Why maker’s aesthetic is relevant?
What are we talking about when we talk about aesthetics?
When we think of aesthetics, what comes to mind? Perhaps beautiful landscapes, a painting masterwork or impressive architecture. Maybe we think of talented artists or fascinating composers. In general, we are drawn to aesthetic objects that we feel are pleasing to the eye and the senses. While these ideas and experiences are certainly relevant, the definition of “aesthetics” is much broader than that. Aesthetics refers to the way we perceive and appreciate the world around us.
In the maker movement, “almost” everything is yet to be written, yet to be defined and establishing a frame of reference is the key. There are many practical initiatives and there is still not enough theory (there is, but it is scattered, distributed and heavily influenced by American DIY).
The creative core of the maker movement is creative and it breaks the stereotypes usually related to traditional crafts — an oppressive patriarchal and gender-exclusive way of thinking. We need to reconnect with our references (theoretical, philosophical and practical) to know where we have come from and how we can build where we are going.
In this article, I analyze how makers and maker aesthetics can be relevant and applicable to educational environments and offer some references, examples and anecdotes.
Let’s get down to basics.
It is widely accepted that there is a close relationship between creator aesthetics and creativity. What is not well established is whether or not this connection applies to educational settings, such as schools, and whether or not this aspect of creativity influences learning in activities. However, the potential link between creativity and education is gaining ground in the current literature. As part of this emerging field of research, I am interested in exploring the links between aesthetic and design processes in the context of education and makerspaces, both those linked to schools and non-formal spaces. I want to make it clear that this interest is not only focused on the final result of a maker creation, for me, it is also in the design of the activities, in their objectives, in the design of the space where they take place.
First, “the value of aesthetics in the maker world” for educators. In the background, they can be centered on: the aesthetics of functionality (more than if is art or well-finished). And they have to touch the essence of matter which comes through a certain way of doing things, which is expressed through design and documentation. Educators should be able to do certain things to their materials that make them easier to use for students. Teaching materials aesthetically is done in many ways including school architecture and design, the design of learning environments, student and teacher workspaces and materials, and organization and storage methods.
Functional aesthetics means the ability of an object to perform a task efficiently or skillfully, whereas aesthetic beauty refers more to the satisfaction of one’s senses in terms of form, function or utility. Aesthetic operations[1] is a framework that “supports educators in making sense of the aesthetics within their makerspace.”
Second, “on is the border between the prototype and the final product?”
What is a prototype? What does it mean to make a product? Who is the end user of a final product? How can create the prototype of the product?
A prototype can be based on the principles of modular design: reusable, reciclable, components in specific sizes that can be assembled in various combinations to create an infinite number of shapes.
The design process starts with an idea and is then translated into a series of drawings called a ‘prototype’. These drawings can then be used to guide the assembly of the components of the product. Once the prototype is complete it can be tested and refined before moving on to the final design. The final design is the one that becomes the basis of a production run of the product. But does a maker think about a final product?
The final product[2] might not be the maker’s intention. A piece of artwork might not be a finished product but a step toward something larger, just as design prototypes are often not produced but used for testing a new idea. Either way the result can be elegant or crude depending on the intention behind it and the materials and tools used to create it.
The aesthetic is often identified with the shapes of the objects, with customization, and with handmade works. With these three terms in mind, it’s important to understand what is the function/role of the user in the design cycle.
Third, “when does a prototype stop being beta?” Is there any real difference between a product that was thought up by the creator and worked through trial and error and the finished product that is marketed and sold? Or are they both Is it the same? What does this say about the role of the designer or creator in the development of a product or brand? How is this affected by feedback from the market? When should a maker give up perfecting their product and simply get the product to market?
Amateur vs. Pro
Development. Manufacturing. Implementation. Marketing. That has been the traditional mindset of business for generations. But the nature of business is changing. Brands and products are no longer confined to the physical realm — they now span both the physical and virtual realms, creating a hybrid environment of digital and physical products and services that must be managed holistically to be effective. The challenge is not only to understand and manage these two worlds — the physical and digital — but also to address the fundamental shift in consumer expectations brought on by the connected world in which they live. Digital experiences shape how customers view a brand’s value proposition and ultimately determine their purchasing behavior. They increasingly expect a consistent experience across all channels — including mobile, online, brick-and-mortar stores, and even in-app shopping — and they want to interact with brands in ways that are personalized and relevant.
Aesthetics matter. They don’t just determine the value of a work of art or the likely success of a new product — they are integral to the structure of our world. Much of our language is built upon a system of symbols, in which an aesthetically pleasing shape, sound or pattern conveys meaning more effectively than a literal definition. And it’s not just our brains that appreciate beauty; recent studies have also suggested that animals can recognize and appreciate beauty as well.
In the field of maker education, aesthetics is left on a confused plane. For children and young people who create, it depends as much on their experiential background as on their manual dexterity. The consensus seems to be that children should become proficient in both. Most schools are opting for the former by implementing computer-based “makerspaces.”
If we place ourselves in the context of non-formal education, we can highlight that aesthetics is clearly in the background. Normally, prototyping with recycled materials, cardboard or materials with an ephemeral duration and functionality at the moment is chosen. This helps in momentary mechanical learning, but if we want to go a little deeper, with meaningful learning, we should go to the next level by giving a design and aesthetic perspective to the activity to be developed.
The philologist Ferdinand de Saussure[3] believed that Nature and Man have enriched life together, but despite their differences, they remain two branches of the same tree. One of the current fronts in the maker movement is that of amateurism versus professionalization. Both approaches to making ultimately affect the way we create products and interact with the world.
Talking about the materials, where they come from, their versatility, their possible uses, and how they are recycled is also aesthetic and also important. In using natural resources responsibly we need to consider these materials as elements of design that add value to the finished products and enrich the cultural experience of those who encounter them.
The maker movement[4] should also pay more attention to the insights of developmental psychology, interaction design, constructionism, and the sociocultural theories of human-computer interaction. These perspectives could be valuable tools in understanding the community that surrounds makers and how this community is shaped over time. The underlying drive of the maker movement is to produce things that can be of use to society.
In Mendelssohn’s 1835 book[5] On the Main Principles, he contrasts the frivolous amateur to the serious scholar. The composer believed that true musicianship requires dedication and hard work over an extended period. The amateur, on the other hand, dabbles in music until they feel that they have mastered it. From the perspective of today’s maker community, this distinction between professional and amateur seems outdated. Many makers participate in several maker communities at once and even sell their creations both online and in stores. There is no single path to becoming a maker. Some may use their maker skills to create intricate objects like jewelry while others might use them to build a robot or write computer code.
In summary, we can say that personal devices have broken the isolation between production and consumption.
The Arduino platform[4] was one of several platforms that allowed makers to connect, share, and collaborate. Based on open-source software and developed by a charitable organization, it was accessible to any developer interested in creating innovative projects using microcontroller hardware. Today, there are dozens of available development boards with varying features and capabilities.
It’s important to note that design thinking methodology can be complementary to basic mechanics; in fact, it complements them perfectly.
New artisans
In his book, “The Craftsman”,[6] Sennett wrote: “… after decades of intense focus on creativity as an ‘inner’ process, most psychologists have almost ignored the question of knowledge and how it might be acquired.” [7] This gap is what intrigued him and led him to focus his research on the relationship between knowledge and craftsmanship. For Sennett, to truly understand creativity and problem-solving, we must first understand the cognitive processes by which we learn.
In Sennett’s work, it is stated that coined the term “design-based cognitive science” to refer to a field that combines psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science to study the role of design in human cognition and creativity. Sennett argues that it is only through deliberate practice and learning from professional designers that we can understand the principles of effective design and apply them to creative pursuits in our daily lives. Using compelling case studies throughout his book, he shows how skills and processes used in the design and production of physical objects can be applied to our creativity and problem-solving skills.
“Computer-aided design could serve as an emblem of a great challenge that modern society must face: that of thinking like craftsmen who make good use of technology. “Embodied knowledge” is a current buzzword in the social sciences, but “thinking like a craftsman” is not just an attitude of mind, it also has an important social dimension” (Sennett, 2009: 33). A computer scientist or a software engineer could be a craftsman if he or she, first, recognizes that the computer is an instrument designed and conceived for humans, and second, that he or she makes use of it for the creation of works of art rather than for the creation and maintenance of machines and systems only. The use of metaphors and analogies from disciplines such as architecture, art, music and literature can help a computer programmer to understand the potential of the artifacts that they create as well as design systems that approach human standards of beauty and excellence.
One step forward
Gilbert Simondon (2009) has suggested that the analogy between computers and human[7] cognition, and between computation and cognition more generally, is inseparable from the implementational means whereby such analogies become material: i.e. by transferring the very principles of computation onto the interface between the domain and the representation of that domain.
Also suggested that humans possess a pre-linguistic nature that is the foundation of all semiotic activity, including linguistic communication. He called this essence the term “Noosphere” to indicate that it embodies a fundamental reality that is unknowable but ubiquitous throughout the universe (Simondon, 1991). According to Simondon, the Noosphere is a layer of intelligence that extends beyond the limits of the human body to encompass the entirety of the world’s knowledge; it is constantly growing and changing as new forms of knowledge are added to the system. This layer cannot be seen with the naked eye but is nonetheless all around us. The Noosphere can be thought of as a collective consciousness that connects us all and guides us toward a greater understanding of ourselves and the world around us. This idea is perhaps best illustrated by recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), which have taught us that computers are capable of processing vast amounts of information using pattern-recognition algorithms.
Difference between hand and Digital (maker is between the one that is the work to hand and the one that is the digital work; it combines the two types of work). To handle both types we need to learn additional skill sets such as critical thinking, patience, problem-solving, and time management. Hand skills are important not only for computer users but also for other professions and life too. That is why people are often advised to learn how to code or use computer programs as part of other courses of study like arts and humanities or even computer science.
The artisanal process has a cure for the process and time. Digital work and time are important for each other because it is always quicker to do something digitally than to do the same thing by hand, but the handmade object needs time and cure because it gives the user something more than just a fast solution to solve a problem.
Nietzsche would give you a framework to consider craft vs art! From the point of view of the artist: I try to express something that I wish I saw in the world. Through my creations, I hope to awaken people’s feelings and encourage them to think more critically about the world around them and their role in shaping their future. At the same time, I work to make the world more beautiful by engaging in acts of creation. My approach to craft as a form of resistance has evolved throughout my career as an artist.
The maker movement in general, being what it is, is already a form of resistance. The spirit of DIY or DiT, present in the maker movement, is based on a counter-information against the currents that promote a single use (or promote mass production, the primacy of substitution over repair) and represent resistance against them (this is why the maker movement can be explored not only from aesthetics but also from politics and also from ethics). Therefore, whatever the version or the state we are in, the mere process constitutes a form of resistance; the mere act of creation in the maker movement is a form of resistance.
Goodman claims that “From every point of view, electronic machines are inferior to the machines that evolved out of the mechanical civilization.” In his view, machines such as the television are harmful because they promote passivity and distract people from the outside world rather than providing valuable services. Based on his findings, Goodman argues that humans hurt nature due to the technological advantages that we have gained over other animals. However, this perspective neglects one important factor: the ability of humans to interact with their environment using technology.
Deleuze and Guattari (2017a)[8] state that “desire machines” actually emerged long before the emergence of computers and the internet.
The Guattari[8] quote that Deleuze and Guattari[8] use in their book A Thousand Plateaus feels very apt for this conversation. It reads: “This act of resistance is what gives power to our power relations” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1988, p. 118). I believe that the act of resisting through craft in some way empowers us as makers because it gives us a sense of control over our creative process and the power of creating something unique and new is empowering.
What happens if you are a craftsman and you make your things, finished or unfinished: you are doing something political (because you don’t go to Ikea to change it, but you do it yourself, and that is not innocent). So in the end making is an aesthetic matter — but also political. If you have more of a moral stance you may build a hackable house (or better, one that requires code to enter).
Any technology, to the extent that it allows for interaction with its environment in a personalized way, would qualify as a means of resistance. In this sense, everyday technologies could be considered “resistance technologies” because their mere existence is an expression of resistance to the dominant system. Technologies such as bicycles or sewing machines could therefore be considered forms of resistance because they allow us to interact with our environment in a personalized way and thus assert our control over it. One clear example is how digital technologies are changing the way people communicate and interact with one another. As people have gradually moved away from face-to-face interactions towards online ones, they have slowly been giving up the power they once had to control the way they express themselves and choose whom they want to talk to (Kahneman, p.18).
“What is the act of creation?” (Lecture by Gilles Deleuze at the FEMIS Foundation (17/05/1987)). Creation is a time machine that records the present into the past and the future into the present. According to Deleuze[9], man can decipher complex codes and tangled wires, specifically, by creating something with meaning and quality that expresses itself in a form that could survive and grow on its own.
An example… someone writes a song and releases it for free on a band’s website. If it goes viral maybe it will make money but it’s mostly about sharing it and growing it outside of the original author who will have to release more songs and create new fans if they want to remain relevant.
David Casacuberta said: “Any technology has been designed, that is to say, it has been carried out with a purpose. And most purposes have an ethical dimension.” “Let’s first observe that the supposed neutrality of technologies is a simplification. Any technology is designed, that is to say, it has been carried out with a purpose. And although some fines may be neutral, most have an ethical dimension”. He says this because everything has a purpose and when designed it is to achieve a certain objective. This idea can be applied to our technological society because most if not all technological advances are created for the sole intent of benefiting certain groups, organizations, industries, corporations and/or peoples. The fact that these advancements were created with a specific intention leaves a questionable ethical dimension to it.
Last words?
Product (prototype/beta + interaction + manufacturing), how much is it done for? What can be manufactured? Design requires a different way of thinking than engineering or science. Maker it’s a process, not a product. Designers’ challenges must be understood before creating new ways to apply design to product or systems development.
Purpose = ethics = political action = art = transmission of knowledge = generation of culture. This is the rabbit hole we are in as humans. Each thing we do has an impact somehow. Technology can be used in any way you can imagine. But what happens when this is used for evil instead of good? How should it be handled ethically? I believe that we should allow human creativity to do whatever it wants because it is an art form in itself. We should use it for good rather than attempting to regulate all technology and prevent people from using it in certain ways that could potentially harm others.
One thing, I’m not clear about. What do I focus on: only when an object is finished? Do you want me to end up talking about ethics+politics+art too, later? The last time I understood that only when an object is finished, and the tension craftsman-new technologies. Today objects/technology have a life beyond the completion of finishing the craftsman itself. The tension is usually ethical politics + art, yes? This is a very specific question. I understand the new framework of the concept of the object today and in this context, new objects are finished and have a life outside of the craftsman himself.
Rancière uses Derrida’s idea of ‘The Circumvention of the Ethical’ to exemplify his stance on the ethics of using new technology in creative projects without its intended purpose: “If one asks how an artist can proceed today without risk, how can he use new technological means for his ends without becoming complicit with those who employ them for other purposes?” (Rancière, 2004, p.123) This notion allows artists to explore the realm of their material without the negative outcomes of others using the technology unethically.
I am aware that this text is not finished, there is still much to think about, to read and to put into practice. Conversations to share and reflections to develop. It also opens up more questions than it answers. Many references must be deepened, Simondon, Rancière… They are our “makers” references far from the Californian influences. Which, per se, I don’t see as bad, but rather as distant.
References
- Art as a Way of Learning®: DESIGNING AND ASSESSING (PDF)
- Material Selection
- The Cruelty and Beauty of Words
- Maker Movement in Education: History and Prospects 30 Paulo Blikstein (PDF)
- Moses Mendelssohn
- Managing the Creative Process within Graphic Design Firms: A Literature Review
- Methodological Aims and Assumptions
- Eline Gomes de Oliveira Zioli and Elisa Yoshie Ichikawa (PDF)
- Mind vs Machine: A Window into the Paradox of Control Emma Reford (PDF)
Acknowledgements
This text would not have been possible without the invaluable assistance of Núria Pedret and Adrián Camarós. And the Nightcafé AI for translate some paragraph’s of this text into images.
