“…  the ipod was only meant to last a year!”  – (Makers, 33)

I’m continuously fascinated by quality and especially quality that is both lasting and ingenious.  Our program contains tool makers and chasers of artistic statement as well as everything in between.  It’s intriguing to cast an idea with meaning and purpose, some direction for betterment, and find it created on a screen (and eventually materialized).  Chuck mentioned riding bikes as an analogy for looking ahead, or getting where you want to go, that if you look into a corner, you’ll somehow find yourself there.  I wonder how we can look ahead, to find where lasting quality, concision and ingenuity meet with grace.

10/19/14

“however, automaticity in the sense of effortless performance of a task is usually associated with a sense of loss of agency or loss of self-a feeling of being immersed in, rather than causing, the act (Malafouris, 224)”.

The word automaticity presents certain ethical implications that can be easily reviewed through examination of intensified industrial labor. Relinquishing the ability to be subconsciously aware of the mental and physical effort being exerted during the crafting of a product allows there to be acute separation between the crafter and the craft itself. There is no connection with the product being produced, repetition and uniformity appear most crucial in maximizing output. Immersing one’s self entirely with the task of producing/creating, while at the same time relinquishing a thought process entirely, innately rejects all senses of agency. Automaticity is easily deployed upon the fatigued mindset of wage labor forces in an inherently criminal way and this appears to me as the biggest detriment of the human capability. However, repetition and subconscious control of performing a skill established action while achieving a mental state of thoughtlessness can indefinitely be used to a creative advantage. Becoming intentionally immersed in the physical performing process of self-creation/innovation can feel quite empowering and motivational to me personally. Is the achievement of automaticity ultimately viable to human cognitive progression through creative development?

“Can I go out and have a look?” she said. “I mean, is it safe?” -Suzanne

“Of course! Our robots wont harm you: they just nuzzle you and then change direction.” -Fiona

Doctorow, C. (2009). Makers (p. 101). New York: Tor.

The possibility of moving objects, shapes, or ideas from one inter or medium to another has never been easier with technological tools. I think about this while watching Michael transform an idea into a visual/virtual computer image, and then into another program, and then into another different software sending it to the 3D printer for a physical object. At first it was merely an idea in his mind, now it is something material that you can hold. But is the physical object more “real” than the idea? What are the limitations of human creativity (if any) to create things out of thoughts, should there be limitations?

“Suzanne was writing down what everyone said and that kept it all civil, like a silent camera rolling in the corner of the room.  No one looked at her, but she was the thing they were conspicuously not looking at.” (Doctorow 88)

If we are being observed at every step of the way with the Blue Rabbit Project, how will our ideas and creations be affected?  On Monday, one student expressed some regret in displaying their work.  I regret not interrogating further on why they felt that way.  Inevitably we will have to explain the meaning in our ideas, and if that meaning is deemed too personal too share, what do we do?  Do we foresee this problem and work on something less personal/meaningful?  Do we throw away our inhibitions and share?  The constant observations will undoubtedly affect the ideas showcased in this program.

Works Cited

Doctorow, Cory. Makers. New York: Tor, 2009. Print.

“I don’t want Kettlewell to get more involved in this. It’s going good. Scrutiny could kill it.” (Doctorow, Page 82) Both as the observer and as the one working at a computer, I noticed a shift in the way that I worked when I noticed somebody else watching. I think a large part of this … Continue reading »

Suzanne asked, “What would Tjan say about this?” pg79

(Eventually Kettlewell gave her the answer) “How many millions? How much money do they have to spend?How do you know that any of us will make a single cent? Where is the market research? Was there any? Or did you just invite a hundered hobos to pitch their tent out front of my factory on the strength of your half-assed guesses?” pg86

Looking around the workshop this week at everyone’s individual project ideas and the research they are doing, something hit me. Not one person in the class is using their time to profit off of three-d printing. Not one artist (in a class full of artists) is using this opportunity to create multiple pieces of art to sell, but instead we are all using this time to create and research something to improve or build upon peoples lives. The importance of the blue rabbit project seems not to be in how successful our bankroll becomes but how enriched we can become just in the process of creating something of meaning.

“There is no boundary” said Perry, “if you see that design is an extension of the designer and that the build is an extension of the builder, the object exists in a shared space, a union.” Makers. (imaginary)

The thing that struck me as I moved around the CAL this week was that there was a lot of work going into the design of our projects. That makes sense because design can be time consuming, especially when it is done with unfamiliar software. It occured to me that most of us had help at some time with our projects, which might further blur some definitions I had been thinking about. If our mind exists beyond our physical being, how is it related to someone that is helping us. What happens when someone works against us? It would be convenient if it were a zero sum game, but somehow I think that’s not the case.

“Deciding what to make is always harder than making it.”

(Makers, Corey Doctorow, pg. 89)

This past week I seemed to notice there was a higher level of focus and inspiration in the lab than weeks prior as students were exploring the contents of the psyche for grand ideas to stick with for the quarter. You could feel waves of enthusiasm throughout the applications lab, and as I continued to stroll around and visited with students most seemed to be simply experimenting but also really were clicking with the software and had a good sense of the idea they want to bring from imagination to life. So hopefully our class will prove to be exemplars of how to mindfully use the technology by creating objects that are one creative and aesthetic but also are useful shareable and empowering.

Week Three Entry 10/19/14

John Grieco

“ Could it be possible? Her first thought when Jimmy called was that she’d made a terrible mistake by leaving the Merc, but if this was what the paper had come to, she had left just in time, even if her own life-raft was sinking, it had kept her afloat for a while.”

Excerpt From: Doctorow, Cory. “Makers.” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=53FBC78B36F00BF389830E420322DA54

“He sucked air between his teeth. “That’s what the whole freaking chain does on a top story, Suzanne. You’re outperforming fifty local papers combined.”

Excerpt From: Doctorow, Cory. “Makers.” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=53FBC78B36F00BF389830E420322DA54

This week I observed many students really grasping the possibilities of the technology that has been presented to them.  There has been an increased interest in the actual 3d printers, observing them as they print and even the sounds the printer makes.  This has led to a greater understanding of how to create more efficient 3d models and answered many students questions about why some models fail and others succeed.  Modeling has evolved drastically since week one and students are designing more thoughtful designs in comparison to the trinkets of the previous week.  The main idea from my observations this week is understanding your value as an individual.  My classmates are beginning to realize that they, like Suzanne, have to ability to be entrepreneurs and potentially have rapid prototyping abilities just as powerful as an entire factory or large corporation.

“Is 3D Printing the creation of a technology that can stop the failure of bodily action, and perfect the relationship between context and interaction?”

During this week I examined people trying to make wind instruments on Tinkercad. The problem with this is that the wind needs to go through a certain angle in a tunnel to make the correct noise. It is easy to see a flute in your head, but the creation process is rather difficult when it comes to using your hands. I believe that using the 3D Printer’s mechanical hand to print out the flute makes it easier to perfect the relationship between context and interaction, which is the failure of most experimental designs according to Malafouris.

Any one can Make.

The quote I chose from week 3 Suzanne reading was, ” How come no girls?” This week I observed the class becoming more familiar with Tinkercad. Our class is made up of  Man  and Woman each of whom are, using the skills they learned about Tinkercad and Makerbot to Make. It doesn’t matter Man or Woman if you have the will and the desire you can be a Maker. If we keep our heads up and apply what we know to life. We might be what this little world needs to hold on and survive. Man or Woman we all have a role in our survival.

“Is that safe?”- Suzanne Church, p.104 Makers

“The being of the potter is co-dependent and inter-weaved with the becoming of the pot.” -Lambros Malafouris, p. 212 How Things Shape the Mind

TOOL and GESTURE (What is your relationship to your mouse?)

conversation w/Student C:

“I prefer a wired, analog mouse… it feels like a physical presence is there”

there isn’t a lot of connection with more “delicate” tools

there’s less there,

[changes(/advances?) in design make your interactions with computers feel less and less mediated]

w/an older mouse, you can hear + feel it -> the tool responds back to you

(this is not a one-way channel)

What’s important about a mouse fitting into your palm? Or your palm fitting over it?

conversation w/Student E:

“I use the mouse with my non-dominant hand; I think of it as having a shorter blind man’s stick.”

(What makes us cognizant of our extensions?)

“They put a sign up on the door that night: Author of Your Own Destiny…” (Doctorow 93)

In a whirl of passionate (and perhaps necessitated) creativity, a concept manifests: widespread distribution of Three-D printers to communities on the lowest bracket of socio-economic standing. It’s an unmistakably revolutionary idea, but is it safe to assume that these printers will be used for the production of tools, fixtures, and marketable items? Is it not more likely that a majority of users will find it in themselves to create only useless objects? Our class, within its mission, could stand as a testament to either side of the argument, and I would bitterly have to argue that the items I’ve been watching people dedicate ten weeks to serve as antitheses to any form of problem-solving.

“I have to write about this,” She said to Perry. “It’s part of the story.”

–Makers, 81, Doctorow

Why do we tell others about what we’re working on? In the classroom, students would tell other students about their designs. There’s a method of debugging called “rubber ducking” in which a coder explains coding to a rubber duck, because coding is so logical a process that going through it allows the mind to pick up the errors. When we talk to others, explain to others, show our work to others, it’s part of thinking. It’s outsourcing our mental processes, and extending our mind into those we interact with, in order to think more efficiently and effectively.

“What’s with the jungle gym?” It really had been something, fun and Martian-looking. (Doctorow, 100) 

As I was walking about and asking what people were making, the number one answer I got was pretty much, “I don’t know, I’m just doodling.”  As I was looking at all the different things that people were making, I saw many archetypical symbols in them.  The answer of “I don’t know” then became more clear.  People are creating art and much of the meaning/symbolism still lies deep within the unconscious self, such as Carl Jung used mandalas to access the unconscious.

“The problem is that all this stuff is too specialized, it has too many prerequisites,” Perry said, staring at a waterproof, cement-impregnated bag that could be filled with a hose, allowed to dry, and used as a self-contained room. “This thing is great for refugees, but it’s too one-size-fits all for squatters. They have to be able to heavily customize everything they use to fit into really specialized niches.” -Doctorow, Cory. Makers. New York: Tor, 2009. 93. Print.

As our world becomes more and more filled with those who are “hard on their luck” we should begin to realize that it is only a unique selected few whom are free of this kind of trepidation.  Our entire style of resource collection as been aggregated by several major corporations leaving all those who do not fit into the supply chain either underwater in debt or quite literally wearing the chains of capitalism. To treat those without or little as consumers is exactly why there are antitrust suites taking place in this country with concern to what is being refereed to as “the dollar store wars.”

“Standing there amid the whirl and racket and undulating motion of the jungle gym as it reconfigured itself, she felt like she’d arrived at some posthuman future where the world no longer needed her or her kind. Like humanity’s creations had evolved past their inventors.” (Doctorow. 102)

This week what struck me was the strive for perfection in the makers.  As people tinkered away they struggled with the translation of the perfect image in their mind to the software. It seems that humans have always strived for perfection and improvement in their world, and this strive is one drive that causes humans to make. Making anything in a sense is a strive for perfection, or the perfection perceived in the minds eye. Everyone has different ideas of what perfection is, but in the world of technology, it seems to me that we are getting rapidly more advanced and thus closer and closer to technological perfection. I wonder if in our time humanity will create something that can surpass the perfection of of humanity itself.

“Teach a man to fish, Francis, teach a man to fucking fish (Makers, 93).”

Tinkercad comes loaded with predetermined shapes that can be manipulated to get what you want. However, until one starts to play around with the different parameters, it can be hard to determine how to get your desired shape out of the predetermined shapes. You might have to put a lot of work into it to get exactly what you want, but it can be fun. Other programs have a larger assortment of shapes and you can get what you want with the click of a button. “Work smarter, not harder…” a classmate said, but when taught the fundamentals of Tinkercad, one can find the fun in the work, and become smarter while doing so.

I have never spent much time experimenting with either 3D modeling or printing, so this first week has been very interesting for me. With the assumption that 3D modeling was a convoluted and difficult process, I had always stayed away from it, but using Tinkercad, I found the act of creation to be intuitive and … Continue reading »

Whats interesting about these first pages of the Maker Manifesto is that you really get a sense of how important “making” really is. Without anyone making anything, the earth would be a lot more of a spacious place. It was mans idea to make houses, roads, cars. Pretty much literally all that you see was made by man.

Its also important to look at sharing as a huge asset and necessity to the making community. Sharing these ideas has contributed to many ad-on’s and new and improved ideas. I am looking forward to expanding with my class and to continue to share and make.

One fellow student, that I did not catch the name of, said that modeling using TinkerCad was like “sculpting on a computer.”  Are we moving further and further towards doing everything on  a computer?  We can grocery shop, communicate, do almost anything on a computer.  At what point do we decide that we prefer real-world activities more than their digital counterparts?  More and more things are becoming possible with computers, and while I personally love this, I know many others don’t.  Is seeing a bunch of teens with their faces glued to cell phones any different from a bunch of teens with their faces glued to a book?

“… my problem isn’t piracy, it’s obscurity” 

This directly flies in the face of the fight that the music industry is fighting. Many artists, if they aren’t completely motivated by turning a profit, would like nothing more than to just have people listen to their music, rather than fading into obscurity. To them, piracy is free exposure, more people listening to what they have to create, people sharing their music with others. Some argue that piracy is a crime. I, and Doctorow seems to agree, that it is the opposite.

One thing I’ve noticed quite a bit as we all got started on our mini-projects was that we were running into limits with the machine right off the bat.  I, for one, was thinking that I could make a cool muti-color patterned coin. When I exported the coin, I realized that there was no multi-color preferences available.

I saw that many others had Ideas that they were working on, but the detail many people were perfecting just wouldn’t come out the same as what was designed.  I think that limits can be a wonderful tool to focus and inspire creative solutions and thinking.

October 5th, 2014

“That brings us back to the question of your relationship with Kodacell. They want to do what, exactly,  with you?” “Well, we’ve been playing with some mass production techniques, the three-D printer and so on. When Kettlebelly called me, he said that he wanted to see about using the scanner and so on to make a lot of these things, at a low price point.” (34 Doctorow)

Reading this section of the book discussing the mass production capabilities of the 3-D printer made me think about other things currently being printed with these machines. I was reminded of a TedTalk video that I saw about three-D printers being used in the medical field to print living human organs. The consequences of this technique for medical applications,  both good and bad, were of particular interest to me. Could this the be the cure to heart disease? To lung cancer? To cancer in general? If this is the case,  what would be the repercussions? I began to wonder if our bodies were easy to replace and repair, if we might began to treat them as disposable. Like the old iPod in the book, scuffed..and meant to be replaced in a year.

“So I’m building a tape-loading seashell toaster robot out of discarded absolute technology because the world is full of capacious, capable, disposable junk, and it cries out to be used again. It is a potlatch.” – Makers

During my examination into the learning process of 3D Printing, I examined how the students were representing themselves through their token’s design that they were going to print. It struck me how many people were not expressing themselves individually through religious symbols, or symbols that represent their viewpoints. I saw one student represent their sexuality through their token. I believe that this was very brave, because not only were they letting people judge them freely, but they were also standing up for what they believed in. I believe most people are afraid to show their views on subjects as such. – 100 words

“Suddenly all the certainties she rested on — her 401(k), her house, her ability to navigate the professional world in a competent manner — seemed to be built on shifting sands” (Makers, 37).

What the hell am I doing here. I don’t belong here. Not the Radiohead song, but I might as well put these thoughts to music. I walk around trying to look as if I know what I’m doing, or at least trying to observe. It seems absurd, but it’s the only thing I know to do. And yet, it is so damn awkward. I know I am not the only one thinking this right now, but it doesn’t matter; I’m all alone in this room, and everyone’s eyes are on me.

10/5/14

“Every industry that required a factory yesterday only needs a garage today” (Doctorow, 45).

Constructing a corporation scale business through connection and partnership of grass-roots innovators and problem solvers. When considering the exponential growth and development of computer technology in the early 1990′s it is easy for me to justify a future free market manipulation of a more modern comparable event relating to technological progression.The corporation of “Kodacell” described in the novel “Makers” basically renders profit through the sales of progressive technological ideas. The concept of linking and integrating groups of determined, below the radar innovators beneath the guide lines of assigned business management would be comparable to giving Steve Jobs and the early co-designers of Apple Computers (working out of a garage) an entry into the free market before the product itself was even completed. At what pace would computer technology be developing today and could it be safe, or helpful?

“It’s pretty perverse when you think about it: using modern technology to build replicas of obsolete technology rescued from the dump, when these replicas are bound to end up back here at the dump!” (Doctorow. Pg. 34)

Being in the “blue” group, we interacted with the computers and printers first. For me, the feeling in the CAL was partially grounded while partially overwhelming, the mix of fluid language and computer coldness. I was totally in awe of the simplicity of the software and interface used to create the printable objects. I questioned the need for creating and making like this, involving so many facets and gadgets to make a coin. I watched the printer for a while to get a grasp on just exactly what was happening between the two walls of the lab. The machine made an error and I was introduced to the misprint box. This undoubtedly changed the course of my relationship with these machines, to see what happens when they don’t know what’s happening. Calculated chaos?

“This kind of design, we could never mass-produce it”. (Doctorow. Pg. 34)

10/3/14

“WE ARE MAKING THINGS THAT NO ONE WANTS TO BUY” (Makers 15)

My initial feelings on 3D printing were ‘so what?’  Why does this matter?  It was an uninformed stance that didn’t yet know how poignant the technology could be.  Watching how easily my classmates navigate Tinkercad goes to show how well thought out this whole new realm of innovation really is.  It’s empowering.  Its going to allow us to manufacture exactly what we want, nothing more.  It’s simple in this sense, I’d even throw in the word ‘eloquent.’  I like imagining what the world would look like if 3D printers were as common as personal computers, printing only what was necessary. . .

September 29, 2014

“She settled in for another day of watching the guys work, asking the occasional question. The column she’d ended up filing had been a kind of wait-and-see piece, describing the cool culture these two had going between them, and asking if it could survive scaling up to mass production. Now she experimented with their works-in-progress, sculptures and machines that almost worked, or didn’t work at all, but that showed the scope of their creativity” (Doctrow 39).

“What you people are making has an edge because it’s you making it, very bespoke and distinctive. I think it will take some time for the world to emerge an effective competitor to these goods, provided that you can build an initial marketplace mass-interest in them…. The system makes it hard to sell anything above the marginal cost of goods, unless you have a really innovative idea, which can’t stay innovative for long, so you need continuous invention and reinvention, too (Doctrow 43).

Without any previous experience in the realm of 3D printing, I watched curiously as my peers tinkered with shapes on their screens. My first impression of Tinkercad was that it looked like a simple program for putting together building blocks. On the screen was a three-dimensional graphic plane where shapes were manipulated, transformed, and rotated on all corners. Students began with a flat, orange cylinder and added (or subtracted) shapes to create dimension. They were making coins. The shapes were grouped together and sent to print: they would become the tokens that signified the start of a new skill.

“We’re going to create a new class of artisans…” (45) says Tjan in Makers. And indeed, the book is about frontiers in many forms. This is represented by a literal move away from Silicone valley, and the ebbs of the dot-com-boom, by our Carraway-esque heroine, Suzanne Church. “Suzanne had heard a lot of people talk about giving up on the Valley since she’d moved here.” (58). She discovers, like the reader and like the tech industry, that the future is elsewhere. In her case, elsewhere is the seemingly egalitarian workshop of Perry and Lester in a charmingly decaying Miami suburb: “The great cities of commerce like New York and San Francisco seemed too real for her, while the suburbs of Florida were a kind of endless summer camp, a dreamtime where anything was possible.” (71). This perhaps begs the question: are frontiers harder to establish in metropolises with endless competing startups, thirty dollar hamburgers, and two thousand dollar single-bedroom apartments?

A revision:

“The great cities of commerce like New York and San Francisco seemed too real for her, while the suburbs of Florida were a kind of endless summer camp, a dreamtime where anything was possible.” (71). This perhaps begs the question: are frontiers harder to establish in metropolises with endless competing startups, thirty dollar hamburgers, and two thousand dollar single-bedroom apartments?