I just want to interject a little into the Post-Maker universe.
I work a lot these days with the maritime, a technical culture of wooden boat repair that in Essex, I also worked a lot with people who restore old telephone exchanges and people who build steam engines - through having run a free media space in 00 ties were we hacked, pirated recycled at will. Among the many things that are interesting about these technical cultures is that they produce value for those engaged in the process - but this value has only a limited relation to the accumulation of capital. The maker phenomena could be seen in this context as a way to monetise the non-discursive technical cultures - a tinkering world that has an unbroken line back to at least the enlightenment but probably before. In 1799 the Royal Institution of Great Britain was established to put science to work for particular class and keep the theoretical away from a populace that presented a threat (the demon of the French revolution) - The Royal Institution was a place where an artisan class built technicals object but where not allowed in, or allowed to lecture. Faraday had to have elocution lessons, learn how to eat properly before being allowed to lecture and even then had to be deemed a genius to escape the his class background and address gentleman. What Im trying to suggest is that non-discursive technical tinkering exist within many technical cultures and long may it remain so. I'll tag on a little introduction this I wrote. “The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker’s consciousness, but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power.” Karl Marx(1858) In 1958 the French philosopher Gilbert Simondon published On the Mode of Technical Objects to address just this form of cultural alienation implicit in the quote above. He writes, among other things, about two ways in which people come to know technical objects. He says technology viewed from a child's eye, which I imagine he is seeing as, naive and innocent we gain an implicit, non-reflective, habitual tendency. A baby strapped into a buggy, is given a parent's mobile phone and is happily learning to play a game but cannot yet utter the words to express these interactions. Simondon then imagines an inverse, a trained adult engineer, reflective, self-aware using rational knowledge that is elaborated through science. Something like an Apple engineer who creates closed technologies imagining its users still strapped in that buggy unable to articulate their critical needs. Simondon seeks out another form of relationship with technical objects which he finds in the Enlightened Encyclopaedism of Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert (Encyclopédie (1751–1777)) in which concrete knowhow is abstracted and assembled into a technical orchestra. Contemporarily, is it worth considering our networked technologies in this mode of encyclopaedism? An evolving off-grid, red-neck, student, coder, geek pedagogy producing technical information, hacks, howto’s, shakedowns, and open source code repositories, that respond to an evolving technical culture. This technical republic is nothing new, it’s genealogies can be traced to and beyond the amateur experimentalists of the London Electrical Society and William Sturgeon (1783 - 1850) and the artisanal formation that knowledge can be contained in the object built and it’s functioning is its explanation. Is a tinkering internet a critical technical republic? A social space that potentially can break down the state actors with encryption, corporations by opening up software and proprietary technics by hacking them open, making things public? Is the marginal technics in a teenagers dirty bedroom, the dank basement of a bored salaryman, the ham radio garden shed a strategy to unfold the clean room and its magic men in white coats? Or is this largely a white male space that has eradicated other forms of objectivity and subjectivity from view? How can we attempt to instate a devolved technics that refuses misogyny, racialisation and yet envisages technology outside of the paradigm of human slave or potential human enslaver. Harwood ________________________________ From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org <nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org> on behalf of John Preston <wcerf...@riseup.net> Sent: 11 June 2019 17:39:00 To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org Subject: Re: <nettime> The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel On the mention of recycling I just wanted to mention the Precious Plastic (https://preciousplastic.com/) project, which is very much in this vein and currently active. Looks good, I'd like to build a recycling machine and melt down some plastic at some point. On a more local and mainstream level, my town has a show that sells 'upcycled' furniture which has been done up (new handles, repainted with flower motifs etc). Recycling and maker culture is great but I'd like to see more projects which are local or community oriented: this is essential to truly address the problem of waste. We separate glass in my borough, maybe we could feed that into local double glazing firms, or something else. *stopping here before I ramble on for 10KB* John On 2019-06-11 16:27, Jaromil wrote: > dear Bruce and nettimers, > > On Sat, 08 Jun 2019, Bruce Sterling wrote: > >> *Well, so much for the O’Reilly Web 2.0 version of popular >> mechanics. Fifteen years is not too bad a run by the standards of >> an increasingly jittery California Ideology. Now what? — Bruce S > > Felipe Fonseca has seen it coming years before and express it well: > https://medium.com/@felipefonseca/repair-culture-65133fdd37ef > > he wasn't alone: for those of us who were into the "recycling" and DIY > scene in the late nineties, the Make magazine circus was the sort of > poison to kill a movement by sugar coating and extraction aka > franchising. While doing that for 15 years, there are a three points > it missed to address IMHO: > > 1. the right to mod your hardware, esp. video-games which represent > the vast majority of new hardware sold and thrown away around the > globe > > 2. the "peripheries of the empire" aka South of the World (remember > Bricolabs?) where DIY is *amazingly* developed in various forms. > As usual, we have learned nothing from that, just advertised us > westeners doing it better and with more bling. > > 3. the "shamanic" value that can be embedded in uses of technologies, > as opposed to the sanitized and rational interpretation given by > designers in the west. Techno-shamanism is something Fabi Borges, > Vicky Sinclair and other good folks in Bricolabs have been busy for > ages! > > so then, what now? I believe the functional need of aggregating places > for "hacker culture" is lowering: everything can exist virtually as > software, more or less. Machinery + franchising have a too high > production cost compared to their output, not sustainable at all. Also > moving hardware around is a *big* effort and the only ones lowering > overhead costs for new players are in China (...Aliexpress). > > Plus the acceleration of hardware production resulted in way less > sustainability especially in relation to obsolescence: buy a part now > then ask if it will be still available in 20 years! you'll be > presented an NDA to sign and then discover there is just a 3-4 years > plan behind it. Spare parts anyone? Meanwhile is almost 2020 and there > is no service to print and sell-on-demand USB sticks with stuff on: > what a contrast if you think of the CD/DVD on-demand industry of 15 > years ago! which partially resists only on garage music productions. > > So, software still offers possibilities, but will it produce a > cultural shift? I doubt it will do more than what it did already in > crypto, which is already highly controversial and poisoned of a sort > of unstable sugar coating mixed with toxic financial capitals. > > At last, looking at the new generations, the bling is what really > counts: I guess most "fablabs" could be converted to > "fashionlabs". Personally I'm planning to revamp dyne:bolic which > besides running on old computers and modded game consoles did one > thing which is still actual: it was a media production studio. The > best part of "maker culture" was its cultural expression, mined for > its value until exhaustion; but isn't it harder to express cultural > values using hardware? Much easier with music and videos etc. they > also travel easier. > > For more *practical examples* of projects who may inspire new > horizons: you are all invited to an event we (Dyne.org) are setting up > in Amsterdam on the 5th July. We will fill the stage with many new > faces: 16 projects we awarded with EU funding for their pro/vision of > "human-centric" solutions, purpose driven and socially useful. Hope to > see some of you, we will also have a new call end of year, its about > 200k EUR equity free so lets engage in new sustainable challenges > https://tazebao.dyne.org/venture-builder-eu.html > > ciao # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
