Strict and Free construction

Instinct, feel, discipline, order. This piece explores the human nature of work and approach to making

            As one gets to sharpen their skills in a craft, they often develop certain habits in their process of making, mainly influenced by the progression of their skill of judgment. Through experience, craftsmen develop the ability to judge more precisely without the need of tools, they judge measurements, symmetry, and shapes by eye or hand, or even operate without the use of jigs or constant markings. One common experience that most beginner craftsmen share is the joy when they first eyeball a measurement correctly, it marks one of the first connections a maker establishes with their craft. This sense of intuition is very important to analyze, as it is this tacit knowledge that has to be highlighted in order to develop skills, pass them down, and keep evolving a craft. 

            Knowledge is either explicit or tacit. Explicit knowledge is clear, easily highlighted, and based on pure reason. It is written down, mathematical, and direct. It is consumed through informational mediums. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, relies on experience. It is based on intuition, feel, and is rather folded from pure reason. Instead of it being consumable, it is developed through practice. It often manifests itself as a feeling, yet with a solid subconscious thought process that carries much weight when looking at the experience of the maker. One of the main problems with passing down knowledge is that people often share what is explicit, without being aware of the tacit. When we work to make the tacit explicit, and find ways to share these developed skills, we can be more conscious of our own abilities and communicate them in order to utilize and pass down these skills more confidently. 

            Within my practice, I find myself exploring two methods of construction. One is strict and one is free. Strict construction، which is usually the natural approach of making, is self explanatory, through good planning and following each step carefully with constant referencing of the intended result. This method, naturally, focuses on a direct approach from design to execution, aiming for the final outcome to be as close to the design as possible, through accurate calculations and measurements. On the other hand, another method which is often less explored by makers, free construction, is rather loose, as it allows for your feeling to be the judge rather than numbers. It requires constant engagement with the material, where one gets to develop a stronger connection and understanding of their medium. This doesn’t mean sacrificing quality and workmanship, rather, it is an important practice that pushes one’s dexterity, while also allowing us to free ourselves from pre-fixed ideas of perfection. One way I describe this method is to imagine a skilled craftsman operating with minimal essential tools. In practicing this free way of making, one consciously engages the hand with the mind in performing a task. This conscious connection between the two is essential to develop an understanding of the material world around us, allowing for a broader perspective on the nature of work. The more we engage our senses in the process of making, the more intimate our relationship with our materials become. This, not only allows for the development of technical skills and understanding of the materials, but also builds a sense of appreciation, creating this desire to do the material justice by making sure it takes on the shape it deserves.

            David Pye, in his book (The Nature and Art of Workmanship, May 1968), brings up two types of workmanship within production systems. Workmanship of risk and workmanship of certainty. Workmanship of risk, defined by Pye, is “workmanship using any kind of technique or apparatus, in which the quality of the result is not predetermined, but depends on the judgment, dexterity, and care which the maker exercises as he works.” Where as workmanship of certainty is the process in which the results are predetermined, through consistent input values, through some sort of a mechanized system that acts as a formula. This is often seen in quantity production where machines produce the same outcome consistently, yet isn’t excluded from small quantity handwork where smaller scale machines and jigs are still used. Pye gives a simple example to compare the two and what’s in between. Writing with a pen, and printing. In this example, he first identifies the risk nature in the the process of making the printer, “…it originally involves more of judgment, dexterity, and care than writing does, not less: for the type had to be carved out of metal by hand…”, establishing the constructive relationship between the two. Writing with a pen is fully dependent on the hand, any changes in motion, pressure, or angle could change the outcome. Where as using a printer is through a formulaic system, where the text is controlled, adjustable, and consistent. Pye also mentioned the typewriter, being an “intermediate form or workmanship” where the letters will always look how they’re supposed to look, but the outcome can still be spoiled in many ways. 

            People have interpreted Pye’s two types of workmanship in many different ways, mainly comparing and analyzing what specific production process falls into which type of workmanship. Separating these concepts, and viewing them as categorization tools, only limits our understanding of them and how we can use them to achieve different goals. Throughout the examples Pye provides, we always see some overlap between risk and certainty, which is important to note, as to every production process, risk is required to create certainty. Workmanship of risk allows for unlimited possibilities, but with the risk of errors (although those could also be happy accidents at times). This risk factor requires full attention from the maker, which allows for the craft to evolve through hands on knowledge, experimentation, development, and most importantly the deeper connection built through the closeness between the maker and the craft. Workmanship of certainty one the other hand, allows for a guaranteed outcome when needed. Think of the production of measurement tools, jigs, templates, screws, bolts. These are all items required to be uniform, where workmanship of risk is not a viable option. Workmanship of certainty, to an extent, is still seen in a lot of handmade single production runs, for example, a chair maker would make a jig to unify the legs of the chair in a certain shape, or steam bend panels using a bending jig that guarantees the final shape. Understanding the difference between the two types of workmanship, and understanding the usual overlap between them, can help us come to the conclusion that in order to move a craft forward, risk is required, where as certainty places the craft at a constant focusing on unifying a product. This shows that certain levels of engagement within the production process achieves different goals. The more engagement there is within a craft, not to mention the spiritual connection, the more refined and thoughtful the outcome is, allowing the maker to learn, teach, and evolve the craft, where this higher level of appreciation is then reflected on the consumer’s connection with the craft. 

            Going back to strict construction and free construction. Although the concept is not the same as the two types of workmanship Pye introduces, a somewhat similar analysis can be made. It’s this idea of distance between the maker and the craft. Simply, the further the craft is from the hands, the less we can control it. Through free construction practice, the close engagement with the act of making develops a far more profound feel for the material, pushing one to develop better judgment skills and allowing their hands to be more dexterous. Where as strict construction challenges a maker’s discipline, commanding uniformity, order, and more importantly, good planning. This idea of discipline, when focusing on performing a sequence of tasks repeatedly, also introduces the idea of rituals within a practice, which is something to explore in another craft journal entry. Now the same way we looked at Pye’s workmanship of risk and workmanship of certainty. Strict and free construction both overlap, and it is when we understand the value of each, that we can be aware of how to utilize this understanding in our practice to help us evolve and mature as makers. 

written by: Fares Alsaiyari