to buy? Chair £50 - 10 £10 - 250 £250 - 50 £50 - 750 £750 - 100 Table £750 - 100 £100 - 150 £150 - 200 £200 - 250 £200 - 300 • Do you like to be aware of the cultural origin of your dinig table and chairs? Yes No 257 • How wel does the product express its Nordic and Icelandic cultural origin? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) • How does the product express its cultural origin to you? • What specific Nordic traditional crafts can you recognize in the table and chairs design? • Does a product with Nordic cultural identity have aded value to you? Yes No • Do foreign products that express clearly their cultural origin have more apeal to you? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) (Note to the interviewer, please read the folowing statement about how the table and chairs were designed and made) The table and chairs were designed and made in partnership with seven Nordic craft practitioners. Thomas Hawson, Furniture Designer/Maker, Scotland Biger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark. Ása Hatun, Wol, Faroe Islands Fjolnir B Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, Goldsmith, Iceland Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinet Maker, Iceland 258 Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker, Iceland These craft practitioners wer selected because they practise traditional Nordic crafts directly or in a contemporary way. The process of developing a new product for export from Iceland was developed in close partnership with them from concept through to making the finished prototypes. The table and chairs design including the forms used, aplied paterns and methods used in the making of the prototypes, are al influenced by the traditional Nordic crafts. • Has this story changed your view of the table and chairs? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) • Would this story influence your purchase decision? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) • How much would you pay for the table and chairs? Chair £50 - 10 £10 - 250 £250 - 50 £50 - 750 £750 - 100 Table £750 - 100 £100 - 150 £150 - 200 £200 - 250 £200 - 300 259 • Do you like or dislike the choice of materials, oak, aluminum and wol and why? Like Dislike • Why? _____________________________ • Would you describe the table and chairs as old fashioned or modern? • What value is ther in the continued practice of traditional crafts? • How has this project demonstrated a use for traditional crafts? • What bit of the design do you like the most and why? • What bit of the design would you change and how? 260 Apendix 15 Exhibition Survey Questionaire Tick box questionaire for the assessment of the project table and chairs, to be caried out during the xhibition tour, at the specified venues. Venue__________________________________ Interveiwer_________________________________ Date___________________________________ Personal details. 1. Wher are you from? ________________________ 2. Male/female _____ 3. What age group do you belong to: Under 16 16-25 26-40 41-65 over 65 6. How di you hear about the xhibition? __________________ 8. Did you know about this project before seeing this exhibition? Yes No Response to the Exhibition Tick box and quick question survey in gren, aprox. 2 minutes. Aditional qualitative questions in black, optional extra time of aprox. 3 minutes. 1. How apealing are the table and chairs to you? (not) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very) 2. Why are the table and chairs apealing/not apealing to you? 261 3. What elments of the table and chairs are the most apealing to you? 4. Would you like the table and chairs in your own home? Yes No 5. If you would like/not like the table and chairs in your home, why/why not? _____________________________________ _____________________________________ 6. How successfuly do you think this table and chairs would sel over the internet aided by personal recomendation and word of mouth. (not sel) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (Sel very wel) 7. What method of sales do you think would be most apropriate for this product and why? _____________________________________ 8. How much do you think a table and a chair would cost? (Exchange rates used as at 2 August, 204 and the figures are rounded up.) Single chair £50 (DK560 or ISK6,530) - £10 (DK1,0 or ISK13,00) £10 (DK1,0 or ISK13,00) - £250 (DK2,80 or ISK32,60) £250 (DK2,80 or ISK32,60) - £50 (DK5,60 or ISK65,30) £50 (DK5,60 or ISK65,30) - £750 (DK8,50 or ISK98.00) £750 (DK8,50 or ISK98,00) - £100 (DK1,30 or ISK130,50) 262 Table £750 (DK8,50 or ISK98,00) - £100 (DK1,30 or ISK130,50) £100 (DK1,30 or ISK130,50) - £150 (DK17,00 or ISK196,00) £150 (DK17,00 or ISK196,00) - £200 (DK2,50 or ISK261,00) £200 (DK2,50 or ISK261,00) - £250 (DK28,00 or ISK326,50) £250 (DK28,00 or ISK326,50) - £300 (DK34,00 or ISK391,50) £300 (DK34,00 or ISK391,50) - £350 (DK39,50 or ISK457,00) 9. If you wer to buy some domestic dinig rom furniture such as a table and chairs, how important would the folowing considerations be to you: (please mark the scale from 1 to 5) Price (no importance) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very important) Quality of product (no importance) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very important) Aesthetic apeal (no importance) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very important) Designer label (no importance) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very important) Visible cultural origins (no importance) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very important) Comfort (no importance) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very important) Other consideration (no importance) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very important) Please specify your other consideration below. _________________________________ 263 10. Do you like to be aware of the cultural origin of your dinig table and chairs? Yes No 1. Are you familiar with Nordic culture? Yes No 12. How el do the table and chairs express the Nordic and Icelandic culture? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very wel) 13. How does the product express its cultural origin to you? 14. Is the influence of Nordic traditional crafts recognisable in the design of the table and chair? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very wel) 15. What specific Nordic traditional crafts can you recognize in the table and chairs design? 16. Does a product with Nordic cultural identity have aded value to you? Yes No 17. Do foreign products that clearly express their cultural origin have more apeal to you? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) 18. (Note to the interviewer, please read the folowing statement about how the table and chairs wer designed and made) The table and chairs wer designed and made in partnership with seven Nordic craft practitioners. Thomas Hawson, Furniture Designer/Maker, Scotland Biger Andersen, Shipwright, Denmark. Ása Hatun, Wol, Faroe Islands Fjolnir B Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland 264 Thorhildur Thorgeirsdotir, Goldsmith, Iceland Geir Odgeirsson, Cabinet Maker, Iceland Gretar Mar Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker, Iceland These craft practitioners wer selected because they practise traditional Nordic crafts directly or in a modern way. The process of developing a new product for export from Iceland was developed in close partnership with them from concept through to making the finished prottypes. The table and chairs design, including the forms used, aplied paterns and methods used in the making of the prottypes, are al influenced by the traditional Nordic crafts. The materials used wer chosen because of their abundant availability in Iceland, oak and aluminum both processed in Iceland with the use of renewable energy and wol, a greatly under utilized Icelandic resource. Has this story changed your view of the table and chairs? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) 19. Would this story influence your purchase decision? (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) 20. Would you pay more for this table and chairs now you know more about al the work that went into designig and making them? Yes No 21. Is the choice of materials, oak, aluminum and wol apealing to you? Oak (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) Aluminum (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) Wol (not at al) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (very much) 2. Why do you like/not like these materials? Aluminum ________________________________ Oak ___________________________________ Wol __________________________________ 265 23. Do the table and chairs apear to be old fashioned or modern, in their design? (old) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (modern) 24. In what way do the table and chairs apear to be old fashioned or modern, in their design? _____________________________________ 25. Do you think ther is cultural value in the continued practice of traditional crafts? (no) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (yes) 26. Why do you think ther is cultural value in the continued practice of traditional crafts? _____________________________________ 27. Has this project demonstrated the successful use of traditional crafts in a modern way? (no) 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (yes) 28. How has this project demonstrated the successful use of traditional crafts in a modern way? _____________________________________ 29. What part of the table and chairs design do you like the most? Chair ___________________________________ Table __________________________________ 30. Why do you like these parts of the table and chairs design? Chair ___________________________________ Table __________________________________ 31. What part of the table and chairs design would you change? Chair ___________________________________ Table __________________________________ 26 32. How ould you change the table and chairs design? Chair ___________________________________ Table __________________________________ 31. Any other coments or sketches should be made below. 267 Apendix 16 Exhibition Survey Qualitative Dat Abreviations The complet list of abreviations is provided as a Microsoft Word document, in the ‘Exhibition dat’ file on multimedia disc 3, image and at files (CD). Question 15 F – felting/ wol work VS – viking ship shape, link to Vikings, boat building W – wod work C - carving SC – shape of chair IN – inlay of metal SW – aluminium in chairs reminiscent of swords CM – combination of materials SH – seat like a Viking shield HE – top of back leg like a Viking helmet CE – celtic crafts CA – metal casting AE – architectural elments SI – simple design TB – table brackets QU – the high quality BS - blacksmith 268 Apendix 17 Potential Market that Would Like Table and Chairs in Own Home 1 23 4 5 Entry No. Date VenueIntervie wer FromM/FAge Group How did you here about exhib. Pior Knowledge of project. 366,9FaroesJODenmarkM26-40n 7430,9RoskildaTHDenmark41-65n 254,9FaroesTH/JOFaroesF26-40newspapern 264,9FaroesTHFaroes26-40past yearsn 305,9FaroesJOFaroesM26-40mother exhibitingy 315,9FaroesJOFaroesF26-40pressn 274,9FaroesJOFaroesF41-65craft societyn *284,9FaroesTHFaroesF41-65pressn 295,9FaroesTHFaroesM41-65fellow exhibitorn 325,9FaroesJOFaroesF41-65pressn 386,9FaroesTHFaroesM41-65wifey *922,8East IcelandTHI F41-65n 1122,8East IcelandTHI F41-65frienda little *1222,8East IcelandTHI M41-65n *1322,8East IcelandTHI 41-65curatory *1522,8East IcelandTHI F41-65from curatory 1723,8East IcelandTHI M41-65n *2028,8East IcelandJOI F41-65n *420,8ReyjkavikTHIcelandF26-40relativen 620,8ReyjkavikTHIcelandM26-40word of mouthy 118,8ReyjkavikTHIceland41-65word of mouthy 320,8ReyjkavikTHLithunaniaF26-40work at galleryn 1924,8East IcelandTHNorwayF26-40work at museumn 1824,8East IcelandTHNorwayM41-65n 6221,9GlasgowTHScottish41-65n 7022,9GlasgowTHScottishM41-65n 4811,9ShetlandTHShetland26-40n 5015,9ShetlandTHShetlandM26-40furniture makery 5415,9ShetlandTHShetlandF26-40museum staffy 4211,9ShetlandTHShetlandF41-65n 4411,9ShetlandTHShetlandM41-65n 4915,9ShetlandJOShetlandF41-65n 5115,9ShetlandJOShetlandM41-65met us y 5315,9ShetlandTHShetland41-65museum curatory 801,10RoskildaTHSwedenM41-65n 874,10RoskildaTHSweden41-65n 335,9FaroesJOFaroesM26-40advertisingn 396,9FaroesJOFaroesF41-65husband exhibitingn 220,8ReyjkavikTHIcelandM26-40n *5820,9GlasgowTHScottish26-40staffn 6421,9GlasgowTHScottishM41-65n 6522,9GlasgowTHScottish41-65through THy 7630,9RoskildaTHSwedenM41-65n 269 1 2 3 4 Entry No. How ape aling Why apealing Most apealing Like in own home 36 4CM,W,DECM y 74 4MA, SH MA y 25 4AL W y 26 5OM, UN R y 30 5VI,AP,ST DY y 31 4UN,CM,LCWCM,VI y 27 5QU,SD,DESD y 28 5AP CM y 29 5W W y 32 5DE,C RT,SC y 38 5LE, MA,AP/ y 9 5/ / y 1 5IC SC,MS,Wy 12 5/ / y 13 4/ / y 15 5/ / y 17 5ST ST y 20 5/ / y 4 4/ / y 6 5AP US y 1 4RT, TBL, RMRT, MSy 3 5SD, WM, TMASD y 19 5DE CM y 18 5ST,DE, UNST,QUy 62 4W,CM,DESD y 70 4UN WM y 48 4ST,STR ST,RT y 50 4 STR,SC,BSSC y 54 5CO,AP SD,W,CM,STry 42 5DE,UN RT,SC y 4 4OB ST,CMy 49 5DE SC,RT y 51 4AP,LE,STQU,SD,TSy 53 5MA, UN TS,W,STy 80 4MA W y 87 4SC CM y 3 4QU RT,DE n 39 3W,IN,TS,SCSC n 2 2NTS / n 58 3/ / n 64 3DLC,W,RTRT,W,SCn 65 3UN W n 76 5AP CM n 83.721 270 Apendix 18 What the Market Thinks the Table and Chairs Would Cost 1 23 4 5 Entry No. Date VenueIntervie wer FromM/ F Age Group How did you here about exhib. Pior Knowledge of project. 254,9FaroesTH/JOFaroesF26-40newspapern 4811,9ShetlandTHShetlandM26-40n 4411,9ShetlandTHShetland41-65n 7430,9RoskildaTHDenmarkM41-65n 295,9FaroesTHFaroes41-65fellow exhibitorn *1222,8East IcelandTHI M41-65n *1322,8East IcelandTHI 41-65curatory *1522,8East IcelandTHI F41-65from curatory 1723,8East IcelandTHI M41-65n *420,8ReyjkavikTHIcelandF26-40relativen 118,8ReyjkavikTHIcelandM41-65word of mouthy 1824,8East IcelandTHNorway41-65n 6221,9GlasgowTHScottishM41-65n 5015,9ShetlandTHShetland26-40furniture makery 4211,9ShetlandTHShetlandF41-65n 801,10RoskildaTHSwedenM41-65n 874,10RoskildaTHSweden41-65n 366,9FaroesJODenmarkM26-40n 264,9FaroesTHFaroes26-40past yearsn 315,9FaroesJOFaroesF26-40pressn 386,9FaroesTHFaroesM41-65wifey *922,8East IcelandTHI F41-65n 1122,8East IcelandTHI F41-65frienda little 320,8ReyjkavikTHLithunaniaF26-40work at galleryn 1924,8East IcelandTHNorwayF26-40work at museumn 7022,9GlasgowTHScottishM41-65n 5415,9ShetlandTHShetlandF26-40museum staffy 5315,9ShetlandTHShetlandM41-65museum curatory 325,9FaroesJOFaroesF41-65pressn 5115,9ShetlandJOShetlandM41-65met us y 305,9FaroesJOFaroes26-40mother exhibitingy 274,9FaroesJOFaroesF41-65craft societyn *2028,8East IcelandJOI F41-65n 620,8ReyjkavikTHIcelandM26-40word of mouthy *284,9FaroesTHFaroesF41-65pressn 4915,9ShetlandJOShetlandF41-65n 271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Entry No. How ape aling Why apealing Most apealing Like in own home Why in own home Sel on internet Best sales method Cost Chair Cost Table 25 4AL W y SD,W 3SP,Ex,E-bay 1 1 48 4ST,STR ST,RT y LI 4SP 1 1 4 4OB ST,CMy OB 3/ 1 1 74 4MA, SH MA y / 4T,Ex,IN 2 1 29 5W W y MY 3Ex 2 0 12 5/ / y / 3/ 2 1 13 4/ / y / 3/ 2 1 15 5/ / y / 4/ 2 1 17 5ST ST y BI 2FS 2 3 4 4/ / y / 4/ 2 4 1 4RT, TBL, RMRT, MSy RM 1Ex, S 2 3 18 5ST,DE, UNST,QUy AR, UN 3Ex,SP,DO,RA,T 2 1 62 4W,CM,DESD y / 2FS 2 1 50 4 STR,SC,BSSC y LI 4T,FS 2 2 42 5DE,UN RT,SC y if biger 4T 2 1 80 4MA W y LI 4FS 2 3 87 4SC CM y BI,SD 2S 2 1 36 4CM,W,DECM y FI dk SP 3 2 26 5OM, UN R y / 1Ex 3 3 31 4UN,CM,LCWCM,VI y LI 3T 3 5 38 5LE, MA,AP/ y SD,LI 3Ex,T,IN 3 5 9 5/ / y / 3/ 3 2 1 5IC SC,MS,Wy / 1T 3 7 3 5SD, WM, TMASD y SD, LCW, MWF 2FS, DO, T 3 3 19 5DE CM y UN,SD, 4DO 3 2 70 4UN WM y BI 4FS 3 3 54 5CO,AP SD,W,CM,STry LI 2T 3 3 53 5MA, UN TS,,STy W,SD,RC 2T 3 1 32 5DE,C RT,SC y RT / SP,DO 3.55.5 51T5,C3.5AP,LE,STQU,SD,TSy TBL,AL,SO 4IN,Ex 3.5 5 30 5VI,AP,ST DY y AP,ST,DY,VI 5SP, VI 4 4 27 5QU,SD,DESD y UN,SO 5Ex, IN 4 4 20 5/ / y / dk / 4 4 6 5AP US y LI 4DO 4 2 28 5AP CM y if smaler 3Ex 5 5 49 5DE SC,RT y AP 2IM 5 6 2.6942.708 32.5 272 9 Importance of considerations 2 5 5 1 2 5 2 5 5 1 1 5 2 5 5 3 5 5 2 5 5 1 5 5 2.55 5 1 1 5 2.54 4 1 1 5 3 4 5 2 2 5 3 5 4 1 2 4 3 5 5 1 1 5 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 5 5 4 5 5 3 4 4 1 1 5 3 5 5 1 2 5 3 5 5 1 4 5 3 5 5 2 1 4 3 5 5 1 3 5 3 5 5 1 3 4 3 5 5 3 4 5 3 5 5 2 3 5 3 5 5 1 1 5 4 5 5 1 1 5 4 5 5 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 5 1 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 4 4 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 2 2 4 5 5 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 2 3 5 5 5 5 1 2 5 5 5 5 1 4 5 3.52784.754.751.55562.8055564.75 3 5 5 1 3 5 273 Apendix 19 Sucesful Use of Traditional Crafts 1 2 3 4 5 Entry No. DateVenueInterviewerFromM/F Age Group How did you here about exhib. Pior Knowledge of project. 366,9FaroesJO DenmarkM 26-40 n 325,9FaroesJO FaroesF 41-65pres n 386,9FaroesTH FaroesM 41-65wife y *92,8East IcelandTH I F 41-65 n *132,8East IcelandTH I M 41-65curator y 220,8ReyjkavikTH IcelandM 26-40 n 118,8ReyjkavikTH IcelandM 41-65word of mouthy *5820,9GlasgowTH ScotishM 26-40staf n 6421,9GlasgowTH ScotishM 41-65 n 652,9GlasgowTH ScotishM 41-65through TH y 702,9GlasgowTH ScotishM 41-65 n 481,9ShetlandTH ShetlandM 26-40 n 421,9ShetlandTH ShetlandF 41-65 n 4915,9ShetlandJO ShetlandF 41-65 n 7430,9RoskildaTH DenmarkM 41-65 n 254,9FaroesTH/JO FaroesF 26-40newspaper n 264,9FaroesTH Faroes 26-40past years n 305,9FaroesJO FaroesM 26-40mother exhibitingy 315,9FaroesJO FaroesF 26-40pres n 35,9FaroesJO FaroesM 26-40advertising n 274,9FaroesJO FaroesF 41-65craft society n *284,9FaroesTH FaroesF 41-65pres n 295,9FaroesTH FaroesM 41-65felow exhibitorn 396,9FaroesJO FaroesF 41-65husband exhibiting 811,10RoskildaTH FranceM 26-40 n 12,8East IcelandTH I F 41-65friend a litle *122,8East IcelandTH I M 41-65 n *152,8East IcelandTH I F 41-65from curator y 1723,8East IcelandTH I M 41-65 n *2028,8East IcelandJO I F 41-65 n *420,8ReyjkavikTH IcelandF 26-40relative n 620,8ReyjkavikTH IcelandM 26-40word of mouthy 320,8ReyjkavikTH LithunaniaF 26-40work at galeryn 1924,8East IcelandTH NorwayF 26-40work at museumn 1824,8East IcelandTH NorwayM 41-65 n 6221,9GlasgowTH ScotishM 41-65 n 5015,9ShetlandTH ShetlandM 26-40furniture makery 5415,9ShetlandTH ShetlandF 26-40museu staf y 41,9ShetlandTH ShetlandM 41-65 n 5115,9ShetlandJO ShetlandM 41-65met us y 5315,9ShetlandTH ShetlandM 41-65useum curatory 7630,9RoskildaTH SwedenM 41-65 n 801,10RoskildaTH SwedenM 41-65 n 874,10RoskildaTH SwedenM 41-65 n 4 274 1 2 3 4 10 1 12 Entry No. How ape aling Why apealing Most apealing Like in own home Like to be aware of cultural orig. Familiar with Nordic Expres Nordic culture 36 4CM,W,DECM y n y 4 32 5DE,C RT,SC y n y 4 38 5LE, MA,AP/ y n y 3.5 9 5/ / y y y 5 13 4/ / y n y 4 2 2NTS / n n y 3 1 4RT, TBL, RMRT, MSy y y 3 58 3/ / n y y 3 64 3DLC,W,RTRT,W,SCn y y 3 65 3UN W n y y 5 70 4UN M y y y 5 48 4ST,STR ST,RT y n y 3 42 5DE,UN RT,SC y y n 1 49 5DE SC,RT y y y 4 74 4MA, SH MA y n y 4 25 4AL W y y y 3 26 5OM, UN R y y y 3 30 5VI,AP,ST DY y y y 5 31 4UN,CM,LCWCM,VI y n y 5 3 4QU RT,DE n y y 5 27 5QU,SD,DESD y y y 4 28 5AP CM y y y 3 29 5W W y y y 4 39 3,IN,TS,SCSC n n y 4 81 3DE, QU C n y y 4 1 5IC SC,MS,Wy y y 5 12 5/ / y n y 5 15 5/ / y y y 5 17 5ST ST y n y 4 20 5/ / y n y 3 4 4/ / y y y 4 6 5AP US y y y 4 3 5SD, WM, TMASD y y y 4 19 5DE CM y y y 4 18 5ST,DE, UNST,QUy y y 5 62 4W,CM,DESD y n n 3 50 4 STR,SC,BSSC y n y 4 54 5CO,AP SD,W,CM,STry n y 4 4 4OB ST,CMy y y 1 51T5,C3.5AP,LE,STQU,SD,TSy n y 5 53 5MA, UN TS,W,STy n y 4.5 76 5AP CM n y y 5 80 4MA W y y y 4 87 4SC CM y y y 4 3.909091 4 275 13 14 15 16 17 18 How expes origin Are Nordic crafts recog. Crafts Recog. Nordic culture aded value Foreign clear expresion Story changed view AL 4VS,C n 2 2 SM,SO 3W n 1 1 BS,VI 3 n 1 1 WO dk / n 5 2 / 4/ n 1 4 WO 4VS n 1 3 BS, LCWdk F n 3 4 WO,VI 2dk n 3 4 O,LCW 3VS,HE n 1 2 VI,SO,OM 4AU n 3 4 WO,SH 4F,VS,Wn 4 4 BS,SM 4VS n 3 4 BS,P 1VS n 3.5 4 P 5VS,C n 1 2 BS,SH,SD 5VS,SH,Wy 3 3 W,SM 3/ y 4 1 BS,WO 4VS,F y 1 1 VI,BS,SM,SO 4F y 5 4 VI dk SW y 2 3 BS 4VS y 3 1 AU 4AU y 3 4 / 4/ y 1 5 FA 5VS y 4 1 VI, SI / SH,HE y 1 1 W,IN 2F,VS y 3 1 SM,SO 4SC y 3 1 BS 5/ y 4 5 / 5/ y 3 5 SH 4none y 4 1 / 4/ y 3 4 / 4/ y 5 5 DM 4VS y 4 5 WO,W, A 5W,F,C y 4 3 CM 4VS,C y 4 5 CM 4W y 4 1 WO 3 ,VS,QUy 3 1 BS 4VS,WO y 4/ SH,TE 5CM,TB y 4/ dk 3VS y 5 1 AL,SH 5CA y 5 1 WO,SC 4F,VS,W,SIy 4/ CM,LCW,DM 5W,BS y 5 1 dk 4VS,AE y 4 4 CM,SC 4VS y 5 1 3.9 69.76742 4 276 19202324 252627 Would influence purchase Pay more Old or modern Why old/modern cultural value in crafts Why value crafts Has project used traditional crafts in a modern way 1n 5CM,SH4CI,LE 5 1n 5CM 4CI,TL 4 4y 5CM,SC5KN 5 4n 4/ 2/ 5 5y 3/ 5/ 4 1y 3AU 5UP 3 1n 3CD 5SBdk 1y 3/ 5/ 4 1n 4CM,TA5CI,TL 3 4n 5CD,SI5UP,CO4 4y 5SD 5QU,UP5 3n 3TR 5TL 5 1y 4SC,LCW5SB,CI,LE5 4y 5CM,SC,SH5TL,PL 5 1n 3CM,AU5WR,CI4 1/ 4SD 5DI 5 3y 4CD 5CI 5 5y 5IN,QU5CI,LE 5 4y 5SD 5CI,KN5 1n 5CM 5CI 4 1n 3/ 5CI, SB4 4y 5/ 5/ 5 1n 4/ 5CI,PL 5 1n 5CM,IN5TL,LE/ 1n 5CM 5KN,QU,DI5 4y 5CM 5CI 5 4y 4/ 5/ 5 5y 3/ 5/ 5 2n 3/ 5TL 5 4y 3/ 5/ 4 5n 5/ 3/ 5 5y 3AU 5AU 4 5n 5APP 5CI, WR4 4y 5CM,SI5CI,TL 5 3y 5CM 5CI 5 2y 4SI 5PL,QU4 5y 5CM,CD5UP,PL4 5y 5CM,CO5CI,LE 5 1y 2/ 5UP 5 1n 5CM 5KN, LE5 5y 5CD,ST5CI,KN5 1y 3dk 5CI 5 4y 5SH 4dk 3 4y 5TR 5TL,CO5 4.571428571 5 27 Abreviations AIF Audio Interchange File Format BA (Hons) Bachelor of Arts with Honours BBC British Broadcasting Corporation BCUC Buckinghamshire Chiltern University Colege CD Compact Disc CD-R Compact Disc-Recordable DTI British Government Department of Trade and Industry DV Digital Video DVD Digital Video Disc and Digital Versatile Disc ehf. Icelandic term equivalent to Ltd. meanig limited company. JPEG Joint Photgraphy Expert Group is a standard computer digital file format for photgraphs. Mini DV Digital Videocassete format for digital video cameras UK United Kingdom 278 Language Notes Icelandic leter types have not ben used in the thesis text; instead they have ben anglicized with the folowing English leters: Icelandic leters = Anglicized leters Ð ð = Th th Þ þ = Th th Æ æ = Ae ae Ö ö = O o English has ben used in questionaires and interviews with Icelanders, because it is the commonly preferred language for international communication and wel understod by most. 279 Glosary of Terms Within the Context of this PhD Artefact - any object made by people, including for example tols, machines, furniture and works of art. Viking ship bottom deck kne – L-shaped piece of timber with the grain aproximately folowing the shape, reinforcing the joint betwen timbers in the hul and the botom deck of a Viking ship. Carver – a chair with arms that complements a chair without and normaly sits at the nds of a dinig table and gets its name from being the position of carving the meat. Craft tradition - methods of making artefacts by hand that are handed own through the generations specific to a region or culture. Crafts practitioner – a person who practices these craft tradition. Drawknife – A two handled blade for shaving woden components to shape. Often used together with a shaving horse. Designer/Maker - a maker (as described below) and esigner of things that may be made by themselves or by other makers or industry. Froe – Hand tol used in spiting smal logs in half along the grain. Icelandic craft traditions – those that are represented at the National Museum of Iceland, the Skógor Folk Museum, Iceland and other regional Museums. Maker - a person who makes things by direct manipulation of materials with hands and tols, with an understanding of the craft tradition and/or industrial practice of their chosen material (wod, metal glass) or field of making practise. Also referred to as a craftsman, crafts person or craft practitioner. Imitate – to copy a process of manipulating materials with hands and hand tols or machines. 280 Nordic – the Nordic region which includes those countries that are members of the Nordic Council: Norway; Sweden; Finland; Aland; Denmark; Faroe Islands; Greenland; Iceland. Sternpost – the vertical timbers at either end of a woden ship. Tang – pointed end of a tol, such as a knife, file or chisel, which is fited into a handle or shaft. 281 Refrences Printed Sources Boks A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 4 th edition, Penguin, London, 1971. G. Bain’s, Celtic art the methods of construction, 24 th edn, Constable, London, 202. M. Banks, Visual Methods in Social Research, Sage, London, 201. G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler, San Francisco, 1972. T. Berry, The Great Work: our way into the futre, Bel Tower, New York, 199. J. Bil, ‘Ships and Seamanship’, in The Oxford Ilustrated History of the Vikings, ed. P. Sawyer, Oxford University Press, New York, 197. S. Blackmore, The Meme Machine, Oxford University Press, 200. S. Bradock, Respect for tradition, curiosity for technolgy, in Textiles and new technolgy 2010, edited by M. O’Mahony, S. Bradock, , Crafts Council, London, 194. J. Byock, Viking age Iceland, Penguin, London, 201. E. Chaplin, Sociolgy and Visual Representation, Routledge, London, 194. W. Chenitz, J. Swanson, From Practice to Grounded Theory, Sage, London, 1986. J. Colier, Visual Anthropolgy: Photgrapy as a Research Method, Holt, Rinhehart and Wiston, London, 1967. 282 Colins Shorter English Dictionary, HarperColins, Glasgow, 195. P. Dormer, The Culture of Craft, Manchester University Press, 197. P. Dormer, Furniture Today: its Design & Craft, Crafts Council, London, 195. P. Dormer, The Art of the Maker : [Skil and its Meanig in Art, Craft and Design], Thames and Hudson, London, 194. M. Emmison, P. Smith, Researching the Visual, Sage, London, 200. J. Fin, ‘Public suport of culture and the arts’, in Nordic democracy, ideas, issues and institutions in politics, economy, education, social and cultural afairs of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Det Danske Selskab. Copenhagen, 1981. C. Frayling, D. Pye, Things Men Have Made. A dialogue on workmanship with David Pye, chaired by C. Frayling. In Beyond the Dovetail Craft Skil and Imagination. Ed Frayling, C. Crafts council, London, 191. C. Gray, J. Malins, Visualizing research a guide to the research process in art and esign, Ashgate, Aldershot, 204. B. Hal, A. Gilete & R. Tandon, (Eds.), Creating Knowledge: A Monopoly? - Participatory Research in Development, Society for Participatory Research in Asia, New Delhi, 1982. B. Hutchinson, P. Whitehouse, P. Bryson, Modern Media and Reflective Practice, Work bok from the Post Graduate Diploma/Masters Degree in Education, University of Ulster, 195. G. S. Hunter, Preserving Digital Information, Neal-Schuman, New York, 200. B. Jerrard, M. Trueman, R. Newport, Managing New Product Inovation, Taylor & Francis, London, 199. 283 G. Jones, A History of the Vikings, Oxford University Press, Oxford, second edition, 1984. G. Karlsson, Iceland’s 10 Years, C.Hurst & Co., London. Y. Lincoln, E. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, London, 1985. A. Macintyre, After Virtue, 2 nd edition, Duckworth, London, 1985. E. M. Mageroy, ‘Wod carving and woden sculpture’ translated by C. Long, in Árbók, ed. M. Snaesdótir, Útgefandi Hid Íslenzka Fornleifafélag, Reykjavík, 201. S. Pink, Doing Visual Ethnography, Sage, London, 201. J. Prosser, ed. Image-based Research, a Sourcebok for Qualitative Researchers, Falmer Press, London, 198. D. Pye, The Nature of Design, Studio Vista, London, 1967. P. Reason, Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage, London, 194. C. Robson, Real World Research: A Resourse for Social Scientists and Practitioner Researchers, Blackwel, Oxford, 193. D. Schnebeli-Morrel, ‘She’s Clever with Her Hands’, in Ideas in the Making: Theory in Practice, H P. Johnson, Crafts Council, London, 198. D. A. Schon The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate, London, 1983. A. Strauss, J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, London, 198. F. Wal, The Ape and the Sushi Master, Penguin, St Ives, 201. Journals A. Colins, J. Seely Brown, A. Holum, Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible, This article originaly apeared in the Winter, 191 issue of 284 American Educator, the journal of The American Federation of Teachers. (accessed 31 August 05). M. L. Holy, ‘Reflective Writing and the Spirit of Inquiry’, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1989. R. Jerrard, D. Hands, S. Edge, 'Design as an integrated process: Haley Sharpe Associates - Ten Years On', The Design Journal , Vol. 7, Issue 1, 204. M. Press, ‘A New Vision in the Making’, Crafts, no. 147, July/August 197, p. 42-45. C. Rust, G. Whitely, A. Wilson, ‘Experimental Making in Multi-Disciplinary Research’, Design Journal, November 200, (accessed 8 August 205). D. Schunman, ‘Power Stering’, New Civil Enginer, 9//04. S. Scrivener, ‘Characterising creative-production doctoral projects in art and design’, International Journal of Design Sciences and Technolgy, Vol. 10, No. 2, 202, p. 25-4. M. Thomas, ‘Editorial: Practice-based research’, Digital Creativity, Vol. 15, No. 1, 204, p. 1. K. Yair, A. Tomes, M. Press, ‘Design through making: crafts knowledge as facilitator to colaborative new product development’, Design Studies, Vol. 20, No. 6, November 199. Conference Paper Katie Bunel, ‘Craft and digital technolgy’, This paper was first presented as a key note spech at the World Crafts Council 40 th Anniversary Conference in Metsovo, Greece, 204, Falmouth Colege of Arts (accessed 9 September 205). 285 Crafts Council, ‘Confrance Report, Learning Through Making’, Wednesday 25 November 198, ‘Making a Living’, Thursday 26 November 198, ‘Learnig and Making, Transcription of two linked one-day conferences examinig the value of creative practical education in Britain’, (accessed 15 August 205). K. Friedman, ‘Theoretical and Philosophical Chalenges in Artistic Research and Development’, Address delivered to Sensuous Knowledge 2, Norway, November 205 (from correspondence with K. Friedman, December 205). K. Friedman, ‘Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into Practice.’ In, IDATER 200: International Conference on Design and Technolgy Educational Research and Development. P. H. Roberts and E. W. L. Norman, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and Technolgy, Loughborough University, 200, (accessed September 205). J. McDonel, P.A. Lloyd, R. Valkenburg, ‘The truth about designig: conclusions from the video assisted learning in design (VALiD) project’, in Proceedings of the International Conference of Enginering Design (ICED), Stolkholm, Sweden, 203. (accessed December 205). J. Malins, J. Ure, C. Gray, ‘The Gap: Addressing Practice-Based Research Trainig Requirements for Designers’, Shefield Halam University, 199, (accessed 8 August 205). T. Marshal, S. Newton, ‘Scholarly Design as a Paradigm for Practice-Based Research”, paper at, The Research into Practice Conference 200, The Centre for Research into Practice, bienial international conference at the University of Hertfordshire (UK) 200, (accessed 6 November 205). T. Mjaland, ‘A summary from discussions in Group D’, Chair: Nils Gilje, from the confernce, Sensuous Knowledge 2: Aesthetic Practice and Aesthetic Insight, Solstrand, Norway, 9 - 1 November 205. 286 M. Press, A. Cusworth, ‘A New Vision in the Making: Exploring the Value of Craft Education in the Information Age’, Paper delivered to the European Academy of Design Confernce, Stockholm, April 197, (accessed 9 September 205). M. Press, ‘It’s research, Jim…’, at, The European Academy of Design, Design Interfaces Conference, April 195. C. Rust, A. Robertson, ‘Show or tel? Oportunities, problems and methods of the xhibition as a form of research dissemination’, 203, Proceedings of European Academy of Design Conference, University of Barcelona, April 203, (accessed 8 August 205). C. Rust,. Wilson,A. ‘A Visual Thesis? Techniques for reporting practice-led research’, Proceedings of 4th European Academy of Design Confernce, Aveiro, Portugal April 201, (accessed 20 June 204). C. Rust, S. Hawkins, J. Rodis, G. Whitely, ‘Knowledge And The Artefact’ Proceedings Of Doctoral Education In Design Confernce, La Clusaz, France, July 200, (accessed 20 June 204). S. Scrivener, P. Chapman, ‘The practical implications of aplying a theory of practice based research: a case study’, from the Research into Practice conference, University of Hertfordshire, UK, 204, (Accessed 15 December 205). S. Scrivener, ‘The art object does not embody a form of knowledge’. The Foundations of Practice Based Research, Proceedings of the Research into Practice Conference, University of Hertfordshire, UK, 202, htp:/ww.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol2/scrivenerful.html (accessed 20 June 203). N. Wod, C. Rust, ‘Design for Tacit Learnig: an investigation of design strategies for multimedia suported learning in the crafts’, Proceedings of 287 European Academy of Design Conference, University of Barcelona, April 203, (accessed 20 June 204). Academic Disertation S. Braden, A Study of Representation Using Participatory Video in Community Development: From Freire to Eldorado. PhD Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Reading, 198. K. Bunel, The Integration of New Technolgy into Ceramic Designer-Maker Practice, PhD Thesis, Robert Gordon University, Aberden, 198, (CD- ROM). V. Coghil, Making meanig Through Designerly Play, Department of Cultural History Design Education, PhD, Royal Colage of Art, 1987. A. LAISTROGLAI, Contemporary Product Design using the Concepts of Traditional Thai Wickerwork, PhD Abstract, Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, (accessed 16 September 205). N. LAISTROGLAI, Thai Mudme: Design and Development for Contemporary Use, PhD Abstract, 205, (accessed 16 September 205). G. D. Mead, Unlatching the Gate: Realising My Scholarship of Living Inquiry, PhD Thesis, University of Bath, 201, (accessed 8 August 205). L. Morgan, Captivated by Learning, PhD thesis, Lancaster University, Department of Education Research, 201. J. J. Scholes-Rhodes, From the Inside Out: Learning to Presence My Aesthetic and Spiritual ‘Being’ Through the Emergent Form of a Creative Art of Inquiry, PhD Thesis, University of Bath, 202, (accessed 8 August 205). 28 K. Scopa, The Development of Strategies for Interdisciplinary Colaboration from the Visual Arts, PhD thesis, Robert Gordon University, Grays Schol of Art and Design, 203. G. Whitely, An Articulated Skeletal Analogy of the Human Uper-Limb, PhD Thesis, Shefield Halam University, 200. A. Reneus, ‘Contemporary Wodcarving in Scotland’, Decorative Arts Diploma Dissertation, University of Glasgow, History of Art Department, 198. Non-Printed Sources Internet Edinburgh Colege of Art, ‘Tacitus Research Project’, htp:/ww.eca.ac.uk/tacitus/, 201 (accesses 16 May 205). Handverk og Hunun ‘The objectives of CRAFT AND DESIGN’, (accessed 1 February 205). T. Hawson, Work in progress, , 204 (accessed 4 April 205). T. Hawson, ‘The Three Ways to Watch and Learn’, issue 3 of the newsleter, a craftsman, 204, (accessed June 205). R. Jerrard, ‘Risk Taking in Design – an investigation of critical decision points in new product development’, Centre for Design Inovation, Birmingham Design Research Group, (accessed 16 August 205). The International Association of Sound Archiving, ‘The Safeguarding of the Audio Heritage: Ethics, Principles and Preservation Strategy. Version 2’, September 201, (accessed January 203). 289 B. Mathews, J. Buur, ‘Teaching design research in the studio’, Mads Clausen Institute for Product Inovation, University of Southern Denmark, 205, (accessed 23 September 205). Nordic Council, ‘Map of the Nordic Region (Copyright, Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen, Denmark)’, Facts about the Nordic Region and Nordic Co- operation’, 30.4.04 (accessed 2.3.05). M. Partington, ‘NEVAC’, 1th May 205 , (accesed 16 May 205). M. Press, A. Cusworth, ‘New Lives in the Making: the Value of Craft Education in the Information Age, Executive Summary Commissioned by the Crafts Council as part of the Learning Through Making Research Program’, Shefield Halam University, April 198, (accessed 15 August 205). M. Press, ‘All That is Solid Melts into Craft: Crafting a Sustainable Futre from Today’s Rubish’, Shefield Halam University, 196, (accessed 9 September 205). A. Ragnarsson, ‘Geothermal Development in Iceland 195-199’, OS Orkustofnun, , accessed 10.2.05. P. Reason, H. Bradbury, ‘Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration’, Introduction to P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbok of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (p. 1-4). London, Sage 201, (accessed 8 August 205). P. Reason, Learning and Change through action research, 201, (accessed 8 August 205). C. Rust, ‘Design Enquiry: Tacit Knowledge and Invention in Science’, Shefield Halam University, Art and Design Research Centre working paper 8 July 203, (accessed 8 August 205). 290 C. Rust, S. Hawkins, G. Whitely, A. Wilson, J. Rodis, ‘Knowledge and the Artifact’, Proceedings of Doctoral Education in Design Conference, La Clusaz, France, July 200. (accessed 2 February 205). P. Senker, ‘An exploration of the nature of aprenticeship’, Teaching and Learning Research Program, University Colege Northampton, , (accessed 31 August 205). J. Siraj-Blatchford, I. Siraj-Blatchford, ‘Learning through making in the early years’, Schol of Education, University of Durham, Institute of Education, University of London, 198, (accesed 24 August 205). A. Tomes, ‘Product Vision: Conecting Pure Research with Product Application’, Shefield Halam University, October 199, (accessed 9 September 205). D. Trubridge, ‘Context Essay’, (accessed 9 September 205). UK Council for Graduate Education, Research Trainig in the Creative & Performing Arts & Design, UKCGE, 201. < ww.ukcge.ac.uk> (Accessed 6 November 205). UK Council for Graduate Education, Practice-Based Doctorates in the Creative and Performing Arts and Design, 203, (Accessed 6 November 205). Academic Projects A. Douglas, (Ed), Maakin Lab, ‘A research project revaluing Shetland kniting, How might we revalue traditional ways of making?’ The Robert Gordon University, Aberden, 204, (CD-ROM). A. Douglas, ‘On The Edge Project’, The Robert Gordon University, Aberden, 291 201. A. M. Shilito, ‘Tacitus Research Project’, Edinburgh Colege of Art, 201. M. Partington, National Electronic and Video Archive of the Craft – NEVAC, University of the West of England, Bristol Schol of Art, Media and Design, 202. Interviews B. Andersen, Shipwright, Roskilde, Denmark, Interaction Interview, May 203. F. B. Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland, November 202. F. B. Hlynsson, Sculptor, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203. Á. Hatún, Wol Worker, Faroe Islands, Interaction Interview, June 203. T. Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith, Iceland, November 202. T. Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203. G. M. Thorvaldsson, Patern Maker, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203. G. Odgeirsson, Cabinetmaker, Iceland, Interaction Interview, July 203. Site and other Visits Museums and Exhibitions The Open-Air Museum in Hoyvík, Faroe Islands, June 203. Skógar Folk Museum, Iceland, November 202, July 203. The Historical Museum (Føroya Fornminisavn), Faroe Islands, June 203. 292 Blásastova, Museum in Gota, Faroe Islands, June 203. Sigurjón Ólafsson Sculpture Museum, Reykjavik, Iceland, July 203. Árnessysla Folk Museum, Iceland, November 202. The Reconstructed Medieval Farm in Thórsárdalur, Iceland, November 202. The Culture House, History of Iceland Exhibition, Reykjavik, Iceland, July 203. Handverk og Honun (Handwork and Design) Exhibitions, Reykjavik, Iceland, November 202, April 203, July 203, August 204. Roskilde Viking Ship Museum, Denmark, May 203. Workshop Visits Kolbrun Bjorgolfsdotir, Ceramic Poter and sculptor at Koga Potery, Iceland, 10.4.02. Edda Björnsdótir and Hlynur Haldórsson, Wod, Bone, Horn Carving at Listithjan EIK, Iceland, 5.1.02. Ófeigur Björnsson, Master Gold and Silver Smith and Sculptor, Iceland, 24.7.03. Hala Bogadótir, Goldsmith, Iceland, 20.7.03. Grein e.h.f., Cabinet Making Company, Iceland, July 203. Á. Guthmundsson, Furniture Factory, Kópavogi, Iceland, July 203. Hildigunur Haldórsdótir and Guðmún Hamelen, Weaving, Kniting, Felting, Wol at Ularvinslan Thingborg, Iceland, 4.1.02. Ása Hátún, Wol Worker, Faroe Islands, June 202. Nigro A. Hermansen, Wod Carver, Faroe Islands, 24.01.01. 293 Gutormur Jónsson, Sculptor in Stone, Iceland, 05.04.02. Vignir Jónsson, Artist, Iceland, 20.7.03. Kolbrún S. Kjarval, Ceramics and Sculpture, Iceland, 25.7.03. Sigithur J Kristjánsdotir, Wod Carver, Iceland, 4.1.02. Óthin, Blacksmith at Járnsmithja Óthins ehf., Iceland, 20.4.04. Ragnhildur Magnúsdótir, Wod Carver, Iceland, 3.1.02 Gudmundur Magnússon, Green Wod Worker and Carpenter, Iceland, 3.1.02. Málmsteypan Hela e.h.f. Foundry and Patern Makers, Iceland, July 203. Ole Jakob Nielsen, Wod Turner and Sculptor, Faroe Islands, 8.9.04. Suein Olafsson, Wod Carver, Iceland, 17.8.04. Ásgeir Reynisson, Goldsmith at Gul og Silfursmidjan Erna hf. Iceland, 05.04.02. Roskilde Viking Ship Museum, Boat Yard, Denmark, August 201, May 203. Cecil Tait, Furniture Maker at Paparwark, Shetland Islands, 10.8.04. Thórhildur Thorgeirsdótir, Goldsmith, Reykjavik, Iceland, July 203. Lára Vilbergsdótir, Papier-mâché Decorative Objects, Iceland, 8.1.02.