MAKING UTOPIA

Essentially a conversation with myself and whoever is

 hanging about and who are up for a chat!

GOOGLEimages

When starting to pull one's thoughts together in attempting to make sense of the world you dredge your memories for anything that ever made sense. Quite quickly in Dickens you can discover that the opening paragraph in his 'Tale of Two Cities' (1859) that still resonates in the here and the now ... "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we ...." 

Watch the news on TV and Dickens' opening resonates loudly in 2024 with dystopia raining down upon people in far away places and in ways that should give everyone cause to reconsider their relative comfortableness and then there is the spectre of Climate Change. Then there is that cliche that goes 'it is what it is'.

Then one comes to the crux of 'placedness'. Places shape culture; it's sensitivities a sensibilities; and cultures shape places. Wilderness in the end is a cultural imagining [Link] and as it has turned out, so too was Terra Nulius [ Link] and its an imagining that still lurks in some AUSTRALIANmindsets. 

Culturally and geographically, in Mittagong, Sturt's 'placedness' is in one sense a cultural imagining. Winifred West's planting of what might be imagined as a 'cultural flag' in amongst all the dystopia raining down upon the world in 1941 is worth a thought. It is something that resonate still. The cultural 'wilderness' ... wilderness for the lack of a better word ... was there and all around her. Suffice to say, she got about experimenting [Link] in the space that surrounded her in 1941 and she came to it with a mind to make her Sturt 'a place' where change could be imagined. It turns out that she was a quintessential PLACEmaker. And, fundamentally Winifred West was a 'maker'!

 

After all that, then comes the WORDstruggle as 'spoken' language and 'visual' language need to find resonances in each other and in ways that make sense relative to 'making's'  haptic experiences. If we imagine 'object makers' as having,  fundamentally, an audience of 'just one' it soon puts them at odds with the status quo relative to marketing in many cultural landscapes. Again, it is what it is.

Against this backdrop how does one interrogate 'making' and 'utopia'? Should it be 'utopia and making' or 'utopia's making' or what? Well it turns out to be an open question in the here and now. Yet in indigenous CULTURALrealities there is a growing sense of awareness that this is a matters that has been well understood for eons. 

And, then there is a Croatian proverb that goes "We are all born knowing nothing, we all go on trying to acquire wisdom, yet we all die idiots knowing nothing".  Again, it is what it is.

 PLACEmaking

Thinking about STURTmittagong as a 'made place' in a CULTURALlandscape, metaphorically at least, it was made in a space rendered vacant by fire. It's a place made to facilitate 'making' in a CULTURALlandscape, that in 1941 existed in a dystopian world caught up in a raging world conflict albeit that the military action was going on far away. Nonetheless, that action was having an impact very close to home almost everywhere in Australia. In Mittagong, and elsewhere, people at the time were finishing their education very young and with large gaps in the preparation for the life that lay ahead.

Post WW2 the Western World changed systematically with the background aspiration being to create wealth in the wake of war. The consequent industrialisation of manufacture led to the rise of industrial design, a resurgence of mass production, and a prototypical mindset that all too often led to a dependance upon 'planned obsolescence' [Link]. Arguably, this might well be imagined as ia somewhat dystopic CULTURALlandscape.

Nonetheless, memories of the 'Arts and Crafts Movement' [Link] post the European Industrial Revolution had not faded albeit that the movement had its critics.

Winifred West never lived in an intellectual desert or in isolation and without all that much doubt she would, at least subliminally, have been aware of Robert Ashbee's [Link] Chipping Campden 'experiment' [Link-item6] in the Cotswolds that in one sense faltered but in another lives on to this day.

However, CULTURALlandscaping in Mittagong and Australia wide has evolved and changed over time but the need for 'makers' who have audiences of ONE and ONEother is unlikely to fade. Looking for an exemplar, a 'wedding ring maker' offers a poignant example in a cultural context. What is it that a bespoken wedding ring might have that might separate it from a mass produced one purchased from almost any shop anywhere – albeit that both might look pretty much the same. The 'shop bought ring' after the wedding ceremony becomes loaded with meaning that needs no explanation. Whereas, a bespoke ring that is made without a join and 'made' with the gold of various family rings that come together in a alloy that might be of a mysterious GOLDpurity goes to the wedding ceremony loaded with meaning known only to those being wed – albeit that the bespoke ring might well look pretty much the same as the shop bought ring.

Looking elsewhere with 'the taking of tea' in mind, a STOREbought mass produced cup and a TEAmaster's 'Chawan' the differences are stark. The china tea cup is branded, replaceable but durable and marketed as being serviceable. However, Hamada's chawan comes as an exemplar of the mingei – folk-art –  movement, and almost anonymous and arguably is irreplaceable. The two 'vessels' are hardly equivalent, yet both hold tea. Their 'placedness' in a CULTURALlandscape divides them. That a MAKINGplace came to be in Mittagong, STURTmittagong has become an exemplar 'place' that has been emulated elsewhere and for the most part serendipitously .

Arguably, bespoke wedding rings and mingei chawans have two things in common: 

• Their investment in their audience of ONE and ONEother; and 
• The CULTURALlandscapes they evolved within.

In every CULTURALlandscape there are needs for things that hold and tell stories for that audience of ONE and ONEother. The making of things and places are intrinsically bound together across all CULTURALrealities. It is deeply embedded in our humanity and it finds expression in our 'placedness'. Indeed we celebrate all this and we might well do so more overtly

All too often a Community of Ownership and Interest's (COI) shared ownerships and interests are down played and may even be denied –particularly when contentious or complex issues are involved. However, recognising that in regard to 'making' and MAKINGplaces there are layerings of makers and MAKINGplaces, each with their own layerings of ownerships and interests that ideally overlap and interface.

In the social cum cultural dynamics involved, when it comes to strategically including  a COI in planning process knowing who they are, where they are and why they are who they are, in turn can offer a way forward that otherwise might be ignored. It is especially so in dispute resolution plus 'the knowledge'  will enable better, and more inclusive, understandings of 'place and placedness'.

If we listed makers' places that had a COI we would include people and locations that had a COI such things as resources, people with skill sets, an institution/organisation, a STORYplace, a structure, an event/festival, a musingplace, a gathering place, a workshop, a material supply, a ritual etc are to be found. So, clearly such lists are as endless as the kinds of attachments people have for places, making skills, things and events. 

To be blithely unaware of them would be a folly.To attempt to initiate a plan to make anything or structure a 'place' to facilitate making and makers without paying attention to the COI factor would be a folly albeit that it is a common mistake if you like. Nevertheless, if mistakes are not being made nothing of significance is being attempted.

Research is all about making mistakes and learning from them. Searching for and gathering up evidence - AKA Hunting & Gathering – of this or that might well offer a more intense knowledge base to build upon. However MISTAKEmaking typically leads to better and new understandings and quite often to new knowledge systems.

While knowing who the "stakeholders'" are, and them alone, planning processes are ever likely to be ONEdimensional and as likely as not best serve to maintain the status quo. When the status quo has been deemed to be unsustainable that is problematic. The point that is missed when thinking about and planning with 'stakeholders' front of mind is that they are but one layer in the layering that makes up the Community of Ownership and Interest that actually sustains a cultural entity – its the audience and more still.

Here it is worth quoting Ronald Reagan who is reported as saying ... " the status quo you know is simply Latin for the mess we are in."

Given that STURTmittagong is currently undertaking a review of its operation it is useful to use that review as a way of reimagining such organisations, institutions, and operations in a 21st C context. It is standard practice to map what exists and then, speculatively MINDmap the CULTURALlandscape that is being aspired to. We all do this when planning to create a new HOMEplace or reconfigure our current 'home'.

Link ... CLICK HERE

Nevertheless, when it is an entity that involves a layered Community of Ownership and Interest, all too often the imperative is to tweak the status quo as somehow that seems the least risky way forward. Curiously that seems to be the case even when the status quo has been seen to be totally unsustainable or flawed. So, in order to develop a new and more comprehensive view of making's CULTURALlandscape it makes sense to look beyond the status quo in order to garner better understandings of current CULTURALrealities.

Here a sense of history is useful in gaining a perspective on what happened when, and why. In Australia, in the education and training of artists and trades people alike 'history' was paid scant attention. Generally by the 1950s the history one was exposed to in your secondary education was seen as being sufficient albeit that informally students and apprentices did satisfy their curiosities in piecemeal ways.

As an aside, it is worth noting here that in Australia there remains a relatively large cohort of people who learnt at school  that it was explorers like James Cook, Abel Tasman and Dirk Hartog  who discovered 'Australia' – AKA The Great South Land – and the consequences of that has been something more than unfortunate.

In THEarts in the 1960s/1970s that changed somewhat with the advent colleges of technical and further education – AKA Art Schools – later to transition into 'university programs' but the focus was on the Fine Arts. Enter STAGEleft the ART CRAFT debate.  

All too often these stouches end in unedifying name calling – Fine Arts vs Thick Crafts for example. However, the 'history' for the most part focused on painting and sculpture and with 'painting' claiming the high ground and ‘Sculpture is something you bump into when you back up to look at a painting.’ – Ad Reinhardt

In any event, the 15th C English poet, Chaucer, noted that "There is nothing new except what has become antiquated," And, 500 years on Marie-Antoinette is reported as saying "Nothing is new but what has been forgotten" and a great deal has been.

Suffice to say that currently there is a lack of a meaningful understanding of the DEEPhistories that by-and-large subliminally inform contemporaneous cultural production. Moreover, the critical discourses that came out of the Western World's so-called International Crafts Movement, in retrospect it was relatively shallow and homogenising. There were CULTURALlandscapes that are given scant attention – for example, those behind the IRONcurtain, Indigenous cultural realities and China.

In the late1970s/1980 the World Crafts Council and UNESCO (?) sponsored a conference in Sydney tasked to define a universal apprenticeship model. A somewhat heroic enterprise!  

Fiji Still

It was a contentious event given the diversity of CULTURALrealities represented ithe room. At one point one group of delegates, all  from the Eurocentric West, became quite distressed at a proposition proffered by the PNG delegate. He was a traditional carver and at the time was he was Director of PNG's National Museum. – his name 'Geofery'(?) seems to have vanished from the records. When he said that his 'apprenticeship' commenced when he was a baby and when his father "whispered in his ear", the conference was incredulous, albeit that his purpose for being there was simply to make that very point. He had a university education but that hadn't diminished his cultural sensibilities or his CULTURALreality one bit. 

In FIRSTnations communities 'making practices' are passed on in what has been coined as the EIGHTways of learning which describes the following processes:
• Learning through narrative
• Planning and visualising explicit processes
• Working non-verbally with self-reflective, hands-on methods
• Learning through images, symbols and metaphors
• Learning through place-responsive, environmental practice
• Using indirect, innovative and interdisciplinary approaches
• Modelling and scaffolding by working from wholes to parts
• Connecting learning to local values, needs and knowledge

While vestiges of this linger in 'modern' enlightened CULTURALrealities far too much has been blighted by the CULTURALarrogance of the Eurocentric colonisers whose sensibilities pervade the CULTURALlandscapes that followed on in the wake of their exploits in nfar away places.

Please click on the image to enlarge

All that said the 2014 'Mapping of the Australian Crafts Sector' in 1i 2024 makes for some salutary reading. As it is with such reports there are people outside the writing room who will take issue with assertions made and that is as it should be. What is of particular interest is that the people in the room specking on behalf of those outside it characterising the 'sector' under scrutiny as it having an "ecology." It is a metaphor that opens up a discussion that might well lead to some interesting imaginings.

Quoting Bernad Smith: "Historically, the five main fine arts were painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and poetry, alongside the performing arts including theatre and dance. In my own mind, my preferences start with architecture, the fusion of the visual with the useful, followed by painting, with a penchant for paintings with historical significance over the motionless of still life. I well understand that Wikipedia has now placed film, photography, graphics, video production/editing, design, conceptional art, video art, performance art, television, and the whole world of new media art (virtual art, computer graphics, computer animation, digital art, interactive art, sound art, internet art, video games, robotics, 3D printing, and even cyborg art) in the same category of fine arts. I don't doubt that these many new forms of art can produce the occasional masterpiece, but in my mind, they still pale when compared to the Burj Khalifa, Cellini's Perseus, or even a series 1 Jaguar E-Type" .... To read more with references click here January 2022… 'a people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.'

Notably, in this characterisation of THEarts Bernard Smith makes no reference to the 'crafts sector' but he did elsewhere and somewhat contentiously. Paraphrased, he put up the proposition that the output of designer craftsmen was more 'durable' essentially because it was cared for. Put another way, there was no inbuilt obsolescence.

However, Bernard Smith remained stedfast in his vision of HIGHculture that encompasses any cultural object that is considered of aesthetic value, i.e. which a society collectively esteem as exemplary art. And this includes intellectual works of philosophy, history, art and literature, etc., that is anything that a society consider representative of their culture.

Nevertheless, he did explain his position in regard to 'Science of Crafts' ... "Why have I also included the science of crafts? Simply because I feel that there was potentially little differences between the early artist and the early craftsman (who was different from a simple manual worker). Both the artist and the craftsman had to be familiar with the materials of their craft, particularly in terms of suitability and workability. They had to master the techniques and become skilled in the use of tools in working, jointing, fixing and finishing materials. They worked to become knowledgeable in practical processes relating to the materials of choice (e.g. mining, refining, working, etc.), and as necessary knew the science of calculations and geometry. It was important that they were familiar with related crafts, and could learn how to transfer that knowledge to new practices. They did not ignore what others wanted from them, and they must have been resourceful, determined, and able to respond intelligently to constantly changing circumstances in the work as it proceeded." ... This class of thinking enflamed the 'ART v's CRAFT Debate' albeit that in a way he acknowledged the 'porosity of cultural practice' here and elsewhere in his critics.

It is more than interesting that Bernard Smith somewhat euphemistically poked his finger into the pie when 'The Tin Sheds' were founded at Sydney University in 1969. He wanted them to be called Fine Arts University Workshop. Nevertheless, the 'The Tin Sheds' name lives on at the University of Sydney under the aegis of the School of Architecture, Design and Planning. There is some poignance here in so much as architectural practices are by design 'porous' and strategically deeply bound up in collaborative and cooperative methodologies.

The proposition that the 'Crafts Sector' has an ecology and is porous misses the point somewhat but at the same time it makes a very good point. In a 21st C imagining that there is binary at work in Western CULTURALlandscapes is/was an invention of those promoting the 'International Crafts Movement'. Basically, its adherents wanted 'DESIGNERmakers (AKA Craftsmen collective plural Proper noun) to have the same HEROstatus as painters, sculptors et al (AKA FINEartists) that by-and-large was to do with FAME, money and wealth. and not much else.

Bernard Smith's appreciation of Cellini and the eTYPE Jaguar in almost the same breath is more than interesting given that he was subliminally omnipresent in the ART v's CRAFT debate [LINK], somewhat vacuous as it was/is.

From an Australian perspective the goings on in the UK's Guilds was more than obscure but via  Graham Hughes the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths (WCG) appeared on the scene breaking rules and conventions. In the 1960s under his direction the WCG

Graham Hughes was a modernist, rule breaker and trail blazer. He used his position as art director, of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, in London, from 1951 until 1981 to publish and build a collection that laid down a foundation for important innovations in the practice of gold and silversmithing that predated the International Crafts Movement. Importantly he advocated the porousity between practitioners in the European CULTURALlandscape .... [ 1 ] - [ 2 ] - [ 3 ] ... There is a rich row to hoe in the interrogation cultural producers' practice porosity. It not within the scope of this conversation to do any more than note it. \Nevertheless it is an idea that might well launch a PhD thesis sometime in the future.

When materiality, that is MATTERrealities, or the realities that matter, to notion of porousness opens up a whole new set of cultural sensibilities and sensitivities and that come in play. Then add a maker's material/s and by narrowing the focus the consideration expand exponentially often times in ways that send people back to their 'status quo' for comfort.

However it need not and should not be so. There is always that adage about first steps. If all difficulties were known at the outset of a long journey, most of us would never start out at all. BUT, as the '3 Stooges' often said "now look at the mess we are in"! Nonetheless, if we take a makers' 'material' . say textile/fibre and muse upon the as yet unrealised opportunities and ......Given that MODERNlife has arguably paid insufficient attention  to the acquisition of fundamental skills and information it is not quite the case. In fact SOCIALmedia, FACEbook, Instagram, Pintrest et al are filling gaps that once existed and were hardly known of. For example, if in your community there are say no basket makers it is now possible to acquire significant amounts of information CLICK HERE and for the attentive rhizomatic networks open.

In any event, and as valways, tackling big issues is like eating an elephant or an apple even, one chunk at a time ... as Desmond Tutu told the world.

PLEASE CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Since we are talking about SILOEDthinking, well I am, it has to be said that it has become THEdefault thing to do because it is supposed to be logical and perhaps it is BUT it shuts down too many alternatives. Nonetheless, the image set above is an example of siloism and that needs to be said in order to move beyond all that.

For instance, clay and metal in some conditions are PLASTIC and both will BURN – AKA oxidise – and MELT depending on a range of factors. interestingly for both, the things we make with them can be glazed with glass if needs be. Yes, each material has its idiosyncrasies but it is often more useful to test their limits and especially so if PRACTICEporosity is on the agenda as it well might be increasingly. Clearaly knowing the properties, the characteristics of, a material enables useful manipulations often times in extraordinary ways.

Nonetheless, siloed imaginings of materials and their 'realities' is limiting rather than liberating. Likewise siloed making practices need to be porous enough to exploit the. a material's realities and the realities of networked making in a CULTURALlandscape.

In the traditional 'apprenticeship system' it was once 14yrs was more a secondary education that evolved into a 'trade training' that evolved into 'further training' under the 'journeyman system'  supported by the relevant Craft Guild. With the guilds there was something of an orderly system whereby young people were equipped to fill designated rolls in their communities as blacksmiths, stone masons, carpenters, weavers, whatever.  In many of these 'arrangements' the apprentice was expected to kind of steal techniques and information. 

Something that is well stolen has a new 'owner' who has won it by valuable experience that in time will be stolen again – adding to its value.

By-and-large the Industrial Revolution and the Social Revolutions in Europe and the advance of colonialism disrupted the traditional systematic methodologies whereby 'makers' acquired their:

•  Requisite technical knowledge relevant to the 'materiality' of the materials which they; and
•  Requisite haptic and dexterity skills won with time and the ability to coordinate 'head & hand'; and
•  Requisite life skills that enabled them to survive in the world and ideally thrive in their community; and
• Develop relationships with other makers in other 'guilds' that enabled them to expand the scope of their practices.

Yes, yes we all know all this as we were taught history within our schooling.  Well maybe, but was that a catalogue of events or was it delivered with a critical interrogation of the events and how they have influenced this or that. Indeed, just how much of our primary and secondary education pays attention to understanding cultural issues and our placedness? That is the places we belong to.

When it comes it institutions/ organisations/operations makers need 'places' to belong to rather than places that belong to them.  That is mutual support operations tthat are networks of networks [LINK] etc. Already, and currently, makers have established support networks but they are not working in quite the way as say the Medieval Guilds did given the intervening histories.

Since WW2 the apprenticeship system has essentially been transformed from its original purpose sometimes being a source for cheap labour source with 'training and skills development' being a secondary issue. With the unionisation of workplaces employers became less and less inclined to take on 'apprentices'.  More and more inclined to employ skilled migrant labour as markets globalised. 

Technical and Further Education attempted to fill the gap as did many universities but the financial pragmatics and the ever increasing limitations on student contact time diminished institution's abilities to deliver one-on-one-time and indeed the time needed for the shared experiences makers need to experience the materialities that matter most.

In large part currently makers are required to become autodidacts supported to some extent by institutions. Increasingly, that has become more and more possible with more digital platforms becoming available to glean technical information online. Often, generally does not come with TIMEbased experiences - albeit that it might do yet ... in time.

Nevertheless, what remains missing for makers-in-training are those somewhat formalise opportunities for the one-on-one MENTORmoments and that are accompanied by haptic experiences that enable materiality confidence and competence to evolve over time. It needs to be said that there is no single way to experience 'materiality' even if there are teachers/trainers/mentors who may imagine that there might be a PROPERway ... and that they posses that wisdom.

In a recent conversation with a 'maker' it came up that there were makers out there with whom you knew that you agreed furiously with. That is in what they write and say but when in the same room somehow there was nothing to say or share.  After musing upon this dilemma, somehow it seemed to be to do with one's placedness in a CULTURALlandscape. Making and placedness do matter, as  does a makers' understandings of 'materiality' matters. Both are to do with cultural sensibilities and sensitivities.

In that conversation there was quite a bit about who had picked THEtools again, who was doing this or doing that, who was living here or there and it was a conversation makers tend to have when they meet up at home or when out and about. It is a matter of networking and a quintessential exchange that makers tend to have.

Indeed, it seems that the period when the European makers who undertook a journeyman they made a commitment to invest in themselves. Indeed, one of the important aspects of their journey was/is to intentionally experience first hand a diversity of cultural sensibilities and sensitivities – indeed different cultural realities.

As for the porosity of makers' practices there is, and there always has been, a myriad of ways that are to be seen whereby makers garner their life experiences and have won paid employment and all are equally significant. That said, gender often plays a part and the makers in various fields will be more likely to gravitate to particular ancillary employment opportunities. It is interesting to note the European 'journeymen' on 'the walz' were generally required to gain a range of experiences. For example, a 'carpenter' on the walz, for three years and a day, the expectation was/is that the journeyman broadened their workplace experience along with their life experience.

Notably, contemporary makers generally adopt a lifestyle in their early careers where they move around  gleaning experiences and qualifications to support them in their 'practice' long term. Nonetheless, many would welcome some form of mentored 'walz' , or in Australia it might well win a colloquial name like 'on the walkabout' winning experience – and sometimes building savings as well.

The German artist and cultural activist Joesph Beuys was in a way famous for saying, “Every human being is an artist” and he was not making any distinction between 'artist' ... 'craftsperson' ... 'crafter' ... 'maker' ... 'designer maker'. The WORDstruggle of the time is palpable!

Bueys also said that “To be a teacher is my greatest work of art” and at the time he was saying this and advocating change post WW2 the vacuous ART V's CRAFT [Link] debate raged on.  In the world of 'making' almost no attention given to Beuys et al, despite the fact that their 'work' has changed CULTURAL landscapesˆ. Bueys' work, and in particular his 7,000 Oaks Project in Kassel set change in progress and it is an exemplar placemaking with international significance.

The so-called 'International Crafts Movement' (ICM) in many ways was a continuation of the  Arts and Crafts movement post the Industrial Revolution in Europe. That 'movement' did not promote a particular style, but it did advocate reform as part of its philosophy and instigated a critique of industrial labor; as modern machines replaced workers. Arts and Crafts proponents called for an end to the division of labor and advanced the designer as craftsman and by extension the preservation of traditional sensibilities and sensitivities. In large part Arts and Crafts proponents looked towards restoring/maintaining 'traditional' training methods and approaches. That is traditional Eurocentric sensibilities albeit that Europeans via their colonialism were being increasingly exposed to somewhat different sensibilities.

However, the ICM by-and-large became embroiled in winning the kind of recognition 'artists' were seen to receive – the status, the wealth etc. Also, somewhat like the 'Modernists'  ICM was involved in eclectic cultural appropriation with inspiration drawn from beyond the assumed homologous, blended, and blanded Western FREEworld – most often from exotic-and-other cultures plus indigenous cultural realities.

The  ICM was, arguably, caught up in COLDwar sensibilities. The publication 'Craft Horizons' figured large in this space, as did Rose Slivka,[LINK], and arguably Craft Horizons as a vector for notions of that great big CULTURALmeltingpot that was often used to describe the cultural integration of immigrants to the the USA – and often in regard to a worldwide sensibility. Moreover, postcolonial sensibilities that had not yet challenged the cultural appropriation exotic cultural production. Thus the assumptions of Western cultural enlightenment and its precedence prevailed. These perceptions needed to be challenged, and have been, which is interesting when we come to the ICM and considering it in relation to CULTURALlandscapes, relative to current cultural realities and placedness in an essentially 20th C context. Somewhat coincidentally Craft Horizons was first published in 1941 albeit that it'd be drawing a very long bow to suggest that Winifred West might have been aware of that or was in any way influenced by the publication.

Again, it is not within the scope of this conversation to tease all that out, and speculatively there are many PhD's that might yet be launched when such interrogations will no doubt cast more light on the post WW2 CULTURALlandscape. After all this there are THEcollections held by institutions and musingplaces. The attendant and in-built politics here is something to be dealt with as the means to engage with change has itself changed. Alice Proctor's book The Whole Picture confronts issues that musingplaces are often reluctant to deal with in the context of postcolonialism and the aftermath of colonialism. Alice Proctor offered unofficial gallery tours where she confronted institutions with their colonial acquisitions, ownership matters and the facilitation of cultural appropriation.

The status quoists and the preservationists are now confronted with a critical discourse that challenges once fundamental and comfortable 'givens'. By doubting we are led to question, by questioning we might well arrive at truth's door. Long ago The Buddha realised that there were just three things that couldn't be hidden ... The Sun, The Moon, and The Truth.

The decision made by Winifred West Schools' Board of Governors to "pause Sturt" comes loaded with subtexts to do with 'making' in a 21st Context. Superficially at least the decision bears all the hallmarks of managerialism, corporatisation and economic rationalism and it is what it is.

Mostly, and when thinking about 'making', the action is reflective of much of what has been evolving in regard to 'the world of makers' over almost half a century. The apprenticeship system has become somewhat moribund; technical and further education has been rationalised; universities have become increasingly vocation oriented; arts funding has been rationalised; and in the light of all this industry has trended towards claiming the high ground. Culturally, there is at the very least a layer of dystopia in evidence in all this not that utopia was ever there in reality.

That said, for over 80 years Sturt has been a 'place' where a kind of utopia might be imagined: that is a society with perfection. Anyway what’s the best kind of utopianism? So is such of current future thinking and it can be concluded that our system is run by dreamers who call themselves realists – and that is an argument that's too big for this conversation.

Suffice to say that Thomas More’s Utopia, written 500 years ago is astonishingly radical stuff. Not many people in government have denounced private property, advocated a form of communism and described the current social order as a “conspiracy of the rich”. In More’s Utopia, some noblemen were denounced as “greedy, unscrupulous and useless”. He complains, that they lived like drones on the labour of others. Monarchs, governments now, he argued, would do well to swear at their inauguration never to have more than a limited amount of gold in their coffers. To be sure More’s Utopia, is not bedside reading in Buckingham Palace or at the bedside of many of Australia's corporate giants – if any at all.

Instead of being worshipped, gold and silver should be, as More suggests, used to make chamber pots. More denounced war as being only fit only for beasts, and thus he suggested that standing armies should be disbanded. He also suggests that labour should be reduced to a minimum, and that workers – makers among them perhaps – would use some of their leisure time to attend public lectures etc.

If Thomas More were to be restored to life and to be found in an Australian parliament as the Member for Xplace, his world view would no doubt float like a LEADballoon. With that in mind 'Making Utopia' or 'Making in Utopia' might well be something to work towards without any real expectation of an arrival.

In so many ways the Winifred West Schools Governors' (AKA Frensham Governors') STURTdecision is dystopic. Made as it has been in the shadow of a utopian endeavour it is a saddening outcome but in some ways it is not all that surprising given all that has led up to it. Yet it is what it is.

 At this point it is worth noting that Prof Brian Schmidt, Nobel Laureate in Physics & past ANU Vice Chancellor, some time ago made the point that, paraphrased, 'universities ceased to be the GATEkeepers and the curators of knowledge since the late 1980s'. By extension he was speaking subliminally for museums and other research institutions. Subliminally this understanding has arguably influenced universities exiting studio programs for 'makers' in the arts and all too often in architecture as well.

Albeit a tongue twisting proposition, making, making work, 'work/workable' in a 21st C context requires something more than tweaking the status quo. Makers are currently operating in a somewhat hostile CULTURALlandscape and the STURTdecision is repeated and repeatable elsewhere. What is so concerning is the diminishing OXEGENsupply in the bureaucratic atmosphere within which such decision making goes on. Having once been the recipient of advice from a CIVICplanner that CULTURALlandscaping "is a noun, not a doing word" it was astonishing advice. It is/was edifying advice too in the context of cultural geography to say the least. It speaks rather loudly about status quoism, managerialism and bureaucratic mindsets and what is invested in all of it one way or another.

CULTURALlandscapers, researchers, critical thinkers, and indeed makers too need to know that such distorted thinking is entertained in the corridors of managerialism. Around the executive's water coolers is where subliminal message making goes on in preparation for the bureaucratic PLACEshaping in hand. It is where the purposefulness of strategic planning is massaged. All too often it turns out that purposeful visions are lost sight of or just fade away almost silently.

It is concerning that one of the consequences of the corporatisation institutions and organisation is that their managements tend to loose sight of their purposefulness. Their governing bodies may well have articulated a vision, objectives, and strategic imperatives. However, the managers are as likely as not to invoke pragmatic imperatives that run counter to the operation's purposefulness. Test this, and as often as not the response will be that there are insufficient resources to achieve this or that and maintain recurrent expenditure with salaries being a significant component.

Managerialism holds that if you have experience managing say roadworks it will equip yo to manage a factory producing almost anything and when DOMAINknowledge is required there will be an underling there to provide it. However, when a manager only has a vicarious knowledge of 'making' the trickle down can sometimes have catastrophic consequences.

With the pragmatic rationalisation of CULTURALlandscapes makers needs and aspirations become consumed by pragmatic managerial imperatives careless of such things as cultural sensitivities, sensibilities and placedness. All too often the bathwater is discarded expediently before checking for babies and the loses are incrementally devastating.

Given that HEADtoHAND sensibilities are anthropologically fundamental considerations, managerialism can, and sometimes is, a destructive factor . When management structures are self-serving and 'governance' looks away, an extra amount of lubricant is poured onto the SLIPPERYslope. Whatever, tools and TOOLmaking are fundamental to human existence. Again, it is what it is!

Throughout the diversity of human history/ies that have been played out so far, that is in all CULTURALrealities, the 'making' processes have been revered and honoured, and still are. Moreover, they are subliminally omnipresent. It is so albeit that pragmatic managerialism typically seeks to assert an imagined 'common denominator' that in turn blands down and blend all that lends placedness, substance, and materiality to CULTURALrealities and CULTURALlandscapes. Making's significance in a cultural context in an industrialised society has been diminished.

Arguably the STURTdecision bears all the hallmarks of managerialism in an industrialised society and in this case governance has essentially looked away for whatever reason. Indeed, what is the FRENSHAMpurpose here? At its most extreme errant managerialism it is an outrage in much the same way as intolerable and overt discrimination and grand larceny are.

It is worth going back to 'taws' from time to time to consider the FOURfundamentals that determine and define our humanity.

• Firstly, it is human imperative to sustain life ... oxygen, water, food, shelter;
• Secondly, it is human imperative to identify within the group one belongs to;
• Thirdly, it is human imperative procreate ... genetically and intellectually;
• Fourthly, it is human imperative is to establish a safe and secure HOMEplace.

Humanity's belief systems are underpinned by these factors and they are at the very foundation of the 'morality' that supports cohesive and mutually supportive social structures. Here we might cite the African sensibility 'Ubuntu' that describes a set of closely related African-origin value systems that emphasise the interconnectedness of individuals with their surrounding societal and physical worlds.

"Ubuntu" is sometimes translated as "I am because we are" (also "I am because you are"), or "humanity towards others" (Zulu umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu). In Xhosa, the latter term is used, but is often meant in a more philosophical sense to mean "the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity".

Taking all this into account, it is culturally diminishing to bear witness to the downplaying of making and its cultural significance within the institutionalised and corporatised operational realities where 'profit taking' is now seemingly a key driver within operations that supposedly are there to deliver 'social goods' and cultural benefits. Utopia indeed!

In the corporate world cultural considerations just do not seem figure within their reason for being albeit that the 'corporate sector' does posses the means. In Australia there are too few incentives for the corporate world to seriously patronise cultural entities. Despite that there are some corporate entities that do offer philanthropic support. Cultural patronage can provide marketing benefits for corporations but in financial downturns pragmatics generally demand budget cuts and 'pauses'.

In any event cultural patronage is left to government for the most part.

The conversation here has come to that DICKENSmoment  where that the opening paragraph in his 'Tale of Two Cities'  resonates again and right now ... "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of ...... How indeed do you in the wake of a DYSTOPICevent lay down the foundations for making utopia? In one sense it is 'the best of times' albeit an exemplar of 'the worst of times'. Clearly in regard to the STURTdecision, FRENSHAM'Sgovernance erred albeit haplessly on the evidence. It is, sadly, unsurprising given that it is the sort of thing that goes on with corporatisation.

In one sense the STURTdecision is analogous to that canary down the coal mine gasping for oxygen as a indicator that the immediate environment has turned toxic. Sadly, it  is the case elsewhere – if not right now, then soonish. The STURTdecision is not unique and neither is the DYSTOPICparadigm that affords it's expression elsewhere. What is disheartening is that subliminally UTOPIANhope seems to under attack as if it poses a threat to the comforts enjoyed via managerialism and the STATUSquoism it supports.

The STURTdecision is but a ' tiny blip' on the screen of social planners' radar screens but it turns out  that there is a Community of Ownership and Interest COI who see it as being something more than that. OHYES. COI rather than 'stakeholders' because stakeholders qualify IF they have MONEY invested or 'at stake'. The corporate world is typically disinclined to acknowledge a COI as their mindset is MONEYoriented and anything other than that is beyond comprehension.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qrbNygL0YU

TBC.............

WATCH THIS SPACE .

A musing out in the open