Scott Newman wrote:

> If you were following the preservation crafts discussion (and who wasn't),
> check out the crafts and trades focus issue of CRM on line.
>
> (yes, Ken has an article in it)

I'm not sure if this is an endoresment to check the site, or a warning.
I must have missed something here on PL.
I saw a discussion, but I was not aware that it pertained to preservation crafts.

I got the impression that the discussion veered off rather quickly from the trades and became more of an argument to support the current
status quo of formally educated preservationists not providing very much interest in recognizing the needs of the preservation trades. What I
caught was a repetition of an old pattern of outsiders telling the trades that they do not have any real problems. My interest here is in
supporting needs as voiced by the trades, not as voiced by others outside the trades. I see that any efforts of educated preservationists to
recognize needs, as expressed by the preservation trades, is important for the health of the preservation industry. The knowledge of the
trades, which is primarily a knowledge of process, is a resource that the preservation industry cannot afford to lose.

The knowledge of preservation process is being lost because of:

1) a lack of national support on the part of preservation organizations for networking and training programs for preservation trades, despite
the fact that owner's of properties are at a loss to find competent preservation trades to work on their buildings. We may be reminded of John
Leeke's PL comment on the *impractical* information of the National Trust for which he got blasted -- none of the blasting, as far as I could
see, said anything about the National Trust supporting programs of training for preservation trades, or about the need to streamline the
movement of theory through quality control into hands-on application on the subject properties. The only SHPO office that I know of that
really has a handle on the need to catalog and support the trades is the one in Texas. I don't mean to shortchange any SHPO office. If there
are others active in support of the trades, then please speak up.

2) a culture that severely devalues tactile intelligence, that short-changes the propensity to be good at hand-work and places the
craftsperson at the *bottom* of the preservation heirarchy. The trades are constantly being talked down to. Calling the trades "headless
hands" is derogatory. Saying that a project was organized all the way *down* to the trades is demeaning.

3) a relative shortage of educational programs in preservation that include applied technique and that are accessible either in terms of time,
location, or intellectual suitability to the preservation trades. The best programs do not reach the scaffold, and the administrators of these
programs seem to be worried about it.

4) a human tendency of educators to want to do the easy and comfortable stuff first, such as geology lab, and then forgetting the difficult,
such as "How to Talk With a Bitter Old Stone Mason Without Pissing Him Off." We have to get the preservation education process beyond the
basics and beyond design into process.

5) those who have process knowledge are not able to provide adequate mentoring situations, in real time on projects, because they are
constantly under pressure to keep themselves in work, which despite pre-qualification efforts, usually goes to the low bidder who is not
qualified and never will be and has no intention of training anyone in proper materials or technique. This limits the flow of good information
being applied to, or derived from, the field and tends toward embroiling design professional in managing F-ups, which I sense adequate
training for is not provided in graduate programs either.

6) a tendency of people to oversimplify what they do not know. There is a difference between the way in which a tradesperson thinks, sees, and
feels the world and that of someone who knows the world primarily through the abstractions of book reading, lectures, and study. The penchant
for design professionals to say that the future of preservation is design-build fits in here. As well, the tradesperson jumping to the
conclusion that the architect is a useless appendage on the construction process is a simplification. If we have any idea of the complications
the *build* side entails we will quickly realize that design-build is idealistic hogwash. If we really think we want to be a builder, God
bless. If we desire to achieve improved quality control, which I suspect is the intent of the design-build comments, then learn to include the
preservation trades in the design process -- and see that they get paid for it. The biggest gripe I hear from the trades is being asked by a
design professional to provide their practical comments with the prospect that they will be later favored in a bid process. This means of
co-opting of information from the tradesperson is a scam. I realize that this request is often meant in a very innocent manner, but I can
assure you the tradesperson who gets hit with it a few times does not see any innocence. If we want information then ask for it honorably. If
the property owner does not want to pay for the information, then admit that we do not have it -- but don't cheat preservation tradespeople
out of either their pride or livelihood by luring them with false hopes of future work.

7) owners of properties are not being adequately educated by design professionals as to the economy and importance of providing appropriate
quality control of the preservation process through the hiring of qualified preservation trades. I realize that there is often a pressing need
to prove to property owners the economic viability of historic preservation, and that to prove the need of a controlled preservation process
may seem like a long stretch. Yet, where there is a willingness to preserve the next argument should be the economy of using preservation
trades as opposed to the inexperienced Gus in a PU truck with a bucket of mud. The largest cost of a preservation project, of any construction
project, is labor. Why not involve labor, the preservation trades, in education of the property owners as to the economic viability of
preservation?

Over the last few weeks I have received an increasing flow of comments from design professionals, expressing discontent with a perceived
tendency on the part of preservationists to move away from the buildings into deeper levels of irrelevant abstraction and theory, particularly
in the materials science direction. I contend that the validity of applied technique and appropriate materials for historic preservation can
only be fully ascertained as it performs on the building, in the environment, and as applied in process by the trades.

Thanks for pointing out the CRM site.
--
][<en Follett
Differ, argue, belch and holler.