Hey nettimers,
With the risk of being too late to the party, I want to thank everyone
involved in this discussion. It was only last week that I had time to read
it, and it came just on time, as I have just moved to the UK to join the
OpenDOTT programme in Dundee (https://opendott.org) as a PhD
I made a Google Form to collect ideas in regards to an organization to fill
the gap left after Make threw in the towel and closed their doors. The full
responses are included below. At this point, it looks like something will
be organized for sure... or at least I'll be starting up something.
Hello Iain, et al,
If I have contributed with my post regarding the passing of Maker - as no
big deal - this creating maker-doubt by underscoring the lack of
environmental consciousness in a kabillion plastic parts (heating seals and
whales applaud) my comments were not intended to squelch the
Parhaps the historical vogue for ‘making’ was a wishful reaction of passive
bodies - TV’s couch potatoes - bound even tighter to the screen by the novel
technics of interactivity, viz. enhanced passivity. I recently heard that 10
year olds in California are averaging 7 hours a day stroking
Adrian,
I definitely agree that criticality should be included at all levels/ages
of tech education; I only specifically addressed future generations because
I find that we are more likely to overlook that aspect when teaching young
people. Perhaps this is because we erroneously assume that they
Sam - it's a self-description that works well for people who find
themselves doing several of those things, and don't want to be
pigeonholed into doing just one.
Garnet makes the same mistake, I think:
" Language typically expands into a rich lexicon of terms when a field
grows, and the
Yeah - the diversity in Make thing is extensive and a long-running issue. I
did a 10 zine series called "Critical Making" (
http://conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/) in 2012, with one whole issue
dedicated to criticizing the diversity of Make. See the following:
-
To the extant that makerism(!) was a movement, it is under-appreciated that
the widespread availability of 3d printers happened after the patents held
by Stratasys (parent of Makerbot) on Fusion Deposit Modeling expired in
2009, and the price of 3d printers plummeted from $10,000 to a little more
(Dear nettimers, this is my last message in this present batch, I promise!)
Someone from MIT shared with me the following, which I quote verbatim. It
specificallly identifies the poor leadership of Dale Dougherty as an
explanation for the trouble with Make. I have no idea what the board of Make
James: I think part of the problem w Make / Maker Faire is that it was at a
crossroads of hacker culture, electronic art and commerce (and several
other things) - but it conflated and misunderstood almost all of them.
Maker Media only took all of this stuff and put it under the banner of
leisure
Minka, I don't think you go far enough - we should be teaching critical
thinking and media literacy to most of the adults, as well as the next
generation. That's been part of what I've been trying to do locally, to
varying levels of success; and not just me - I think Liverpool's
artistic
Death of Maker
Maker Faire promoted, as many have pointed out, an artisanal/technological
relationship and hands on DIY production and in areas of education and
experimentation. All great!
They tried to be inclusive with low-cost materiality and open access
workshops and free-timed events, but
Hello all,
I've really been enjoying this discussion in the wake of Make's
dissolution. As noted, the corporatization, whitewashing, and
delocalization of potentially critical and creative diy approaches was
certainly a problem with the "maker movement" as defined by Make. I also
completely agree
Responses both to Richard, Adrian and Garnet - great points! (Hope this
doesn't make things difficult!)
I think that, taking a longer perspective, the key question we have to
ask is whether the "Maker Movement" contains (or even could contain)
potential genuinely to transform and empower
Garnet, Tom and all
Thanks for that contribution - it unfolds maker from a north American
perspective and would be happy to hear about the historical connections.
I'm always in ore of how North Americans share - whatever you want to
make fix - deconstruct their is always an enthusiastic North
Adrian - I'd agree with all of that - but can you say a bit more about
the last bit:
"working out how we carry that forward into ways to manufacture
everything else"
R.
On 12/06/2019 21:20, Adrian McEwen wrote:
I think the points both of you make are important. Everyone should
have the
I think the points both of you make are important. Everyone should have
the agency (if they choose to use it, not everyone has to be a maker) to
make whatever they like /and/ we should be helping those who want to
build businesses around their making to do so and succeed.
In DoES Liverpool
James - I think from my point of view the greatest value of the maker
movement has been an explosion of people making things that don't
entirely make sense and that are not intended as commercial ventures.
That's not an issue, that's the point. They are learning that they can
pull ideas out of
On 6/11/19 5:27 PM, Jaromil wrote:
> dear Bruce and nettimers,
>
[...]
> 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
Hi Adrian,
I'm really interested in this comment:
"There are people in the space who see it as a way to bootstrap their
startup, and there is a risk that it can be exploited by someone only
out for themselves, but the culture of the space mostly manages to
protect itself from that."
My
Is the death of Make the rebirth of nettime? ;-) Mostly joking, but
given this has turned a few lurkers into posters (me included), maybe we
just need some different topics to be discussing?
I'm enjoying the contributions (and nice to bump into some friends as
fellow-lurkers!). It's nice to
Fascinating to hear about personal engagement in Making, Graham!
I, too, have been personally, hands-on involved in Making since Access
Space's turn towards digital manufacture, and the interface of the
physical and the digital, since around 2010.
(For those of you who aren't aware of
I'd also like to add some thoughts here as a non-poster on Nettime.
I was recently contacted by some old friends, some of whom I haven't seen since
I was 16 years old. These friends were part of London's early squat party
scene. This scene was distinct from 'raves' heard so much about in the
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
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
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
Hello all, and thanks to Chris for the extra heads-up,
I'm also usually a lurker here rather than an active participant - but so
many interesting points have been made that I had to share my small 2c.
As Chris mentions, my own work with Adrian Smith and the Journal of Peer
Production [1], with
Hi Chris, Bruce and others,
I'm interested in talking to people about an open source alternative to
Make - I think this is a real opportunity to improve things and make them
more interesting. In 2016 I wrote that the fad of the maker movement was
over - http://disobedientelectronics.com - my
Hi - I’m an occasional poster - on list for 21 years. Crustacean period of
deep internet networking. Nettime is go-to site for reading when other news
and info cease to bring about the right kind of karate chop to the
mega-brain of capital.
Maker...was cool at start. Grew as result of
Responding to this because of the last call for lurkers to participate more :)
I became of the maker movement through education and saw it mostly as an
education trend, which meant that it was a bunch of millennial and gen x people
trying to read what gen z wants and needs for the imaginary
Interesting times indeed. I am not shedding tears over the demise of PrintrBot
or Radio Shack (which reappeared as a “brand”), and certainly not of Toys “R”
Us (Dutch Intertoys met the same fate) — and neither does the demise of
TechShop or Maker Media really make me cry.
It is intriguing to
*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
Maker Media goes broke
https://hackaday.com/2019/06/07/maker-media-ceases-operations/
Over the years
32 matches
Mail list logo
