purplekimchi · cityofstone · Sep 9, 2014
diff --git a/discussionquestions b/discussionquestions
@@ -1,75 +1,76 @@
-Ben
-
-
-
-
-Ariana
-
-
-
-
-Lesley
-
-
-
-
-Thomas
-
-I found the Matt Ratto reading very refreshing. He brings a constructionist and almost recreational approach to the act of brainstorming. In the manifestos section of Critical Making, Daniel Charny explores how the “distance between the maker and the user is growing,” and how dependent our society has become on the groups of people who know how to “make.” My question is, do we feel that the “Maker Revolution,” as it is often termed, will introduce more people to the critical making process of using construction itself as an exploratory tool? Can Charny’s gap between makers and consumers be whittled down by proliferating the pre-Google habit of “messing about” with media, for curiosity’s sake, and also to bring new angles to seemingly unrelated problems? 
-
-
-Sparling
-
-
-
-
-Patrick
-At what point can art be considered adversarial design? Would Ai Weiwei and his works with ancient pottery [1] [2] or his studies on perspective [3] [4] be adversarial design?
-
-[1] http://www.phaidon.com/resource/p4889-0055.jpg
-[2] http://www.beachpackagingdesign.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/AiWeiWei.jpg
-[3] http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ai-wei-wei/art/slideshow/00.jpg
-[4] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BDYZAPBBY3c/TjB8eHmJ5aI/AAAAAAAAAYg/mPT73uiMfoY/s1600/ai_wei_wei_2011_a_l.jpg
-
-
-
-Suzanna
-
-
-
-
-Santosh
-
-
-
-
-Jenna
-
-
-
-
-Bailey
-
-Ratto makes an interesting argument in that through the process of “making” we are given the opportunity to evaluate the “shared acts of making rather than the evocative object” (Ratto, 2011). This allows that the objects themselves are not the end, but rather the benefits found in the process of “making.” The argument is that people are able to gather more insight and develop an appreciation of the task, regardless of the final product. It is by participating in the process that we gain a more intimate knowledge of the subject. In this sense, I have become more open to the projects from a class such as EMAC 6372, because of the potential insight I might gain by participating in otherwise overlooked tasks. I would never have considered taking part in a project that combines fashion and programming, because I would never have considered the applicable educational theories that could be discovered. The initial readings have already enabled me to expand my perception of the social impacts of “fashion.” It is interesting to consider the possibilities of combining the unique perspectives of the social observations of fashion with the details of my personal and professional life. 
-
-
-Christopher
-
-
-
-
-Matthew
-
-
-
-
-Swan
-
-
-
-
-Luke
-
-
-
-
+Ben
+
+
+
+
+Ariana
+The critical making reading �Mistakes and Accidents� call mistakes hidden pathways. They say that these hidden pathways are signposts for new design. In what way do you agree with this assessment and in what way do you disagree? Are mistakes always gems of hidden understanding, or are they sometimes frustrating roadblocks? Why? How can we apply both interperatation to the other?
+
+
+
+Lesley
+
+
+
+
+Thomas
+
+I found the Matt Ratto reading very refreshing. He brings a constructionist and almost recreational approach to the act of brainstorming. In the manifestos section of Critical Making, Daniel Charny explores how the “distance between the maker and the user is growing,” and how dependent our society has become on the groups of people who know how to “make.” My question is, do we feel that the “Maker Revolution,” as it is often termed, will introduce more people to the critical making process of using construction itself as an exploratory tool? Can Charny’s gap between makers and consumers be whittled down by proliferating the pre-Google habit of “messing about” with media, for curiosity’s sake, and also to bring new angles to seemingly unrelated problems? 
+
+
+Sparling
+
+
+
+
+Patrick
+At what point can art be considered adversarial design? Would Ai Weiwei and his works with ancient pottery [1] [2] or his studies on perspective [3] [4] be adversarial design?
+
+[1] http://www.phaidon.com/resource/p4889-0055.jpg
+[2] http://www.beachpackagingdesign.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/AiWeiWei.jpg
+[3] http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ai-wei-wei/art/slideshow/00.jpg
+[4] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BDYZAPBBY3c/TjB8eHmJ5aI/AAAAAAAAAYg/mPT73uiMfoY/s1600/ai_wei_wei_2011_a_l.jpg
+
+
+
+Suzanna
+
+
+
+
+Santosh
+
+
+
+
+Jenna
+
+
+
+
+Bailey
+
+Ratto makes an interesting argument in that through the process of “making” we are given the opportunity to evaluate the “shared acts of making rather than the evocative object” (Ratto, 2011). This allows that the objects themselves are not the end, but rather the benefits found in the process of “making.” The argument is that people are able to gather more insight and develop an appreciation of the task, regardless of the final product. It is by participating in the process that we gain a more intimate knowledge of the subject. In this sense, I have become more open to the projects from a class such as EMAC 6372, because of the potential insight I might gain by participating in otherwise overlooked tasks. I would never have considered taking part in a project that combines fashion and programming, because I would never have considered the applicable educational theories that could be discovered. The initial readings have already enabled me to expand my perception of the social impacts of “fashion.” It is interesting to consider the possibilities of combining the unique perspectives of the social observations of fashion with the details of my personal and professional life. 
+
+
+Christopher
+
+
+
+
+Matthew
+
+
+
+
+Swan
+
+
+
+
+Luke
+
+
+
+
+