The Renaissance of Chalkboarding: Why are craft processes still relevant in this digital age? Over the last decade technological advancements have been coming thick and fast. From the plethora of social media platforms now available to us, to the production possibilities of three dimensional printing. Why in this age of ease and comfort do we as designers, creatives and unquestionably as audience, search and respond to the crafted, the artisan and the hand made? There is no doubt that craft is a quintessential part of the contemporary cultural landscape. The continued persistent pull of disciplines such as letterpress, lettering and the creation of websites such as Etsy are testament to this. Since the eighteenth century, and definitely long before, craft processes have been a constant undertone of our cultural landscape. At some points more noticeable than others, but always there and always ready to resurface. It is my belief that this consistent and current demand for the handmade, is a result of us, searching for true closeness in an increasingly alienated society, coming to a head in this digital and most alienated of eras. I have identified four distinct areas of closeness that craft facilitates, to counteract this alienation: Physical Proximity ­ In terms of closeness of the crafted object to the craftsperson, and the intended audience to the object. Basically exploring the the romance of working with your hands. This also extends into the physical proximity between people that is facilitated by craft. Social Proximity ­ In terms of the social closeness and interaction created between craftspeople when working and skill sharing, which is an inherent part of the craft process. As well as the social interaction between the craftsperson and audience through the medium of the craft object. Emotional Proximity ­ In terms of the emotional investment the craftsperson makes in the crafted object and the emotional response of the audience to the crafted object. Temporal Proximity ­ In terms of nostalgia and the way that alienation from our history (historical awareness) romanticizes that history. How the distance we feel from our own historical context creates a commodity of trying to be close to it and aware of it. I will first outline the presence of alienation in all these forms, through deep theoretical exploration. I have chosen to focus on chalkboarding as a craft process, to examine the role of proximity. The reasons for this are threefold: it is a practice that can easily and instantly be defined as craft, it is a practice I have and continue to engage with in my own work, it has experienced a definite renaissance in recent years despite simultaneous technological advancements. Through the looking glass of chalkboarding I will strive to discover whether craft can create closeness in all the forms mentioned above and if this is the main reason for its current and continued place in our cultural landscape.

Mention that you are looking at things from a Marxist standpoint, you picked people for a reason that are linked. Relates this issues and find solutions to them capitalism. Introduction to the chapter structure in the introduction. Methodology, argument, you know what you are talking about key texts and authors. 472 words ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ When striving to understand physical alienation, Karl Marx and his writings Capital and the Economic and Physical manuscripts of 1844 are what instantly come to the fore as seminal texts. More Specifically for my purposes ‘Marx understood alienation as something rooted in the material world’ (Cox, 1998). Marx believed that Physical alienation was the earliest and most deeply ingrained form of alienation because of its connection to how we work or labour. Marx saw labour as our ‘species being’ (fischer, 1996), the central feature of us a a race, what differentiated us from animals and connected us as ‘the only consistent feature of all human societies’ (Cox, 1998). Marx saw alienation caused by the way we labour as a sign of a failing society, basically a capitalist society, which alienates people from the objects around them. All of Marx’s writing centres around the flaws in capitalist structures, and although this doesn’t make his ideas on alienation any less valid, it is worth noting to allow a true reading. In Capital Marx explains why labour is such a cornerstone of the human condition because it ‘alters not only the natural world, but also the labourer himself.’ (Cox, 1998) It's a reciprocal, dynamic process which improves both involved parties. More importantly it is the consciousness of the labourer which allows improvement, as Marx points out ‘what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, the architect raises his structure in his imagination before he erects it in reality’ (Capital). The simple cognitive act of imagining what you could create, is incredibly powerful and holds the promise of greater and evolutionary creation. This is explained by Fischer (1996) in How to Read Karl Marx, in which he states that ‘The first recognition of the fact that the world can be changed by conscious activity contains all future as yet unknown’. In short the physical act of a labourer working to create an object is positive and develops the labourer and his world. Simultaneously uniting the labourer and the object and the labourer and his surroundings. The division of labour distances the labourer from the object of his labour, and in so doing distances him from his surroundings. Rather than creating a cohesive whole object, the labourer is forced to create one fragment of the whole object. Realising ‘only one or two aspects of their human powers at the expense of all the others.’ (Cox, 1998) A clear analogy can be made using the objects created through the division of labour to show the alienation caused by such; If a factory worker is creating one screw for an object and no other part of it, it is as if the man himself were the screw, doing his one job well but completely alienated from the full function of the united object. Ruskin (1960) noticed just this during the height of the division of labour in England saying ‘it is not truly speaking, the labour that is divided but the men’. This process repeats itself at an increasingly large scale as production grows and

stimulates further alienation as the labour itself ‘becomes an object’ (Marx, 1844) that ‘becomes a power on its own confronting him.’ Marx expands on this idea saying that after production, it is the capitalist structures of trading commodities which alienate us further from our physical surroundings. ‘a commodity is an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind’ (Capital). The creation of commodities and most importantly the demand for them ‘transforms relationships between producers into relationships between the commodities they produce.’ (Cox, 1998) Causing continuous alienation at all stages which people interact with the objects created. However, E. Lunn (1984) in Marxism and Modernism, cites a possible pitfall in this blanket alienation; stating ‘we cannot reduce art to exchange rates reflecting the pervasive alienation’. Is it possible that the art and design world is one area that at least attempts to escape commodification because of the psychological importance applied to the objects created in this world? In contradiction to this J. Cox (1998) claims that it is folly to explain alienation ‘in terms of psychology rather than the organisation of society.’ So, for my purposes Marx and physical alienation can stay purely in the realms of the physical. Add explanation and sight commodity fetishism as the link to debord. 716 words (loose 120) 1223 total ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ The temptation to link practical and social alienation is tangible. This is reflected in The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord, which is ‘a means to reconfigure arguments about alienation’ (Al and Krupar 2011) and makes a clear developmental link between Marx’s ideas of alienation and his own idea of ‘the Spectacle’ (Debord, 2006?) through the theme of commodity, previously mentioned. Debord, (2006?) explains the Spectacle as ‘the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life.’ By this he means that the commodification of everything around us, through the increasing dominance of capitalist structures, has made even appearances tradable commodities. This happens when those within capitalist structures become economically secure enough to no longer ‘want’ or ‘demand’ physical necessities. Instead they evolve into demanding cognitive commodities i.e. appearances and the social interactions these affect. In short the Spectacle is ‘a social relationship between people that is mediated by images’ (Debord, 2006?). However, it is important to also say that it is more of a way of looking at these relationships than the relationships themselves, a ‘world view’ if you will. Look at the original German word and the translations. Debord (2006?) argues that these mediated relationships create ‘a dichotomy between reality and image’ driving a wedge in people’s social interactions until we are so distant from one another that ‘all that was once directly lived has become mere representation’, (Debord 2006?) and the division, yet confusion of reality and image is complete as ‘images become

the social relation’ (Al and Krupar 2011). However, Kaplan (2012) argues that ‘Debord’s rejection of the necessary intermediation of social life by culture and communication’ is a major flaw in The Society of the Spectacle. Kaplan means that the dominant tone of ‘liberal individualism’ separates ‘individuals from the cultural traditions and social relations in which they are embedded’ which, he claims, is a flawed way to view people and how they interact. He takes the view that we are beings that develop and change, depending on a range of contexts, and it is natural to mediate how we communicate and even ‘necessary’ in order to communicate effectively. However, Debord (2006?) outlines that one of the most dangerous aspects of the spectacle, is how it appears ‘natural’ to those within it. The context in which Kaplan writes may be the key to understanding and possibly undermining his point. Al and Krupar (2011) in Notes on the Society of the Spectacle, draw attention to the fact that Debord, writing just post World War two, ‘saw the rise of mass media, consumerism and information technology.’ Citing that Debord saw the Spectacle because he saw culture before the Spectacle, and so had a comparative reference point. Whereas, Kaplan writes in 2011, so well into the age of the Spectacle that truly discerning it would be very difficult. The Spectacle is so adept at self perpetuation and continuous growth that it is easy to become absorbed into it. An example of how this can work can be found in contemporary artists and designers, through their very response to the presence of the Spectacle. Design activists, such as Adbusters, mimic the situationists and their ‘detournement’ (Al and Krupar 2011), which literally means to detour. They achieve this by using ‘graphic design conventions to denaturalise or ‘jam’ taken for granted signs and advertising’ to ‘provoke and challenge onlookers’, and draw attention to the presence of the Spectacle. Even activism is absorbed by the Spectacle as ‘dissatisfaction itself (Debord 2006?)’ becomes ‘a commodity’, as the images are repurposed and become mere signs of the Spectacle. This ability to self perpetuate, means we are increasingly surrounded by the products and building blocks of the Spectacle, ergo, socially alienated from one another. Word count 614 total 1841 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ The theory of Simulation is very similar to that of the Spectacle but for our purposes focusses more on the psychological and emotional causes of alienation in our society. However, Simulation is not a way of looking at social relationships but rather the process of ‘substituting signs of the real for the real itself’ (Baudrillard, 1988). This process involves the repeated copying of one image or media text until all originality or even reference to originality is lost. This continues until the present situation where ‘our society has become so reliant on models...that we have lost all contact with the real world’ (Felluga, 2011). Basically a ‘liquidation of all references’ (Baudrillard, 1988). In practice this is embodied by Baudrillard’s concept of myth. This examines the way that, as the simulation continues, basic signs and symbols become saturated with multiple false meanings that become increasingly further removed from any kind of fact. For example, the way that many car brands are associated and communicate ideas of lifestyle as well as simply the product they sell. If our

visual surroundings are false and dense with false copies and meanings, how can we interact with our surroundings on any meaningful emotional level? This forced application of meaning and emotion, could be said to signify a lack of emotional closeness, as we desperately try to apply meaning and emotion to our surroundings. Applying meaning and emotion to the swaths of copied material that surrounds us is hard because, as Baudrillard says, there is very little reference point because of the distance of the copy from anything original and meaningful. However Brian Massumi (1987), in Realer than Real, The Simulation According to Deleuze and Guattari, claims that Simulation can be viewed as ‘a phenomenon of a different nature altogether’ to that outlined by Baudrillard. Massumi claims that the writings of Deleuze and Guattari explain Simulacra as completely separate to the original from which they were copied. He argues that Simulacra bear ‘only an external and deceptive resemblance to a putative model’. In short he is saying that the falseness of Simulation goes much deeper than simply meaning or lack of reference points but rather is a being of complete falseness which only looks like the original through pure illusion. For example, ‘the function of a photograph has no real relation to that of the object photographed’. Arguably, Massumi and by extension Deleuze and Guattari, have been deceived by the preceding nature of Simulation. The current inflamed state of the Simulation means that the false images or Simulacra over take and seem to become before their own originals. It is this ‘substituting signs of the real for the real itself’ (Baudrillard, 1988) which could suggest greater disconnection. Another idea which challenges Massumi, is that: ‘the concept of artificiality still requires some sense of reality against which to recognise the artifice.’ (Felluga, 2011) Felluga uses the very definition of the false and the artificial to draw attention to the obvious need for a point of reference that is required to identify alienation. In some ways this is so obvious that it is hidden in plain view but is no less important for it. This idea that the Simulacrum, no matter how far removed from the original, has a connection and therefore a hope of returning to the emotional closeness provided by the original. Employing this idea, sighting the separation and dissimilarities, could be seen as revealing the link between the Simulacrum and the original; undermining Massumi’s argument. So, although we are very emotionally distant from our surroundings, not all hope is lost there are still connections that can be used to get back to emotional closeness. There is a theme that reoccurs in Marx Debord and Baudrillard; the increasing negative power of capitalist structures, whether they be in the form of Alienation, the Spectacle or Simulation, always citing the starting point of the industrial revolution. Make link between Baudrillard, Debord and Marx with how they draw an increasing line of problems from the starting point of the industrial revolution. use desert of the real quote. plus hyper reality section 649 ­ word total 2546