In summary, the first three chapters of this exegesis offer the following key points:
1. A crisis of stuff and sustainability
There is a clear crisis in the proliferation of stuff; stuff has exponentially increased over the last century. With more and more stuff comes more and more waste that in turn impacts social, cultural, political and environmental imperatives. As was discussed, moving toward sustainability is a difficult task as many of the structures that support the production, consumption and disposal of stuff have become increasingly hidden from view. We have progressively become disconnected from where our stuff comes from and where it ends up. This affects studio-based craft and design, and for that any design-based discipline, as at the heart of what it does is the production of more stuff. This raises questions around the roles, responsibilities and ethical dimensions of practice.
A key question that asks “why make more stuff” poses as a driver for enquiry into what might define alternative modes of practice; that is, the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of designing and making and how this might manifest in practice. This, however, requires a broader perspective and understanding of design that further acknowledges ‘business as usual’ approaches still perpetuate unsustainable practice.
2. A call for ‘new’ practice and understanding design
As the world changes, design also has an obligation to change in response to emergent concerns and issues. This section highlighted that design is a key mechanism in how the world is shaped. The problem of waste is therefore both an issue of and for design. To adequately respond to this reality requires acknowledging that the act of design is a conundrum; design is both part problem and part solution. Design practice requires an increasingly holistic view and a re-direction away from existing models.
Given the problems faced with what to do with excessive amounts of waste, it is highlighted that design has the capacity to engage in practices of reuse and repair as the means for keeping things in circulation and out of landfill. Instead of continually producing more and more new stuff, it is suggested that ‘designing for sustainability’ could turn attention to dealing with what already exists.
3. Limits of SBCD and a shift to problem-based practice
Like the world of stuff, it appears that SBCD could also be in crisis. Amongst a plethora of other factors, there is a decline in the profession and it is not well supported educationally or within wider policy settings. SBCD is also implicated in the aforementioned boarder scenario of stuff and is often fixated on rote disciplinary concerns that fail to engage with wider circles of significance.
Despite these problems, SBCD is a vocation that holds many positive attributes. SBCD, through the studio as a free and independent space, is a prime incubator for innovative practices that are agile and capable of performing interventions into existing mass-materiality. However, to be relevant and timely, SBCD has to shift from singular disciplinary lines of enquiry to ‘problem-based’ practice and an acknowledgment that practice sits within an ecology of cause and effect.
PART 2: WHAT TO EXPECT
The next section seeks to put theory into practice. The proceeding chapters cover works that explore key points raised in the literature. Work is discussed in chronological order; every case study begins with the motivating premise or background followed by an overview of production via the studio and the thinking that drives it. Each chapter finishes with a critique or synopsis against the literature. Additional theoretical points are raised throughout this discussion, to augment the work. The proceeding works highlight how my practice is changing and as the project progresses, the thinking that underpins each of the examples grows in complexity and sophistication. What is most prevalent in these examples is that the practice shifts significantly from making to re-making and further to using design as a facilitator for local community engagement that focuses on reuse and repair as the means for bringing people together.
Chapter 4 covers a series of commissioned side tables made to a client brief. This work utilises reused materials that also incorporates elements of reparability. Through a critique of the final result, my conclusion still ties it to an old model of working that does not respond adequately enough to the aims set out for this project.
Chapter 5 discusses a stool prototype that was an attempt to directly engage with the waste stream. This was exhibited in the gallery sector. Although these examples begin to develop further notions around the ethical implications of designing and making, and reusing and repairing, again, this studio work is only an incremental step away from existing practice.
Chapter 6 documents a commissioned lighting installation for a cultural institution that transforms 80 plastic milk bottles into a cloud-like form. This project marks the beginnings of a big shift and a ‘letting go’ of preconceived ideas about practice and what things should look like.
Chapter 7 introduces a solo exhibition, Crafting Waste. This group of work signifies a point where the project really starts to take shape through a direct and open collaboration with stuff salvaged off the side of the road and out of general waste bins. Crafting Waste also delves into small-scale interventions with waste materials that encourage participation from the community.
Finally Chapter 8 presents a collaborative research and remaking project, Object Therapy. This case study asks members of a local community to submit broken objects for transformative repair. These ‘repairs’ are completed by a range of artists, designers and craftspeople and in doing so shows the limits and potentials of SBCD practice for facilitating public involvement around issues of waste. The final section of this exegesis, Part 3, is a discussion and final synopsis of this project. I also provide an indication of where my practice is now heading.
It is worth noting that the tone of the following section changes to adopt a more personal narrative. The studio is used as the means to synthesise the literature into a physical manifestation—such as an object—for critical reflection. This has to flow through an individual practitioner (me), as highlighted in Figure 3.1, and as such the following written account reflects this approach.