When the editors of this journal's predecessor, Modulus, chose "Craft and Architecture" as the theme of the 22nd issue (1993), they had little doubt as to how the former related to the latter. To them, craft, deriving from Vitruvius' definition, is a combination of industrial wisdom, a knowledge of buildings, materials, and construction, and a cultural intelligence, coming from a critical engagement with the myths of construction and the ability to further the idea of homo faber, or the transformation of the environment through tools and making. Thirty years later, this editorial board of LUNCH 17 certainly does not have as sturdy a grasp on what "craft" means to architecture. While construction and labor is central to our work, it is rarely the center of the conversation, let alone described as craft. As it's been delivered to us in studio critiques and reviews, craft has been nothing more than a weak compliment to models and drawings that are pleasing to the eye. But where others may bemoan a "loss" of craft within the profession, we see a sea-change in the relationship between design and its tools. Our call was an open invitation for practitioners, scholars, and students to see craft beyond traditional artisanal labor and the production of objects, instead seeing the world as constructed from the crafty interactions between culture and technology. By giving space, including space on the page to Craft, we hope that readers continue to grapple with what it means to reinterpret rather than rewrite, to regenerate rather than restore.
When the editors of this journal's predecessor, Modulus, chose "Craft and Architecture" as the theme of the 22nd issue (1993), they had little doubt as to how the former related to the latter. To them, craft, deriving from Vitruvius' definition, is a combination of industrial wisdom, a knowledge of buildings, materials, and construction, and a cultural intelligence, coming from a critical engagement with the myths of construction and the ability to further the idea of homo faber, or the transformation of the environment through tools and making. Thirty years later, this editorial board of LUNCH 17 certainly does not have as sturdy a grasp on what "craft" means to architecture. While construction and labor is central to our work, it is rarely the center of the conversation, let alone described as craft. As it's been delivered to us in studio critiques and reviews, craft has been nothing more than a weak compliment to models and drawings that are pleasing to the eye. But where others may bemoan a "loss" of craft within the profession, we see a sea-change in the relationship between design and its tools. Our call was an open invitation for practitioners, scholars, and students to see craft beyond traditional artisanal labor and the production of objects, instead seeing the world as constructed from the crafty interactions between culture and technology. By giving space, including space on the page to Craft, we hope that readers continue to grapple with what it means to reinterpret rather than rewrite, to regenerate rather than restore.
