The inherent qualities of any given material are of significant consideration for artists. While a number of artists impose form onto a material with an end result in mind, there are equally a number who begin with undetermined outcomes. Kim Shaw and Fiona Cable approach their practice in the later mode of process that allow the resulting work to retain a materials’ vitality.

Anthropologist Tim Ingold’s describes this as engaging with the “force and flows of material”[1]. His enquiry in The textility of making, Ingold’s ‘textilic’ model refers to the etymology of the word textile; in Latin ‘to weave’. It is the interwoven lines - paths of movement as visible traces of process - how things come into being, rather than focusing on the end product.  According to Ingold, this way of working has guided practitioners for centuries. However, in the mid-15^th century this tactile, sensuous knowledge, from splitting timber to building cathedrals, was replaced with technology.[2] Technical systems of expedience and efficiency were given precedence as operating principles. Materials subsequently had form imposed on them. Whereas Ingold’s concept of the vitality of material is grounded in the textility of making, keeping the integrity of the material alive.

This process of making necessitates ongoing movement with improvisation and rhythm. Shaw and Cable work with materials in this way. There is never a definitive last layer or loop, there are no pre-designed instructions. The maker is in tune with the materials, caught up in the action as the material asserts itself. 

Shaw explains, “My unplanned process has not been straightforward and depends on improvisation that involves searching for goals, tools, and ways to make art when there are no clear goals, solution paths, or expected solutions. This includes putting aside any preconceived notions and attachments to outcome and being present to an experimentation that is a kind of trial, puzzle or game. The work gradually emerges through a micro-focus and almost random shifts of attention that help me detach from the overall work in advance.”

Her style is abstract and gestural, with an emphasis on the physical and material aspects of the art-making process. This series of works emerge through a non-linear, improvisational path, involving printmaking and stitching to create sculptural and unpredictable qualities. 

For Cable, the tactile sensibilities of organic materials are alluring. Clay has unique properties that lend itself to experimentation. It responds to heat, it can take up moisture then release it slowly into the air, it carries a temperature and a smell. Clay absorbs sound. It responds in different ways to water temperatures and friction. It is soft yet will ultimately be hard by drying or firing, yet retains an element of fragility.

“The process I adopt is not scientific – the amount applied is happenstance. I might start with an idea in mind, yet as the work unfolds it begins to reveal itself.  There is no structure that defines a size, no boundaries to work within. With little intervention and under its’ own volition, clay respond in varying ways. Some areas may crack, yet elsewhere have capacity to cling and bind. It is the underlying non-linguistic conversation that is the critical component. Nurturing my garden and being close to the earth influences these clay forms. Gardening is in essence an act of creativity. Learning to care for and encourage this mysterious power, to create the conditions to summon that force of nature, but ultimately not control it.”

Both artists enjoy unravelling the complexities hidden in the value of material and process. 

[1] Tim Ingold, The textility of making, (Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2010, 34), 92

[2] Ingold, The textility of making, 93