#criticalmaking

[multimodalmagic]

[ACTIVITY] Prototype

As we read in Garnet Hertz' introduction “What is Critical Making? (Links to an external site.)”, critical making asks us to consider how or why we make, not just what we make. But in Hertz' view, a material object, or prototype, can also make an argument, perhaps even more impactfully than words alone. Simone Giertz encourages us to get rid of the pressure to make something perfect and jump in with enthusiasm. For this activity, you will design a prototype material 3D (printed or virtual) object that performs some rhetorical work. It could be a piece of swag to go with your zine and persuade people to join your cause. It could be a symbol of your project that you use in your video. It could be functional (playable instrument, turnable book pages) or aesthetic (keychain, bookmark), it just needs to relate in some way. Have fun with it!

-EB

[codexposition]

Critical Making

Technology in art has evolved exponentially over the past few decades. Modern installations love to incorporate it, adding an edge of futurism to their chosen mediums. Specifically, 3D technology has been invoked in art since the beginning of the concept itself, but a new version of it has become prevalent in the past few decades. Reading about the good, bad, and in between of 3D printing technology has illuminated the particulars that come into play when this medium meets museums. 3D printing has the extraordinary ability to mimic art that might otherwise be unavailable to museum goers for one reason or another. Yet, there lies the complications of whether this is as sufficient as experiencing the real thing; comparable to looking at a Picasso on an iPad screen, or staring at it face to face in the Louvre. Technology has brought the world closer together, and broadened horizons for those in every corner of the world. The complexities of 3D printing and art are many, but it’s intriguing how this technology has expanded our ability as audiences, and as artists. 3D printing has united STEM and humanities scholars in their handwork and its uses, from scientific modeling to museum installations, and has given us opportunities outside of what we previously could create.

-Emily L

[codexposition]

Critical Making

While reading, “Thinking as Handwork: Critical Making with Humanistic Concerns,” a lot of things stood out as surprising to me.  One of the main points that the author makes is that it is common for museums to use 3-D modeling to recreate famous pieces. Over Christmas I visited the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.  I remember being confused because there was a room with many famous stone pieces that I had thought were showcased in different museums.  When I looked closer the tags said that they were replicas.  I didn’t understand how someone was able to exactly replicate such unique pieces out of the original medium.  I think that the possibilities that museums have that come with 3-D printing could be helpful to a variety of people.  One way it can be useful is it allows people that are unable to travel to see a specific piece of artwork to have availability to it where they are.  The replicas that are created using 3-D modeling are almost identical to the real thing.  It may also benefit blind people in a way that they may be able to touch the artwork.  It will allow them to experience the work in a way they were never able to before.  Even though there are a lot of “what ifs” that come with 3-D museum medium, I believe it is worth it to explore the possibilities. 

-JB

[codexposition]

Thinking as Hardwork Blog

My inexperience with the topic surely led me to this conclusion, but I found the writing of “Thinking as Handwork: Critical Making with Humanistic Concerns” to be convoluted. Trying to parse through the paper reminded me of “Chapter 1: Understanding Style” from “Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace” where they talked about it always being easier for the author to understand their own message. I felt like the authors didn’t really take a stance on 3D printing more so as they went back and forth about potential pros and cons from multiple points of view, but never solidifying their own. The most interesting thing I found from the paper was the idea that “3- D– printed objects might off- gas, or how the process, if done in situ, might emit ultrafine particles into a museum space” and could potentially harm precious artifacts (11). It can often be hard to progress when you’re not sure what the long-term side effects could be. It is easy to forget that ideas like plastic bags in grocery stores were initially intended to save the planet from depleting tree resources with paper bags. We can’t let that kind of mindset stop us from innovation. If the idea is sparked from good intentions, then there are more possibilities for greatness than anything else. The paper also stressed the idea of the “dichotomy between material and digital” (6). Though I am someone who holds a place in my heart for respecting classics, failing to understand the benefits of this new relationship is short-sighted. Truly appreciating art can come in many forms. The blending of science and art can only serve to expand that appreciation. Right here in Gainesville, we have new interactive learning museum and through my experience volunteering there, I have seen the effect that hands on learning can have on a child’s creativity and drive for knowledge. If people are so concerned with the preservation of tradition, then they should love the idea of replicas allowing kids, or other groups with less access, to learn more deeply about the field. 

-Kelly 

[codexposition]

Critical Making Response

You never really realize how artifacts of any kind make it into one (or in many cases many) museums. Reading this article and seeing how many museums recreate artifacts using 3-D printing surprised me mainly due to never realizing it myself. I never really thought about how artifacts make it into museums, and seeing that they use techniques like 3-D printing to be able to provide historical artifacts for interested people is just so cool. I am glad that many establishments like museums are transitioning to modern technology and modern techniques to achieve in whatever they want to accomplish. This technology is also still fairly new and still in its embryonic stage, in my opinion. There are countless possibilities with what you can do with 3-D printing, and some were even hinted at in the readings, like using it in galleries, libraries, and archives. I also enjoyed and pondered on the questions the readings raised about using technology like 3-D printing like the ethics and different use cases it can offer. How can you make artifacts more interactive or interesting for more people?  I am definitely excited to see how these cultural institutions decide to use these fascinating pieces of technology. As someone who is passionate of how tech can advance us further, reading things like these excite me greatly. 

-Andres C.

[codexposition]

Critical Making Response

While reading, “Thinking as Handwork: Critical Making with Humanistic Concerns,” I was immediately drawn into thinking about how 3-D printing can be used to recreate art for those who are unable to see it. They mention how, “In addition to its use in participatory culture, 3-D printing is increasingly proposed as a technology that affords new modes of interaction that then increase inclusivity and accessibility,” (156). This caused me to reflect on my experiences at museums, and how every piece of artwork, even those that are three dimensional, requires sight. Due to the restricted access of artwork, the need to use tactile senses to create a visualization for non-sighted individuals is dismissed. This direct inability to experience something as magical and as fundamental as art inspired me to explore how to make all types of art tactile. In turn, I discovered that the pinnacle of tactile art exists somewhere between the interactivity found in children’s museums and 3-D printing techniques. Just one idea for this hypothetical museum is 3-D printed replicas of famous paintings, such as Van Gogh’s Starry Night, Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans, or even the image of The Last Supper. These are iconic art pieces that the sighted take for granted, and that with the revolutionary mechanics of 3-D printing, can become experiences that those without sight can enjoy as well.

-HC

[codexposition]

Critical Making

I found the reading about critical making to be very interesting. The idea of using 3D printing as a means to recreate artifacts for museums was fascinating because I was just at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Natural history in New York City just a few months ago. While I was at the museums, there were a lot of different items marked as recreations, such as dinosaur bones and certain fossils. Reading the article made me wonder what methods they used to recreate them. They were so realistic, that the only way to know that they were recreations was to read the description tag where it said if it was real or not and where the original was located if it was a recreation. This article also raised the question about the effects of chemical waste on ancient artifacts and people. I would imagine that the production of plastic items indeed does have a degree of toxic output. Having literally just seen paintings such as Washington Crossing the Delaware River (which if you have not seen in real life, is absolutely incredible), I am troubled to think that the use of such methods of preservation could possible harm such amazing pieces of art and history.

-Stephen

[codexposition]

Critical Making

Throughout “ Thinking as Handwork: Critical Making with Humanistic Concerns”,  Gabby Resch, Dan Southwick, Isaac Record, and Matt Ratto discuss the role that technology, or the digital humanities, has been changing the humanities field. It was interesting to read the beginning discussion of 3D modeling a piece of ivory and the applications that technology has already had to the humanities field. Inevitably the discussion showed the other side of opinions about technology in the humanities, “ For many of these professionals, “the digital” is necessary but also threatening. Digital culture can challenge their institutional mandates (e.g., “Why should the public go to a museum when they can see the same content on an iPad at home?” is a familiar refrain, however shortsighted it might be)”. I believe that this is where technology will be significant in its beneficial applications through the spread of information. Many people like to bring up the museum example but generally neglect to say that the people who are looking at the art on an iPad probably wouldn’t have gone to the museum in the first place. As technology allows people to view art and other culture on their laptops and iPads, the dissemination of information becomes larger and it allows more people to learn.

-SP