Technolog(n)y
In the first part of the session, we explored the use of and views on new technology within craft education. To do so, we used a debate method involving a washing line. Two opposite standpoints were marked in the room, and participants chose their position somewhere between them. Guided by statements such as “We actively incorporate new technologies into our programme,” an open and nuanced discussion emerged in which participants could shift their position as the exchange progressed.
The discussion revealed that many institutions are navigating between the opportunities and challenges brought by new technologies. Some organisations mentioned internal debates about the extent to which digital tools should be integrated. Factors such as financial barriers, the time needed to train teachers, and concerns about compromising craft depth and material sensitivity all play a role. At the same time, others indicated that new technology can provide valuable support in practice, for example in the design process or in safely documenting the craft. Many programmes consciously choose to teach students manual skills first before introducing digital techniques, primarily because material understanding and craftsmanship are considered essential building blocks. There are also tensions related to new materials, as sustainability, regulations and maintaining quality do not always align. In addition, it was noted that learners often have differing preferences regarding the use of new technology. Some prefer to avoid it entirely to focus purely on working with their hands, while others want to explore digital possibilities from the very beginning. Here, their motivation and reason for enrolling in a programme play a major role.
From Insight to Action
In the second part, we explored the report on craft education and reflected on concrete actions that could result from it. The challenges described in the report were widely recognised by the participants, including the structural undervaluation of manual skills in wider society, the fragmentation of the training landscape, and the limited possibilities for formal recognition. We briefly exchanged views on professional qualifications and how these can be requested on the initiative of the sector—something that is not always straightforward for small or loosely organised craft sectors. Policy changes such as the increased enrolment fees also emerged as a shared and tangible concern, especially when implemented without prior dialogue.
One proposal that surfaced was the development of a sector-wide platform that provides insight into the different approaches of training programmes, fosters knowledge exchange, and offers a clearer picture of the diverse craft field. Such a ‘crafts map’ could not only strengthen collaborations and the visibility of training programmes, but also play an important role towards policymakers. Additionally, participants highlighted the importance of structurally embedding exchanges like those taking place within our working groups, and involving policymakers at the table as much as possible. To be continued!
Tour
To conclude, we were given a tour of the workshops at KASKA DKO, where we could explore the workspaces up close and observe how various (art)crafts are taught in practice. As the cherry on top, we were able to see the painting restoration instructor at work, as she and her colleagues carried out a restoration of a Jordaens painting at the Snijders & Rockox House.
