This chapter explores the emotional proximity between craftspeople and the objects they create. It discusses how the process of making crafts can provide enjoyment and a sense of flow for the creator. This emotional engagement is embedded in the crafted object, allowing audiences to perceive the self-expression of the maker even if they cannot explicitly see or read it. Crafted objects have a quality of human touch and emotion integrated into their design and making that digitally created things often lack.

1. Chapter 4 Emotional Proximity
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
The next type of proximity I wish to explore is that of emotional proximity. Examination will
take place on both sides of the crafted object, looking at the craftsperson, the audience and
the emotional connection both formed with the object by both. One of the main emotions that
craft objects often evoke or create, is enjoyment. Joy in making is a cornerstone of craft as
defined by Morris. He believed that through craft we would come to see work as a ‘blessing
of labour’ (Morris, 1878, p9) that ‘provided solace’ (Racz, 2009, p22). So central is this
enjoyment, that in some cases ‘the meaningful and rewarding process of making’ (Gauntlett,
2011, p68) has been seen as the reason for craft. According to Morris, this process is
‘rewarding’ (Gauntlett, 2011, p68) because ‘any work worth doing offers hope’ (Gauntlett,
2011, p4) and results in ‘the achievement of having made something worthwhile’ (Gauntlett,
2001, p41). The product of craft is important but it cannot be achieved properly without ‘a
conscious pleasure in the activity, while it is being engaged in’ (Gauntlett, 2011, p4).
Gauntlett (2011, p66) even goes on to say that it is the emotional proximity itself which
makes the craft process enjoyable, citing ‘the essentially intimate and personal nature of the
experience of making’. This experience is something that is examined as a central
requirement for happiness in ​The Concept of Flow ​by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Jeanne
Nakamura (2001?, p89), in which he claims ‘a good life is characterised by complete
absorption in what one does’. Flow is a name for this ‘absorption’ when ‘a person is wholly
engaged in a task, to the extent that time passes unnoticed, and they forget about the demands
external to the task’ (Gauntlett, 2011, p75) to the point where ‘the body and the mind can
flow together’ (Racz, 2009, p27). This is certainly something that I have experienced myself
(Appendix D). Producing a large chalkboard takes time, about seven hours, and during the
time it took me to create the board I did indeed enter a sought of trance like rhythm.
However, I wouldn’t say that this was the most mentally strenuous part of the process,
because I had already done all the trial and error while coming up with the design. According
to Gauntlett (2001, p75) to achieve Flow, the task needs to be ‘challenging in a satisfying
way’. This means that there is a balance to strive between the challenge of the task and skill
level of the individual. This is interesting, because I would certainly say that during the
design development stage of the chalkboard, the production of which is detailed in Appendix
D, I was much more engaged and time was something that I lost definitely lost track of.
Because Flow requires such a careful cross over of Challenge and skill, the controllable
variables of craft, compared to the set variables of computer programs, makes it a much more
suitable method for achieving Flow. Both Phylecia Sutherland (Appendix A) and Nick from
the Print Project (Appendix C) agree, saying that they felt a sense of autonomy in being able
to make a living by their own hands.
Just as any design process, Chalkboarding has its small challenges and victories that need to
be overcome in the development stage. This can be seen in the work of Valerie McKeehan
(Lily and Val 2013) and specifically the process of sketching that occurs before chalk touches

2. board. These small victories simulate an emotional engagement with the object and with the
process. Imogen Racz (2009, p26) takes this idea further saying that this engagement is ‘a
way of expressing the human’ and Gloria Hickey (1997, p95) agrees, saying that the
craftsperson makes use of ‘tools of self expression’ when making. So much so that ‘the
individual becomes implicated within the object’ (Racz, 2009, p35). Both Roger Grech
(Appendix B) from The Papercut Bindery and Nick (Appendix C) from The Print Project,
reinforced this idea in their interviews. Roger talked about ‘putting yourself’ into a crafted
object and Nick talked about the energy stored in lead and wood type as it is used and used
again. What is interesting is that this emotional proximity or expiry of effort on the part of the
craftsperson makes the object valuable or special ­ ‘people are willing to pay to have
something unique, which they may well not use, but which will be special to them’
(Racz, 2009, p34). However, do we as designers, perceive this self expression when an
uninitiated eye would not? While it is hard quantify this, it is easy to see from the content of
the third chapter that the people behind craft objects are part of what customers buy into
when they purchase a craft object. This is also true of chalkboard artists. The Instagram feed
of one Lauren Hom is testament to this. In Fig 5, 6 and 7 ​Insert full image refs​ examples can
be found of the time, effort and process behind the work that she produces. Fig 6. is in
particular an apt demonstration; it is a still taken from a time lapse video of her producing a
chalkboard. Such a video draws attention to the time and skill involved in such a production,
by showing it at every stage, it is part of what customers buy into when they commission her.
As such, it can bee seen that a commodity is made of the self expression and emotional
interaction with the chalkboard and by extension, the crafted object. Therefore, even if
audiences cannot quite read the emotional interaction in the crafted object, they search for
ways to find it out and craftspeople use it to sell.
Arguably, there is a much higher possibility of audiences reading the emotional proximity in
a crafted object than in a digitally created object because the aesthetic is often more relatable.
Helen Rees (1997, p126) explores this idea through ergonomic design, arguing that digital
designs use of ergonomics:
‘was intended to ensure increased comfort and efficiency in the resulting product. (yet
objects made by hand frequently achieve the same effect, simply because human factors are
integrated into every part of the process, from conception to realisation.)’
In this situation chalkboards can be seen as conceptually or visually ergonomic; ore tailored
to the human eye and mind, because ‘human factors are integrated into every part of the
process’. This in comparison to the ‘glossy wizardry which we find it more difficult to relate
to’ (Gauntlett, 2011, p72). We cannot relate to it because we cannot read the self expression
of the maker in the object ­ ‘with no magical, smile­inducing spark behind it, the constructed
thing is just, well, a constructed thing.’ (Gauntlett, 2011, p77). In short, the process of
creation involves emotional closeness between person and object. Craft objects allow
someone else to achieve a similar or parallel of that closeness, because it is both made

3. through and made to evoke, emotional closeness. A conceptual path traveled and marked by
the creator, for the customer/audience.
Section 1172 (perfect!) Total 8669