6 The social philosophy of making

In our era, a work of carpentry is not considered to be on the same level as a work of physics. The thing made by the carpenter is, in relative value, considered lower than a minor paper written by a physicist and deposited in a minor journal. So long as one maintains this split attitude and this negative attitude towards the “blue-collar” art of making, it is unlikely that architects could willingly change course. Yet this is profoundly wrong-headed.

[Story about suggesting appointing a carpenter and mason]
I tell this story only to illustrate how the arrogant assumptions of the 20th century mistakenly assumed that the carpenter or mason are in the blue-collar class, while the professor, physicist or whatever are in a higher intellectual sphere, much more elevated.
The social snobbery inherent in this view is not my point here. I simply believe that it is factually wrong, and that the works of creation made by a carpenter, or by a tile-mason, or a tile-maker, or any other maker or craftsman do have a level of difficulty, intellectually, and a level of attainment — which is potentially as great as the greatest works of theoretical physics, sometimes perhaps far greater. Thus an intellectual view which establishes making as a foundation has the potential for respectability — artistically and intellectually — which is the equal of the most profound and most elevated sciences and is not something of which we ought to be ashamed.

#book/The Nature of Order/3 A Vision of a Living World/15 All Building as Making#