Ann marie Shillito is a jeweller and was one of the applied artists participating in Applied Arts Scotland's Distance Project, exploring the potential of Virtual Reality for their practice. Ann Marie focused on the practicalities of designing jewellery and getting the models 3D printed. This presentation is about using a maker' tacit knowledge to design in Virtual Reality on that journey.

1. DISTANCE2 Project ALM Group: Introduction and Part 1
Investigating the usefulness of VR as a tool for Applied Artists
Ann Marie Shillito, Maija Nygren, (Lara Townsend)
Our theme and focus is ‘Tacit Knowledge’, what Sennett describes as grounding:
the ‘constant interplay between tacit knowledge and self-conscious awareness, the tacit knowledge serving as
an anchor, the explicit awareness serving as critique and corrective’. (Sennett. The Craftsman. Pg 50).
Ann Marie Shillito:
Our tacit knowledge, gained through
our making practice, means that we
can work in the abstractness of a
virtual environment because we
intuitively and innately understand
what our materials, tools and
processes can and can’t do. We use
our knowledge to compensate for the
inadequacy of VR to simulate real-
world materials and practice. Our
tacit knowledge enables us to create
forms and objects that can be 3D
printed to exist in our real world.
Maija Nygren:
Through the tacit knowledge we acquire whilst
getting to know our craft, we learn to
understand how materials behave, throughout
the variety of stages of transformation from
original form to the final outcome. Gravity
Sketch acts as an in-between of the initial idea
and the technical realisation of a final piece.
Through GS, it is possible to explore a multitude
of variables, sketch, using VR materials that
represent, but don’t assimilate, those to your
own craft, to visually, and 3-dimensionally,
configurate componential arrangements. These
arrangements are not intended as visualisations
of final outcome, these are coded transcripts,
that inform the next stage of making.

2. Share the joy of ….,,
~ ‘making more’ (in 3D), exploring our craft, finding the flow of
making and sketching quicker (leas time & resource restrictions)
~ reduce carbon footprint and work towards sustainability
~ share working practice with others, disseminate what
we have learnt
~ share our insights so that other applied artists can
make worthwhile decisions about how VR technologies
can work for their own practice
~ Visualise bigger, see bigger perspectives
~ Beyond a makers immediate comfort space
VR:
a great tool for
Applied Artists
ALM VENN
Actions/What to do:
~ collaborate on ways to
dissemination our information
about the value of Tacit
Knowledge (TK) for working
effectively in VR
What we are passionate about
What we are good at
What can be done in VR
~ using our hands, developing new ideas, being creative
~ holistic ways of working, enabling others, transferrable skills of making
~ making, solving issues, exploring the making of the making, reaching a point of working together with a material,
~ collaborating, joint projects/challenges, interacting and learning from each other
- making meaningful connections with materials, with humans, with source of materials
~ Enabling others, sharing our knowledge, experience
and information,
~ investigating and exploring technology, materials and
processes,
~ working together to share & expand our thoughts
~ adding value to materials we use
~ Working sustainably, finding meaning, searching
for the source of ‘stuff’
Understand and value our
Tacit Knowledge gained
through our making practice
Understand how
Tacit Knowledge
adds pragmatism
for working in
VR
Demonstrate that applied
artists can ‘fly’ in VR

3. ‘Knowing how’ is difficult to gain any other way than
directly from the experience of handling materials,
exploring through physical manipulation with tools
and 'what-if' approach.
With practice this knowledge becomes embedded as
tacit knowledge, knowledge that is difficult to extract,
to verbalise and transfer.
What is tacit knowledge

4. DISTANCE ALM Group:
Ann Marie Shillito
• The purpose of AAS’s DISTANCE Project: understand the ways in
which makers could and would want to use immersive
technology to engage themselves and others with their craft
practice.
• ALM group: focus on how our tacit knowledge, as makers,
enables us within our different disciplines to effectively make
use of VR.
• ALM group’s disciplines: knitting and crocheting (transformative
discipline), 3D print jewellery (additive discipline) and stone
carving* (subtractive discipline).
• Through our discussions over months we asked: what is tacit
knowledge, why it is important, how we gain it and how we use
it in our practice.
• These discussions helped us reflect on how this knowledge,
hidden within our ‘expertise’, informs our thinking and doing,
helps in the decision making process and how this is transferred
across to working digitally with the design programmes we use.
• This is Ann Marie’s contribution to our ALM group project. This
is about tacit knowledge in VR and how when we are designing
in GravitySketch we bring in our tacit knowledge to that design
process.
1

5. • Tacit knowledge can be defined as skills, ideas,
and know-how that people hold not only in
their minds but also in their muscles, such as
‘muscle memory’.
• The concept of tacit knowledge was introduced
by Michael Polanyi in 1958 with an assertion
that “We can know more than we can tell”.
• Tacit knowledge is different from explicit
knowledge.
• While explicit knowledge can be easily shared,
stored or articulated, tacit knowledge, on the
other hand, is so embedded in ‘know-how’ that
we don’t know we have it!
‘Knowing how’ is difficult to
gain any other way than
directly from the experience
of handling materials,
exploring through physical
manipulation with tools and
'what-if' approach.
With practice this knowledge
becomes embedded as tacit
knowledge, knowledge that is
difficult to extract,
to verbalise and transfer.
2 Part 1 Tacit Knowledge, as an enabler for making effective use of VR.

6. Why is tacit knowledge important?
Tacit knowledge is important because expertise rests on it. About 90% of our knowledge is
embedded and synthesized in tacit form.
3
How do we gain tacit knowledge?
Being tacit makes it difficult to share and give to
others. They have to gain it themselves by doing it
themselves, and by ‘sitting next to Nelly’, observing
and becoming aware of her nuances.
How do we use tacit knowledge in our practice?
As tacit knowledge is hidden within our ‘expertise’,
it can be understood as the ‘instinct’ or ‘intuitive’
gut feeling that informs our thinking and doing. It
can be understood as ‘talent’, ability and skill as
it has the potency and capacity to enhance and
increase the quality of our work Importantly it also
helps in the decision making process.

7. When we make things in our real world we use our explicit knowledge
overtly and our tacit knowledge instinctively and innately as we work
because we have ‘know-how’ and understand what our materials, tools
and processes can and can’t do.
Can we then transfer this attribute, this ‘know-how’ into working in the
abstractness of a virtual environment where we can’t touch and feel the
digitally created forms we are creating and manipulating?
As makers with oodles of ‘know-how’, does our tacit knowledge brings any advantages when
working in virtual reality?
Working virtually has many advantages and benefits as the digital
data created is very flexible and offers opportunities for iterative
development and prototyping, for ‘what if’ scenarios,
manipulation, sharing, collaborating, manufacturing and so on.
There is ample motivation for makers to create digitally, especially
so if we have ‘know-how’ and can use it to do this successfully.
I devoted a chapter of my book ‘Digital Technology: Industrial
Technologies for Applied Artists and Designer Makers’ to this
advantage we have and this DISTANCE Project gave me the
opportunity to revisit this again.
4

8. From previous research experience, understanding how
difficult is to make the tacit explicit, the one
methodology which worked to an extent, is to video
capture my creative process when using GravitySketchVR
(GS_VR) to create a form for a specific purpose. It helps
to have the video taken from a viewpoint that is as close
as possible to what is seen when actually designing or
making. In GravitySketchVR the viewpoint of the video is
from exactly where I am, and what I see I am doing.
Stage two is to watch the video carefully and
thoughtfully. Stage three is to go through the video again
and voice record as closely as possible what I thought I
was doing and what I was considering. Stage four is
reflection to give me an inkling of the knowledge used to
make the little decisions that inform the design’s
progress. Being tacit knowledge, and therefore not
explicitly known, this process of reflection will probably
only scratch the surface.
A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
5
This is from a video, taken in GS-VR, in the process of
developing a ‘frame’ of 3D forms directly around the
edge of the image. The right controller seen bottom
centre is creating one of these.

9. It is important to separate out these stages as regarding,
talking about and reflecting on what is being done is
cognitively different from the process of designing and
making. Tacit knowledge is embedded in the state of ‘flow’,
the state when concentration is acutely focused on thinking
and working through the challenges of how to achieve what
is aimed for and solving the issues using all our knowledges,
our expertise and skills.
Flow is too easily disrupted and from my experience as a
designer maker when this happens my work loses the
insightfulness and depth that is seemingly informed by the
tacit knowledge that I have built up with direct know-how.
We all know what it is to have our state of ‘flow’ disrupted!
This process of scrutinising videos continues to be a
laborious undertaking. As I watch the video, I talk into my
mobile and this is transformed into text which needs a lot of
editing! I have therefore concentrated on recording my
thought on those sections where I considered my
knowledge, both explicit and tacit, were influencing my
decision making.
A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
6

10. I start with a very constrained project: designing a 3D printed brooch
comprising a frame to hold a piece of Carol Sinclair’s porcelain.
“Here goes! Oculus headset charged up, hand controllers at the ready,
video cam running and all set to start designing in GS-VR!
The initial 01.38 MINUTES of the video is actually horrendous as I navigate
my way around using the hand controllers, finding the right folders to
open up! The video jumps around so much I have quite a job while I watch
the video seeing where I am, following what I am doing as I record through
dictation what my processes are.
I finally after quite a bit of phaffing (opening a folder, looking for my files,
looking through them, wandering around) I am into gravity sketch and click
on the reference images icon in the menu accessed on the left controller.
Again wondering around quite a bit trying to find exactly where I’m going. I
finally find my folder. I open it up and see my imported image [1], a jpeg of
a porcelain off-cut [2] that Carol Sinclair has sent to me that I want to bring
into the space and start working on it. I press the wrong button on the
right controller and have to then delete the unwanted object created.
Attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
7
1
2

11. Try next to remember how to pick up my image so
that I can bring it into the gravity sketch space.
Actually pick it up. I want to create a digital frame
for the porcelain, to 3D print the frame and embed
the porcelain piece in the process of printing [1] as
I have already done with two other pieces. So I
have explicit knowledge of what I have to do to
successfully make this into jewellery [2].
2minutes 31seconds into the video: I pick up and
bring the image into my virtual GS-VR work space
and now use the controllers in both hands to scale
it up [3]. I click on the ‘volume’ icon as knowing
what will 3D print, my plan is to build up different
solid forms and sizes of pebble shapes [4]. I then
open up the colour cylinder, picking up the beige
colour, and I’m wandering about, thinking not so
much about where to start building the frame
around the image but prepping myself and my
hand movements.
Attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
8
1 2
3
4

12. I go to start at the top left-hand corner and as it is a
volume that I am forming, I’m sort of also thinking
about how deep the object should be.
It’s a little bit difficult to gauge this looking at it straight
on but I don’t want to disrupt my thinking by rotating
the environment to see the volume or height of objects
created.
I can deal with this later by scaling them in the Z axis to
increase/decrease depth. From the front I just need my
visual and subjective judgement on how the frame and
porcelain work together.
I work my way around the image then go back into the
colour selector cylinder and pick up on the dark grey. I
start again top left and pulling out shapes. I seem to be
doing it quite intuitively, working round the edge
keeping in mind Carol’s piece, its thinness, breakability
and keeping in mind that I want to make a frame that
would support and enhance the piece of porcelain.
I decide to go no further with reflections on this specific
design in GravitySketchVR but move on to the next.
Attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
9
1
2
3
4

13. The first exploration into tacit knowledge (Part 1) was creating this
frame for a piece of porcelain using GravitySketch-VR ‘. How am I
tapping into my tacit knowledge? Does this reside in my hand
movements as I adapt more and more to using the Oculus hand
controllers, in the small decisions of when to stop forming the shape,
what kind of form I make, the aesthetics, reasons for deleting or
moving a form? Is it possible that my act of reflecting as I re-watch the
video of what I did will make some tacit knowledge more explicit?
For Part 2, I want to concentrate on one specific feature of
GravitySketch-VR and that is creating flowing three dimensional
calligraphic forms that can be 3D printed for jewellery. This is the
feature that I like most and could be interesting, tacit knowledge-wise
I will keep in mind what Sennett describes as grounding, the ‘constant
interplay between tacit knowledge and self-conscious awareness, the
tacit knowledge serving as an anchor, the explicit awareness serving as
critique and corrective’. (Sennett. The Craftsman. Pg 50).
Tacit Knowledge and decision making when designing in VR!
1 Part 2 Tacit Knowledge, as an enabler for making effective use of VR.

14. By re-running the video I took while using GS-VR and going over it
again and again, I comment on what I see is happening and try to
remember my thinking at the time as I create. I record the decisions
being made regarding the movement of the controller to draw a
three dimensional form that I both like and could be 3D printable
with the minimum of issues and corrections. So here goes!
00:00 – 0:06: Open tablet menu of the ‘stroke shape tool’, to
determine the profile [1] and orientation of the 3D linear form which
I created using hand movements with the Oculus right-hand
controller.
00:06 - 00:12: move the marker up a bit and left then move the hand
controller into the work space to see the size and thickness of the
profile selected. As I estimate this is a bit fine for 3D printing, I move
the marker a bit to the right and then move into the work space to
see the profile and size [2]. This feels about right but will only know
once I start designing. This is because the proportions of the whole
piece need to be pretty close to being okay for 3D printing, strong
enough to be wearable as a brooch, and most important, to have the
aesthetic that I want and will try to achieve.
2 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
1
2

15. This is about having the thickness of the linear forms good for printing and strength but thin enough to
achieve the calligraphic signature that I have in mind.
This is where I see an element of tacit knowledge informing the selection of that profile because I am not
using any method of measurement: it is all ‘by eye’.
Does this means that I must be acting intuitively and pulling up ‘knowing how’, the knowledge that is difficult
to gain any other way than directly from the experience of 3D printing, handling the polyimide material that I
aim to have it printed in, physical manipulating with tools to make it into a wearable piece?
Has my hands-on experience over the years become embedded as tacit knowledge, knowledge that is
difficult to extract, to verbalise and transfer? What are the right proportions for thickness, depth and the
eventual size?
I will only know that I have the right proportions when I upload the model to be 3D printed so this next stage
of designing is going to be challenging!
3 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?

16. 00:12- 00:23: Now the fun really starts as this is the part I really love, free sweeping movements that can swirl
and twist! In the video, I see the tentative movements I make with the right hand controller and keep notice of
the orientation of the three dimensional elongated oval form that is the profile of my line. I am waving the
controller about, like freeing up my hand, wrist and arm movements in preparation for ‘drawing a line’, angling
my ‘oval drawing tool’ so that it has depth for strength but looks delicate from the front.
Interesting to observe these eleven seconds again and while I watch the video of this my thinking is about
‘muscle memory’ which is the ability to reproduce a particular movement without conscious thought,
acquired as a result of frequent repetition of that movement.
I am also thinking about proprioception, also referred to as kinaesthesia. This is the sense of self-movement
and body position. It is sometimes described as our "sixth sense". It is mediated by proprioceptors,
mechanosensory neurons located within muscles, tendons, and joints. Our kinaesthetic sense, that is, learning
through a physical activity, is about our awareness of the position and movement of parts of our body by
means of these proprioceptors in the muscles and joints.
4 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?

17. 3 4 5
6
5 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
Was this, with my hand movements, sweeping, twisting and
turning, a preparation to committing myself to ‘making a mark’?
00:24: - 00:57: And then I take off and in one go, in 6 seconds,
produce a design [3 – 6] that I am fairly happy with! It’s seemed
that the prep that I did was helpful.
Am I tuning in to something? Yes I am because I remember that in these seconds I was visualising in my mind
the sweeping free movements I had done before in GravitySketchVR and loved the 3D effect so much.

18. It looked okay taking account of the proportions of the piece.
I knew that I could come back to this and, as I want to do more
models, I moved it aside.
7
6 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
8
I want to look at the piece from other directions. If any piece using
this technique is to work as a brooch it would be good to not have
any parts sticking out too much and be vulnerable.
I very cack-handedly rotate the piece and look at it from the side [7]
and the back [8]. My concerns centred on the depth of the line as
strength in a 3D print in polyamide is crucial as the granules of
plastic are sintered in layers, making it tough but a bit brittle.

19. 9
7 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
00:57 – 01:12. I have a quick look as the first piece, hesitate a wee bit,
wee movement of the wrist, and then sweep in a curve from left to right,
come back round in a similar movement to the first. I very swiftly delete
this model [9] as it is awful, ugly, undynamic and I definitely don’t like it
visually.
01:12: - 01:48: Next go, again with hesitation and bit of movement, go
from right to left and round to the right in a loop, and again and again,
with a long flourish at the end [10]. Horrible. Delete.
11 12
10
On to the next one. New tactic as
I go back to my first attempts in
GravitySketchVR of drawing
separate curved lines [11] crossing
over and through each other. But
end up deleting these as well. And
not just because the model looks
like a pray mantis [12].

20. 8 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit? 13
01:48: - 02:15: Again some hesitation and hand movement, a look at
the first model again, a pause and off again, back to just one
continuous sweep [13].
And delete.
Definitely do not want to save any of these and next attempt [14] is
just as feeble.
02:15 - 02:46 Its back to separate sweeping lines with a bit more of a
flourish [15].
14
15 16
I add another
sweep and
manipulate it [16]
but eventually
delete it all.

21. I am going backwards! Why why why can’t I improve on the very first
model? Is it something to do with trying too hard?
Isn’t this approach one of the benefits of working digitally, to explore
iteratively, to save, change, undo, redo, delete?
So I carry on and seem to have moved into a more thoughtful mode,
moving more slowly, and with more consideration, pausing to look at
the forms and their juxtapositioning, moving and tweaking, deleting
lines with no feel to them (what does that mean?) and then working
with 2 lines that I like [17].
9 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit?
17
18
19
I add a scribble [18], move it around, move it off, do another [19].
And almost all of this selecting seems to be based just on visual
considerations. I did notice and delete one that would be difficult to
3D print and deleted some that would be weak.

22. 22
05:00 - 06:11 I moved the two lines around, something that is so easy to do
with 3D digital objects, then go back to doing a filler scribble. Hmmmm.
Have a long look at the original model. I think I was trying to get into that
relaxed, intuitive mode, possibly tap into that tacit something that I had
right at the beginning of this session! I came back to the two lines, go for a
‘filler’ again. [20] Oh dear! No like at all. Delete.
06:11 - 09:01 Brief look at the original again and with the bit of prep, I
notice I was moving the controller more than I had before in what looks like
a very considered way, visualising I presume, like a diver does, thinking
through their complex set of twists and turns before completing their dive!
I was happy with the resulting form and moved it around into different
positions on the two lines, tweaking its placing, flipping it over, tweaking
again. I moved the original form closer, I presume as a reference? Visual
and/or the influence of something deeper perhaps. While trying to delete
an unwanted shape I inadvertently undid the flip and all the tweaks! And
that’s it. There it was. What I had a few moves ago. I had the second form
that I want. I put the two one above the other and saved them by exporting
the two in an .obj file format.
10 A methodology: attempting to make tacit knowledge more explicit? 20
21

23. Part 3 is about the next stages towards getting the 3D models prepared for 3D
printing and to make into jewellery. This next part is the “proof of the
pudding” regarding what Sennet says: that is that tacit knowledge serves as
an anchor, the explicit awareness serves as critique and corrective. Were the
decisions I made as I designed in VR with GravitySketch, based on these two
levels of knowledge, good enough for these design to be within the
parameters required to be wearable 3D printed jewellery.
Ann Marie’s focus is on what Sennett describes as
grounding, the ‘constant interplay between tacit knowledge
and self-conscious awareness, the tacit knowledge serving
as an anchor, the explicit awareness serving as critique and
corrective’.
11
Two brooches created using
gestural movements in
GravitySketch-VR, were
finalised in using
Anarkik3DDesign & 3D printed,
white one in polyamide, the
other in multicolour polymer .

24. Part 3. TACIT KNOWLEDGE as an enabler for making effective use of VR:
Part 3 is about the next stages of getting the 3D models prepared for 3D
printing and to make into jewellery. This is the “proof of the pudding”
regarding what Sennet says: that “tacit knowledge serves as an anchor,
the explicit awareness serves as critique and corrective.”
Were the decisions I made as I designed in VR with GravitySketch, based
on these two levels of knowledge, good enough for these design to be
within the parameters required to be wearable 3D printed jewellery?
1
Two brooches created using
gestural movements in
GravitySketch-VR, finalised using
Anarkik3DDesign & 3D printed,
white one in polyamide, the other
in multicolour polymer .
Finished 3D printed brooch with
inset porcelain piece by Carol
Sinclair. The pebble like forms
were created in GravitySketch-VR
into a frame around an image of
the porcelain. The model had to
be reworked and finalised in
Anarkik3DDesign to 3D print in
multicolour polymer.
Objective: “Proof of the pudding” - Prove practicality by 3D printing
models created, and finish as wearable pieces.

25. 2
The brooch frame, created in GravitySketchVR was transferred to a
the 3D modelling programme [1] that I use a lot (Anarkik3DDesign).
When I eventually decided on how I would attach the porcelain piece
into its frame, I digitally created a reasonably accurate replica [2] of
the porcelain piece to subtract from the frame to create the ledge
into which to seat the ceramic piece securely. But subtraction
significantly weakened the frame structure and created tapering and
thin edges [3]. When uploaded to 3D print service company,
iMaterialise, they deemed it sufficiently fragile to not survive 3D
printing and post processing!
Previously I have just gone ahead and ordered at my own risk as
thickening can muck up the visual aesthetic. 3D print service
companies do play safe to guard their bottom line.
This time I played safe and rethought through how to strengthen the
frame by thickening forms, adjusting positions, adding new bits, to
strengthen the frame to be 3D printable in a multicolour polymer.
And added coloured to the different ‘pebble’ forms.
1
2
3
Objective: “Proof of the pudding” - Prove practicality by 3D printing
models created, and finish as wearable pieces.

26. 3D print service company replied that the amended frame was still
too fragile. After trying different solutions to make frame robust, I
decided on having the 3D pebble forms embedded into a solid
border frame.
Less delicate, more striking! One of the advantages of the new
heavier frame is having a thicker edge into which to securely fix the
steel brooch pin and hook.
I am very ambivalent about this piece as I feel that both explicit
knowledge and the tacit knowledge that should have served as the
anchor to my general knowledge didn’t do a very good job!
My main knowledge as explicit awareness should serve as critique
and corrective, such as knowing generally the parameters for
different 3D printing materials and the systems involved.
Each design is different and maybe the little tacit knowledge I do
have in this area aided decision making to the extent that this piece
did end up being 3D printed – minor proof of the pudding maybe?
3 Objective: “Proof of the pudding” - Prove practicality by 3D printing models created, and finish as
wearable pieces.

27. I Iove using gestural movements in GravitySketch-VR and exploring the
tactic of fluid movements for creating forms, again for jewellery and
specifically for brooches. My biggest concern was that a model with the
calligraphic effect I wanted to achieve might not be strong enough to
withstand 3D printing and post processing.
strong enough and the right size to be wearable as a brooch, and to have
the aesthetic that I wanted to achieve. Getting the profile of the ‘3D
drawing tool’ right was crucial to being able to work without thinking about
this. Once in the flow of creating, the ‘constant interplay between tacit
knowledge and self-conscious awareness’ came into its own and exploring
ideas became a fluid and enjoyable activity.
I felt that previous explicit awareness which serves as critique and
corrective was becoming embedded to the extent that I was working
intuitively within these parameters. I do feel that there is more that is
underlying this and that this is just scratching the surface still.
4 Objective: “Proof of the pudding” - Prove practicality by 3D
printing models created, and finish as wearable pieces.
Proportion and size need to be within
parameters: slightly different for each
3D printing material and system,

28. The two forms created were imported to Anarkik3DDesign to add
solidness to where the steel brooch pin and hook are fixed. But the
models also needed a bit of technical repairing before being
uploaded to the 3D print service company, iMaterialise who
responded with feedback that there were areas that were
problematic.
Basically, edges became very thin where there were twists and
turns in the form and ‘bad’ mesh and weak spots created. (It is a
technical issues: GS-VR uses ‘marching cubes’, a computer graphics
algorithm as a method to keep 3D lines capped and solid as they
are drawn. The cubes’ mesh can be forced back on itself, inside
becomes outside, knots occur.)
After a bit more work iMaterialise were asked to go ahead and 3D
print as I would take full responsibility for flaws, cracks, breakages,
whatever. This is after all a learning project and more can be learnt
from feedback, and by analysing reasons for failures.
5 Objective: “Proof of the pudding” - Prove practicality by 3D
printing models created, and finish as wearable pieces.

29. Maybe I do have a modicum of tacit knowledge regarding the
act designing with gesture movements. It must have aided
those instantaneous decisions I made when in full flow to the
extent that these two pieces did end up being 3D printable –
with a bit of tweaking!
How then to get better at creating 3D models and improving
their 3D printability, using GravitySketchVR’s ‘stroke’ tool,
hand gestures, rotating and moving the hand controller?
With reflection and analysis, the cause of the mesh issues are
those lovely enjoyable flourishes with twists and turns. This is
such a novel and seductive way to draw a 3D line that it is
difficult not to get carried away and forget what not to do.
Therefore, if the output is going to be a straightforward 3D
printed job, twists and turns should be avoided. And knowing
how to do this is difficult to gain any other way than directly
with hands-on experience, exploring through physically
manipulation the hand controllers and a 'what-if' approach.
6 Objective: “Proof of the pudding” - Prove practicality by
3D printing models, and finish as wearable pieces.
The way to do this is to practice, practice,
practice at not twisting and turning.
With practice this knowing how becomes
embedded as tacit knowledge, knowledge
that is difficult to extract, to verbalise and
transfer. Its just there and very precious!

30. All these models (except the colourful one bottom right) have potential to go
forward as 3D printed jewellery, probably brooches. The colourful model was
just about playing, trying out the tool for making planes which formed between
the two moving hand controllers. It is not 3D printable. It was fun and frivolous!
With these last two final groups of 3D linear forms it was practice, practice,
practice at not twisting and turning. It was difficult to do both cognitively and
practically because I am still a novice. This is the nub.
If they are 3D printable, that will be a bonus and ‘proof of this pudding’.
7 Objective: “Proof of the pudding” - Prove practicality by 3D printing
models created, and finish as wearable pieces.

31. Objective: Explore GS-VR creating forms using gestural movements and mixture of tools..
8
Knowing how’ is difficult to gain any other way than directly from the
experience of doing, handling materials, exploring through physical
manipulation with tools and pushing boundaries with a robust 'what-if'
approach.
‘With practice this knowledge becomes embedded as tacit knowledge,
knowledge that is difficult to extract, to verbalise and transfer.’
In conclusion: It is experts who hold tacit knowledge. It is possible to
tease open at least some of the elements and traits of the tacit
knowledge we gain through many hours of working skilfully at the same
task to become an expert. And one of the best ways to transfer this
hidden gift is in the master/apprentice arrangement of learning.
Another way to make tacit knowledge explicit in order to pass it on is
having a robust methodology to aid objective reflection.
Being able to video what I am doing in GravitySketchVR became a
valuable tool for watching and working out my thinking behind minute
decisions being made when in the flow of working.