Back

The Error as a Creative Force

Article  /  Research   Technics   History   AkisGoumas
Published: 09.02.2023
Author:
Akis Goumas
Edited by:
Klimt02
Edited at:
Barcelona
Edited on:
2023
The development of a cutting chisel from prehistoric (bronze ) to classical period (Carbonized iron).
. Every step is based on previous errors..
The development of a cutting chisel from prehistoric (bronze ) to classical period (Carbonized iron).
Every step is based on previous errors.

© By the author. Read Klimt02.net Copyright.

Intro
This article compiles the thoughts and conclusions from the studies and research of the last 10 years by Akis Goumas and a group of archaeologists on the study of ancient artefacts.
 
In my research with archaeologists, I study ancient artefacts and try to understand how they were made. To do so, I have to work “backwards”, i.e. to observe traces of tools on the surface of objects and draw conclusions about the processes and techniques used. Initially, I tried to do this with the knowledge I had from my formal education as a goldsmith and artist. But soon I realized that this was not possible: the ancient craftsmen had different materials, technical capacities and mentality than modern artists (archaeologists were crucial in making me understand this).

I had, thus, to ‘forget’ my standard knowledge and start ‘re-discovering’ primitive techniques which were revolutionary once. To do so, I had to recapture the spirit of ‘discovery’ felt by craftsmen experimenting with still new materials and processes At the beginning, I faced problems with various mistakes. I was too much concerned to find the “correct” method of work. It was only after I started observing (instead of ‘correcting’) my own errors, and the errors made by ancient craftsmen (which are clearly visible under a microscope), that I realized their creative potential. Errors opened new paths of work and made me think differently: there was not only one ‘correct’ way but many, and my duty was to choose the one that fits better my study. This involved a level of ambiguity, which was often resolved by choosing the technically simpler solution. This was probably the way ancient craftsmen worked too – and their still visible errors offer testimony to the experimental dimension of their work. The “error” was not a detriment but a tool, which helped the craftsman (and me) to overcome difficulties.

During the last decades, artificial intelligence tries to replicate human cognitive processes, including learning, reasoning and problem-solving. Scientists develop increasingly complex methods for processing large amounts of data, with the aim of improving and accelerating decision-making in various fields. Emphasis is on the accumulation of knowledge, speed of action, and the avoidance of errors. Living in a world of industrialized production, time is not a widely available asset. As a rule, we try to make faultless items in minimum time.

However, education teaches us that errors are an essential part of the learning process. Moreover, artistic (and research) experience suggests that errors are not only didactic but also creative. While experimenting with new ideas, forms or techniques, there is no pre-determined path of work; it is trial-and-error that dictates improvements, and it is through a dialogue with errors that the artist (or the scientist) creates the paths that will eventually be considered ‘correct’. Unlike artistic performance, which has to follow its own rules, primary artistic creation (as well as research in many cases) explores new conceptual grounds, and in this process, there is much more ambiguity about what is “correct” and what is “erroneous”.

After I realized the creative force of errors, I decided to incorporate these in my work: I now use knowingly wrong procedures in my studies, in order to face the “errors” and see the new paths opening in front of me. This of course takes time. If technical errors are involved, I need time to readjust my methods and tools, and to learn my body to make new movements and take new postures. In conceptual errors, I need time to realize the errors and see the range of solutions available.

All these thoughts have arisen through my collaboration and long conversations, mainly with two archaeologists, Dr Eleni Konstantinidis Sivridis curator of the prehistoric collection of the National Museum of Athens and Dr Nikos Papadimitriou director of the Kanellopoulos Museum of Athens and I feel grateful. I gain knowledge from this collaboration which I could never have as a maker or artist.
 

About the author


Akis Goumas is a contemporary jewelry maker and researcher mainly in ancient goldsmithing techniques of the Aegean region. He was born in Greece in 1952. After his diploma in economics he was educated as a goldsmith and later as a silversmith. From 1982 to 1986 he studied gemology and seal engraving. He is a member of the Greek Chamber of Fine Arts. Since 1989 and for more than 15 years he was the designer of ONAR S.A. (Jewelry and Object Company). From 2000 up to now he teaches at Chalkis Jewelry School, creative jewelry. Since 2016 he collaborates with ALCHIMIA contemporary jewelry school of Florence as a visiting teacher and Anamma contemporary jewelry school in Athens. In 2020 he participated in the European MICHALANGELO FOUNDATION and he is a member of HOMO FABER GUIDE 2020-21. In 2021 he received a fellowship from Harvard University CHS as visiting artist. In 2022 he exhibited in HOMO FABER  “Next of Europe“ and at BeCraft  Belgium “Creative nature” During the last 15 years he has participated in more than 30 exhibitions in Greece and European countries. Since 2006 he is a member of a team of archaeologists, studying and researching the following: Prehistoric metal technologies of the Aegean region in collaboration with the National Archaeological museum of Athens and the Museum of Cycladic Art. Hellenistic gold smithing techniques in collaboration with the Benaki Museum and Minoan seal stone engraving, collaborating with the University of Heidelberg.
 
Detail under the microscope from a gold Mycenaean fragment.
. Thickness 0,35 mm..
Detail under the microscope from a gold Mycenaean fragment.
Thickness 0,35 mm.

© By the author. Read Klimt02.net Copyright.
Detail under the microscope from an experimental gold fragment .
. Error, the differences show us that I have  to develop the tool and practice more, focused at the gesture..
Detail under the microscope from an experimental gold fragment .
Error, the differences show us that I have  to develop the tool and practice more, focused at the gesture.

© By the author. Read Klimt02.net Copyright.
Appreciate APPRECIATE