digi fab

A side-note that never made it into any of our discussions is the simple cost of technology. I mean that literally, in terms of dollars. Melissa and I talked a lot about ways to speed up my production process last year, and she suggested scanning my drawings, editing through photoshop, and then printing them out and drawing on top again. That saves incredible time, and sets up an easy framework for the drawing. However, what we didn’t talk about was this: when actually put into practice this semester, I spent $38 re-creating a single drawing. 

And yet, I still prefer a mix of the analogue and digital, as opposed to a singularly digital product. The digital platform is often impersonal, and any personal qualities of drawing are masked over by perfectly orthogonal, .09mm thick lines. Moreover, it’s too easy to forget about scale. When I’m drawing on my computer, I forget the size of the actual, physical drawing. I waste time creating so many tiny, tiny details that don’t even register in the print-out. What I love about hand-drawing is the direct feedback. 

Laurel pinpoints a critical element of the 21st century computer’s “stage”: the need to sustain attention. This requisite extends into architecture, where the demand to “read” a drawing has shifted into a demand to “know” a drawing. This demand for instantaneous representation feedback is undoubtedly connected to Laurel’s discussion of sustained interest and computer activity.

We can draw further parallels between architecture and computer design on Laurel’s discussion of the transcendence of artistry. Often, we hear this phrase tossed around on the third floor: “It if looks good, it is good.” Laurel offers a more nuanced version of this slogan, citing both artistry and structure as prerequisites for beauty. 

Crawford’s discussion of agency immediately reminds me of the “create-your-own” options available in restaurants or online gaming. For instance, at Pieology or Neopopalis, there’s always an option to “make your own” pizza, instead of choosing the restaurant’s predetermined pizzas. Similarly, on Gaiaonline or Neopets there are options to “make your own” avatar, outside of the given avatar types.

After reading Crawford, I’m convinced that these "make your own” pizzas exist to please those skeptical of the autocracy of options. They are concessions that mask as “agency,” even though they themselves only lead to another set of constricted, chosen options. 

Not that the predetermined options are always adverse. In most cases, they alleviate the burden of decision-making. They are, in some cases, the positive design constraints that help us reach productive solutions. (I.e. choosing a method of making: sawing wood, stacking, casting, etc.) 

Robots began as tools to execute hazardous operations (i.e. handling toxic/radioactive materials), before shifting into mainstream manufacturing. This fact reminds me of the movie Wall-E, where all the little trash bots were left on Earth to perform the tasks too laborious and too dangerous for humans.

I’m interested, then, in when the switch happened from robot as sacrifice worker to robot as commonplace worker. All the robots I know from mainstream media, (the Transformers, Wall-E, Bay-max from Big Hero 6), have been humanized with people-like voices, feelings, and expressions. And yet, they carry out tasks that are beyond human ability. Rather than registering as robot, they register as enhanced humans, who adopt human humor. (Think of a human-robot hybrid like Iron Man.)

Arduino work: we created a 1-ply museum board window aperture that opens and closes with the swivel of a tab. We mounted both the aperture and servo arm onto a basswood table, adding jig arms and plinths to get the two units level.

Adjusted the delay time, waited for the right moment to drop the tab onto the servo arm...... and then it broke. Completely. In retrospect, we blame the material (1-ply museum board). It was too flimsy to withstand the resistance of the servo arm, and tore incredibly easily. 

If we were to do this again, it would be helpful to consider the size of the servo arm before designing a larger aperture. Also, sturdier material is always a good thing.

Knowledge of automation complacency is absolutely critical to using any type of technology. This reading is in direct conversation with a course I took last year on digital culture. In the lecture, we discussed people who drove their cars into rivers and ditches because they’d followed google maps with unquestionable faith, trusting the machine even when it led them to disaster. 

Figuring out arduino. Several technical difficulties at first: finding the “upload” command, selecting the proper settings, and plugging into the breadboard. Settled easily into the process after that.

Both blink sketches were straightforward. The motor was the most entertaining with its mini, minute motions. Attempted to plug in the breadboard and run the rangefinder, but the distance kept coming up as a static 350-358, despite frantically moving hands in front of it.

As for brainstorming mechanisms, our group is playing with the idea of an origami cocoon or frog. With the cocoon, the servo arm could expand and collapse it. With the frog, the servo arm could move its mouth up and down.

I spent last semester writing an 18-page short story in first-person plural, narrated by a specific population: Chinese-American girls born in America. And yet, a group uniform in age, race, gender, and geography was still incredibly difficult to navigate between generalization and specification. 

I’m sympathetic to Haraway’s skepticism of “we,” in terms of who it represents and who it shields from blame. And I strongly support the claim that “we” evolves out of a specific, rooted group of people. However, a conversation about “we” demands acknowledgement of the tumultuous and nuanced challenge of sorting between generalization and specification. It is not a simple dichotomy between “situated knowledge” and “unlocatable knowledge claims,” but often a more complex and messy entanglement of both. Additionally, a conversation about “we” deserves re-examining writing that only uses first-person plural as a gimmick to conjure both authority, objectivity, and a subsequent lack of accountability.

white male: power to see and not be seen, to represent while escaping representation (posing as “objectivity”)

only partial perspective promises objective vision? feminist objectivity = situated knowledge, not “transcending into objectivity”—allows women to become answerable (responsible for?) what “we” learn how to see

FOR situated/embodied knowledge, NO unlocatable (thus irresponsible) knowledge claims – AGAINST PPL POSING AS OBJECTIVE “WE’S”, AND THUS BEING NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

“we” SHIELDS BLAME/CRITIQUE. diffuses it onto unidentifiable group of people. 

objectivity as views from SOMEWHERE. able to trace back.

Predictably amazing, in all the ways it was when I browsed for Sean. In fact, I think immediately of Sean’s responsive textiles when looking at any of this. 

One of the core differences I see in tangible media (versus a traditional medium) is a need for cross-disciplinary collaboration. That could mean architects doubling as programmers, or architects hiring a programmer onto the team, but either way, I don’t think architecture, alone, is enough to develop tangible media.