Professor Dorothy Ko follows through with her research and publication of a given object if she is able to produce it. Without the intimate act of creation, Dr. Ko would be lost and would not understand the object of her research. She argued that the book or paper would be incomplete if she does not act as a creator. This statement clearly separates the maker from the scholar.
Her anecdote about her failure in weaving and spinning holds true to her commitment because she decided not to write about female weavers and spinners in the Qing era. Dr. Ko was unable to produce a final product correctly, so she abandoned that book project and studied embroidery instead, because she successfully created an embroidered object. I would consider this example as both an advantage and disadvantage. The advantage, on the one hand, is that there is definitely a newfound appreciation and awe for the artisans that possess the skills to make physical art that oneself is unable to do. On the other hand, all the research, passion, and excitement to share with others about the object from her own thoughts will now be hidden. The information gathered is still important, and since she put herself in the position of a weaver (and spinner) and tried to learn the skills to make something, shouldn’t she still invest the rest of her energy and efforts into taking this project to completion? I think there are more losses when the research is not published than when it is, despite the failure to make the object.
Bibliographic References
Podcast: New Books in East Asian Studies, interview with Dorothy Ko, author of The Social Life of Inkstones.
