The textility of making

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

181 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Contemporary discussions of art and technology continue to work on the assumption that making entails the imposition of form upon the material world, by an agent with a design in mind. Against this hylomorphic model of creation, I argue that the forms of things arise within fields of force and flows of material. It is by intervening in these force-fields and following the lines of flow that practitioners make things. In this view, making is a practice of weaving, in which practitioners bind their own pathways or lines of becoming into the texture of material flows comprising the lifeworld. Rather than reading creativity ‘backwards’, from a finished object to an initial intention in the mind of an agent, this entails reading it forwards, in an ongoing generative movement that is at once itinerant, improvisatory and rhythmic. To illustrate what this means in practice, I compare carpentry and drawing. In both cases, making is a matter of finding the grain of the world's becoming and following its course. Historically, it was the turn from drawing lines to pulling them straight, between predetermined points, which marked the transition from the textilic to the architectonic, debasing the former as craft while elevating the latter as technology.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)91-102
Number of pages12
JournalCambridge Journal of Economics
Volume34
Issue number1
Early online date9 Jul 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Art
Creativity
Pathway
Texture
Life world
Material flow

Keywords

  • making
  • weaving
  • hylomorphism
  • materials
  • agency
  • creativity
  • carpentry
  • drawing

Cite this

The textility of making. / Ingold, Tim.

In: Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2010, p. 91-102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ingold, Tim. / The textility of making. In: Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2010 ; Vol. 34, No. 1. pp. 91-102.
@article{a725c7d7d95d439ea6311e53451e4bc0,
title = "The textility of making",
abstract = "Contemporary discussions of art and technology continue to work on the assumption that making entails the imposition of form upon the material world, by an agent with a design in mind. Against this hylomorphic model of creation, I argue that the forms of things arise within fields of force and flows of material. It is by intervening in these force-fields and following the lines of flow that practitioners make things. In this view, making is a practice of weaving, in which practitioners bind their own pathways or lines of becoming into the texture of material flows comprising the lifeworld. Rather than reading creativity ‘backwards’, from a finished object to an initial intention in the mind of an agent, this entails reading it forwards, in an ongoing generative movement that is at once itinerant, improvisatory and rhythmic. To illustrate what this means in practice, I compare carpentry and drawing. In both cases, making is a matter of finding the grain of the world's becoming and following its course. Historically, it was the turn from drawing lines to pulling them straight, between predetermined points, which marked the transition from the textilic to the architectonic, debasing the former as craft while elevating the latter as technology.",
keywords = "making, weaving, hylomorphism, materials, agency, creativity, carpentry, drawing",
author = "Tim Ingold",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1093/cje/bep042",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "91--102",
journal = "Cambridge Journal of Economics",
issn = "0309-166X",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The textility of making

AU - Ingold, Tim

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Contemporary discussions of art and technology continue to work on the assumption that making entails the imposition of form upon the material world, by an agent with a design in mind. Against this hylomorphic model of creation, I argue that the forms of things arise within fields of force and flows of material. It is by intervening in these force-fields and following the lines of flow that practitioners make things. In this view, making is a practice of weaving, in which practitioners bind their own pathways or lines of becoming into the texture of material flows comprising the lifeworld. Rather than reading creativity ‘backwards’, from a finished object to an initial intention in the mind of an agent, this entails reading it forwards, in an ongoing generative movement that is at once itinerant, improvisatory and rhythmic. To illustrate what this means in practice, I compare carpentry and drawing. In both cases, making is a matter of finding the grain of the world's becoming and following its course. Historically, it was the turn from drawing lines to pulling them straight, between predetermined points, which marked the transition from the textilic to the architectonic, debasing the former as craft while elevating the latter as technology.

AB - Contemporary discussions of art and technology continue to work on the assumption that making entails the imposition of form upon the material world, by an agent with a design in mind. Against this hylomorphic model of creation, I argue that the forms of things arise within fields of force and flows of material. It is by intervening in these force-fields and following the lines of flow that practitioners make things. In this view, making is a practice of weaving, in which practitioners bind their own pathways or lines of becoming into the texture of material flows comprising the lifeworld. Rather than reading creativity ‘backwards’, from a finished object to an initial intention in the mind of an agent, this entails reading it forwards, in an ongoing generative movement that is at once itinerant, improvisatory and rhythmic. To illustrate what this means in practice, I compare carpentry and drawing. In both cases, making is a matter of finding the grain of the world's becoming and following its course. Historically, it was the turn from drawing lines to pulling them straight, between predetermined points, which marked the transition from the textilic to the architectonic, debasing the former as craft while elevating the latter as technology.

KW - making

KW - weaving

KW - hylomorphism

KW - materials

KW - agency

KW - creativity

KW - carpentry

KW - drawing

U2 - 10.1093/cje/bep042

DO - 10.1093/cje/bep042

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 91

EP - 102

JO - Cambridge Journal of Economics

JF - Cambridge Journal of Economics

SN - 0309-166X

IS - 1

ER -