Craft, Performance, and Grammars

  • Terry Knight
Part of the KAIST Research Series book series (KAISTRS)


Recent interest in new digital and computational ways of making has been paralleled by rising interest in traditional making and craft practices. Most efforts to merge digital and craft practices focus on the things produced, with attention to process only to the extent that it informs results. However, the socio-cultural, aesthetic, and creative dimensions of a craft practice are expressed in its performative, temporal aspects as much as in its products. A new computational theory of making offered by making grammars points to new possibilities for the study of temporal performance. In this paper, I use traditional kolam pattern making in India as a case study to probe the potentials of making grammars to represent craft performance, in contrast with the use of shape grammars to represent craft designs. Different generative strategies are revealed in the comparison.


Shape grammar Making grammar Craft Performance Temporality 


  1. 1.
    McCullough, M. (1996). Abstracting craft: The practiced digital hand. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oxman, N. (2007). Rapid craft. In Proceedings of UbiComp: International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 534–538). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibson, E. (2016). Arching bamboo events pavilion in Hong Kong showcases digital fabrication. Dezeen. N.p., 22 Nov. 2016. Web. 26 Dec. 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2016, from
  4. 4.
    Knight, T., & Stiny, G. (2015). Making grammars: From computing with shapes to computing with things. Design Studies, 41, 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Retrieved October 13, 2017, from
  6. 6.
    Ferreira, M. P., de Mello, D. C., & Duarte, J. P. (2011). The grammar of movement: A step towards a corporeal architecture. Nexus Network Journal, 13, 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bläsing, B. E. (2015). Segmentation of dance movement: Effects of expertise, visual familiarity, motor experience and music. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
  8. 8.
    Stevens, C., & McKechnie, S. (2005). Thinking in action: Thought made visible in contemporary dance. Cognitive Processing, 6, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (2008). Event Concepts. In T. F. Shipley & J. Zacks (Eds.), Understanding events: From perception to action (pp. 31–54). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spriggs, E.H., De La Torre, F., & Hebert, M. (2009). Temporal segmentation and activity classification from first-person sensing. In 2009 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, CVPR Workshops 2009 (pp. 17–24). IEEE.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guerra-Filho, G., & Aloimonos, Y. (2007). A language for human action. Computer, 40, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dantam, N., & Stilman, M. (2011). The motion grammar: Linguistic perception, planning, and control. In H. Durrant-Whyte, N. Roy, & P. Abbeel (Eds.), Robotics: science and systems VII (pp. 49–56). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bouchard, D., & Badler, N. I. (2015). Segmenting motion capture data using a qualitative analysis. In: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion in Games (pp. 23–30).
  15. 15.
    Kahol, K., Tripathi, P., & Panchanathan, S. (2004). Automated gesture segmentation from dance sequences. In: Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (pp. 883–888). IEEE Conference Publications.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Retrieved December 26, 2016, from
  17. 17.
    Mall, S. A. (2007). Structure, innovation and agency in pattern construction: The kolam of southern India. In: E. Hallam, T. Ingold (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation (pp. 55–78). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siromoney, G., Siromoney, R., & Krithivasan, K. (1974). Array grammars and kolam. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 3(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ascher, M. (2002). Figures on the threshold. In M. Ascher (Ed.), Mathematics elsewhere: An exploration of ideas across cultures (pp. 161–189). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Demaine, E. D., Demaine, M. L., Taslakian, P., & Toussaint, G. T. (2007). Sand drawings and Gaussian graphs. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts, 1(2), 125–132.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dahmen, R. (2004). The home in the world: Women, threshold designs and performative relations in contemporary Tamil Nadu, south India. Cultural Geographies, 11, 7–25.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knight, T., & Sass, L. (2010). Looks count: Computing and constructing visually expressive mass customized housing. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24, 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jowers, I., & Earl, C. (2011). Implementation of curved shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 616–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jablan, S. (2001). Mirror curves. In R. Sarhangi, & S. Jablan (Eds.), Bridges: Mathematical connections in art, music, and science (pp. 233–246). Bridges Conference.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Retrieved December 27, 2017, from
  26. 26.
    Klee, P. (1961). Notebooks, Volume 1 The thinking eye. J. Spiller (Ed.), R. Manheim (Trans.) London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, School of Architecture and PlanningMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations