Human–Material Dialogues Through the Use of Robotics

Embodied Craft Learning in an Architectural Educational Context Exploring Patterns in Clay



Emneord (Nøkkelord):

Robotics, Craft, embodied learning, Human-material dialogue, ceramics


This research investigates and discusses an embodied craft learning situation in an educational context that aims to support students within architecture by applying human–material dialogues when using robotics. Initially, the students were introduced to traditional craftsmanship based on materials and tools in ceramics. Based on the gained experiential knowledge, the same tools and materials were applied and explored on a UR 5 robot. A sensor provided the students with the opportunity to interact with the mate­rial through the robot while it was operating. The learning situation showed the potential to teach the students about robotics based on human–material dialogues and embodiment through making. The sensor enabled the students to use their experiential knowledge to improvise and work intuitively and spontaneously while they were exploring patterning based on the tools attached to the robot and the responsive material.


Flemming Tvede Hansen , The Royal Danish Academy

Associate Professor, PhD



Binder, T., & Redström, J. (2006). Exemplary design research. In K. Friedman, T. Love, E. Côrte-Real, & C. Rust (Eds.), Wonderground – DRS International Conference (pp. 1–4).

Brinck, I., & Reddy, V. (2020). Dialogue in the making: Emotional engagement with materials. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 23–45.

DeLanda, M. (2004). Material complexity. In N. Leach, D. Turnbull, & C. Williams (Eds.), Digital techtonics (1st ed., pp. 14–21). Academy Press.

Dormer, P. (1994). The art of the maker. Thames and Hudson.

Downton, P. (2003). Design research. RMIT Press.

Dufva, T. S. (2018). Art education in the post-digital era - Experiential construction of knowledge through creative coding.

Falin, P., Horsanali, N., Hansen, F. T., & Mäkelä, M. (2021). Practitioners’ experience in clay 3D printing: Metaphorical viewing for gaining embodied understanding. FormAkademisk, 14(2), Article 2.

Johns, R. L., Kilian, A., & Foley, N. (2014). Design approaches through augmented materiality and embodied computation. In W. McGee & M. Ponce De Leon (Eds.), Robotic fabrication in architecture, art and design (pp. 319–332). Springer International Publishing.

Keep, J. (2019). Potting in a digital age. Studio Potter, 47(1).

Koskinen, I., Binder, T., & Redström, J. (2008). Lab, field, gallery, and beyond. Artifact: Journal of Virtual Design - Artifact, 2, 46–57.

Leach, B. (1976). A potters book. Faber & Faber.

Ma, Z., Duenser, S., Schumacher, C., Rust, R., Bächer, M., Gramazio, F., Kohler, M., & Coros, S. (2020). RobotSculptor: Artist-directed robotic sculpting of clay. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Computational Fabrication (pp. 1–12).

McCullough, M. (1998). Abstracting craft. The practiced digital hand. MIT Press.

Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin. Wiley-Academy.

Rheinberger, H.-J. (2012). Experimental systems: Difference, graphematicity, conjuncture. In F. Dombois, U. M. Bauer, C. Mareis, & M. Schwab (Eds.), Intellectual birdhouse: Artistic practice as research (pp. 89–99). König.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Temple Smith.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.

Warnier, C., Verbruggen, D., Ehman, S., & Klanten, R. (2014). Printing things, visions and essentials for 3D printing. Gestalten.

Zoran, A., & Buechley, L. (2013). Hybrid reassemblage: An exploration of craft, digital fabrication and artifact uniqueness. Leonardo, 46, 4–10.




Hvordan referere

Tvede Hansen , F. (2023). Human–Material Dialogues Through the Use of Robotics: Embodied Craft Learning in an Architectural Educational Context Exploring Patterns in Clay . FormAkademisk, 16(4).

Cited by