Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
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 underlying this effort was the perpetually ignored issue of class; presumed capacity to afford the 25.00US ticket, and parking fees in San Mateo, or own a car or ride a train ride to be part of it from small towns or near by cities of San Jose and San Francisco here in the West. I’m sure there were such caveats of inclusion in NY Maker Faire as well. That Maker ethos spread to many cities and had such great public relations is certainly excellent. The project tried to be inclusive with its appeal to generic materials, organicism, and everyday technology but there were inhibitors and ultimately the Maker Faire, at least, was a middle-class, largely white, and increasingly commercial event. For contrast, Gray Area and Intersection's Urban Prototyping 'fair' (2012?) was in the streets - with techno-artists 'making' or demonstrating all over San Francisco's middle Market St area - with great exposure to all kinds of publics. That said, great upshot of widespread Maker movement/campaign, publication; experimental-like idea promotion and heralding of “non-expertise”as means to learn, and the putting of collaboration within reach of many has been the growth of “maker spaces” in public sector zones. This surely helps counteract some class issues which evolve from pricing and historic exclusion in tech and the arts such as public library systems, (SFPL has The Mix, teen space), our K-12 public schools (Hoover MS built a Maker-space), storefronts (there are several walk-in and work, including Double Union, also in SF, which is trans/LBGTQ space) and maybe even websites such as Adafruit (though not sure of timeline) emerged during the Maker heyday. How these spaces will survive and change without umbrella Maker movement, or leading publication, remains a question. Disney got involved with Maker Faire, and that should tell everyone a lot. One hopes the spirit of ‘making’ and ‘collaboration’ promoted to non-technologists and to many outsiders of the arts/technology fields, will have subtle and lasting repercussions in the next wave - and will continue to permeate education and beyond. How has “Maker” influenced European education? https://www.urbanlibraries.org/member-resources/makerspaces-in-libraries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_makerspace https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/everyone-is-a-maker/473286/ http://redtri.com/new-york/hands-on-nycs-best-makerspaces/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048623.2016.1228163 http://eprints.qut.edu.au/73071/1/73071.pdf https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:22717/n2006043067.pdf https://www.edutopia.org/blog/designing-a-school-makerspace-jennifer-cooper Molly On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:34 AM Minka Stoyanova wrote: > 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 that the focus on 3D printing over CNC, laser cutting, or > (even) traditional building is a problem. I'm excited about Garnet's > proposals for a new direction/umbrella for critical approaches as well as > Adrian's proposals, that recall arts and crafts ideas for 21st century > problems. > > I wonder though, about the educational angle. My own local makerspace as > well as local non-profits that aim to bring tech education to young people > (often underserved) relied on the Make / "maker" phenomenon for tools, > educational resources, and funding. Perhaps making an LED blink isn't > really interesting for a critically-minded artist; as a critically-minded > artist, I certainly feel that way. But, it's certainly a stepping stone for > tech education. Make had a significant role in that sphere. > > However, I see an potentially interesting/exciting new direction that > could come of the dissolution of Make's stronghold in the realm of > education. Tech education could be more than "teaching electronics to kids" > -- which is *very* important, in my opinion. It could (and I think, > should) include teaching critical approaches to technology, teaching media > literacy, critical thinking, and environmental thinking. I think the > discussion here could point towards ways of bringing those perspectives > into what was, under Make, a largely naive approach. > > Is there a space in what Adrian and Garnet's proposals for youth > education? ...for educating the next generation? ...or, for aiding the > educators of the next generation? > > Minka > (trying to contribute and not just "lurk" so much) > > On
Re: Periodizing With Control
I'm likely going to get torn apart for saying this, but in regards to "Periodizing With Control"... who cares? What are the implications of this? Seb is super smart and this is nicely crafted and researched - but this lacks any sort of case study, place, context, time or any connection to the real world. It's a bit like Foucault theorising about a concept, Deleuze putting a layer on top of it, Jameson reinterpreting a layer on top of that, Galloway building on top of that, and Seb embellishing that. It's the standard incantation of names that resembles an item that has 5 layers of paint (or clay) on it but the base is lost in the process. While all this was going on, the base layer of world is literally melting down, politics and nationalism has gone to hell, academic institutions are in a tailspin and the writing has never taken notice - or at least this text doesn't notice. I'd argue (and would love to be proven wrong, but) this text is completely unhinged from reality. No? Garnet On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, 6:29 pm Nil, wrote: > Periodizing With Control > > by Seb Franklin > > This essay is guided by the following question: what kinds of critical > possibilities become legible if one reads Gilles Deleuze’s > conceptualization of control societies both as a work of periodization > theory and as a theory of periodization? In other words, how might one read > control in methodological terms? One of the motivations for this inquiry is > Fredric Jameson’s observation that periodizing hypotheses “tend to > obliterate difference and to project an idea of the historical period as > massive homogeneity (bounded on either side by inexplicable chronological > metamorphoses and punctuation marks” (1991, 3-4). Jameson’s solution to > this problem is to conceive of the “cultural dominant” that replaces the > concept of style within aesthetic analysis and that thus allows for “the > presence and coexistence of a range of different, yet subordinate, > features” (1991, 4). The features that Deleuze attributes to control > suggest the possibility that this analytical rubric can be extended to the > analysis of “dominant” features that occur not in spheres conventionally > described in aesthetic (or stylistic) terms, such as architecture, > literature, and visual art, but in material- discursive arrangements like > governmentality, technology, and economics. A close reading of Deleuze’s > theorization of control reveals those three threads to be knotted together > in ways that both invite and are irreducible to historical breaks. Because > of this, Deleuze’s writing on control societies points towards modes of > historical analysis that can account for complex assemblages of epistemic > abstractions and the concrete situations that undergird and (for worse and > for better) exceed them. > > It is certainly the case that periodizing gestures appear to ground the > essays “Having an Idea in Cinema” (1998; first delivered as a lecture at La > Fémis in 1987) and “Postscript on Control Societies,” as well the > conversation with Antonio Negri published as “Control and Becoming” (1995; > first published in 1990). [1] Across these texts Deleuze names and sketches > the contours of a sociopolitical and economic logic that diverges in > important ways from the earlier regimes of sovereignty and discipline > theorized by Michel Foucault. In the earliest of what one might call the > control texts, ostensibly a commentary on the cinema of Jean-Marie Straub > and Danièle Huillet, Deleuze itemizes the signature components of > disciplinary societies—“the accumulation of structures of confinement” > (prisons, hospitals, workshops, and schools)—in order to demarcate a period > in which “we” were “entering into societies of control that are defined > very differently” (1998, 17). These newer types of societies are signaled > by a specific mode of social management: the age of control comes about > when “those who look after our interests do not need or will no longer need > structures of confinement,” with the result that the exemplary forms of > social regulation begin to “spread out” (1998, 17-18). > > So, the dissolution of institutional spaces and the concomitant ‘spreading > out’ of disciplinary power marks the first characteristic of control > societies and, apparently, establishes their difference from arrangements > centered on ‘classical’ sovereignty or disciplinary power. The exemplary > diagram here is the highway system, in which “people can drive infinitely > and ‘freely’ without being at all confined yet while still being perfectly > controlled” (1998, 18). In “Control and Becoming” Deleuze once again speaks > of the passage through sovereignty and discipline and the breakdown of the > latter’s sites of confinement, but he adds a second valence in the form of > a discussion of technology that is only hinted at in the earlier piece’s > allusions to information and communication. In this conversation Deleuze > again appears
Re: The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
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 that the focus on 3D printing over CNC, laser cutting, or (even) traditional building is a problem. I'm excited about Garnet's proposals for a new direction/umbrella for critical approaches as well as Adrian's proposals, that recall arts and crafts ideas for 21st century problems. I wonder though, about the educational angle. My own local makerspace as well as local non-profits that aim to bring tech education to young people (often underserved) relied on the Make / "maker" phenomenon for tools, educational resources, and funding. Perhaps making an LED blink isn't really interesting for a critically-minded artist; as a critically-minded artist, I certainly feel that way. But, it's certainly a stepping stone for tech education. Make had a significant role in that sphere. However, I see an potentially interesting/exciting new direction that could come of the dissolution of Make's stronghold in the realm of education. Tech education could be more than "teaching electronics to kids" -- which is *very* important, in my opinion. It could (and I think, should) include teaching critical approaches to technology, teaching media literacy, critical thinking, and environmental thinking. I think the discussion here could point towards ways of bringing those perspectives into what was, under Make, a largely naive approach. Is there a space in what Adrian and Garnet's proposals for youth education? ...for educating the next generation? ...or, for aiding the educators of the next generation? Minka (trying to contribute and not just "lurk" so much) On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:56 AM James Wallbank wrote: > 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 localities. Relocalisation was one of > the big sales pitches for the internet (remember all that breathless talk > of working from home, and a new layer of prosperous digital artisans?) yet > what we see, twenty five years later, is hyper-centralisation. > > Just as an example, we used to use the apartment above "Makers" for > AirBNB. So British people, visiting us in Sheffield, could pay people in > San Fransico for the right to transact with us. Partly in response, we've > taken the step of scrapping the apartment, breaking through the ceiling of > the shop, reinstituting the staircase, and opening up two more floors to > local commerce, culture and micro-industry! > > But can we make that decision make sense? Are we just utopian > silly-billies, prepared to waste our resources on subsidising local culture > - or can we make it pay at least as much as we made from our previous > activities? > > Only by fairly universal engagement can Making begin to address the sorts > of global issues that posters like Adrian and Garnet have identified > (resource usage, poor resource recovery, social inequalities, > alienation...). And to get fairly universal engagement, it HAS TO PAY. > > Richard, you say "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." > > If we maintain that the quirky, fascinating, but ultimately unprofitable > experiments are the core value of the Maker Movement, then be prepared to > accept that it WILL wither and die - or rather, simply retreat into the > world of hobbyists orbiting academic institutions. Throughout history there > have been movements that have resulted in things that don't entirely make > sense - it hasn't needed the Maker Movement to make that happen. Are you in > danger of conflating the experimental excrescences of creative young people > with what we're now calling "making" (that intersection of the physical and > the digital that's made possible by affordable digital manufacturing > equipment and dirt-cheap, programmable microelectronics)? > > I believe that the Maker Movement points to value an order of magnitude of > greater - a contextual change, in which localities are transformed and > empowered as they take on the skills, the engagement and the tools to make > their own quirky, responsive and particular products and emergent cultures > suitable for their own needs. > > But just because something is fairly universal, that STILL doesn't mean > that it has potential to revitalise localities. This is where I have an > issue with 3D Print. Take, as an analogy, inkjet printing. Inkjet printing > is almost universal
Re: Fwd: Who’s *really* backing Boris?
Those examples dont convince me. He is surprisingly well organised. My anwser is "fox, fox, fox". As in Ernst Jandel and dope. And I tell them: remove the hunting ban first. H. << Onderwerp: openDemocracy has just revealed that the two frontrunners, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, have *received £25,000 each from a prominent climate change sceptic.* Boris is yet to disclose the donation. We also know that Lynton Crosby’s controversial PR firm is running*a vastly expensive pro-Boris campaign*– but no one will say who’s picking up the bill. >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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:
Empire Shitholes Überalles aka The Tales of Anthropocene ( and its buddy Surveillance Capitalism ) …
hello dear nettimers, ( Quick preface in response to the interesting thread about Nettime being in bad shape ... Ya wanna know what's really in bad shape ? Society in the grips of the whole metastizing Cybernetic Regime... archived List culture might not seem like such the speakeasys makers thought they could be back in those exhuberant + myopic technotopian heydays... But well, sometimes ya just gotta say what ya gotta say. ) The XLterrestrials were at yet another Anthropocene conference this past weekend, this time at Humboldt University put on by Phd students. It DID have a refreshing amount of authenticity, because it was not overshadowed by the experts, academia popo and the usual tracks these debates are supposed to stay on, and the over-the-edge careering into that over-intellectualizing abyss... But it was certainly not free from some of the usual errors ... This time it provided us an opportunity to get to the underbelly of should probably be identified as clear strains of The Anthropocene AGENDAS... It's still a work in progress to illuminate the theory Here's what we got so far: XLt reports : The Trials Of The Homocidal Anthropocene ! v.1 http://xlterrestrials.org/plog/?p=19247 " While the facts from the sciences can be precise and useful, this is not so much about humanity crossing this geological time span / threshold, but an atrocities-crime scene, where the most powerful industries and their profiteering operators ( with names and addresses ) are implementing a reckless, high-risk, criminal, and ultimately murderous Agenda. A disastrous and terrifying Guinea-Pigdom ! Is this a sequel to all the previous colonial projects that perpetrated so much human, wildlife and eco-systsem carnage, long before this new Anthropocene brand? Not questions being asked too frequently in the academic settings, especially when there are so many coming from that species of genocide-apologists, i.e. the Stephen Pinker-esque schools. " " Nevermind the Deep-time of the Anthropocene, let’s deal with the more tangible, in all our faces problem of TECHNO-FASCISM ! " As we are working on part 2... "We are beginning to uncover new patterns of how much the neo-colonialism + technodystopias ( and might we include aspects of the incorporated MAKER culture ? ) are intertwined with anthropogenic agendas... It is neither the citizens nor the inhabitants of this earth who have chosen the expansionist's graveyard and a host of unspeakable atrocities ! It is not "WE" who are murdering all species and and all the magic and functionality of our living, breathing, pre-existing ecosytems ! It's primarily a trajectory set by the profiteers of a global-scale Futurist Disruption Economy... the same greedy, bloody, patriarchal, corporate entities who were the warmonger-profiteers in the last season(s) of Empire Shitholes Überalles. " --- If you happen to be in Berlin next week, we will discuss this as part of our new episode of CiTiZEN KiNO #79: Eyes Wired Shut on June 20th... For more info, check for venue, time, updates, description here: http://xlterrestrials.org/plog/?p=19233 It will also entail a FUNDRAISER AFTERPARTY, so please do join us if you're around... and/or spread the word - we could use all the support we can get to keep this project going ! - Thx for reading ! Podinski and the XLterrestrials p.s. And Mucho Thanx + RESPEX to Nettime's flows of information... in particular the discussion raised by i think both Andy Garcia and Patrice Riemens re: *Gianroberto Casaleggio*, It was great to be reminded of these clips ( which were buzzing conversation pieces - amongst the "Indymedians" and many in the IT industries - in SF Bay Area at the time they first hit the net ) .. and we will be analyzing them further in the C-KINO show... in relation, of course to the rise of TEchno-Fascism ! * * # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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:
