Tourism Souvenir Ceramics Craft Creation: Design Inspiration of Malang Local Artefact Culture
Abstract
Crafts should be developed as part of the tourism sector, because when this pandemic ends, the tourism sector will need to rise up and be ready to answer the challenge. The tourism industry should be supported by souvenir crafts, but the products lack the design variance that is reflected in the local cultural character. This research aimed to develop designs based on local culture. The methods included studying local culture, formulating local culture concepts as Malang souvenir ceramic creation ideas, doing creative shape exploration and technique exploration, creating art and product prototypes, testing and validating the product diversification in terms of concept and prototype, and lastly, improving the product and analyzing the creative results.
Keywords: Malang souvenir ceramics, design diversification
References
[1] Djalante, R. et al., (2020). Review and analysis of current responses to COVID-19 in Indonesia: Period of January to March 2020. Progress in Disaster Science, 6, 100091. doi: 10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100091
[2] Swanson, K. K., & Timothy, D. J. (2012). Souvenirs: Icons of meaning, commercialization and commoditization. Tourism Management, 33(3), 489–499. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.10.007
[3] Hume, D. L. (2014). Tourism art and souvenirs: The material culture of tourism. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
[4] Ponimin. (2018). Diversifikasi desain produk sentra keramik dinoyo bersumber ide budaya lokal Malang. Jurnal Bahasa & Seni, 46(1), 111–123.
[5] An, D., & Youn, N. (2018). The inspirational power of arts on creativity. Journal of Business Research, 85, 467–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.025
[6] Botella, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). Creative processes: Art, design and science. In G. E. Corazza, & S. Agnoli (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 53-65). Springer.
[7] Afatara, N. (2019). The creation of contemporary artwork. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Arts, Language and Culture (ICALC 2018), 279, 59–63. doi: 10.2991/icalc-18.2019.9
[8] Avdikos, V. (2015). Processes of creation and commodification of local collective symbolic capital: A tale of gentrification from Athens. Journal of City, Culture and Society, 6(4), 117–123. doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2015.07.003
[9] P., & Hidajat, R. (2020). Critical and creative reflection of ‘Kendi’ ( Jug) ceramic craft sourced from Garudea myth in Kidal Temple of Malang, East Java. KnE Social Sciences, 4(4), 245-246. doi: 10.18502/kss.v4i4.6488
[10] Ponimin. (2019). Themed figurative ceramic artistic creation from local culture inspiration. KnE Social Sciences, 3(10), 280-291. doi: 10.18502/kss.v3i10.3909
[11] Liu, H., Han, F., & Wang, J. (2020). On the development of intangible cultural heritage souvenir based on the perception of tourists. JSSM, 13(2), 345–356. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2020.132023
[12] Peach, A. (2007). Craft, souvenirs and the commodification of national identity in 1970s’ Scotland. Journal of Design History, 20(3), 243–257. doi: 10.1093/jdh/epm015
[13] Thér, R. (2020). Ceramic technology: How to reconstruct and describe pottery-forming practices. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12(8), 172. doi: 10.1007/s12520-020-01131-0
[14] Gray, V., & Osborne, H. (1972). Aesthetics and art theory: An historical introduction. Leonardo, 5(2), 175. doi: 10.2307/1572560
[15] Portales, C. (2018). Objective beauty and subjective dissent in Leibniz’s aesthetics. Estetika: The European Journal of Aesthetics, 55(1), 67. doi: 10.33134/eeja.171