Craft in an age of AI

Thinking has just become a craft.

I have long been interested in how our obsession with scale, efficiency, and productivity has blinded us to anything other than a superficial, quantitative definition of quality.

Marketing has the power to make the idea of something more desirable than its reality, resulting in a fake handbag being not only acceptable but often ethically preferential to something manufactured rather than crafted and sold at a premium through artificial scarcity.

Quality has an autotelic property—an activity or creative work having an end or purpose in itself. I think of it as the creator's signature and a sense of our connection to them. I’m all for quality systems—particularly when flying, or undergoing surgery—but as recent events have shown, systems cannot replace attitudes and dispositions.

Regardless of our work, we are all, at heart, creators of something that cannot be convincingly copied in a way that fools someone who knows what they are looking for. It’s easy to fool someone looking to reinforce their ego or find a quick solution to a temporary problem, but in the end, quality, just like murder, will out.

Craft requires a deep connection with the materials we use, the tools we use to shape them, and the sensibilities of the client. Done well, craft is a beautiful, seamless thread connecting ways of seeing the world. Done carelessly it’s just labour giving shape to something on the way to landfill.

This makes AI a truly interesting development. Imitation of handbags, trainers, money, and other artefacts is one thing, but imitation of thinking is something else altogether.

I have now spent enough time with AI, using the principles of “make to know” to have a huge regard and respect for it and an equally huge regard for its amorality.

It has no regard when it comes to who it works for.

I have tested various forms and, for now, have settled with Perplexity.ai and ChatGPT 4o.

Perplexity is a powerful search tool, with the huge advantage it cites its sources, and Chat GPT is an equally powerful “what if” tool when tasked with identifying links and threads between diverse subjects - for example, early years education pedagogy and architecture:

Theories of architecture and the Reggio Emilia principles of early years education, while distinct in their fields, share several key similarities. These similarities revolve around concepts such as the importance of environment, the role of collaboration and community, the value of creativity, and the emphasis on experiential learning and adaptability. Here’s a detailed look at these parallels:

1. **Importance of Environment:**

- **Theories of Architecture:** Emphasize the significance of designing spaces that are functional, aesthetic, and responsive to human needs. Architecture considers how spaces affect mood, behaviour, and interactions.

- **Reggio Emilia Principles:** Highlight the environment as the "third teacher," acknowledging that a thoughtfully designed space can inspire learning, creativity, and social interaction. The physical surroundings are curated to be inviting, stimulating, and conducive to exploration.

2. **Role of Collaboration and Community:**

- **Theories of Architecture:** Architecture often involves collaboration among architects, clients, engineers, and other stakeholders to create spaces that meet collective needs and visions. Architecture can also foster community by designing spaces that encourage social interaction and engagement.

- **Reggio Emilia Principles:** Stress the importance of collaboration among children, teachers, and parents. Learning is seen as a communal activity where everyone's input is valued, and relationships are central to the educational process.

3. **Value of Creativity:**

- **Theories of Architecture:** Architecture is both a technical and an artistic discipline, requiring creativity in solving problems, designing aesthetically pleasing spaces, and innovating with materials and forms.

- **Reggio Emilia Principles:** Creativity is fundamental, with an emphasis on artistic expression and the use of various media to explore and communicate ideas. Children are encouraged to express themselves creatively and think outside the box.

4. **Experiential Learning and Adaptability:**

- **Theories of Architecture:** Good architectural design often considers how spaces will be used in practice, allowing for flexibility and adaptability to meet changing needs. Architects design with the user experience in mind, aiming to create environments that support a variety of activities and purposes.

- **Reggio Emilia Principles:** Learning is hands-on and project-based, with a focus on children engaging directly with their environment. The approach is adaptable, with curricula that evolve based on the interests and needs of the children.

5. **Integration of Nature:**

- **Theories of Architecture:** Many contemporary architectural theories emphasize biophilic design, which integrates natural elements into built environments to promote well-being and harmony with nature.

- **Reggio Emilia Principles:** Nature is a vital part of the learning environment. Outdoor spaces and natural materials are extensively used to help children connect with and learn from the natural world.

6. **Attention to Detail and Aesthetics:**

- **Theories of Architecture:** Attention to detail and aesthetics is crucial, as the design should not only be functional but also pleasing and inspiring.

- **Reggio Emilia Principles:** The aesthetic environment is carefully considered, with attention to detail in how materials and spaces are arranged to be visually appealing and engaging for children.

7. **Documentation and Reflection:**

- **Theories of Architecture:** The design process involves extensive documentation, reflection, and iteration to refine ideas and achieve the best possible outcome.

- **Reggio Emilia Principles:** Documentation of children's work and learning processes is essential. It serves as a tool for reflection, allowing educators and children to revisit and build upon their experiences.

In summary, both architectural theories and the Reggio Emilia principles recognize the profound impact of thoughtfully designed environments on human behavior and learning. They both value creativity, community, adaptability, and a holistic approach to design and education.

It would be really easy to just bash out a LinkedIn post based on this, and achieve temporary visibility on an interesting observation. Which is, of course where the problem begins. Because somebody who knows their subject might get interested, talk to me, and discover the truth (for the sake of clarity, I have a well-developed knowledge of Reggio, having been married to an early years educator for approaching half a century. Architecture on the other hand...)

What it emphasises to me is the need for mastery in our chosen domain. AI will do a wonderful job of bringing raw material, but if we allow it to do the work of production, we are on our way to undifferentiated mediocrity. Anyone can ask the questions and be delivered the equivalent of a piece of beautifully grained wood. Turning it into a piece of furniture, though, is another matter.

The point is that if we’re honest about what we’re doing, AI gives us a place (or perhaps, more places) to start the exploratory work of craft, but it won’t do the work of creating beauty.

Craft is a marriage of head, heart, and hand, and it involves the ability to weave all three together to create something original and beautiful.

Thinking has just become a craft.