Jump to content

Critical making: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
m Dating maintenance tags: {{Refimprove}}
m See also: added Adversarial design link
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{cleanup rewrite|date=August 2014}}
{{cleanup rewrite|date=August 2014}}
{{refimprove|date=January 2017}}
{{more citations needed|date=January 2017}}
'''Critical making''' refers to the hands-on productive activities that link digital technologies to society.
'''Critical making''' refers to the hands-on productive activities that link digital technologies to society.
It is invented to bridge the gap between creative physical and conceptual exploration.<ref>{{cite journal|last=DiSalvo, C|title=Design and the Construction of Publics|journal=Design Issues|year=2009|volume=25|series=1|page=48|doi=10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.48}}</ref> The purpose of critical making lies in the learning extracted from the making rather than the experience derived from the finished output. The term "critical making" is popularized by Matt Ratto, an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto.<ref>http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/critical-making-matt-ratto/</ref> Ratto describes one of the main goals of critical making as: "...to use material forms of engagement with technologies to supplement and extend critical reflection and, in doing so, to reconnect our lived experiences with technologies to social and conceptual critique."<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Ratto, M. |author2=Ree, R. |last-author-amp=yes |title=Materializing information: 3D printing and social change.|journal=First Monday|year=2012|volume=17|issue=7}}</ref> "Critical making" as defined by
It was invented to bridge the gap between creative, physical, and conceptual exploration.<ref>{{cite journal|last=DiSalvo, C|title=Design and the Construction of Publics|journal=Design Issues|year=2009|volume=25|series=1|page=48|doi=10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.48|s2cid=57572072}}</ref> The purpose of critical making resides in the learning extracted from the process of making rather than the experience derived from the finished output. The term "critical making" was popularized by Matt Ratto, an associate professor at the University of Toronto.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/critical-making-matt-ratto/|title = CRITICAL MAKING / MATT RATTO &#124; Open Design Now}}</ref> Ratto describes one of the main goals of critical making as a way "to use material forms of engagement with technologies to supplement and extend critical reflection and, in doing so, to reconnect our lived experiences with technologies to social and conceptual critique."<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Ratto, M. |author2=Ree, R. |name-list-style=amp |title=Materializing information: 3D printing and social change.|journal=First Monday|year=2012|volume=17|issue=7|doi=10.5210/fm.v17i7.3968 |doi-access= free}}</ref> "Critical making", as defined by practitioners like Matt Ratto and Stephen Hockema, "is an elision of two typically disconnected modes of engagement in the world — "critical thinking," often considered as abstract, explicit, linguistically based, internal and cognitively individualistic; and "making," typically understood as tacit, embodied, external, and community-oriented."
practitioners like Matt Ratto and Stephen Hockema, "is an elision of two
typically disconnected modes of engagement in the world — "critical
thinking," often considered as abstract, explicit, linguistically based,
internal and cognitively individualistic; and "making," typically
understood as tacit, embodied, external, and community-oriented."


[[File:Materials for critical making.jpg|thumb|right|Arduino Hardware]]
[[File:Materials for critical making.jpg|thumb|right|Arduino Hardware]]

==History of Critical Making==
==History of Critical Making==
=== Matt Ratto and Critical Making ===
=== Matt Ratto and Critical Making ===
Matt Ratto coined the term in 2008<ref>Ratto, Matt. "Flwr Pwr: Tending the Walled Garden." 2-day Critical Making Workshop for the Walled Garden conference, Virtueel Platform, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, November 20–22, 2008.</ref> to describe his workshop activities that linked conceptual reflection and technical making. This concept explores how learning is influenced by the learner's participation towards [[Critical design|creating]] and/or making things within the technological context.<ref name="CriticalMaking">{{cite journal|last=Ratto|first=Matt|title=Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in technology and Social Life|journal=The Information Society|year=2011|volume=27|pages=252|doi=10.1080/01972243.2011.583819}}</ref> Ratto's first publication to use the term was in 2009. Ratto claims that his goal is to connect the conceptual understanding of technology in social life to the materialized activities. By situating himself within the area of "design-oriented research" rather than "research-oriented research," Ratto believes that critical making enhance the shared experience in both theoretical and practical understandings of critical socio-technical issues.<ref name="CriticalMaking"/> However, critical making should not be reviewed as design, but rather as a type of practice. The quality of critical making lab is evaluated based on the physical "making" process, regardless of quality of the final material production.<ref name="OpenDesignCriticalMaking">{{cite journal|last=Ratto|first=Matt|title=Open Design and Critical Making|journal=Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive|year=2011}}</ref> Prior studies have noted the separation between critical thinking and physical "making". Specifically, experts in technology lack the knowledge from art, and vice versa, however it is very important that technology be embedded in a context rather than being left in isolation especially when it comes to critical making.
Matt Ratto coined the term in 2008<ref>Ratto, Matt. "Flwr Pwr: Tending the Walled Garden." 2-day Critical Making Workshop for the Walled Garden conference, Virtueel Platform, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, November 20–22, 2008.</ref> to describe his workshop activities that linked conceptual reflection and technical making. This concept explores how learning is influenced by the learner's participation towards [[Critical design|creating]] and/or making things within a technological context.<ref name="CriticalMaking">{{cite journal|last=Ratto|first=Matt|title=Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in technology and Social Life|journal=The Information Society|year=2011|volume=27|issue=4|pages=252–260|doi=10.1080/01972243.2011.583819|s2cid=16883478}}</ref> Ratto's first publication to use the term was in 2009. Ratto claims that his goal was to connect the conceptual understanding of technology in social life to materialized activities. By situating himself within the area of "design-oriented research" rather than "research-oriented research," Ratto believes that critical making enhances the shared experience in both theoretical and practical understandings of critical socio-technical issues.<ref name="CriticalMaking"/> However, critical making should not be reviewed as design, but rather as a type of practice. The quality of a critical making lab is evaluated based on the physical "making" process, regardless of the quality of the final material production.<ref name="OpenDesignCriticalMaking">{{cite journal|last=Ratto|first=Matt|title=Open Design and Critical Making|journal=Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive|year=2011}}</ref> Prior studies have noted the separation between critical thinking and physical "making". Specifically, experts in technology lack a knowledge of art, and vice versa. However, it is very important that technology be embedded in a context rather than being left in isolation, especially when it comes to critical making.


The Critical Making Lab was founded by Matt Ratto in the Faculty of Information, University of Toronto. The Critical Making Lab provides participants tools and basic knowledge of digital technology used in critical making. The mission of the lab is to enhance collaboration, communication, and the practice-based engagement in critical making.<ref>{{cite web|title=About the Lab|url=http://criticalmaking.com/about/|accessdate=28 March 2014}}</ref>
The Critical Making Lab was founded by Matt Ratto in the Faculty of Information, University of Toronto. The Critical Making Lab provides participants tools and basic knowledge of digital technology used in critical making. The mission of the lab is to enhance collaboration, communication, and practice-based engagement in critical making.<ref>{{cite web|title=About the Lab|url=http://criticalmaking.com/about/|accessdate=28 March 2014}}</ref>


The main focus of critical making is open design.<ref name="OpenDesignCriticalMaking"/>Open design develops a critical perspective on the current institutions, practices and norms of society, and reconnects materiality and morality. Matt Ratto introduces Critical Making as processes of material and conceptual exploration and creation of novel understandings by the makers themselves. Critical Making includes digital software and hardware. Software usually refers to the Raspberry Pi or Arduino, hardware refers to a computer, or any other device that facilitates an operation.
The main focus of critical making is an open design.<ref name="OpenDesignCriticalMaking"/> Open design develops a critical perspective on the current institutions, practices, and norms of society, reconnecting materiality and morality. Matt Ratto introduces Critical Making as processes of material and conceptual exploration and creation of novel understandings by the makers themselves. Critical Making includes digital software and hardware. the software usually refers to the Raspberry Pi or Arduino. Hardware refers to a computer, or any other device that facilitates an operation.

=== Eric Paulos and Critical Making ===
In 2012, [[Eric Paulos]] launched [http://make.berkeley.edu Critical Making as a studio course at UC Berkeley]. This Critical Making course was designed to operationalize and critique the practice of “making” through both foundational literature and hands-on studio culture. As hybrid practitioners, students develop fluency in readily collaging and incorporating a variety of physical materials and protocols into their practice. With design research as a lens, students envision and create future computational experiences that critically explore social and culturally relevant technological themes such as community, privacy, environment, education, economics, energy, food, biology, democracy, activism, healthcare, social justice, etc. The course has been offered continuously since 2012 and featured publicly at showcases and exhibitions, including Maker Faire as well as other public venues. Selected projects are archived online on the course [http://make.berkeley.edu/showcase.html website].


=== Garnet Hertz and Critical Making ===
=== Garnet Hertz and Critical Making ===
In 2012, [[Garnet Hertz]] adopted the term for a series of ten handmade booklets titled "Critical Making" published in 2012.<ref>http://www.conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/ </ref> It explores how hands-on productive work ‐ making ‐ can supplement and extend critical reflection on technology and society. It works to blend and extend the fields of design, contemporary art, DIY/craft and technological development. In this project, 70 different authors - including [[Norman White]], [[Julian Bleecker]], [[Dunne & Raby]], [[Daniel Charny]], [[Albert Borgmann]], [[Golan Levin]], [[Matt Ratto]], [[Natalie Jeremijenko]], [[McKenzie Wark]], [[Paul Dourish]], [[Mitch Altman]], [[Dale Dougherty]], [[Mark Pauline]], [[Scott Snibbe]], [[Reed Ghazala]] and others - reflected on the term and critical responses to the maker movement. Generally speaking, Hertz's use of the term critical making is focused around studio production and the creation of objects as "things to think with".<ref>http://futureeverything.org/events/critical-making/</ref>
In 2012, [[Garnet Hertz]] adopted the term for a series of ten handmade booklets titled "Critical Making," published in 2012.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/|title=Critical Making - Hertz}}</ref> It explores how hands-on productive work ‐ making ‐ can supplement and extend critical reflection on technology and society. It works to blend and extend the fields of design, contemporary art, DIY/craft, and technological development. In this project, 70 different authors - including [[Norman White]], [[Julian Bleecker]], [[Dunne & Raby]], Daniel Charny, [[Albert Borgmann]], [[Golan Levin]], Matt Ratto, [[Natalie Jeremijenko]], [[McKenzie Wark]], [[Paul Dourish]], [[Mitch Altman]], [[Dale Dougherty]], [[Mark Pauline]], [[Scott Snibbe]], [[Reed Ghazala]] and others - reflected on the term and critical responses to the maker movement. Generally speaking, Hertz's use of the term critical making is focused around studio production and the creation of objects as "things to think with".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://futureeverything.org/events/critical-making/ |title=Critical Making » FutureEverything |access-date=2015-01-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150105104315/http://futureeverything.org/events/critical-making/ |archive-date=2015-01-05 |url-status=dead }}</ref>


Hertz initially set out to make a zine of about 50 pages but was flooded with almost 300 pages of original content from approximately sixty people. It consisted of academic papers, detailed technical projects, interviews and documented artworks. He then categorised the information into specific topics thereby producing multiple booklets. The booklet itself is a testament to critical making. It was printed using a hacked photocopier and about a 100,000 pages were manually folded and stapled to create 300 copies of 10 booklets each.The publication asks us to look at aspects of the DIY culture that go beyond buying an Arduino, getting a MakerBot and reducing DIY to a weekend hobby.These books embrace social issues, the history of technology, activism and politics. The project stems also from a disappointment. A year ago, Make received a grant from DARPA to create "makerspaces" for teenagers. Everyone who, so far, had assumed that a culture built on openness was antithetic to the murkiness that surrounds the military world was bitterly disheartened. CM is not the anti-Make Magazine, it is simply an alternative, a forum for electronic DIY practice to discuss hacking, making, kludging, DIYing in a less sanitized, mass-market way.
Hertz's project consisted of academic papers, detailed technical projects, interviews, and documented pieces of artwork. He then categorized the information into specific topics, thereby producing multiple booklets. The booklet itself is a testament to critical making. It was printed using a hacked photocopier, and roughly 100,000 pages were manually folded and stapled to create 300 copies of 10 booklets each. The publication asks us to look at aspects of the DIY culture that go beyond buying an Arduino, getting a 3D printer, and doing DIY projects as a weekend hobby. These books embrace social issues, the history of technology, activism, and politics. The project also stemmed from a specific disappointment of Make partnering with the US military through DARPA funding in 2012.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://makezine.com/2012/04/04/makerspaces-in-education-and-darpa/|title = Makerspaces in Education and DARPA}}</ref> Many opposed this move, including [[Mitch Altman]], and Hertz's project worked to explore the mixture of making, technology, politics and ethics - as well as bringing the fields of critical design and media arts into conversation with maker culture.


In 2014, Hertz founded "The Studio for Critical Making" at [[Emily Carr University of Art and Design]] as [[Canada Research Chair]] in [[Design]] and [[Media Arts]]. The facility "explores how humanities-based modes of critical inquiry – like the arts and ethics – can be directly applied to building more engaging product concepts and information technologies. The lab works to replace the traditional engineering goals of efficiency, speed or usability with more complex cultural, social and human-oriented values. The end result is technology that is more culturally relevant, socially engaged and personalized." <ref>http://research.ecuad.ca/criticalmaking/</ref>
In 2014, Hertz founded "The Studio for Critical Making" at [[Emily Carr University of Art and Design]] as [[Canada Research Chair]] in [[Design]] and [[Media Arts]]. The facility "explores how humanities-based modes of critical inquiry – like the arts and ethics – can be directly applied to building more engaging product concepts and information technologies. The lab works to replace the traditional engineering goals of efficiency, speed, or usability with more complex cultural, social, and human-oriented values. The end result is a technology that is more culturally relevant, socially engaged, and personalized."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://research.ecuad.ca/criticalmaking/|title = ECUAD: Critical Making}}</ref>


=== Other uses of Critical Making ===
=== Other uses of Critical Making ===
In 2012, [[John Maeda]] began using the term while at the [[Rhode Island School of Design]] (RISD): first as a title for their strategic plan for 2012-2017 and next as part of the title of an edited collection titled "The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice" published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.<ref>http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118517865.html </ref> Other individuals to use the term critical making to orient their work include Amaranth Borsuk ([[University of Washington]]-Bothell), Jentery Sayers ([[University of Victoria]]), and Kari Kraus ([[University of Maryland]]).
In 2012, [[John Maeda]] began using the term while at the [[Rhode Island School of Design]] (RISD): first as a title for their strategic plan for 2012-2017 and next as part of the title of an edited collection titled "The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice" published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118517865.html|title=The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice &#124; Wiley}}</ref> Other individuals who use the term critical making to orient their work include [[Amaranth Borsuk]] ([[University of Washington]]-Bothell), Jentery Sayers ([[University of Victoria]]), Roger Whitson ([[Washington State University]]), Kari Kraus ([[University of Maryland]]), Amy Papaelias ([[SUNY-New Paltz]]), and Jessica Barness ([[Kent State University]]).

=== Nancy Mauro-Flude and Tactical Magick Faerie Circuits ===

'Networked Art Forms and Tactical Magick Faerie Circuits' was a
series of events inspired by critical making and computer subculture curated and devised by [[Nancy Mauro-Flude]] in collaboration, in lutruwita Tasmania, at [[Contemporary Art Tasmania]] (CAT), and on the Internet, from 31 May-30 June 2013. A cohort of artists, programmers and thinkers from the frontline of the critical maker aesthetic, remotely and locally, linking through live streaming of artist talks, workshops, exhibitions, performances, podcasts, and interview broadcasts, Internet relay chat [https://sister0.hotglue.me/radio successively compiled into an online archive].

A durational event that included symposia, exhibitions, performances, workshops and social gatherings. Collaborating with community [[Edge Radio]], and [[Island Magazine]], NAF:TMFC was also a satellite program of the 19th [[ISEA International]] International Symposium on Electronic Art. It brought together leading Australian and International artists and educators whose work responds to the emergent conditions of a networked world; a realm increasingly transmitted through fiber and code, this included [[Matthew Fuller]]; [[Florian Cramer]]; [[Josephine Bosma]]; [[Mez Breeze]]; [[Julian Oliver]], [[Danja Vasliev]] from [[Critical Engineering]] working group; [[Constant Dullart]]; [[Jeff Malpas]]; [[Doll Yoko]]); [[Linda Dement]], [[Rosa Menkman]] who mentored local artists and designers who were invited to respond to the work and ideas generated through the project which formed the closing exhibition which was programmed as Notorious R + D as a part of the inaugural [[Dark Mofo]] festival. The event received [https://www.realtime.org.au/cracking-the-technology-case/ critical acclaim] such as: "Perhaps it is appropriate that I review NAF:TMFC because it sits just outside my comfort zone....the heart, the ritual, the idea of frailty, are returned to technology, seem to capture the spirit of the endeavour. They hold something I can grasp or identify with. And with time, exploring the exhibition in a near empty gallery, I see that the collected works cultivate potential for play and discovery—qualities that chip away at the white noise and allow for a singular experience."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.realtime.org.au/cracking-the-technology-case/|title=Cracking the technology Case; RealTime}}</ref>

Participants were encouraged to adopt a feminist and holistic approach to digital literacy, using various aesthetic tools and means to explore systems through critical making and [https://runway.org.au/interrupts-arent-hidden-experiential-prototyping-miss-despoina/ experiential prototyping] that enable insightful experiences in an increasingly data driven existence.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://runway.org.au/interrupts-arent-hidden-experiential-prototyping-miss-despoina/|title=Interrupts Aren't Hidden; Runway Journal}}</ref>


== Concepts Related to Critical Making ==
== Concepts Related to Critical Making ==


=== DIY and Critical Making ===
=== DIY and critical making ===
Traditional DIY is criticized by its cost and standard. DIY products are difficult to spread in lower-income areas where issues of cost and ease are more commonly cited (William, 276).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Williams|first=Colin C.|title=A lifestye choice? Evaluating the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. I|journal=International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management|year=2004|volume=32|issue=4/5|page=276|doi=10.1108/09590550410534613}}</ref> Today, TET increases the technological standard of DIY,<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Kuznetsov, S. |author2= Paulos, E. |last-author-amp=yes |title=Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures.|journal=In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries|year=2010|pages=295–304}}</ref> enhance the modernity of it, and open up a more practical and advanced area for DIY projects to develop It is not only a lifestyle choices but also a technological product.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Blikstein, P.|title=Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future|journal=In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children|year=2013|pages=173–182}}</ref> "DIY activity is not for example seen as a coping practice used by those unable to afford to externalise the activity to formal firms and/or self-employed individuals. Instead, and reflecting the broader cultural turn in retail studies, their explanation for engagement in DIY is firmly grounded in human agency" (Williams, 273).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Williams|first=Colin C.|title=A lifestye choice? Evaluating the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. I|journal=International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management|year=2004|volume=32|issue=4/5|page=273|doi=10.1108/09590550410534613}}</ref>
Traditional DIY is criticized due to its costs and standards. DIY products are difficult to spread in lower-income areas where issues of cost and ease are more commonly cited (Williams, 276).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Williams|first=Colin C.|title=A lifestyle choice? Evaluating the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. I|journal=International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management|year=2004|volume=32|issue=4/5|page=276|doi=10.1108/09590550410534613|s2cid=167996905}}</ref> It is not only a lifestyle choice but also a technological product.<ref>{{cite book|last=Blikstein, P.|title=Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children |chapter=Gears of our childhood: Constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future |year=2013|pages=173–182|doi=10.1145/2485760.2485786|isbn=9781450319188 |s2cid=15007343}}</ref> "DIY activity is not, for example, seen as a coping practice used by those unable to afford to externalize the activity to formal firms and/or self-employed individuals. Instead, and reflecting the broader cultural turn in retail studies, their explanation for engagement in DIY is firmly grounded in human agency" (Williams, 273).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Williams|first=Colin C.|title=A lifestyle choice? Evaluating the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. I|journal=International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management|year=2004|volume=32|issue=4/5|page=273|doi=10.1108/09590550410534613|s2cid=167996905}}</ref>


=== Speculative Design and Critical Making ===
=== Speculative Design and Critical Making ===
According to DiSalvo and Lukens, "Speculative design is an approach to design that emphasizes inquiry, experimentation, and expression, over usability, usefulness or desirability. A particular characteristic of speculative design is that it tends to be future-oriented. However this should not be mistaken as being fantasy-like sense, suggesting, that is "unreal" and therefore dismissible (DiSalvo and Lukens, 2009)."<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Lukens, J. |author2= DiSalvo, C. |last-author-amp=yes |title=Speculative Design and Technological Fluency|journal=International Journal of Learning|year=2011|volume=3|series=4|pages=23–40|doi=10.1162/ijlm_a_00080}}</ref>
According to DiSalvo and Lukens, "Speculative design is an approach to design that emphasizes inquiry, experimentation, and expression, over usability, usefulness or desirability. A particular characteristic of speculative design is that it tends to be future-oriented. However, this should not be mistaken as being fantasy-like sense, suggesting that it is "unreal" and therefore dismissible (DiSalvo and Lukens, 2009)."<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Lukens, J. |author2= DiSalvo, C. |name-list-style=amp |title=Speculative Design and Technological Fluency|journal=International Journal of Learning|year=2011|volume=3|series=4|issue= 4 |pages=23–40|doi=10.1162/ijlm_a_00080}}{{Dead link|date=February 2018}}</ref>


The term speculative design involves practices from various disciplines, including visionary or futurist forms of architecture, design fiction, and critical design or design for debate instead of referring a specific movement or style. More than just diagrams of unbuilt structures, speculative design aims to explore the space of interaction between culture, technology, and the built environment (Lukens and DiSalvo, 2012, p.&nbsp;25). Practitioners of speculative design engage in design as a sort of provocation, one that asks uncomfortable questions about the long-term implications of technology. These practices also integrate pairs of concerns that are traditionally separate, such as fact and fiction, science and art, and commerce and academia. This provocation extends to questions about design itself.
The term speculative design involves practices from various disciplines, including visionary or futurist forms of architecture, design fiction, and critical design or design for debate instead of referring to a specific movement or style. More than just diagrams of unbuilt structures, the speculative design aims to explore the space of interaction between culture, technology, and the built environment (Lukens and DiSalvo, 2012, p.&nbsp;25). Practitioners of speculative design engage in design as a sort of provocation, one that asks uncomfortable questions about the long-term implications of technology. These practices also integrate pairs of concerns that are traditionally separate, such as fact and fiction, science and art, and commerce and academia. This provocation extends to questions about design itself.

=== [[3D printing|3D Printing]] and Critical Making ===
3D Printing allows for relatively cheap and customizable design of objects which are often integrated into critical making projects. There are two type of industrial manufacturing: subtractive Manufacturing: involves shaping a material through a process of chipping / removing some of its substance (think whittling a figure out of wood) and additive Manufacturing: creates by adding material into a product. The basic steps of 3D printing are digital design: design the object you want to print using digital design software OR download a design from a website (like Thingiverse, for example), press print and the printer will begin creating a physical version of your digital design. 3D printers use layerization to create objects. 3D printers use a variety of materials to create objects, including plastic, metal and nylon (Flemming, What is 3D printing?). The Makerbot, for example, uses polylactic acid (PLA), a substance derived from corn. The coiled PLA filament is pulled into the machine via a tube and then heated up by the extruder, causing the PLA to melt. This melted material forms the model's layers, which is applied in approximately .02 - 1 millimeter layers. The model is built up until it is finished.


== See also ==
== See also ==

# [[Critical technical practice]]
*[[Adversarial Design|Adversarial design]]
# [[Critical thinking]]
# [[Critical design]]
*[[Critical technical practice]]
*[[Critical thinking]]
# [[Design fiction|Speculative design]]
# [[Maker culture]]
*[[Critical design]]
*[[Design fiction|Speculative design]]
# [[Technology]]
# [[Arduino]]
*[[Maker culture]]
# [[3D Printing]]
*[[Technology]]
*[[Arduino]]
*[[3D Printing]]


== References ==
== References ==
Line 55: Line 62:


== External links ==
== External links ==
* [http://www.arduino.cc/ Arduino ]
* [https://www.arduino.cc/ Arduino]
* [http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/critical-making-matt-ratto/ Open Design Now]
* [http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/critical-making-matt-ratto/ Open Design Now]
* [http://flashgamer.com/arduino/comments/raspberry-pi-or-arduino Raspberry Pi or Arduino]
* [http://flashgamer.com/arduino/comments/raspberry-pi-or-arduino Raspberry Pi or Arduino]
Line 61: Line 68:
* [http://www.conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/ Critical Making - Hertz (2012)]
* [http://www.conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/ Critical Making - Hertz (2012)]
* [http://research.ecuad.ca/criticalmaking/ The Studio for Critical Making (Emily Carr University of Art and Design)]
* [http://research.ecuad.ca/criticalmaking/ The Studio for Critical Making (Emily Carr University of Art and Design)]
* [http://fora.tv/2013/09/21/John_Maeda_The_Art_of_Critical_Making John Maeda: The Art of Critical Making]
*{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20140320173537/http://fora.tv/2013/09/21/John_Maeda_The_Art_of_Critical_Making John Maeda: The Art of Critical Making]}}
* [https://runway.org.au/interrupts-arent-hidden-experiential-prototyping-miss-despoina/ Nancy Mauro-Flude: Interrupts aren’t hidden Experiential Prototyping ]


[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Design]]
[[Category:Design]]
[[Category:Learning]]
[[Category:Hacker culture]]

Latest revision as of 23:38, 14 November 2024

Critical making refers to the hands-on productive activities that link digital technologies to society. It was invented to bridge the gap between creative, physical, and conceptual exploration.[1] The purpose of critical making resides in the learning extracted from the process of making rather than the experience derived from the finished output. The term "critical making" was popularized by Matt Ratto, an associate professor at the University of Toronto.[2] Ratto describes one of the main goals of critical making as a way "to use material forms of engagement with technologies to supplement and extend critical reflection and, in doing so, to reconnect our lived experiences with technologies to social and conceptual critique."[3] "Critical making", as defined by practitioners like Matt Ratto and Stephen Hockema, "is an elision of two typically disconnected modes of engagement in the world — "critical thinking," often considered as abstract, explicit, linguistically based, internal and cognitively individualistic; and "making," typically understood as tacit, embodied, external, and community-oriented."

Arduino Hardware

History of Critical Making

[edit]

Matt Ratto and Critical Making

[edit]

Matt Ratto coined the term in 2008[4] to describe his workshop activities that linked conceptual reflection and technical making. This concept explores how learning is influenced by the learner's participation towards creating and/or making things within a technological context.[5] Ratto's first publication to use the term was in 2009. Ratto claims that his goal was to connect the conceptual understanding of technology in social life to materialized activities. By situating himself within the area of "design-oriented research" rather than "research-oriented research," Ratto believes that critical making enhances the shared experience in both theoretical and practical understandings of critical socio-technical issues.[5] However, critical making should not be reviewed as design, but rather as a type of practice. The quality of a critical making lab is evaluated based on the physical "making" process, regardless of the quality of the final material production.[6] Prior studies have noted the separation between critical thinking and physical "making". Specifically, experts in technology lack a knowledge of art, and vice versa. However, it is very important that technology be embedded in a context rather than being left in isolation, especially when it comes to critical making.

The Critical Making Lab was founded by Matt Ratto in the Faculty of Information, University of Toronto. The Critical Making Lab provides participants tools and basic knowledge of digital technology used in critical making. The mission of the lab is to enhance collaboration, communication, and practice-based engagement in critical making.[7]

The main focus of critical making is an open design.[6] Open design develops a critical perspective on the current institutions, practices, and norms of society, reconnecting materiality and morality. Matt Ratto introduces Critical Making as processes of material and conceptual exploration and creation of novel understandings by the makers themselves. Critical Making includes digital software and hardware. the software usually refers to the Raspberry Pi or Arduino. Hardware refers to a computer, or any other device that facilitates an operation.

Eric Paulos and Critical Making

[edit]

In 2012, Eric Paulos launched Critical Making as a studio course at UC Berkeley. This Critical Making course was designed to operationalize and critique the practice of “making” through both foundational literature and hands-on studio culture. As hybrid practitioners, students develop fluency in readily collaging and incorporating a variety of physical materials and protocols into their practice. With design research as a lens, students envision and create future computational experiences that critically explore social and culturally relevant technological themes such as community, privacy, environment, education, economics, energy, food, biology, democracy, activism, healthcare, social justice, etc. The course has been offered continuously since 2012 and featured publicly at showcases and exhibitions, including Maker Faire as well as other public venues. Selected projects are archived online on the course website.

Garnet Hertz and Critical Making

[edit]

In 2012, Garnet Hertz adopted the term for a series of ten handmade booklets titled "Critical Making," published in 2012.[8] It explores how hands-on productive work ‐ making ‐ can supplement and extend critical reflection on technology and society. It works to blend and extend the fields of design, contemporary art, DIY/craft, and technological development. In this project, 70 different authors - including Norman White, Julian Bleecker, Dunne & Raby, Daniel Charny, Albert Borgmann, Golan Levin, Matt Ratto, Natalie Jeremijenko, McKenzie Wark, Paul Dourish, Mitch Altman, Dale Dougherty, Mark Pauline, Scott Snibbe, Reed Ghazala and others - reflected on the term and critical responses to the maker movement. Generally speaking, Hertz's use of the term critical making is focused around studio production and the creation of objects as "things to think with".[9]

Hertz's project consisted of academic papers, detailed technical projects, interviews, and documented pieces of artwork. He then categorized the information into specific topics, thereby producing multiple booklets. The booklet itself is a testament to critical making. It was printed using a hacked photocopier, and roughly 100,000 pages were manually folded and stapled to create 300 copies of 10 booklets each. The publication asks us to look at aspects of the DIY culture that go beyond buying an Arduino, getting a 3D printer, and doing DIY projects as a weekend hobby. These books embrace social issues, the history of technology, activism, and politics. The project also stemmed from a specific disappointment of Make partnering with the US military through DARPA funding in 2012.[10] Many opposed this move, including Mitch Altman, and Hertz's project worked to explore the mixture of making, technology, politics and ethics - as well as bringing the fields of critical design and media arts into conversation with maker culture.

In 2014, Hertz founded "The Studio for Critical Making" at Emily Carr University of Art and Design as Canada Research Chair in Design and Media Arts. The facility "explores how humanities-based modes of critical inquiry – like the arts and ethics – can be directly applied to building more engaging product concepts and information technologies. The lab works to replace the traditional engineering goals of efficiency, speed, or usability with more complex cultural, social, and human-oriented values. The end result is a technology that is more culturally relevant, socially engaged, and personalized."[11]

Other uses of Critical Making

[edit]

In 2012, John Maeda began using the term while at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD): first as a title for their strategic plan for 2012-2017 and next as part of the title of an edited collection titled "The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice" published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.[12] Other individuals who use the term critical making to orient their work include Amaranth Borsuk (University of Washington-Bothell), Jentery Sayers (University of Victoria), Roger Whitson (Washington State University), Kari Kraus (University of Maryland), Amy Papaelias (SUNY-New Paltz), and Jessica Barness (Kent State University).

Nancy Mauro-Flude and Tactical Magick Faerie Circuits

[edit]

'Networked Art Forms and Tactical Magick Faerie Circuits' was a series of events inspired by critical making and computer subculture curated and devised by Nancy Mauro-Flude in collaboration, in lutruwita Tasmania, at Contemporary Art Tasmania (CAT), and on the Internet, from 31 May-30 June 2013. A cohort of artists, programmers and thinkers from the frontline of the critical maker aesthetic, remotely and locally, linking through live streaming of artist talks, workshops, exhibitions, performances, podcasts, and interview broadcasts, Internet relay chat successively compiled into an online archive.

A durational event that included symposia, exhibitions, performances, workshops and social gatherings. Collaborating with community Edge Radio, and Island Magazine, NAF:TMFC was also a satellite program of the 19th ISEA International International Symposium on Electronic Art. It brought together leading Australian and International artists and educators whose work responds to the emergent conditions of a networked world; a realm increasingly transmitted through fiber and code, this included Matthew Fuller; Florian Cramer; Josephine Bosma; Mez Breeze; Julian Oliver, Danja Vasliev from Critical Engineering working group; Constant Dullart; Jeff Malpas; Doll Yoko); Linda Dement, Rosa Menkman who mentored local artists and designers who were invited to respond to the work and ideas generated through the project which formed the closing exhibition which was programmed as Notorious R + D as a part of the inaugural Dark Mofo festival. The event received critical acclaim such as: "Perhaps it is appropriate that I review NAF:TMFC because it sits just outside my comfort zone....the heart, the ritual, the idea of frailty, are returned to technology, seem to capture the spirit of the endeavour. They hold something I can grasp or identify with. And with time, exploring the exhibition in a near empty gallery, I see that the collected works cultivate potential for play and discovery—qualities that chip away at the white noise and allow for a singular experience."[13]

Participants were encouraged to adopt a feminist and holistic approach to digital literacy, using various aesthetic tools and means to explore systems through critical making and experiential prototyping that enable insightful experiences in an increasingly data driven existence.[14]

[edit]

DIY and critical making

[edit]

Traditional DIY is criticized due to its costs and standards. DIY products are difficult to spread in lower-income areas where issues of cost and ease are more commonly cited (Williams, 276).[15] It is not only a lifestyle choice but also a technological product.[16] "DIY activity is not, for example, seen as a coping practice used by those unable to afford to externalize the activity to formal firms and/or self-employed individuals. Instead, and reflecting the broader cultural turn in retail studies, their explanation for engagement in DIY is firmly grounded in human agency" (Williams, 273).[17]

Speculative Design and Critical Making

[edit]

According to DiSalvo and Lukens, "Speculative design is an approach to design that emphasizes inquiry, experimentation, and expression, over usability, usefulness or desirability. A particular characteristic of speculative design is that it tends to be future-oriented. However, this should not be mistaken as being fantasy-like sense, suggesting that it is "unreal" and therefore dismissible (DiSalvo and Lukens, 2009)."[18]

The term speculative design involves practices from various disciplines, including visionary or futurist forms of architecture, design fiction, and critical design or design for debate instead of referring to a specific movement or style. More than just diagrams of unbuilt structures, the speculative design aims to explore the space of interaction between culture, technology, and the built environment (Lukens and DiSalvo, 2012, p. 25). Practitioners of speculative design engage in design as a sort of provocation, one that asks uncomfortable questions about the long-term implications of technology. These practices also integrate pairs of concerns that are traditionally separate, such as fact and fiction, science and art, and commerce and academia. This provocation extends to questions about design itself.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ DiSalvo, C (2009). "Design and the Construction of Publics". Design Issues. 1. 25: 48. doi:10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.48. S2CID 57572072.
  2. ^ "CRITICAL MAKING / MATT RATTO | Open Design Now".
  3. ^ Ratto, M. & Ree, R. (2012). "Materializing information: 3D printing and social change". First Monday. 17 (7). doi:10.5210/fm.v17i7.3968.
  4. ^ Ratto, Matt. "Flwr Pwr: Tending the Walled Garden." 2-day Critical Making Workshop for the Walled Garden conference, Virtueel Platform, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, November 20–22, 2008.
  5. ^ a b Ratto, Matt (2011). "Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in technology and Social Life". The Information Society. 27 (4): 252–260. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.583819. S2CID 16883478.
  6. ^ a b Ratto, Matt (2011). "Open Design and Critical Making". Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive.
  7. ^ "About the Lab". Retrieved 28 March 2014.
  8. ^ "Critical Making - Hertz".
  9. ^ "Critical Making » FutureEverything". Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  10. ^ "Makerspaces in Education and DARPA".
  11. ^ "ECUAD: Critical Making".
  12. ^ "The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice | Wiley".
  13. ^ "Cracking the technology Case; RealTime".
  14. ^ "Interrupts Aren't Hidden; Runway Journal".
  15. ^ Williams, Colin C. (2004). "A lifestyle choice? Evaluating the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. I". International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 32 (4/5): 276. doi:10.1108/09590550410534613. S2CID 167996905.
  16. ^ Blikstein, P. (2013). "Gears of our childhood: Constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future". Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. pp. 173–182. doi:10.1145/2485760.2485786. ISBN 9781450319188. S2CID 15007343.
  17. ^ Williams, Colin C. (2004). "A lifestyle choice? Evaluating the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. I". International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 32 (4/5): 273. doi:10.1108/09590550410534613. S2CID 167996905.
  18. ^ Lukens, J. & DiSalvo, C. (2011). "Speculative Design and Technological Fluency". International Journal of Learning. 4. 3 (4): 23–40. doi:10.1162/ijlm_a_00080.[dead link]
[edit]