asafford4

Apr 23, 202111 min read

Death to The MakerⓇ Movement (Long Live Making!)

Updated: Dec 14, 2021

Vintage photo of a paper lamp factory workers in Copenhagen store

Around 2006 the MakerⓇ Movement started with the onset of at-home 3D printing, Make Magazine, followed by the largely successful Maker Faires. This fed off the fear that the US is “falling behind” in technology, math, and the sciences. Schools quickly jumped on board, showing off their new hardware, integrating the bling into their curriculum.

The Maker movement is also deeply tied to DIY (do-it-yourself) culture. This culture is, no doubt, a valuable one that emphasizes both curiosity and taking initiative. It gives students a sense of independence and teaches the value of iterative processes (if done right). Currently, the MakerⓇ Movement is at least 15 years old, so there is room for relooking and rethinking. How do we learn from the forward-thinking parts of the MakerⓇ Movement (the DIY, iterations, and more), and leave behind the parts that are less inclusive or more commercially rooted. Maker Spaces historically have not been the most inclusive spaces, are often about buying and making a shiny new thing without asking why. It tends to rely on a narrow set of digital technologies, emphasizing "the new". How do we update the past model in order to go forward pedagogically and ethically, create a more inclusive space, and to become engaged with work that seeks to improve the world? Or in the words of Serena Cangiano…

“Within education, making goes beyond making, becoming a strategy to train people to become active, responsible, and engaged citizens rather than skilled software developers.”

Serena Cangiano, Back to Basics: Or Why [Design] Education is Going Back to Making

THE WHY

Working with your hands (eyes, body, mind) is something the my school does well in many areas, not least of which in the arts (I go into the value of working with the hand in a previous post). The pressures of the “academic” world, and the trends of STEM are often falsely positioned as oppositional to the arts, due to all sorts of archaic and ill-informed assumptions and biases. It is the remnant of a mind vs. body argument, and a focus on short term economic worth (with clear classist undertones about those who "work with their hands"); both assumptions that are fairly dated and narrow.

As the daughter of a physicist and biologist, I have always been confused by the arts and sciences being positioned as opposites. As a teacher, I know students must engage with math and the sciences in order to create. Engineering skills are used to make a sculpture stand, and electronics make wearable pieces performative, while geometry is just all over the place in the arts. A few years back I co-taught a course spanning biology and art (Seen Un/Seen with colleague Liz Nee). We emphasized the heightened sense of observation as necessary in both fields. We talked about the basic 3 stages of creating in both fields: acute observation, time to ponder and analyze, and then the output reflecting the first two stages. Historically we have seen these ways of discovering and manifesting are what take ideas forward; DaVinci, to Santiago Ramón y Cajal, to the contemporary Mel Chin are just a very few examples.

Examples of student work resulting from various combinations of art and science: drawing of a view from a microscope, cape based on butterfly wing scales, roof tiles based on turtle shells, sensory shoes based on cat whiskers, and tiles to hold moss to use in water purification on architecture

So how does hands-on learning fit not just into the current world, but a forward thinking one? On Amanpour and Company (link below), Kevin Roose (the tech writer for the New York Times) talked about his new book Futureproof, where he addresses the state of automation in the workplace. He noted that many of the skills taught in STEM were already automated, and that many thinkers in the field were emphasizing the human soft skills are more needed. He gave the examples of being taught communication skills in medical schools, being as important as the scientific medical advances in helping the minds as well as the bodies of patients heal. He mentioned that Tesla, whose factories were fully automated at the time, improved their productivity through the addition of human hands. There were many tasks which humans were just more efficient at. Human eyes and brains were often what prevented small problems from becoming larger problems.

THE SPACE

Can a space help you teach? Can it help you learn?

It is not a surprise that more resources can help privilege learning, but I am interested in the use and set up of a space more than the expensive equipment. How can a space provide proximities, and can that space can be constructed from the bottom up? Can one design a grass roots innovation space? Can we make a space that is not just about where art meets science, but erases those false boundaries all together, and pulls in all disciplines? In other words, how do we create spaces that encourage for learning and risk taking, which create spaces that are not the territory of any one field or group of learners? How do we facilitate mixing learning and fields of study, to find ways to create jumping off points from one area to the next, so that the space becomes about moving an idea forward, vs. boundaries?

GROWTH

A major interest of mine is also how to create this space without needing intense amounts of capital. In my case, my hypothetical proposal is currently for a pre-existing space, so has the advantage avoiding a huge caveat. Space can be a huge obstacle, but it would be worth considering flexibility as a tool in how spaces such as these can be envisioned. Do they have to be permanent? Can they start small and in different locations? Can it move around? While this is vague for now, in creating this space I would advise that it’s not about someone else’s perfect idea of what an innovative space can be, but a relooking at possibilities. While often seen as not ideal, limitations can be a point of departure as well.

PROPOSAL FOR INNOVATION SPACE (tentatively called The Nest, for CSW)

Space Context

The goal is to develop a space where the focus is:

· Proximity enabled discovery

· Border crossing/dissolution of boundaries

· Fostering collaboration, with an emphasis on open sharing

· Emphasize play as necessary part of progress/innovation

· A mixing of newer tech with more traditional tech, to put making as the center, not the expensive technologies

· Physical availability of the tools for diversity of hands-on learning

“…we don't teach innovation; we just create an environment in which it can take place.”

-Matthew Drinkwater, head of London College of Fashion’s Innovation Agency

Much of my Parkhill Grant research focused on the idea of innovation. I want to know how to get students to ask “why not?” instead of “what” or “why?”. I visited many spaces in Amsterdam, as well as in the States, where the organizations believed in new modes of problem solving.

One such space was Mediamatic, a combination art, science, cooking, gallery, restaurant, garden/fish farm, perfumery, and more. Mediamatic's space brings commercial (a restaurant), creative, and scientific modes together. Like our integrated studies courses at CSW, Mediamatic's space allows for connections to be made, and the impossible to become possible. While the conceptual space allows for the bridging of ideas, the physical space allows for experiments and equipment needed for those connections to happen, for proximities to happen.

Featured in my previous blog post “What Happens When a Clothing Designer Looks in the Microscope?”, Cecilia Respanti, (founder of the TextielLab at the Waag, Amsterdam’s premier innovation space) emphasized the importance of proximity, seeing it as key for allowing innovative possibilities. The fashion designer looks in the microscope, and finds a new and more eco-friendly way to dye cloth, while questioning assumption of mass manufacturing. This accident led Respanti, with a background in fashion, to experiment, research intensive science papers, and become a leading expert in this area. Below is an image from her Bioshades Project at the Dissident Gardens exhibition at Het Nieuwe Institute in Rotterdam.

Cecelia Raspanti's Samples on exhibit at Het Nieuwe Instituut

These spaces are beyond maker spaces, so I don’t call them that. The term “Maker” also has a specific commercial origin, one worth learning about and questioning. What I am interested in is a new vision of an innovation space, one that goes beyond the past concept of maker spaces, and that is as much about questioning and rethinking as it is about making. Learners need a space that allows for areas of study to become fluid and overlap, a space that is not just safe for, but conducive for risk taking. A space where problem solving as a linear process is questioned, and which inherently demands all voices are brought to the table...a space where learners ask "Why not?"

Learners should be encouraged to examine:

· Not just can we do it, but why and how should we do it?

· What do we want to accomplish through our actions?

· How will this make our society and lives better?

· Does it have to be done the way it was before? From where/when do we depart?

· While the how is important, the why feels bigger.

The current situation of the pandemic oddly makes this the perfect time to reconsider such a space. In this time (and soon hopefully post-pandemic), the ability to pause and relook at assumptions of the past leaves us at moment ripe with potential.

"I think some of the impact is going to be about the dramatic unfreezing of the way we do our basic life activities. ... That, of course, creates tremendous opportunity for innovation."

John Kao, Institute for Large Scale Innovation

In other words, “Where do we go from here?” should not be limited by where we were.

Part of my considerations for my theoretical proposal is the name, in this case The Nest.

Some of the thinking behind this name are:

· The term “nest” imagines a safe space where growth occurs, and ideas are born.

· It avoids the limitations and baggage of maker spaces.

· It would signify a breaking from trends, moving forward with a new vision.

· The name Nest has nurturing overtones, which hint at it being a more gender-neutral space. Creating a space that focuses on being inclusive for female identified, non-binary, and BIPOC students and faculty is a main goal of revisioning this kind of space.

ELEMENTS OF SPACE

Some of the ideals I mention above (ideas of process, and questioning) clearly have to do with pedagogy, philosophy and curriculum, but the space you set up can support intended values. I looked to many of the innovative spaces I visited to guide the development of a physical space that is not just conducive, but encourages cross discipline work, with the idea as the hub.

Goals for this particular space are to provide a flexible learning and creating environment to host learning-based discussions, conceptions and fabrications, as well as the presentations of ideas, with an emphasis on traversing disciplines and boundaries.

The idea of a flexible structure would allow for tailoring to community needs, and could include:

· Interchangeable workstations

· Flexibility that would allow the school to watch how the space is used, and make future decisions based on actual usage

· Set ups could and should rotate in response to the ebb and flow of needs

For spaces that would benefit from stability (such as spaces for larger tools), these spaces should be accessible and ideally not centered to allow for maximum spatial flexibility. It is likely they also have specific spatial and safety needs.

POSSIBLE NEST STATIONS

Stations should be flexible and rotational in response to the community’s needs at the time. Some of my fantasy stations (in response to my perception of my particular school's needs) follow.

Lego/Block Station–to help students understand making an abstract idea manifest; relates to architecture/city planning, any idea where imagining in 3D is helpful; also ties into spatial knowledge in digital times

Repair Cafe-to facilitate independent repair, teach students to mend loved objects and extend their lives, introduce a practice of a Circular Economy to help convey the impact of objects in our current linear economy; to show there are options

Materials Library & Lab-to house materials collection for reference, and to facilitate the creation of new more sustainable materials

Samples from CSW Material Lab Class

Bike Repair Station (named for past faculty and bike lover Karl Fisher)-teach basic mechanics in accessible applicable way, encourage independent maintenance, bring in ideas of sustainable transit

Take-Apart Table (small appliances and machines)–this would allow students to examine how objects are made and work, as well as basic mechanical principles; parts could be salvaged and reused or even repaired

Robotics Station-This is already a valuable part our community, but having it in the context of the other "Nests" could provide possibilities of proximity; I can see direct connections to the Take-Apart Table, and even to the fiber based materials

Biohacking Space-a place where the biosciences as a creative process can be experimented with in practical applications, this could tie in with the materials lab (such as BUGGS in Baltimore)

Scent Lab-like the one at Mediamatic, it would combine the sciences with the arts, going beyond the typical sensory experiences

Images from the ScentLab at Mediamatic with both older and newer technologies, allowing for critical thinking about what tool is best, questioning is high tech always better

Future Dreaming...(More complicated to set up, but could be hugely valuable)

Letterpress Station-combines arts with languages; relates to printmaking’s historical relationship with voice, idea of self-publishing as a way to have power in a society

Place for a Visiting Creative-a work station for visiting creatives in any field, possibly alum, sponsored by different depts

Dye Garden-Turning a nearby greenspace into a learning garden, could relate to natural dying (like the Indigo Sketchbook Project in Baltimore that serves to bring communities together via indigo growing and dying, link below); we already have alum interested in helping with such a garden

PRINCIPLES OF ITERATIONS

Spaces for making is important, but time and space is needed for the initiating of idea: daydreaming, researching, talking, sketching, etc. Naming the steps of creative processes would familiarize students with the importance of iterations, that ideas don't come easily or fully formed, and to provide a metacognitive framework. Ideally they would be specific spaces, becoming sub-Nests of their own to place value on the struggle of learning, not just the making of the final object.

Ideation wall at the Springhouse, Amsterdam

Gestation Station- a place to initiate, think without specific demands, to take in information; just about comfort, day dreaming, and sketching or writing

Rumination Space-books, reading area, to support research; to start to make ideas tangible

Ideation Space-blackboards, sketchpads, rulers, possibly a drafting table, building blocks...ways to take imagined ideas and manifest images of them for communication and trouble-shooting purposes; with an emphasis on interacting with others

Conversation Space- group blackboard (glass wall?), table to gather around (a round table would emphasizes equity) or circle of comfortable chairs; to model the importance of collaboration in the creating process

Fabrication - the Nest stations.

EVOLUTION OF A SPACE

I imagine starting the space out slowly, with minimal financial investment, if any at all. We could start with gathering basic materials and tools we already have in the community as well as Buy Nothing communities online to layout temporary "nests". Once basic stations are established and students begin to utilize the space, in-kind and financial donations could be solicited from the community. The idea of reused materials and tools, and in-kind donations are key to this idea, and emphasize community investment. The proliferation of the Buy Nothing movement, and the surplus of consumer goods in the US makes the idea of mining what already exists feasible. It’s a great example of how to model the idea of a circular economy in a tangible and visible way. Undeniably this gathering would take human power to coordinate initially, but hopefully would have community-wide implications of cooperating and sharing. My hope is that visibility and use would feed the momentum that would help to (slowly) manifest this space.

Like the space, the question of people power is a necessary part of the process. The same idea of flexibility could apply here: Is it one person’s job to do all this? Could it be run on a cooperative model? Could we have student monitors? How could different teams or departments contribute? How could student families be part of the process? Would rotation help avoid burn out and keep the space more fluid? While this could and should be different based on the community served, I think it would serve the learners and functioning of the space to think non-hierarchically to encourage community investment and avoid burn out.