The Use Of Hands In Creative Process: Why We Need To Develop Our Hand Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p> This Major Research Project aims to discuss the significance of the use of hands in creative processes in fashion design practice. In particular, hands are the essential tools to experience and understand materials in creative processes as one of the most primary organs to stimulate haptic experience. However, the significance of the role of hands in creative practice is diminishing because of conditioned use of advanced technology and devises that are controlled by simplified hand motions. Therefore, by conducting a practice-based research method for a series of experimentations, this study aims to explore the significance of the use of hands in the creative process in fashion design practice. The experiments are composed of four different techniques using simple and repetitive hand motions to explore an intimate relationship between the maker, technique and materials employed in the making process. By practicing the techniques, this study aims to provide: I. How the use of hands plays a significant role in the creative process, II. How the use of hands can guide the maker’s design direction and help them form their aesthetic values through the maker’s phenomenological experience, and III. How the use of our hands can help our idea generation and understanding in the design process. Ultimately, this study will connect the findings to creative higher education, specifically in the area of fashion, and provide a vision of the use of hands as one of the critical intelligence training in creative studies. </p> <p><br></p> <p>Keywords: Creative process, the use of hands, haptic experience, dexterity, aesthetic value, creative education, fashion/garment design in fashion studies </p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".