Is “[t]his creative destruction at its finest”?
In a small seminar group two weeks ago we briefly talked about whether or not students in this program should be allowed to use designs from Thingiverse and TinkerCAD for our blue rabbit projects. The topic was brought up in conjunction with discussion of heart, and things made by hand. It has become more and more apparent that making things with 3D printers is an entrance to a totally different realm of making. The “rules” and procedures of traditional making do not necessarily apply, and so unique laws, patenting procedures and copy right laws are being worked out and written to suit this medium. It seems to some degree that trust is implied in open source communities, and it is interesting to see what arises when that sense of trust is tested (such as Cory Wilson 3D printing a gun). Trust is something you can’t write laws for. In the handout Zev created, he writes that the final stage of Marx’s five stages of economic development is a stage where “the means of production are in the hands of the workers”. Vinny and I discussed ideas of what would it would be like if everyone had access to 3D printers. Would that mark the beginning of an era of “creative destruction at it’s finest”? Can open source act as an equalizer, or do traditional ideas of economics, and ownership still manage to seep in? I do not think that creativity has anything to do with ownership, but we so often associate and claim it in the realm of individuals. Could technology and art mesh in a way that becomes inextricable?
“[I]t’s so totally suckballs that they’re accusing you of ripping them off – we rip you off all the time.”