OSD: Craft, Design, Economy

GARRICK: The context for this event is that a great number of conversations were begun last year with various people involved in design projects in development situations. We thought it might be an interesting idea to get various groups together and begin a conversation about what it takes to be successful, and indeed what is the definition of success in these situations.


TOM BARKER: I'm Prof of Industrial Design at the RCA. What we've been doing for the last couple of years is we've been taking students overseas for a couple of weeks to work with crafts people locally, and then we bring them back to London to complete the design process. The first project we did was in China. It was a dry run, but we didn't actually make any products. Last year Garrick and I put together a project in Thailand. The difference was we wanted to take it to the next level and create projects.

Our learning is we really have to find the strengths and weaknesses of any country. Initiating these projects is easier than its every been, but you really have to conclude and getting out it as difficult as its every been.

This is a map of the fastest growing countries in the world.

This is a map of the countries with the fastest growing tourism.

We spoke to the Thai's (TCDC) and

A map of countries with the most shops.

There were very good reasons for collaborating with Thailand. It was the most optimal location for establishing a production / sales base in the coming 5-10. Thailand is ranked as the the 3rd most attractive FDI locaiton in Asia and the 9th most attractive location in the world for the next four years. Has no paperwork, very friendly, relaxed attitude and a mixture of work and pleasure can be a plus and a minus.

The comparison between Thailand and London is interesting.

There are lots of compelling reasons to work with London. We identified a trend called Masclusivity – the art of creating very low batches of custom products, for people who had disposable income who wanted to to differentiate themselves. This is what makes Thailand distinct from somewhere like China which is based on an engineering and manufacturing competitive advantage.

ASHLEY: The project aims was to take 21 RCA students and 8 designers to design, manufacture and sell a range of Massclusive products. This was part of a Thai national strategy for the survival of their craft and making skills. Thailand can’t comopete on infrastructure, number of workers or labour rates. One of these things is to develop a modern Thai design language.

The outcomes of our projects is that our products were used as case studies by TCDC to show how design helps business. Factories developed new making skills. Some of the objects made by factories hadn’t changed in 100 years. It was also a proving ground for Go:Global.

The unexpected stuff that happened was concept creep. The stronger ideas got better and the weaker ideas dropped out. A good evolutionary approach. During the manufacturing stage the weaker ideas didn’t have champions. Factory courtship was interesting – most of the meetings were about establishing relationships. Some of the people couldn’t read drawings. Which meant we had to rapidly prototype ideas in London – which were then shipped over to Thailand.

A lot of the decision making process was consensus driven. The assumption was that everybody had to be involved in the design decisions.

These are our final products – the Ka -Tin collection.


KATE BLEE:

I’m a designer. I was approached out of the blue to get involved in a programme in South Africa. It had an emotional start without much research. Having said that all the designers who were getting involved had a great deal of experience. We weren’t students flowering out, we were all fairly experienced.

It was started in 2001 and called LOSA (London-South Africa). It cam out of the Sisisizwer Turst and the Khumbalani Crafts based in Johanneburg. They were working with woman with aids and a great deal of problems. The knowledge of the people and the links with the communities were fairly developed.

The point of it was to pick on the crafts skills which existsed, run workshops which could build on the skills and see if we do some development that could build products that could be lifted out of airports shops and placed on a the open market. A very ambitious project.

We all arrived and met at the airport for the first time. We brought a variety of ideas, and communication tools. We went out to Kwazulu Natal – and the aim was to have a show in Sotheby’s alongside the contemporary decorative arts show. We had a year. We put on a good exhibition, we had a great deal of quality press. Things developed very quickly. We had retailers interested in the stuff. Julia has experience in product development and employed to do the brave job of working in the communities and demand quality. There were also a lot of things to deal with people who were ill. We also had a master-craftsman project to enable us to identify good skills.

It was incredibly rural. It was very basic. No electricity. In some instances it was very basic. We were frustrated that we weren;t necessaryily going to get out a product that could sit on its own with other products free of being “made by a poort person”.

The negatives were it collapsed. We feel tenuous about it. We had 900 crafters involved, but its collapsed. It was cited in South African as being a shining light. It was taken into a stratospher which didn’t have a basis in the reality. The links in the chain were strong – purchasers, crafts people and designers – but we had management who were flailing around having to deal with the press, which were inflating the ideas before they were ready. We had money coming in from all kinds of people, lots of money promised on the basis of various things happening. And the Londoners were not being communicated with and were’nt were being consulted with.

The sad thing is just sort of melted away. Although the skills that were transferred and are still being used. A lot would have happened in those communities that wouldn’t have otherwise happened. We didn’t achieve sustainability. I have a few images of the products and of us working in the field.

Baba Oscerbie, Katy Beal, Julia Leaky, Tom Dixon, Natalie Hambro and Jessica Rose.
SIMON FRASER

Central St Martins MA in Jewellery Design.

Our students work with craft and artisan communities. From our experience, we have to be particularly careful as people coming in from the outside (London) into the politics of other countries.

Working with students who are working in their own countries, we see them bringing design identities from Europe, which may be not welcomed or viewed with suspicion. I think we have to be careful about working with very small or micro communities. If you work with Oxfam or working with people

The Zandra Rhodes woodblock project in India, was interesting and difficult. Everybody made shedloads of money and then went bankrupt which had very difficult implications for the families and communities involved.

We got involved because our students
I had some experience of working at the National Institute of Fashion and Design in Delhi. You have to make a commitment to people and you end up with an other familial type of responsibility. Its been interesting with people working inside their own cultures with new ideas it can be different. A designers input may be read in a certain way. The reverse is also true if you come in from a different culture. These perceptions have to be negotiated. In this can be some tremendous opportunities as well.

We are interested in engaged with economics. Speaking as a maker, we have material cultures that chime inside cultures. You look for bridges and areas of discourse where you can have engagement. This can be as simple as colour.

MAHANA CHESNY working in Pakistan and Delhi BRUMPTAN FROM Delhi who have been working


ANDY GOODMAN and ADAM THABO

We’ve created a product called SNAPSHOT. It’s a tool for facilitating Group learning. We both went to Thailand. We experienced the design process. The design process was called LOOK, we then went into a Concept Generation Phase, we worked through a matrix. We had two groups, one set developing designs and another looking at concepts that would inform the design.

The most interested things has been language barriers, communication and facilitating problem solving when it breaks down.
We’ve isolated the bare bones technology for communicating and solving problems together – very simply. A pen and a piece of paper – moving onto a collaborative project.

One barrier is the gap that exists between the workshops and the subsequent interaction and collaboration. Sometimes we use a WIKI which engage workshops beyond when they are together.

How can we facilitate communication across time and distance.


WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS?

Katy HOlford: I was working with a factory hands on. One of the biggest problems I have is communicating with my host in Thailand who only uses the mobile phone – not the web or email. Communication was the biggest challenge. How do you communicate across time and distance? I don’[t want to lose momentum. They’ve put the ceramic into production. They were launched at the Bangkok international gift fair in October – but I ask the questions and don’t get the responses.

Ray: I have two similar projects in Bethnal Greens – around bringing making skills, crafts and music to teenagers. I’m wondering is how do you define craft? Do you have to go overseas? I’m getting involved in Dott 07 to use design to regenerate the local economy.

This is very interesting – why does it have to be the other side of the world. There are so many problem – cultural differences, communication. And there are communities that can benefit dramatically from the similar approaches.


Tom: These are questions of globalisation. The modes of communications are very different. The proliferation of modes, in someways makes it harder to communicate. If you have mashed up communication you start getting surprises. This can be a problem in the design process. Each time it gets less painful and you get smarter at it. The techniques.

We are interested in the Wiki, but it only works if the manufacturers understand it.

Does long term success require collaboration, as opposed to consulting?

Or do people have to stay on the ground in order for it to be successful/

Katy: My belief if that you need to have someone on the ground. The Christopher Farr project in Turkey (making carpets) has a very reliable chain. It’s a network of trust.

It started out at by a prof at university who was worried about the collapse of traditional making. He wanted to rekindle the interest in the product. Its very gender related – woman weave, men dye. Its very village based. It was setup as a big cooperative.. The chain started with identifying the master craftspeople, they made the product, the reputation grew through their product, their was a training programme which passed on the information in an organic manner. It stayed within its size. It didn’t get political.

Simon: We’ve found is best to keep the politics out. The successful projects become victims of their own success and get appropriated by various politicians. Funding bodies want to be associated with the success. We’ve had some projects where an aid agency has taken. You have to look at who we are and what are we doing in that situation in the first place. We have to be honest about whether we’re doing production or political.

Dierdre Figuretti projects with Diaspora projects in Birmingham are very interesting. Which we don’t see – because its nots aimed at us – its for the communities.

The question of design to culture, community, ethnographic appropriation has to be our first question.

I agree. You first have to understand first the people and the culture.

BOLIVIA; My project is involved in Bolivia. Climate change is causing people to go to the cities. These people use Cactus in their own communities. They grow in semi-arid regions and could work better. It has great qualities which can be used to create different products. This can be used to sustain livelihood in their communities. Working with material in the habitat. They’ve made products – We discovered the properties of cactus. I wanted to develop something rustic. There is no community making the products yet. We need to money to make something happen.


Its about respect.


INDYPAUL: What worries me is the fickly design community with communities – building bespoke non-diverse supply chains – if something happens to the supply chain can have a devastating effect on the other side of the supply chain. We need to build resilience into the ecologies of supply chains on both sides.

SIMON: There are ethical considerations about health and safety.

ADAM:

DoiTung came into communities did health first, then agriculture and then education.


TOM: The Gates Foundation are getting involved in Africa. Within the department we run we believe in the benefit of design to enable economies. We get in return networking, a good research opportunity for our students. These are on a small scale. If the Gates sling a billion dollars at a country – that can have a massive impact on the economy. Dyson was talking about building fortress Great Britain. Previous collaborations. If you are making yourself part of the economy in the host country maybe you need to be there for the long run.

KATY: I think its important that everyone understands from the outset – that its openly win-win from the outset and together we can do something – something openly give and take.