Full draft sans conclusion

1. 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

2. 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’ (Marx, 2008 [1867]). 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
Mar​x, 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

3. 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 [1851]) 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’
(Marx, 2008 [1867]). However, Marx goes beyond this in creating the term ‘commodity
fetishim’ in which a product ‘​transcends sensuousness’ as it becomes a commodity and
leaves its ‘use value’ behind, ‘​as if value’ (Felluga, 2012d) were ‘inherent in the objects
themselves, rather than in the amount of real labor expended to produce the object.’ 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, ‘​it
is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for
them, the fantastic form of a relation between things’ (​Marx, 2008 [1867])​.​ 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.
793 words (loose 200)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The temptation to link physical 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

4. it is more of a way of looking at these relationships than the relationships themselves, a ‘world view’
if you will. The word Debord (1960) uses in the original text is ‘weltanschauung’, which is defined as
‘A particular ​philosophy​ or view of life; the ​world view​ of an ​individual​ or group.’ by Oxford
University Press (2015). THere is a clear lexical gap which justifies Debord’s use of the originally
German word.
Debord (2006 [1967])​ ​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 [1967]) 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 [1967])’ 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 664 total 1461 not including intro

5. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
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 [1981]). This process
involves the repeated copying of one image or media text until all originality or even
reference to originality is lost and what is created becomes ‘hyperreal’. 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 [1981]). 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 [1981])
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

6. 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, are always cited as starting with the industrial revolution. Before this point, it
seems, the capitalist hegemony was less ingrained. They all look back longingly, to a time
before our intensely consumerist culture, or are writing from before it truly took hold. Either
way, modern readers and theorists are all looking back to reshape the future. The manner of
this retrospective view, Jameson argues, creates alienation from our history when mixed with
our capitalist cultural structure.
I have chosen not to use the desert of the real quote because the explanation that would have
to accompany such a quote.
section 722 ­ word total 2191 not including intro
­–­–­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
In his essay ​Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, ​Jameson examines
temporal proximity through Simulation, in terms of our collective understanding of our
history. Jameson (1991 [1984]) declares ‘the new spatial logic of the simulacrum can now be
expected to have a momentous effect on what used to be historical time’. In simple terms he
is looking at the effects of Simulation on our perception of history, his use of ‘used to be’
already hinting at the pessimistic nature of his conclusion.
Jameson outlines Pastiche as a major part of Simulation that causes temporal alienation. He
describes it as a blank parody, in which history is represented as a set of signs, symbols and
stereotypes until ‘the past as a ‘referent’ finds itself gradually bracketed, and then effaced
altogether, leaving us with nothing but texts.’ In many ways Pastiche is simply a historical
Simulacrum, where something is repeatedly represented until any true reference point is lost
and ‘we can no longer understand the past except as a repository of genres, styles and codes
ready for commodification.’ (Felluga, 2011b) As explained by Marx, commodification leads
to alienation. As soon as history becomes a commodity we are alienated from it. According to
Jameson (1991 [1984]), this creates a culture where:

7. ‘the producers of culture have nowhere to turn to but the past: the imitation of dead styles,
speech through all the masks and voices stored up in the imaginary museum of a new global
culture.’
Here and throughout ​postmodernism ​Jameson chooses to use the word ‘masks’ to describe
the workings of Pastiche. A mask is a barrier between two people; a way of disguising and
distancing the truth and limiting the nuances of communication to be found in facial
expression. Although in this instance the mask is Pastiche and the one wearing it is the past
itself, Jameson creates a very vivid image of the distance that is unnaturally and somewhat
unsettlingly being created by our own system. Indeed Duvall (2012) describes Pastiche as
‘aestheticization of historical styles devoid of the political contradictions that those styles
embodied at their particular moment.’ This contradiction is the self examination and critical
dialogue that ‘both legitimizes and subverts that which it parodies’ (Felluga, 2011c). Jameson
(1991 [1984]) identifies this in Parody but not in Pastiche, hence the ‘blank Parody
description of Pastiche.
Linda Hutcheon takes a somewhat ‘contradictory stance’ (Felluga, 2011c) to Jameson on
Pastiche and Parody; she unites the terms into one, calling it postmodernist parody claiming
that ‘The paradox of postmodernist parody is that it is not essentially depthless, trivial kitsch,
as Eagleton and Jameson both believe, but rather that it can lead to a vision of
interconnectedness’. Even though original historical texts are not cited as ‘referent’ (Jameson,
1991), ‘it’s deliberate refusal to do so is not a naive one (Hutcheon, 1987). Hutcheon explains
that this refusal of postmodern parody to cite original historical texts is done to intentionally
spark examination of the original reference point, the very reference point that Baudrillard
and the Simulation claim to make false. In this way postmodern parody both enforces the
simulation through being part of its falseness, and challenges it by drawing attention to its
falseness. This ‘paradox’ (Hutcheon, 1987) is the centre of Hutcheon’s understanding of the
postmodern.
However, as both Hutcheon’s Postmodern Parody and Jameson’s Pastiche are the result of
postmodernism, it is defining the postmodern that allows deeper comparison of Hutcheon and
Jameson’ Parody and Pastiche. As cited by John Duval (2012) in ​Troping History: Modernist
Residue in Jameson’s Pastiche and Hutcheon’s Parody ​‘what they mean by postmodernism
is not the same thing: Jameson’s postmodernism focuses on the consumer, while Hutcheon’s
originates with the artist as producer.’ So, perhaps the two theorists, normally seen at odds
with one another are simply looking at two contexts for the same thing. Hutcheon looks
closely at ‘the artist's response to economic, social and ethical contexts created by
modernisation’, whereas Jameson is fixated with the greater general theme of ‘the axis of
consumption’ and the greater economic implications. This doesn’t mean that they cannot
exist simultaneously and be equally right. Arguably, Jameson cites the greater cultural
problem of historical alienation and its implications and Hutcheon starts to look at the

8. solution; the artist and producer, the way we make things for our culture. In other words, the
solution could be found in craft.
section 726 of 2949 not including intro (loose 450)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
End of Chapter One
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The first area I wish to explore is physical proximity in chalkboarding and crafts generally.
This is because, much like the first chapter demonstrates, the physical world is almost always
the starting point for deeper theory in some of the more metaphysical sectors. Our modern
understanding of the physical disciplines of craft, owe much to the ideals of the Arts and
Crafts movement of the late eighteen­hundreds. For Ruskin, Morris and the other movers and
shakers of the Arts and Crafts, the aim of craft practice was to achieve ‘integrated life and art’
(Racz, 2009) and ‘unite making and life in continuum’. One way this was thought to be
achieved was by facilitating ‘closeness to nature’ through the craft process and object. By
working with your hands in your immediate environment, with materials gathered from the
nature surrounding you Morris believed that craftspeople became closer to their environment.
This was seen to be reflected in the craft objects themselves ‘For as was the land so was the
art of it’ (Morris, 1878). Not only was this reflection of the world in created objects the result
of craft but also was to be praised and encouraged in practitioners ‘‘till the web, the cup, or
the knife, look as natural, nay as lovely as the green field, the river bank or the mountain
flint’. Ruskin (1960 [1851]) initiated this idea in ​The Nature of Gothic ​an essay within the
book ​The Stones of Venice, ​in which he applies the idea to architecture, saying that good
architecture should reflect its environment.
‘Let us not condemn, but rejoice in the expression by man of his own rest in the
statues of the lands that gave him birth. Let us watch him with reverence as he sets side by
side the burning gems, and smooths with soft sculpture the jasper pillars, that are to reflect a
ceaseless sunshine, and rise into a cloudless sky: but not with less reverence let us stand by
him, when with rough strength and hurried stroke, he smites an uncouth animation out of the
rocks which he has torn from among the moss of the moorland, and heaves into the darkened
air of the pile of iron buttress and rugged wall, instinct with a work of imagination as wild
and wayward as the north sea; creations of ungainly shape and rigid limb, but full of wolfish
life; fierce as the winds that beat, and changeful as the clouds that shade them.’ (Ruskin, 1960
[1851]).
Although the focus of this extract is architecture, the concept holds true for the creative
process generally. Our experiences, including our environment, are imbued into the things we
create. This can be seen in the most logical, cut and dry sense as well as theoretically and

9. mentally. When Ruskin talks of the ‘imagination as wild and wayward as the north sea’, not
only does he mean that if wild shapes and forms surround us we recreate these in our work,
but also that this cold unforgiving environment and life would create calloused hands that
lack dexterity and fine motor control. Ergo the forms created by those hands would be rough
and unrefined. This was so central to the Arts and Crafts ideologies that Morris (1878) said of
The Nature of Gothic ​‘you will read at once the truest and most eloquent words that can
possibly be said on the subject.’ Ruskin (1960 [1851]) develops on this, saying that this
should be celebrated and encouraged because this ‘expression’ of our ‘rest in the statues of
the land’, or for our purposes our physical proximity to our environment, is a positive and
desirable thing. David Gauntlet (2011) cites Ruskin’s ideas at length in his book ​Making is
Connecting, ​and expands upon them, saying that through this ‘expression’ (Ruskin, 1960
[1851]) ‘we increase our engagement and connection with our social and physical
environment’. It doesn’t take much of a leap to apply this ‘expression’ (Ruskin, 1960 [1851])
to craft. This can tangibly be seen in the work of contemporary chalk artist Valerie Mckeehan
(2015), who in defining her practice says that she ‘infuses her flourishes, flowers, typography
and quaint illustrations with the same sense of whimsy and elegance that inspires her at
home’, clearly showing the way that, for her, chalk art creates ‘a connection between humans
and handmade objects and nature’ (Guantlet, 2011).
Taking chalkboards as an example, it is clear to see that craft objects need physical proximity
and context to function. In short, ‘the objects are related to the environment’ (Racz, 2009) in
which they function. Lauren Hom’s project ​Will Letter for Lunch ​(fig.3 and 4)​,​ created some
extremely physically contextualised work which exemplifies this idea.