Ken Follett wrote:
>
> 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.
==================================

Seem like a good time and place to share a little item that came to the
PTN e-mail inbox.


> IPTW
>
> I have heard of
> 'poetry in motion',
> 'the heart of a poet'
> and 'poetic justice'.
> I have not heard of
> 'construction in motion',
> 'the heart of a constructor'
> or 'construction justice'.
>
> We are fools to pretend
> that which we are not.
> We are low bid.
> We are low brow.
> We are fools.
>
> Or So I am told by some,
> By those that stereotype my colleges.
> By those that tell us
> not to exclude those that exclude.
> I know I have experience
> 'poetic justice'.
>
> Are we fools to meet, greet
> and share with one another.
> We believe that we are not low bid
> even though we are a community of fools.
> In that community
> I have experienced
> 'the heart of a poet'.
>
> We are a community in motion,
> each twist and turn a new revelation,
> each one a passing on of old knowledge
> that has been learned before
> - again and again -
> we are motion,
> we are the poetry.
>