Crafting the Future: Reimagining Artisanal Work in the Age of Digital Technologies

Extended Abstract: Craft work is a contested and complex activity (Kettley, 2010; Bell et al., 2019) and is described as a practice that relies on combining renewal and tradition for continued success and growth (Popp & Holt, 2016; Gibson, 2016; Blundel & Smith, 2018). Recent studies on craft work suggest that craft-based businesses can capitalize from the opportunities afforded by technologies (e.g. Raffaelli, 2018). For example, in craft tailoring, cutting-edge sensing cubicles have been used to take body measurements with a follow-up phase where artisans work with customers in their homes to perfect the fit and finish of garments (Bell et al., 2021). While emerging digital technologies have been incorporated in a variety of craft-based activities, less has been done to explore how such technologies challenge human abilities and creativity when introduced in work settings and how they redefine skills and the meanings of work. Being at the crossroads of manufacturing and creative industries (The Creative Industries Council, 2021; Scottish Government, 2010; UK Government, 2001), craft work is one of the most unexplored areas of research regarding the potential usage, implications, and consequences of digital technologies. After the Industrial Revolution, starting from textile it has been impossible for many types of crafts to stay away from the invasion of machines and the process of mechanization (Kim, 2014). In fact, the rapid development of new industrial technologies throughout the 20th century has caused different types of craft work engage in diverse processes of combining hand and machine in their production processes, entering a constant struggle of how to balance authenticity and automation without losing the “artisanal” character of the product (Kroezen et al., 2021; Gandini & Gerosa, 2023). Yet, the incorporation of technologies and its reverberations on the craft work vary through time, place, culture and according to the product/activity of the craft itself. Making a substantial part of the creative economy (Luckman, 2015), craft companies are mostly family-owned, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and craft sector is quite diverse, containing over 130 different professions (Hartmann, 2023) such as pottery masters, bakers, and musical instrument repairers. It is already clear that automation and intelligent machinery supported by artificial Intelligence (AI) have a strong potential in supporting the various aspects of craft processes, ranging from design and ideation (Kim & Maher, 2022) to production (Eskak & Salma, 2020) and marketing (Haleem et al., 2022). For instance, one of the core values of craft work is sustaining tailor-made, precise production satisfying each customer’s diverse needs and expectations, and digital technologies already can support craftsmen and craft business owners in saving time and resources and improving their products/services. Yet, as Moravec’s paradox argues, computers can do the things that human beings find difficult such as mathematics or logic at the far advanced level, but are not easy to be trained to learn the things that human beings find easy such as identifying faces, mobility etc. (Moravec, 1988). Artisanal work in general involves tasks that “require the sensor-motor intelligence of humans”, requiring unexpected problem-solving and decision-making processes on complex scenarios, which intelligent technologies of today cannot necessarily support (Hartmann, 2023, p. 223). Therefore, it becomes relevant to explore the relationship between handcraft, creativity and automated processes of production which result from technological developments. What constitutes craft work – beyond its oppositional dualisms of hand/machine making and emerging technologies – is constantly under negotiation where diverse elements are involved. Borrowing from situational analysis, these may include individual/collective actors, discursive constructions of humans/nonhumans, and political, economic, spatial, sociocultural, symbolic, and temporal elements among others (Clarke et al., 2017). While focusing on every element is difficult, making sense of the negotiations among actors may allow insights into what craft work is and can be in the age of intelligent technologies. In this research, we study these negotiations through different case studies of Italian craft companies, which make craft-based products ranging from musical instruments to pipes and tailor-based clothing. To do that, we specifically investigate the imaginaries of different stakeholders around the role of digital technologies in craft work. Jasanoff and Kim (2009, p. 120; as cited in Jasanoff & Kim, 2015, p. 4) describe sociotechnical imaginaries as “collectively imagined forms of social life and order reflected in the design and fulfilment of nation-specific scientific and/or technological projects” and underline that they characterize “attainable futures and prescribe futures that states believe ought to be attained”. Understanding the incorporation of digital technologies in craft work as a sociotechnical imaginary requires leaving “an imaginary of craft-in-the-past that is characterized by nostalgia and romanticism” and the dichotomy of authenticity vs. industrialization, and (re)considering “future-oriented craft imaginaries” of different parties involved in craft work (Bell et al., 2021, p. 2). For that purpose, in our research we not only involve craft workers, managers and owners of the craft organizations, who play a direct role in artisanal production, but also the customers reflecting on their expectations from the future of craft work and intelligent technologies. Our research questions include: What are the imaginaries of craft workers, managers, owners and customers regarding the role of digital tools? How do their perceptions/understandings/expectations/worries regarding those tools differ? To what extent do they suppose that emergent intelligent technologies can support/threaten/replace craft work? What kind of skills do they believe that might be needed in the future of craft work? To answer these questions, we draw on our extensive on-site ethnographic fieldwork at diverse craft SMEs, which are located at different parts of Italy and create distinctive, authentic, and high-quality artisanal products with the notion of “Made in Italy”. Moreover, we complement our multi-sited research with semi-structured interviews we conduct with different stakeholders we mention above.   References Bell, E., Dacin, M. T., & Toraldo, M. L. (2021). Craft imaginaries–past, present and future. Organization theory, 2(1), 2631787721991141. Bell, E., Mangia, G., Taylor, S., & Toraldo, M. L. (Eds.). (2019). The organization of craft work: Identities, meanings, and materiality. Routledge. Blundel, R. K., & Smith, D. J. (2018). “Imagined outcomes”: contrasting patterns of opportunity, capability, and innovation in British musical instrument manufacturing, 1930–1985. Enterprise & Society, 19(3), 661-701. Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2017). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn. Sage publications. Crafts: Facts & Figures. The Creative Industries Council (CIC). (2021, February 22). Creative Industries. Scottish Government. (2010). Creative Industries Mapping Documents. UK Government. (2001). Eskak, E., & Salma, I. I. R. (2020, November). Utilization of Artificial Intelligence for the Industry of Craft. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium of Arts, Crafts & Design in South East Asia (ARCADESA). Gandini, A., & Gerosa, A. (2023). What is ‘neo-craft’work, and why it matters. Organization Studies, 01708406231213963. Gibson, C. (2016). Material inheritances: How place, materiality, and labor process underpin the path-dependent evolution of contemporary craft production. Economic Geography, 92(1), 61–86. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., Singh, R. P., & Suman, R. (2022). Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for marketing: A literature-based study. International Journal of Intelligent Networks. Hartmann, P. (2023). AI in the Crafts: Opportunities and Challenges. Work and AI 2030: Challenges and Strategies for Tomorrow's Work, 219-226. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119-146. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press. Kettley, S. (2010). Fluidity in craft and authenticity. interactions, 17(5), 12-15. Kim, J., & Maher, M. L. (2023). The effect of AI-based inspiration on human design ideation. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 11(2), 81-98. Kim, N. (2014). Conceptual, biological and historical analyses of craft. In Crafting creativity & creating craft (pp. 61-76). Brill. Kroezen, J., Ravasi, D., Sasaki, I., Żebrowska, M., & Suddaby, R. (2021). Configurations of craft: Alternative models for organizing work. Academy of management annals, 15(2), 502-536. Luckman, S. (2015). Introduction—Craft and the Contemporary Cultural Economy: The Renaissance of the Handmade. Craft and the Creative Economy, 1-11. Moravec, H. (1988). Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence. Harvard University Press. Popp, A., & Holt, R. (2016). Josiah Wedgwood, manufacturing and craft. Journal of Design History, 29(2), 99-119. Raffaelli, R. (2019). Technology Reemergence: Creating New Value for Old Technologies in Swiss Mechanical Watchmaking, 1970–2008. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(3), 576-618.