``Making''?

A-hem, excuse me while I gather my thoughts after watching the last Kiryu Coco meme review before her graduation before I begin.

Okay, I think that's a good enough breather.

A recent series of remarks between me and an acquaintance got me thinking about the difference between ``making'' as an industry and ``making'' as an art. The context is that he had created a reference chart about various suppliers for a specific resource supply with some measured characteristics, and remarking how despite them all calling the specific supply by the same term, had differing properties and wished that his reference chart could help others who needed that information. I commented that it was a great idea to do up such a reference chart, seeing that there really wasn't any standardisation organisation that would prescribe requirements and standards to be adhered to for reducing the variability the way like how how one exists for steel to make it easier to find what was needed.

I'm not sure if the said acquaintance had misunderstood my point, because the reply was along the lines of ``this specific resource isn't like those graded metals; they are processed by Master craftsmen that `transcend standards and regulations' '', which sounded like offense was taken against what I was saying.

Politely, I declined to continue the dialogue---I couldn't see what there was to say. But it did get me thinking about this interesting point that was made in rebuttal: the transcendence of standards and regulations because they were done by Master craftsmen.

``Making'' always begins as an art---it always starts with the first form/version, the prototype. This prototype may begin its life as a bunch of ``design by committee'' meetings, but ultimately, it needs to be put together by some craftspeople. Usually the ones who build the prototype are some kind of Masters in their own right, since they are the ones with sufficient experience and knowlege to know how to put the prototype together. There may be some semblence of a plan, or even a blueprint, but changes to these are always to be expected---it is the prototype after all.

Now, if the prototype is completed and the process stops there, it remains as an art. It is vacuously true with respect to transcending standards and regulations for reasons that I will articulate in a bit. So in this sense, art by Master craftspeople do transcend standards and regulations as claimed by my acquaintance.

``Making'' as an industry is really ``making'' as an art with two more properties:

1. Consistent replicability; and
2. Scaling.

To achieve the first requires the outlining of the steps needed in the making process---this allows labour of different skill levels to replicate as close to the prototype from the Master as possible. It also requires measurements to allow the labour to know just how close (or far) from the mark they are and adjust accordingly to maintain consistency. These are then refined over time, and when the refinement is of a sufficiently economically viable degree will it be possible to scale to large numbers without failure.

From the perspective of a consumer, an object made as an art has greater sentimental value over an object made from industry, since there is a stronger sense of imparted skill from a Master artisan in an art than that of an industrially created object. This, I agree with.

From the perspective of an artisan who is sourcing for supply though, I would say that it is in the producer's interest to have their resource be ``made'' from industry to ensure the consistent quality, which helps to reduce the uncertainty, giving the artisan more time to spend on expression than to control for the quality of the resource.

But I suppose I can see why this perspective of mine may not be agreed with by my acquaintance, and I think it is just a simple difference in perspective. In my mental model, my ``art'' relies heavily on replicability since it is a performance art---the art is in the execution of the expression/concept each time the music is being played. So in my perspective, a consistent quality instrument (the resource supply for my art) is of paramount importance.

My acquaintance's art is a non-performance based one---it relies heavily on the final outcome, since the execution is done only once before it is permanently set. So for my acquaintance, the consistent quality of the resource supply is less important since it is part of the artistic process to work with whatever it was provided.

And that's that on ``making'' from industry and ``making'' from art.

Till the next update.