Fred Truman
Design & Code Creative
Craft and Excellence
November 10, 2010
A recent assignment for my communitp class asked that we read the first chapter of Richard Sennett’s The Craftsman, called “The Troubled Craftsman.” In this chunk of text Mr. Sennett posits that the craftsman has been valued differently throughout time, and that we seem to be in one of those ages in which the craftsman is suffering. From there he takes the reader through various time periods to examine the craftsman and the conditions which allowed their place in society to be applauded or ignored.
There were a lot of interesting ideas in just this first chapter. One thing he points out is that some of these conditions seem to be at odds with each other. For example he examines the role that hand drawing and iteration plays in contrast to CAD software when the architect designs a building. The demand may be that the architect design a building cheaply and accurately, which CAD can help with. He points out that in a particular design in Georgia the designer’s were quite thoughtful in there designation of and pedestrian spaces but neglected to consider that because of the uncomfortable heat left the spaces empty during most of the year. Although CAD may have allowed the architect to accurately define and calculate how to maximize people’s outdoor space, simply spending time in the heat, anchored in tangible reality, might have improved this decision making process.
My only comment here is that I strongly believe drawing is thinking, precisely because committing a sketch to ink and paper reveals things not previously known – similar to Linux in that there is nearly an instant relation between problem solving and problem finding. Hence the reason I keep a sketchbook tidied to OCD standards: it’s one of the only ways to effectively manage my thoughts and because the act is tangible (and definitely not typed on a computer) it makes them one step closer to reality. I also take pride in the act.
The other point he made that resonated with me and is worth mentioning is that the modern world has two recipes for arousing the desire to work hard and well:
- Moral imperative of existing within a group – which he cites both positive and negative examples from Japan and communist Russia.
- Competition – which can allow some to thrive and hoard knowledge and others to feel isolated and depressed.
I’m not sure if this is strictly a capitalist vs. Marxist philosophy debate – which I’d love to avoid – but this along with some insights he had made me think a lot about life at ITP (the graduate program I am currently enrolled in) and working in teams in a professional environment. Let me get this quote out of my system and then I’ll offer some more thoughts on this.
from page 34:
In principle, many new economy firms subscribe to the doctrines of teamwork and cooperation, but unlike the actual practices of Nokia and Motorola, these principles are often a charade. We found that people made a show of friendliness under the watchful eye of boss-minders rather than, as in good Japanese firms, challenging and disputing their superiors… people seldom identified as friends the people with whom they worked in teams. Some of the people we interviewed were energized by this competition, but more were depressed by it… the structure of rewards didn’t work well for them.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this idea generally and since reading it. What is the most successful way to operate and conductive yourself professionally? I think the proper balance of competitive and cooperative principles depends not only on the craft, but on the particular place on the process timeline.
As a designer having worked alone and on teams on projects and their different isolated portions, but I won’t admit to know the best way to work, and I’m constantly walking a tight rope of control and letting go. I understand that at different phases of the design process that more ideas are better than fewer. Towards the implementation stage, I think clear division of labor and ownership of a portion of the group’s goal be set aside for everyone to capitalize on their sense of pride. Different principles have different virtues and need to be used in the right situation.
I’ve worked in environments when this hasn’t always been the case and been personally frustrated about the blurring of lines in ownership – even if it’s the smallest of tasks. Ownership creates a sense of responsibility and engenders pride – if there isn’t anyone responsible in the end no one really cares about the outcome. For better or for worse I think I do my best in an intensely competitive cooperative environment with rewards (if that makes any sense at all) and enjoy being around others that also value this kind of situation.
When I think about ITP, I really wonder what’s going on in everyone’s heads. Are we really all unique creative snowflakes? Is it OK to talk a little smack about the quality of work or will people cry? Will the group be there to support me after we’ve left this place? Does the answer to the previous question depend on how I behave while there? It would seem that sometimes we are drinking a lot of expensive Kool Aid that tells us that we’re always better off putting the group’s interests ahead of our own, and I often wonder about how far this gets you in the long run. My only guess is that it’s a combination.
The only reason that I can imagine that a hyper-collaborative place like ITP succeeds is that at the end of the day it’s made up of some people that intensely care about their work. These aren’t really the most concrete or even coherent ideas – I’m intentionally vague and not using any specific cases here – but it’s something I think about quite often.