This week, we read Educating the Reflective Practitioner by Donald Schon (a presentation) and an interview by Hertz with Csikszentmihalyi on maker movements.
The former talked a lot about the educational system, the history of schools, educational reform and just a lot of issues the education system has been facing. I don't think that it was related to making very specifically, but it did talk about the methods of teaching and that could really be incorporated into teaching in a way that encouraged active and creative learning.
It was interesting to see how the teachers automatically assumed (from the perspective that they were given, to be fair) that the student following the directions of the other student was a "slow learner" and had trouble with directions. I think that this is unfortunately really representative of the education system as a whole.
I have taken a couple of classes in which we have talked about the education system and it has always been a really discouraging conversation, in my opinion. There are a lot of students that are overlooked or dismissed instead being given the help or support that they need to succeed. For example, families that come to the United States and don't speak much English, but have children that need to enroll in the public school system (or any school). They are required to take classes that they may not understand, not because of the material, but because of the the language it is taught in and the inability to overcome that barrier quick enough. These students are quickly left behind despite their intelligence and potential.
There are also fundamental issues in the structure of the schools. The fact that they were started as a way to keep children off the streets make them seem to be designed like prisons. There are gates and there are hours upon which you are not allowed to be out on the streets. You must be in school, in your place, and the teacher is set up to act like the keeper of that prison. Punish the inquisitive, curious, unruly, "problematic" child who causes the rest of the class to get restless.
It was also interesting in the paper how he mentioned that schools were built around the idea of keeping professions out and that the University of Chicago was discouraged from creating their business school. I think that this has actually put our students at a significant disadvantage. I think that professions are so far out of sight during your education that once you get to the end of your education (or towards it) you are never really sure what to do. There are only a certain couple of professions that are really advertised and well known (e.g. doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.) but there are so many more careers out there that students really don't see. I think this makes it hard to see what to study and what is relevant in your studies towards your future career.
Anyways, there are endless amounts of things that can be said about the education system and the flaws. It's unclear of what exactly we need to do to change it because, as the author said, some of the issues are embedded in society. However, the one thing that is very clear is that we do need change.
For the second reading, an interview with Hertz, was Csikszentmihalyi basically just pointing out all of the negative aspects of the maker movement and all of the ways that it is failing. On one hand, it's good to get perspective from a different side, but on the other it's pretty discouraging to see that there are so many flaws with the movement.
I think that it is still fundamentally a good idea, but it is definitely true that the maker movement has become a privileged, pricey, DIY task in Americans and Europeans. I think that this doesn't necessarily take away from it, but I think that if the majority of projects continue to be copying other peoples' projects and ideas, then no new ideas are being created and people aren't really being innovative or contributing. I think that it is a difficult distinction and it is really cool when people are creating things from only their surroundings and what they have but I don't think that it's a necessity in making. Regardless, there was a lot of validity to his accusations and I wonder what impacts it will have on the continued growth of the movement as a whole.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Week 8 Readings
This week, we read two pieces. One was Awakening to Maker Methodology by Jay Silver and the other was A Design Methodology for Deconstructing Networks by Jonah Brucker-Cohen.
The first gives a lot examples of things that he has tried to make and how he has implemented them or what the context was without giving too much technical background. I really enjoy reading pieces about projects that people have completed and directions that they are looking to go.
I think that Jay Silver had a lot of great points about what characterizes makers and it wasn't complex. I feel that often this field gets a little bit too caught up in the syntax (or at least that's what I've noticed in my relatively short time in our classroom). There is so much nitty-gritty detail to what distinguishes one term or coin phrase from another. There are tiny little nuances that make your contextual use incorrect and I think that that in and of itself can be very frustrating to people who don't have a lot of experience in this field.
Being a maker is about curiosity and being willing to be wrong. Breaking things and re-making things. Makers "recycle, upcycle, double cycle, dumpster, and cruft. They scavenge and reclaim materials not to “save money” but to manifest the urban nature as a toolkit [2] and supply chain." I love the new terminology that he uses, because it's fun and hip and beyond everything else, it makes sense! It's logical and easy to follow and it references pop culture so that it's something that everyone can easily pick up. For example, "frankentype: prototype Frankenstein style to get the fastest barely working monstrosity of a model". It's brilliant and it's so easily and concisely explained. The reader isn't lost.
I really appreciated this reading and the way that Jay Silver explained himself and his work. I also found that the work that he was doing had a lot of similarities to Makey Makey that we'd looked at earlier in the quarter. There were a lot of applications that the same system could be used for and it was easily manipulated. It was really cool to see the different people that he collaborated with or created on-the-spot for and how it changed his designs and ideas.
The latter talks about an overarching project that wants to deconstruct the networks that we use and how people interact with them. There were four main points (1) emphasizing multiple methods of connectivity (changed the way the user interacted with the network and made it physical so the user was forced to think about it); (2) challenging factors of networked interaction (changing the locations or environments/surroundings of the network and thus messed with social circles, public access and inhabitants of the space); (3) amplifying metaphors to deconstruct conventions (changing the names and perceptions of networks terms by making them more relevant to their purpose and function); and (4) altering the rules of networked interaction (changing the rule-sets to question the user's previous experiences in dealing with the network and related functions).
The first gives a lot examples of things that he has tried to make and how he has implemented them or what the context was without giving too much technical background. I really enjoy reading pieces about projects that people have completed and directions that they are looking to go.
I think that Jay Silver had a lot of great points about what characterizes makers and it wasn't complex. I feel that often this field gets a little bit too caught up in the syntax (or at least that's what I've noticed in my relatively short time in our classroom). There is so much nitty-gritty detail to what distinguishes one term or coin phrase from another. There are tiny little nuances that make your contextual use incorrect and I think that that in and of itself can be very frustrating to people who don't have a lot of experience in this field.
Being a maker is about curiosity and being willing to be wrong. Breaking things and re-making things. Makers "recycle, upcycle, double cycle, dumpster, and cruft. They scavenge and reclaim materials not to “save money” but to manifest the urban nature as a toolkit [2] and supply chain." I love the new terminology that he uses, because it's fun and hip and beyond everything else, it makes sense! It's logical and easy to follow and it references pop culture so that it's something that everyone can easily pick up. For example, "frankentype: prototype Frankenstein style to get the fastest barely working monstrosity of a model". It's brilliant and it's so easily and concisely explained. The reader isn't lost.
I really appreciated this reading and the way that Jay Silver explained himself and his work. I also found that the work that he was doing had a lot of similarities to Makey Makey that we'd looked at earlier in the quarter. There were a lot of applications that the same system could be used for and it was easily manipulated. It was really cool to see the different people that he collaborated with or created on-the-spot for and how it changed his designs and ideas.
The latter talks about an overarching project that wants to deconstruct the networks that we use and how people interact with them. There were four main points (1) emphasizing multiple methods of connectivity (changed the way the user interacted with the network and made it physical so the user was forced to think about it); (2) challenging factors of networked interaction (changing the locations or environments/surroundings of the network and thus messed with social circles, public access and inhabitants of the space); (3) amplifying metaphors to deconstruct conventions (changing the names and perceptions of networks terms by making them more relevant to their purpose and function); and (4) altering the rules of networked interaction (changing the rule-sets to question the user's previous experiences in dealing with the network and related functions).
Genetically Engineering the Perfect Baby
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/
There's this new obsession with genetics. It's the new hottest everything. You can change this and alter that. It's everyone's fantasy to have the perfect genome, isn't it? Just imagine a world where we could pick and choose the genes and traits that we gave to our children. Wouldn't it be grand? I think that if this is your thought process than you are way off. There are so many things that you aren't taking into account and it's an insult to yourself, your community, your heritage, your past, your ancestors, and just nature in general.
We wouldn't use this manipulation of genes for healthier children. We'd do it for the perfect child. They most beautiful. The models. Right? We just want to be pretty. We want to have the best combination of features. Do you want a boy or a girl? What will complete your American dream? This is the totally wrong way to go about it and it's abusing the powers that we've gained through knowledge. Messing with nature too much is never a good thing. We've proven that we can do it, but should we do any more?
I suppose that this end-all decision isn't mine to make, but I think that there is a lot that the public doesn't take into account. Cool concepts, but even for someone that full-heartedly believes in genetics/genomics, the power of it, and actually participates in genome engineering research, I think we should be cautious with how far we push this phenomena.
There's this new obsession with genetics. It's the new hottest everything. You can change this and alter that. It's everyone's fantasy to have the perfect genome, isn't it? Just imagine a world where we could pick and choose the genes and traits that we gave to our children. Wouldn't it be grand? I think that if this is your thought process than you are way off. There are so many things that you aren't taking into account and it's an insult to yourself, your community, your heritage, your past, your ancestors, and just nature in general.
We wouldn't use this manipulation of genes for healthier children. We'd do it for the perfect child. They most beautiful. The models. Right? We just want to be pretty. We want to have the best combination of features. Do you want a boy or a girl? What will complete your American dream? This is the totally wrong way to go about it and it's abusing the powers that we've gained through knowledge. Messing with nature too much is never a good thing. We've proven that we can do it, but should we do any more?
I suppose that this end-all decision isn't mine to make, but I think that there is a lot that the public doesn't take into account. Cool concepts, but even for someone that full-heartedly believes in genetics/genomics, the power of it, and actually participates in genome engineering research, I think we should be cautious with how far we push this phenomena.
Week 7 Readings
This week, we had two readings, but one was really just diagrammed and there was also a longer reading by Flanagan et. al. that talked about Embodying Values in Technology. There were three main "steps" of how to integrate values into technology. (1) Discovery, (2) Translation, and (3) Verification.
Discovery is more the recognition of values that the designer wanted to address in the final product. What do you want the audience or consumer to think about? What do you want them to get from use or consumption? What are the issues at hand? Translation was figuring out the "how". How are you going incorporate your values into your product? How will it come through? How are you going to implement this? What is the plan? Verification is testing your product and checking it against the user population. How does it come across? Are the values embodied in the project? Are they coming through to the intended consumers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just went in to the UW Makerspace in Fluke Hall (room 215) for the first time on Monday for training. I haven't gotten to use the space yet, but I've collected nearly all of the supplies that I'll need (just missing a lens and light). I am prepared to make the base of the project soon, once I can figure out the measurements that I want for the plexiglass and the drill holes I'll make in the wood. It's going to be a little bit different than the project detailed on Instructables, because I didn't get to get all of the exact same materials. Hardware stores are hard to get to when you don't know the area very well and you don't have a car. It was also frustrating finding that they didn't have the materials that I needed. (I was not too keen on buying a huge plank of alder wood and they didn't have anything in their scraps, as their saw was out of service).
Monday, May 11, 2015
Instructables - Part 2
My Instructables project came from: http://www.instructables.com/id/Illuminated-Tunnel-Book/. The instructions given by the author were actually pretty good. I think that it was a little bit more difficult to figure out the correct logistics for spacing and size of the pictures than was laid out in the template. The first step was to pick a theme, and I think that that was difficult for me, since I don’t have a very artistic mind. I wasn’t sure what I wanted pictured or what it meant to me. I ended up finding a picture that I liked after a while of scrolling. It was later brought to my attention that the picture was very much inspired by a particular scene in The Little Mermaid.
Also, by print and cut, I wasn’t entirely sure what he meant. I think that the pictures that were included were helpful, into advising me on how to cut out my silhouettes. The author did mention you didn’t want large un-cut areas, but I wasn’t sure how much that meant. I also didn’t know how to make the silhouettes thin without being flimsy. If I were to add anything to the instruction it would be more insight on how much you want to cut out of the frame so that the light will still shine through. I think that another thing would be to show the measurements made to make the outer rings of each page. If you look at it very closely, the outer ring of the silhouette gets smaller as the layers go back, but I didn’t notice that until after I had completed my project. It does mention it in the instructions, but I wasn’t sure by how much I should make the next one smaller and how to make it less noticeable.
Another thing that I would have added to the instructions is the fact that having larger folds for the sides (bindings) would be preferable and making layers wouldn’t necessarily add to the picture. I decided to make mine super close together and it caused the whole thing to be very slanted and curved. It also doesn’t let as much light through. The project’s instructions were very well done, but the things that I strayed on were definitely things that shouldn’t have been varied in this particular case. It caused the project to have a completely different effect, which wasn’t necessarily positive or what I was looking to create. The colored paper that I used instead of white paper didn’t necessarily help the image either.
The final product, in and of itself is aesthetic. It is colorful. It is pretty. But that’s the aesthetics that Simondon was talking about. What did it feel like? Working on the project had different techno-aesthetics involved. Working with the two-toned paper had a different feeling than the simple white paper. I was trying to look for thicker cardstock, but the double-sided paper (different colors on each side) ended up just being two different colored papers being stuck together as I could see when I would cut through the paper and see the other colored paper still un-cut. I would have to do double the cuts to make the shapes that I wanted. What did it look like? There was tracing, cutting, folding, and gluing involved in the creation of this project, and none of it was really foreign. Most of these tasks are pretty regular for me (maybe except working with the double-sided paper and an X-ACTO knife). I don’t know if there are deeper aesthetics than those mentioned and then just the appearance of the final product. There wasn’t really a political statement made by my project, and that is where it lacks aesthetically, but it also lacks a purpose or message for the audience.
I think what values this project embodies are really the impact of making things with your own hands. There were a lot of steps that were geared towards making this final project “your own” or personalized, and I think that that was the main value that came through. Make what you want and make everything you make your own. Creating anything, no matter how simple or every day or “arts and craft-y” is still creating. It is important in so many ways. It forces you to think. It forces you to gain experiences. It forces thought, planning, and the use of hands. Making to me, feels very manual. It takes me away from the everyday grind of life in the digital technology age and moves it back to a time when my mind was open and I could just make. No matter how ugly, wrong, unsuccessful, or weird. There was no judgment or fear of failure. I can just make to make something, to build with my hands, and have something that means something (maybe to only me) but it has meaning.
Toscano talks a little bit about this and mentions how we might be enslaved by computers (and that they might also be enslaved by us). My Instructables assignment might not have been the perfect example for a meaningful project since I found the instructions online and it wasn’t as personal as it could be (it wasn’t my own creation), but it is a good example of how we might be enslaved by our technologies. I had to use online instructions to create this project, I had to look for pictures and inspiration online, and then I even looked where to buy supplies for the project online.
However, I did create my project and there were choices that were left mine. I bought the supplies and what I bought was a choice. The theme, layers, colors, etc. were all my choice. So that was the personal effect that it had for me, but if I had something to improve about the project, but more specifically how I executed the project, it would be thinking through the personal details more. I would also take what I know now from my technical mistakes and plan accordingly. I think the personal investment in the project is crucial to its success and meaningfulness. I think that it all really ties into the value and political statements being made. According to Ratto, this reflection on our work, past projects, successes and failures is what is really important. Recording the journey and making sure that we know our mistakes, know our successes, and understand what can be improved or changed for next time.
Also, by print and cut, I wasn’t entirely sure what he meant. I think that the pictures that were included were helpful, into advising me on how to cut out my silhouettes. The author did mention you didn’t want large un-cut areas, but I wasn’t sure how much that meant. I also didn’t know how to make the silhouettes thin without being flimsy. If I were to add anything to the instruction it would be more insight on how much you want to cut out of the frame so that the light will still shine through. I think that another thing would be to show the measurements made to make the outer rings of each page. If you look at it very closely, the outer ring of the silhouette gets smaller as the layers go back, but I didn’t notice that until after I had completed my project. It does mention it in the instructions, but I wasn’t sure by how much I should make the next one smaller and how to make it less noticeable.
Another thing that I would have added to the instructions is the fact that having larger folds for the sides (bindings) would be preferable and making layers wouldn’t necessarily add to the picture. I decided to make mine super close together and it caused the whole thing to be very slanted and curved. It also doesn’t let as much light through. The project’s instructions were very well done, but the things that I strayed on were definitely things that shouldn’t have been varied in this particular case. It caused the project to have a completely different effect, which wasn’t necessarily positive or what I was looking to create. The colored paper that I used instead of white paper didn’t necessarily help the image either.
The final product, in and of itself is aesthetic. It is colorful. It is pretty. But that’s the aesthetics that Simondon was talking about. What did it feel like? Working on the project had different techno-aesthetics involved. Working with the two-toned paper had a different feeling than the simple white paper. I was trying to look for thicker cardstock, but the double-sided paper (different colors on each side) ended up just being two different colored papers being stuck together as I could see when I would cut through the paper and see the other colored paper still un-cut. I would have to do double the cuts to make the shapes that I wanted. What did it look like? There was tracing, cutting, folding, and gluing involved in the creation of this project, and none of it was really foreign. Most of these tasks are pretty regular for me (maybe except working with the double-sided paper and an X-ACTO knife). I don’t know if there are deeper aesthetics than those mentioned and then just the appearance of the final product. There wasn’t really a political statement made by my project, and that is where it lacks aesthetically, but it also lacks a purpose or message for the audience.
I think what values this project embodies are really the impact of making things with your own hands. There were a lot of steps that were geared towards making this final project “your own” or personalized, and I think that that was the main value that came through. Make what you want and make everything you make your own. Creating anything, no matter how simple or every day or “arts and craft-y” is still creating. It is important in so many ways. It forces you to think. It forces you to gain experiences. It forces thought, planning, and the use of hands. Making to me, feels very manual. It takes me away from the everyday grind of life in the digital technology age and moves it back to a time when my mind was open and I could just make. No matter how ugly, wrong, unsuccessful, or weird. There was no judgment or fear of failure. I can just make to make something, to build with my hands, and have something that means something (maybe to only me) but it has meaning.
Toscano talks a little bit about this and mentions how we might be enslaved by computers (and that they might also be enslaved by us). My Instructables assignment might not have been the perfect example for a meaningful project since I found the instructions online and it wasn’t as personal as it could be (it wasn’t my own creation), but it is a good example of how we might be enslaved by our technologies. I had to use online instructions to create this project, I had to look for pictures and inspiration online, and then I even looked where to buy supplies for the project online.
However, I did create my project and there were choices that were left mine. I bought the supplies and what I bought was a choice. The theme, layers, colors, etc. were all my choice. So that was the personal effect that it had for me, but if I had something to improve about the project, but more specifically how I executed the project, it would be thinking through the personal details more. I would also take what I know now from my technical mistakes and plan accordingly. I think the personal investment in the project is crucial to its success and meaningfulness. I think that it all really ties into the value and political statements being made. According to Ratto, this reflection on our work, past projects, successes and failures is what is really important. Recording the journey and making sure that we know our mistakes, know our successes, and understand what can be improved or changed for next time.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Week 6 Readings
This week for our readings, we had three interviews by Hertz of Natalie Jeremijenko, Alex Galloway, and Phoebe Sengers. I think that what I really got from the interviews was how variable the terminology in the making field is, depending on who you ask. There were a lot of different terms that were thrown around that weren't necessarily differentiated.
During discussion time, our group talked about what the difference between a hackerspace and makerspace was, or if there was a differentiation to be made. We said that there was a slight differentiation. It had to do with the hacks happening in hackerspaces and making in makerspaces.
We talked about how hacks are quicker, more amateur than making. Hacks are thought of as more technical and are often just breaking things and throwing them back together to make them work with information or work that you already have completed.
Making is more modern, meditated, and has purposeful design. Making is more about the journey and the process of making, where as hacking has more to do with the finished product. How do you get to the end from where you are?
We argued about whether hackerspaces were a subset of makerspaces or vice versa. I think that both can kind of overlap, but there is a slight distinction between the reasons for why the space was created or who created the space that changes what it is called and how certain people act when working in the space.
It was interesting to see what different people in class connected with from the interviewees or what sat the wrong way with them. There was a lot of personal emotional ties to legos that were stepped on by one of the interviewees. I don't know if any of them really resonated with me. I don't know if they "offended" my opinion either.
In class we discussed the different points that the interviewees agreed on and disagreed on. We felt that they all liked the idea of makerspaces in universities, but really differed on their opinions of the efficacy and purpose that they served. I think that as a student, having access to these spaces is really important and useful since we often aren't allowed or don't have the financial capacity to own many tools. I also think that that is the service that all makerspaces or hackerspaces provide anywhere that they are.
Also, we were asked to speak about the past week's "festival" or "field trip" that we went on. It took me and a couple others quite a while to find it, but we ended up making it to Bio-Fiction. It was a festival with a mix of science, art, and film. It was a festival. For the way that it was advertised, and I guess as a biology major, I hadn't expected at all what we got.
The show was put on by the Institute for Systems Biology. It sounds like a really interesting institute that does great work, but to be honest I don't know a whole lot about it. I think that what I was expecting from the festival was that it would be more interactive. I think it would have been a lot more fun to see these projects in person or to see the creators at least and be able to talk to them.
There were a few panelists at the end that were able to speak about the work and answer any questions, but I was unfortunately unable to stay and they were also not necessarily the creators of the projects. The festival was very much wrapped around the videos that had been created by the project/project idea owners and were being presented to us in a little theater. Some of them were quite interesting, but some I found kind of disturbing.
None of that was really meant for praise or for critique. I don't think that I fully understood the purpose or importance of any of the projects. But maybe that was the point. I'm not sure. I came and left the festival confused and not really knowing what to think of it. I was really expecting a lot and hoping that it would have been worthwhile, but I was a little disappointed to find that it was of little interest or inspiration to dive further into the subject.
During discussion time, our group talked about what the difference between a hackerspace and makerspace was, or if there was a differentiation to be made. We said that there was a slight differentiation. It had to do with the hacks happening in hackerspaces and making in makerspaces.
We talked about how hacks are quicker, more amateur than making. Hacks are thought of as more technical and are often just breaking things and throwing them back together to make them work with information or work that you already have completed.
Making is more modern, meditated, and has purposeful design. Making is more about the journey and the process of making, where as hacking has more to do with the finished product. How do you get to the end from where you are?
We argued about whether hackerspaces were a subset of makerspaces or vice versa. I think that both can kind of overlap, but there is a slight distinction between the reasons for why the space was created or who created the space that changes what it is called and how certain people act when working in the space.
It was interesting to see what different people in class connected with from the interviewees or what sat the wrong way with them. There was a lot of personal emotional ties to legos that were stepped on by one of the interviewees. I don't know if any of them really resonated with me. I don't know if they "offended" my opinion either.
In class we discussed the different points that the interviewees agreed on and disagreed on. We felt that they all liked the idea of makerspaces in universities, but really differed on their opinions of the efficacy and purpose that they served. I think that as a student, having access to these spaces is really important and useful since we often aren't allowed or don't have the financial capacity to own many tools. I also think that that is the service that all makerspaces or hackerspaces provide anywhere that they are.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, we were asked to speak about the past week's "festival" or "field trip" that we went on. It took me and a couple others quite a while to find it, but we ended up making it to Bio-Fiction. It was a festival with a mix of science, art, and film. It was a festival. For the way that it was advertised, and I guess as a biology major, I hadn't expected at all what we got.
The show was put on by the Institute for Systems Biology. It sounds like a really interesting institute that does great work, but to be honest I don't know a whole lot about it. I think that what I was expecting from the festival was that it would be more interactive. I think it would have been a lot more fun to see these projects in person or to see the creators at least and be able to talk to them.
There were a few panelists at the end that were able to speak about the work and answer any questions, but I was unfortunately unable to stay and they were also not necessarily the creators of the projects. The festival was very much wrapped around the videos that had been created by the project/project idea owners and were being presented to us in a little theater. Some of them were quite interesting, but some I found kind of disturbing.
None of that was really meant for praise or for critique. I don't think that I fully understood the purpose or importance of any of the projects. But maybe that was the point. I'm not sure. I came and left the festival confused and not really knowing what to think of it. I was really expecting a lot and hoping that it would have been worthwhile, but I was a little disappointed to find that it was of little interest or inspiration to dive further into the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)