Socially embedded practice

Through this research I have aimed to retain a constant connection to the human-relational aspects of jewellery and of human experience, which have been a constantly significant aspect of contemporary jewellery practice and context for me. Human communication had been a central focus to my past practice; the opportunities of digital technologies offered a shift in how the theme of human communication could be developed through my practice and how the actual process of my practice could also be extended.

Many models of current designer-maker practice are from the perspective of practitioner as observer commenting on a situation (i.e. Bakker, Künzli, Schobinger see Chapter 2 section 2.1.2.1), or connecting with a cultural or social dialogue, rather than engaging more directly as a participant in the situation. My goal was to engage in both research and practice as a direct social activity, and in doing so, explore digital jewellery in terms of personal emotional significance for both myself and other people. My notion of the designer-maker thus shifts the emphasis from personal expression and personal autonomy, to shared dialogue between the designer-maker and the participants in the process. Some jewellers have approached their practice in such a way (Astfalck, Bartels and Lindmark Vrijman, see Chapter 2 Contextual review), but these are atypical positions. I engaged in a dialogue with Bartels and Lindmark Vrijman in 2004, in which we discussed this notion of practice as a social activity. The following quotes all originate from our discussion (Bartels and Lindmarck Vrijmann, 2004).

Both jewellers expressed frustration with the existing conventions of exhibiting jewellery and limited contact with an audience:

“… I realized that even the so-called Art Jewellery world is quite limited and jewellery often reduced to being displayed in a galerie or in a catalogue… What I also found remarkable is that the wearer wasn´t very much part of the process anymore, the body yes, but the personality of the wearer was of minor interest .” (Bartels)

This loss of the importance of the personality of the wearer was described by both jewellers as detrimental to the essence of what jewellery was for them:

“Something that acts with a person and comes to life when it is connected to a person.” (Lindmark Vrijmann)

Even though both jewellers had already been dealing with issues of personal emotional significance within their work they described feeling that this did not go far enough:

“there was something missing.” Ulrike Bartels ibid

“The feeling of not reaching all the way, that Ulrike also talks about, came for me out of that I somewhere along the way was too much creating an image, instead of creating something real.”

(Lindmark Vrijmann)

For Bartels and Lindmark Vrijmann, the frustrations of this distance created between a maker, or the objects they make, and an audience negates much of the life and personality of the wearer. Working in such a way ignores opportunities of engagement more directly with an audience, something the jewellers referred to several times as more real. Both expression and meaning on a small scale, an eye for detail, patience in the making process and also an ability to consider what someone feels to be emotionally precious to them.

Shedescribed herself as:

For Bartels empathy played an important role in this process; she described it as part of her attitude as a human being and consequently a sensibility she extended into her practice as an artist. She asserted that an empathic connection to people involved in her practice did not mean that she agreed with all of the participants’ perspectives, but that this approach to her practice centred on learning aspects of someone else’s experiences and perspectives and on diversity; finding points of difference between people and, rather than harmonising them, seeking to show the richness of the differences and to make that diversity productive.

Ulrike also asserted that empathy was significant in terms of giving the participants a

feeling of being respected and vital to an environment of trust and security within the dialogue and creative process.

For Lindmark Vrijmann the process enabled her to understand more about herself through her interactions and developing connections with other people. She described the resulting objects as the bridge between her and the participants. Bartels described the process as enabling her as a jeweller to directly reach a much wider and more diverse audience than ever would be possible through the existing confines of gallery exhibition. Both jewellers commented that the encounters they had with people through their projects had a significant impact on their way of working describing the process as:

“…making hidden things visible… about zooming into the personal and human side of a subject… its about touching people and getting in touch/touched...” (Bartels)

This approach offered a refreshing perspective for me, different from approaches to the design and conception of objects in HCI or Interaction Design, and also from the predominant approach to the production of objects in craft and design practice. Bartels’ and Lindmark-Vrijman’s approach had connections to approaches in participatory art practice and participatory design and felt open-ended, exploratory and directly social. For me such an approach offered a human-relational context for the exploration of possible forms of personal emotionally significant digital jewellery. By considering our experience of digital technologies and digital objects in this way I can consider digital jewellery as part of the dialogue between the researcher and a participant in this research.