Morphed Tools by Vidhi Mehta

Morphed Tools Blurring the lines between craftsmanship and mass production

Vidhi Mehta Innovation Design Engineering 2014 Word Count: 7042 Tutor: Stephen Knott

Contents List of illustrations

Introduction

Craftsmanship in the era of custom fabrication

10 12 13 18 22

Remaking Tools: Subtractive and Additive Manufacturing methods

24 26 30

Implications of using digitally morphed tools Prompting Open Knowledge Sharing

34 34

Conclusion: Digital Realm of Craft

Bibliography

What are the boundaries of the discipline of craft? Enhancing our body as tools of future The Manipulator/ Skilled/ Artisan The Digital Hand FreeD: Wise Chisel L'Artisan Electronique: Digital Ceramic Pottery

List of illustrations Figure 1 : Made in the Future, Raw Systems, Making Ecologies 8 http://madeinthefuture.com (accessed 15 July 2014) Figure 2: Tea Bowl fixed in the Kintsugi method 11 Unknown Artist, Museum collection documentation (accessed 25 September 2014) Figure 3: Using the mouth contraption to drill hole in the wall, chewing motion of the mouth is turned into rotation motion to push the drill bit forward in the wall 15 http://www.chengguo.co.uk/index.php?/project/mouth-‐factory/ Photograph by Cheng Guo (accessed 22 July 2014) Figure 4: The FreeD work environment, computer and MMTS (magnetic motion tracking system) 28 http://web.media.mit.edu/~amitz/Research/Entries/2011/11/15_FREE-‐D.html Illustration by Amit Zoran (accessed 10 August 2014) Figure 5: Manual marking process with a user and the final outcome 28 http://web.media.mit.edu/~amitz/Research/Entries/2011/11/15_FREE-‐D.html Photograph by Amit Zoran (accessed 10 August 2014) Figure 6: Alterations in design based on personal sculpting choices, the modifications in giraffe's neck 29 http://web.media.mit.edu/~amitz/Research/Entries/2011/11/15_FREE-‐D.html Photograph by Amit Zoran (accessed 10 August 2014) Figure 7: Five cats made by five participants using the FreeD, all using the same CAD model 29 http://web.media.mit.edu/~amitz/Research/Entries/2011/11/15_FREE-‐D.html Photograph by Amit Zoran (accessed 10 August 2014) Figure 8: L'Artisan Electronique studio setup 31 http://www.unfold.be/pages/projects/items/l’artisan-‐electroniqu Unfold & Kristof Vrancken for Z33 (accessed 24 August 2014) Figure 9: Artifact produced using L Artisan Electronique, showing the imperfections of the hand etched in the pot’s form 31 http://www.unfold.be/pages/projects/items/l’artisan-‐electroniqu Unfold & Kristof Vrancken for Z33 (accessed 24 August 2014) Figure 10: 50 tools in Global Village Construction Set 36 http://www.opensourceecology.org/ (accessed 20 September 2014) Photograph from Marcin Jakubowski's blog

It is rather the soul than the hand, the man than the technique, which appeals to us the more human the call the deeper is our response. Okakura, Kakuzo. The Book of Tea (1964)

Introduction The advent of digital and mass customization in manufacturing industries has brought about a change in the way we perceive tools and craftsmanship. In his book The Craftsman, Richard Sennett mentions:

The experimental rhythm of problem solving and problem finding makes the ancient 1

potter and the modern programmer members of the same tribe.

In an age of increasing standardization and mass-‐production, the maker in me yearns to find a human quality in our products that make them unique and differentiated. Through my dissertation I seek ways to translate the traditionally held heritage of craft and creativity into the digital age of mass customized products. The subject discusses the value of artifacts through the automated production methods as well as human subjectivity. I would like to bring forward a new way of thinking by challenging the established polarity between two methods of making: systematic automated manufacturing and the 2

unpredictable tactile qualities of craftsmanship. Craft is intrinsic to what it is to be a human. However in modern times it seems to be under constant assault in the face of more efficient methods of production that we know as manufacturing industry. The growth of manufacturing industry has also seen a substantial growth in consumer choices, which has come a long way since Henry Ford’s Model T, when buyers could pick any color—as long as it was black.

Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (Penguin, 2008).(Page 26) Louis Uchitelle, ‘A Nation That’s Losing It’s Toolbox’, The New York Times, 21 July 2012 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/business/what-‐happened-‐to-‐the-‐craftsmanship-‐ spirit-‐essay.html?pagewanted=all> [accessed 14 July 2014]. 2

Over the last decade, we have witnessed features that allow consumers to customize their product or service with a range of components. Such configured mass customization is bound to reach ever-‐greater levels of sophistication in the coming years. However, the predicted future of mass customized manufacturing can learn a lot from craft’s organic nature of production.1 This dissertation addresses this very question: how can we understand manufacturing through the ideas of the craftsman to make tools for the future production? I call these tools morphed tools. Engineers seek to find optimal solutions through tried and tested methods, thereby reducing the design process to a limited number of parameters. Whilst this minimizes risks, improves efficiency, and could potentially enable automation, it misses the mark when considering the less quantifiable values such as the sense of engagement in the process of making and their individual outcomes. These qualities however, are inherent parts of the traditional craft process. Craftsmanship expresses the maker’s personal style and gives it a sense of personal integrity. While engineers seek controlled development of easily manipulated materials, manual practice allows careful experimental treatment of materials, from organic to inorganic materials. As a result of this human involvement, handcrafted products are unique and are imprinted with what could be called a visual equivalent of the makers’ personal signature contributing to design pluralism and egalitarianism.

Gandhi Anshuk, Carmen Magar and Roger Roberts, ‘How Technology Can Drive the next Wave of Mass Customization’, McKinsey & Company, 2014 <http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/how_technology_can_drive_the _next_wave_of_mass_customization> [accessed 20 September 2014].

IDEO, a design consultancy in 2013 published a project Made in the Future.

The project “is an effort to capture our musings about what a not-‐so-‐distant tomorrow might look like. Our tools—faster, cheaper, and more out of control than ever—have triggered seismic shifts in how we design, manufacture, and distribute. And that has us asking lots of questions: What new tools or technologies will we create? How will they change the way we behave and learn? How will they shape our world?”

The image below shows how a singular tool such as a camera can capture narratives, stories and visual memories that are important to us and translate them into physical objects by transferring the pattern, colours or textures the photograph represents. The vision is a representation of a new Making Ecology that creates new markets that allow people to 2

trade ideas and skills.

Figure 1 : Made in the Future, Raw Systems, Making Ecologies

During the early stage of my research I framed a series of questions that would guide me in researching new ways of bridging the polarities of efficient, disciplined machine manufacturing with unpredictable craftsmanship methods. I see the tools that I discuss

‘Made in the Future’, Made in the Future <http://madeinthefuture.co> [accessed 2 October 2014]. 2 Travis Rich, ‘Encoding Data into Physical Objects with Digitally Fabricated Textures’ (unpublished Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013) <http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/82431> [accessed 2 October 2014].

through this dissertation as methods for future production that have potential to create meaningful bonding with the process of making as well as artifacts and a way to achieve a decentralized manufacturing economy. The dissertation is structured into three chapters.

The first section discusses the nuances of craftsmanship and its evolving definitions over the years. Following which certain examples are presented that are iterations of the traditional craft skills to create tools for mass customization. (Chapter 1)

The dissertation then researches two tools in detail: chisel and potters wheel. The chisel and potters wheel are representative examples of techniques of additive and subtractive methods of making. (Chapter 2)

The dissertation then moves on to explore what would this culture of mass customized making mean for knowledge sharing and methods in which we produce artifacts. (Chapter 3)

Craftsmanship in the era of custom fabrication There are numerous definitions of craftsmanship and many scholarly viewpoints and perspectives on the relationship between people, handmade artifacts and technology. For the purpose of Morphed Tools of the future, I find David Pye’s definition on craft as an activity involving risk and unknown outcomes intriguing. “(Craftsmanship) means simply workmanship using any kind of technique or apparatus, in which the quality of the result is not predetermined, but depends on the judgment, dexterity and care which the maker exercises as he works. The essential idea is that the quality of the result is continually at risk during the process 1

of making; and so I shall call this kind of workmanship ‘The workmanship of risk’.” According to David Pye the look, feel and shape of crafted objects cannot be fixed; craft introduces an element of uncertainty. This element of risk gives sense of anticipation with regards to the outcomes of a given investment, thereby making the object unique and personal. This of course, is subject to the judgment, dexterity and skill of the craftsperson at the time of its making. Objects that are crafted can never be completely reproduced and cannot be fully foreseen. “Just as no two leaves of a tree are precisely alike yet every tree conforms to a recognizable pattern of a species, workmanship results in creations that adhere to 2

an overall specification but also have a degree of variability in them.“

1 David Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship (London: A&C Black, 2007). 2

David Pye, The Nature and Aesthetics of Design (London: A&C Black, 2000).

The Japanese aesthetic sensibilities call this wabi-‐sabi: acceptance of transience and imperfection. It defines objects as one of beauty that is “imperfect, impermanent and 1

incomplete.” The dynamic nature of the manual process allows scope for imperfection creating an array of observations and reflections. Such unfinished artifacts call for the reaction of our imagination causing it to interact with the world of unknowns and unpredictable. The figure below illustrates how Japanese use principles of wabi-‐sabi to mend broken objects with gold welding joints by the method called Kinstugi. The idea of celebrating the flaws on worksmanship and handiwork gives crafted objects their meaning.

Figure 2: Tea Bowl fixed in the Kintsugi method

Leonard Koren, Wabi-‐Sabi: For Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers (Point Reyes, Calif.: Imperfect Publishing, 2008).

What are the boundaries of the discipline of craft? The modern computational approach that is used in mass production is defined by attributes of prediction and perfection. The methodical, logical and analytic nature of the process along with economic factor does not encourage unpredictability of crafted artifacts. The production of the artifacts is optimized based on qualities that can be quantitatively measured. The meaning of craftsmanship has evolved over the centuries. In the very early years these were essential hand skills that helped one survive. It was before the industrial revolution that almost all artifacts were crafted based on workman’s skills. However with the rise of repeatable and replicable machine driven production, artifacts became cheaper and more consistent but also less unique. This also brought change in society’s view of the craftsperson. Social values of products were lost due to ability of the machines to easily replicate artifacts made by hand causing traditional craftsmen to suffer a serious setback. Crafted goods then became custom-‐built luxury products that only elite could afford. Karl Marx’s critique on commodity fetishism 1

redefined the meaning of artifacts. The consumers and producers perceived each other by the means of the monetary value of the artifacts they exchanged. It also created a new paradigm for making where ability to envision, design and plan for objects was separated and became secondary to fabricating and constructing them.

Karl Marx and Ernest Mandel, Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, trans. by Ben Fowkes, Reprint edition (London ; New York, N.Y: Penguin Classics, 1992).

Arguably the movement away from craft and towards design reached its apex in the United Sates in 2002 when the American Craft Museum in New York changed its name to the Museum of Art and Design.1 One might see this as a period of traditional craft becoming less relevant to modern society and losing economic value but craft was also experiencing a renaissance. Modern craft techniques are infiltrating various disciplines including fashion, art, and the performing arts to name a few. A growing community of enthusiasts and researchers are investigating possibilities of blending craft with electrical engineering and computer 2

science. In this time and age with small scale manufacturing entering our households craftsmanship has derived a new meaning. Craft is more easily associated to the DIY culture and people tinkering in their backyard working with 3D printers and laser cutters.

Enhancing our body as tools of future Good tools are arguably extensions of our body in the same way a well-‐balanced sword is an extension of the swordsman’s arm. The efficiency of the tool can be defined by how seamlessly it becomes a part of the craftsman and assists his performance in his workmanship. All our experiences of the world, and our ability to act on it, are channelized through our body. Alan Turing, a pioneering computer scientist stated that the human mind is special not

1 Kenneth R. Trapp and Howard Risatti, A Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007). 2 Thomas Wrensch and Michael Eisenberg, ‘The Programmable Hinge: Toward Computationally Enhanced Crafts’, in Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’98 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1998), pp. 89– 96 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/288392.288577>.

particularly because of its computing power, but because the body provides it with a unique 1

interface to the world. Recent research in psychology and neuroscience is probing how the brain perceives and represents the body. These advances have revealed that this body representation is fundamentally multisensory, arising from the combination of many different sensory signals. These include classical ‘senses’, such as touch and vision, and also much more specific signals, such as the flexion or extension of each muscle, which define the body’s posture in space. This information is integrated to construct a multisensory representation of the current state of the body. Intriguingly, multisensory signals also affect what we perceive our 2

body to be like, for example by making us feel like a rubber hand really is our hand. Our thoughts about what our body is are highly flexible, and track the multisensory inputs that the brain receives. 3

A Chinese artist Cheng Guo for one of his projects, Mouth Factory, experimentally formalizes the usage of the mouth for performing tasks. It involves a series of functional machines operated by the mouth of the user. These machines included a chewing drill (as seen in the figure below), teeth lathe, tongue extruder, blowing rotomolding machine and vacuum form machines.

Patrick Haggard & Matthew R. Longo, ‘You Are What You Touch: How Tool Use Changes the Brain’s Representations of the Body’, Scientific American, 2010 <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-‐are-‐what-‐you-‐touch/> [accessed 2 October 2014]. 2 Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen, ‘Rubber Hands /`feel/’ Touch That Eyes See’, Nature, 391 (1998), 756–756 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35784>. 3 Cheng Guo, ‘Mouth Factory’, Mouth Factory, 2012 <http://www.chengguo.co.uk/index.php?/project/mouth-‐factory/> [accessed 30 September 2014].

Figure 3: Using the mouth contraption to drill hole in the wall, chewing motion of the mouth is turned into rotation motion to push the drill bit forward in the wall

This project explored the capabilities and the versatility of a body part other than our conventionally used limbs to create extension to the tools. The mouth is conventionally associated with facial expressions; the work of Cheng is re-‐contextualizing mouth within the realm of production. His work looks at manufacturing tools as a comment on human enhancement and the aesthetics of his experiments make manufacturing tools a series of performing devices. By focusing on the mouth, these manufacturing devices become an embodiment that renders and amplifies the reciprocal relationship and effects between our body and our tools. Cheng’s Mouth Factory explores new ways in which our bodies’ response to the tools shapes the final outcome of the task. It has the element of risk that David Pye highlights as an essential quality of craftsmanship combined with accuracy and safety of mechanized tools. Using the same tool each user will drill a different hole, which strengthens the idea of bringing parallels between fabricated making and craftsmanship.

A paper in Psychological Science on Rapid Assimilation of External Objects Into the Body 1

Schema by the University of Maryland elegantly illustrates the plasticity of body representation, and provides further evidence that representations of the body really do expand to include ‘external’ objects we hold. Thomas Carlson of the University of Maryland and colleagues at Harvard University and Utrecht University in the Netherlands used an unusual subjective experience of the body first reported by Franklin Taylor of Princeton University in 1941. If you look towards your hand in a darkened room and see it illuminated by a bright flash, an afterimage of your hand remains after the flash. If you then move your hand, the afterimage changes, though no actual visual signal is present. The precise effect, like so much of the richness of human sensation, is difficult to express in words, but is like a fading away, or loss of clarity of the hand. This fading is normally explained by the multisensory nature of body representation: when the hand moves, but the afterimage does not, visual information and ‘proprioceptive’ information from muscles no longer agree about where the hand is. The visual impression of the hand fading may be a by-‐product of this inability to integrate different sensations due to conflict about where they are in space. Carlson used this fading to investigate the limits of the brain’s representation of the body. When participants held an object and then moved their hand after the flash, the object’s afterimage faded as well. Further, if participants reached for the object after the flash, the object still faded. The brain may detect a conflict between the location of the object in the afterimage (on the table) and the location where the object is actually felt (in their hand). Alternatively, the object may be rapidly assimilated into the representation of the body and therefore subject to the same perceptual conflict.

Thomas A. Carlson and others, ‘Rapid Assimilation of External Objects Into the Body Schema’, Psychological Science, 2010 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371962>.

These results confirm that the human brain maintains a highly flexible representation of the body, despite the tendency in everyday life to think of us as having a fixed personal identity, linked to our body. Two distinctive features of mental body representation emerge. First, from the brain’s perspective, the body is by far the most familiar object in the world: the body, as William James elegantly put it, is ‘always there.’ In these experiments, the mechanical gripper could be treated as part of one’s own body. However, this did not extend to an object held in the gripper, perhaps because this situation wasn’t familiar enough. I speculate that skilled prosthesis users might experience objects grasped in the prosthetic hand as fading, even though first-‐time users in the present experiment did not. Given the ability to move an object through voluntary action, and sufficient sensory experience of doing so, the capacity to extend the self may be virtually unlimited.

Second, these studies suggest a view of the body as an interface between the brain and the external world. This view has important implications for human psychology and using tools as body extensions for fabrication. The sensorimotor mechanisms of the body are effectively a tool for our voluntary actions to respond to the environment and to change it. While we think of our body as a fixed feature of our lives, the brain displays a surprising ability to accept as part of ‘us’ whatever we happen to be touching and using at any given time. This theory provides scope for the development of Morphed Tools. The power of perceiving tools as part of our body lets us participate in the making process by experiential and sensory feedback, bridging the gap between conceiving our ideas and making them. Early examples of haptic user interfaces extended to physical making are visible through some screen interaction based making processes. The idea of using a set of freehand gestures that mimic the use of physical input devices is predominant in gaming

industry as well. One of these shall be discussed in Chapter 2 as a case study in the discussion of L’Artisan Electronique.

The Manipulator/ Skilled/ Artisan In this part I would like to discuss the relationship of a craftsperson to designer and industrial manufacturer in the age of digital fabrication. We are increasingly becoming comfortable and dependent in delegating tasks to a computer or a machine, which has enabled in loosening the boundaries and specificity of roles of these professions. Digital fabrication is a process whereby the design for an object is created on a computer and then a machine pneumatically produces the object. These machines have pre-‐defined the role and responsibilities of the maker in the process. This method of production allows continual reprogramming, making it both easy to repeat as well as easy to modify. While making artifacts, the craftsperson embraces the irregular and non-‐uniform qualities of raw materials and the objects created thereof visually represent these particular conditions. Automation however requires generalization for pragmatic operation and control, exceptions or uncertainty in situations are not welcomed. Machines can repeat the same form, in the same procedural steps multiple times, making products that are sub-‐routines of a universal design. With machines, the unique is discarded and it is aimed to separate the fabrication process from human labor.

Christian Steins and others, ‘Imaginary Devices: Gesture-‐Based Interaction Mimicking Traditional Input Devices’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-‐ computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI ’13 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013), pp. 123–26 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2493190.2493208>.

Digital fabrication is categorized into two sub-‐groups: subtractive and additive. The subtractive approach of fabrication utilizes tools such as drill bits, blades and lasers to remove material from the raw material source. In contrast additive fabrication progressively deposits layers of the raw material until the desired shape is achieved. Graphic technologies such as computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) have evolved in parallel to digital fabrication technologies. Design and engineering disciplines were radically altered due to these technologies, giving access for makers to modify their designs, simulate its performance and share it with others. Graphic tools have a significant impact on the size and scale of production for today’s 2

makers. Digital fabricators have become smaller, cheaper and more pervasive everyday. Machines like laser printers and 3D printers once found only in large factories are increasingly omnipresent in universities, schools, community workspaces, cafes and even garages. The ease of access of such tools impacts our everyday interactions with the objects we own, reshaping them both qualitatively and quantitatively and our associations with them. The media promotes digital fabrication as the “next big thing”, associating this technology with a 3

potential social impact that is equivalent or bigger than industrial revolution. There is a particularly strong economic interest in individualization of products and

C. K. Chua, K. F. Leong and C. S. Lim, Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications, 3 Har/Dvdr edition (New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2010). 2 Neil Gershenfeld, Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop-‐-‐from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication (New York: Basic Books, 2007). 3 Ashlee Vance, ‘3-‐D Printing Is Spurring a Manufacturing Revolution’, The New York Times, 13 September 2010, section Technology <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html> [accessed 2 October 2014].

customizing. The demand for personalizing mass-‐produced items or creating a one-‐off product is wide, and not just restricted to the luxury goods segment. The examples range from handmade motorcycle shells, self-‐assembled computers, custom-‐made dresses and shoes, made to order kitchens, furniture and car interiors and seats touched by upholsterers. The ease of access to digital fabrication methods to individuals is being viewed as a supportive backbone of craft. In particular, it enables small-‐scale production and design. Digital fabrication allows virtual accessibility to the making process, making it easier for unskilled makers to take part in the process. Shapeways.com is one such example of an online platform creating a marketplace and community using the power of digital fabrication.1 However this contrasts with Pye’s definition of craft, there is no risk in an automatic fabrication process. The digital design specifies the machining process and predetermines the result. Also once the graphic file is created it can be infinitely reproduced. Both these qualities stand against the basic values of craft, when digital efficiency and control eliminates imperfection and unpredictability. In The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin uses the word 2

aura to describe uniqueness of the artifact. Aura is a precious quality that cannot be copied, simulated or faked. The aura is a fragile, invisible quality emerging from an interactive relationship between the user and object. Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher believes

1 Nancy R. John, ‘Putting Content onto the Internet’, First Monday, 1 (1996) <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/477> [accessed 2 October 2014]. 2 Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, trans. by J. A. Underwood (London: Penguin, 2008).

that authenticity evolves from the singular nature of reality, which the modern culture fails to achieve as it alienates us from reality and spiritualism.1 Mass production systems exclude the qualities of aura and authenticity that are linked with uniqueness. The digital technology is capable of generating randomness but the methodical approach of problem solving fails to represent the richness and complexity of the real world. Technology and its applications lack essence of material authenticity that creates space for infinite possibilities and outcomes. In order to introduce these qualities to contemporary technology and achieve aura and authenticity in mass-‐produced artifacts we need to deconstruct the notion of technology and abstracting it’s meaning that evolves from Modernism. In the next section I would like to introduce the idea of reconstructing the tradition with modern and creating a new technology paradigm.

1 Martin Heidegger, Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays, The (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1982).

The Digital Hand Richard Sennett, sociologist and cultural philosopher in his book The Craftsman explains what sets the craftsman apart from the worker and why his work is important for the future. Sennett points that the carpenters, theatre performers or ticket collectors all count as craftsmen because “they complete their work with abandon and always want to do well for their own sake.” Sennett says that the craftsman stands for “the special human capability for committed conduct”. The joy of the craftsman in his work distinguishes them as craftsmen.1 As per what Sennett is saying, we are possibly using a range of useful tools with pneumatic controllers and computer-‐aided design (CAD) in the wrong way because we are guided by abstractions rather than experiences. We are overwhelmed by fascinating technology and its future possibilities. This is probably why it is leading us in the wrong direction because in its use something essential is getting lost. On the other hand, digital design specialist, Malcolm McCullough argues the digital restores the craft to center stage. In his book Abstracting Craft2 he articulates the vision of the digital practitioner as a craftsperson, being an early bird to a new research field. The argument is based on the rapidly increasing sophistication of design interfaces-‐ the hands-‐on quality of rendering and modeling software. The increasing tactility of digital design processes shall only increase in years to come. He also suggested that the increasing power of digital design and fabrication tools would make small-‐shop production economically competitive with large-‐scale manufacturers.

Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (Penguin, 2008) Malcolm McCullough, Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998). 2

Over the last few years, digital fabrication technologies have altered many disciplines. It has given people the freedom to create, download or modify a computer aided design (CAD) model of an artifact to suit their preferences and needs and then fabricate it within local proximities. This creative freedom has resulted in specificity based on functionality and style of users. The ease of use, accessibility, proliferation and efficacy will keeping growing as the technology matures. However, we see very few examples of digital fabrication tools that focus on the experience of creative engagement while making of the artifact. Engaging in fabrication process and enjoying the experience of shaping the raw material are inherent values of traditional craft. It is this value of engagement that makes handcrafted products 1

unique and carrying personal narratives. Over the next two chapters I shall discuss attributes of tools that can create engagement in making process.

Amit Zoran and Joseph A. Paradiso, ‘FreeD: A Freehand Digital Sculpting Tool’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’13 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013), pp. 2613–16 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481361>.

Remaking Tools: Subtractive and Additive Manufacturing methods There are two general methods of manufacturing -‐ subtractive and additive those are used 1

to produce artifacts in the industry. Prior to rapid prototyping technologies, subtractive method was the preferred way of manufacturing. In subtractive manufacturing new designs are modeled by starting with a block of material and cutting away that which was not part of the intended design. Some of the techniques used in this process include milling, turning, drilling, and electrical discharge machining. Industry has been using the subtractive processes of manufacturing for a very long time; few advantages of subtractive process are the accuracy and finish of the final artifact. This method is very easy to utilize for bulk production and can create extremely large artifacts with relative ease.

Subtractive techniques, however, have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. Subtractive techniques require the removal of material from a solid object, which can be difficult or impossible to do if the model has intricate designs. This method is also wasteful from resources standpoint as material that has been subtracted often is useless or needs some processing before it can be utilized again.

Additive process generally refers to techniques that produce shaped parts by gradual creation or addition of solid material, therein differing fundamentally from forming and material removal manufacturing techniques.

1 J. -‐P. Kruth, M. C. Leu and T. Nakagawa, ‘Progress in Additive Manufacturing and Rapid Prototyping’, CIRP Annals -‐ Manufacturing Technology, 47 (1998), 525–40 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-‐8506(07)63240-‐5>.

Most rapid prototyping techniques are additive techniques. The additive techniques utilized by rapid prototyping offer some special advantages over subtractive methods used in conventional prototyping. One of the most important advantages of the additive process is that it allows for the parts to have almost arbitrary geometric complexity. Recent digital technologies have allowed rapid prototyping industry to grow manifolds.

For the purpose of the dissertation I have chosen an example from both additive and subtractive manufacturing processes to illustrate how Morphed Tools can bridge the gap between two methods of making, systematic automated manufacturing and the unpredictable tactile qualities of the craftsmanship.

FreeD: Wise Chisel

David Pye in his book, The Nature and Art of Workmanship wrote :

Automation is actually a process of creation that attempts to minimize risk. It also has benefits like reduced cost and increased speed. The extreme cases of workmanship of risk are those where a tool is held in the hand and no jig or any other determining system is there to guide it.

It is relevant to think of what David Pye’s statement means to present methods of fabrication and how hand-‐held tools can achieve finishing and efficiency of digital manufacturing process by providing feedback-‐based systems that can guide our hands. This will help Morph Tools achieve the same relationship that the handcrafted artifacts share between hand-‐eye-‐body of the craftsman to the material that the artifact is shaped of.

For most products it is easy to differentiate between a mass-‐produced object and one that has been handcrafted: handmade items have distinctive imperfections and a keen observer’s eye will spot signs of an individual’s technique and style. The first case study blurs these distinctions, making it possible, for example, to sculpt items with distinctive signs of handicraft, while controlling the outcome so that the object doesn’t stray too far from the desired form. Through this case study I discuss how a morphed tool can impact customization and use of human labor in production.

There is a rich history of human computer interaction that researchers are exploring the domain of creativity that uses motion tracking and gestural inputs in the field of subtractive manufacturing. Willis developed several devices using real-‐time inputs to construct physical

Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship.

form.1 Olwal combined a computer graphics interface with physical objects, working with a lathe.2 Rivers developed a position-‐correcting 2D router, achieving accurate cuts on large-‐ scale surfaces, while allowing the free guiding of the tool. 3

Chisel and knives are tools with characteristically shaped cutting edges that can be used for carving or cutting hard materials such as wood, stone or metal. They have complete gestural freedom and allow an intimate tangible experience with the raw material. However, unlike the digital designer they do not have access to a rich digital history that can both monitor and control the design process. In 2013 Amit Zoran published his work done on “Wise Chisels” in a paper titled Human Computer Interaction for Hybrid Carving and FreeD – A Freehand Digital Sculpting Tool.4 He built the prototype of the tool in 2011 in collaboration with Roy Shilkrot, a Masters student at Media Labs at MIT. The design in conversation is a handheld carving tool that can be programmed with a desired three-‐dimensional shape. The multiple-‐axis bearing allows the milling bit to move in 3 degrees of freedom: 2 in the carving-‐ plane, and a forward backward motion. When the user begins to carve a block of material, anytime his motions would extend into the region of the desired final form, the device provides physical feedback that slows the motion. Free-‐D gives makers complete gestural freedom and intimate tangible experience of using a chisel with a “safety net” by relying on a pre-‐designed CAD model, similar to working with a digital machine.

Karl D.D. Willis and others, ‘Spatial Sketch: Bridging Between Movement &#38; Fabrication’, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’10 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2010), pp. 5–12 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709890>. 2 Alex Olwal, Jonny Gustafsson and Christoffer Lindfors, ‘Spatial Augmented Reality on Industrial CNC-‐Machines’, 2008, , 680409–680409 – 9 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.760960>. 3 Alec Rivers, Ilan E. Moyer and Frédo Durand, ‘Position-‐Correcting Tools for 2D Digital Fabrication’, ACM Trans. Graph., 31 (2012), 88:1–88:7 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2185520.2185584>. 4 Amit Zoran, Roy Shilkrot and Joseph Paradiso, ‘Human-‐Computer Interaction for Hybrid Carving’, in Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’13 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013), pp. 433–40 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2501988.2502023>.

Figure 4: The FreeD work environment, computer and MMTS (magnetic motion tracking system) The figure below explains the system; the CAD software is first used to visualize the desired final output, and the hand held FreeD tool allows manipulating the desired material to sculpt the final artifact.

Figure 5: Manual marking process with a user and the final outcome The beauty of the tool is in how it celebrates “errors” and “individual styles” of the tool manipulator/user similar to Japanese aesthetic style wabi-‐sabi. The figure above shows a craftsman using FreeD to sculpt the artifact. If the carving alters the shape so much that it would compromise the structural integrity of the object, the computerized system can adjust the shape accordingly, in real time. For example, as the image below shows, if in sculpting a giraffe the user carved too far into the neck, the computer can adjust the shape, introducing a bend in the neck that allows the structure to maintain its strength.

Figure 6: Alterations in design based on personal sculpting choices, the modifications in giraffe's neck To demonstrate the inherent flexibility and creativity of these computer-‐assisted tools, Zoran had several different people make carvings based on the same-‐programmed shape — in this case, a cat. The image below shows the outcome of the experiment, each piece had a unique appearance, with distinctive textures, forms, and styles.

Figure 7: Five cats made by five participants using the FreeD, all using the same CAD model FreeD does not have direct lineage to craft heritage but is building new ways of interacting with raw materials and thus inventing new ways of making by investigating analog versions of chisel functions. There is a suggestive synergy between craft and digital technology in FreeD, allowing the creation of unique artifacts from generic designs. FreeD is an important example of Morph Tool as it enables interpretation and modification of a virtual model while fabricating it, keeping the user’s subjective tool path as a signature embedded in the texture of the physical artifact.

Digital potters wheel Things are either devolving toward, or evolving from, nothingness… 1

Leonard Koren

While searching for examples in the domain of additive manufacturing that merge lines between manufacturing and craft my objective was more than merely appropriating handmade methods in the production of automated artifacts. I was seeking tools that fuse the aesthetics and structural qualities of the hand-‐made with the digitally fabricated. I questioned the role of materiality in a widely de-‐materializing and virtual culture or production using CAD software and pneumatic manufacturing.

Pottery, one of the oldest artisanal techniques for making utilitarian objects, is combined with new digital media to make a new tool, L’Artisan Electronique.2 The installation clearly refers to the artisanal process of working in clay. Made by a studio in Antwerp named Unfold, this ceramic 3d printer has a great resonance with the way traditional potters handled clay by building a form out of coils of clay. The virtual pottery wheel is a digital tool to ‘turn’ forms in thin air.

L’Artisan Electronique is an installation commissioned by Z33 for the exhibition Design by Performance and developed in collaboration with Tim Knapen and the RepRap community.3 The final outcome has been exhibited in Abu Dhabi (Abu Dhabi Art Fair), Jerusalem (Israel Museum), Rotterdam (CBK), Enkhuizen (Zuiderzeemuseum), Brussels (Design Flanders

1 Koren. 2

Z33 Art Centre, ‘L’Artisan Electronique’, Unfold, 2010 <http://www.unfold.be/pages/projects/items/l’artisan-‐electroniqu> [accessed 30 September 2014]. 3 Mark D. Symes and others, ‘Integrated 3D-‐Printed Reactionware for Chemical Synthesis and Analysis’, Nature Chemistry, 4 (2012), 349–54 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1313>.

Gallery) and London (Aram Gallery).

Figure 8: L'Artisan Electronique studio setup The images on this page show the tool and its outcome, “virtual potter’s wheel” stands at an interesting crossroads between materiality and the digital ephemera. It dematerializes the process of creation, separating the maker from the raw material of the final object.

Figure 9: Artifact produced using L Artisan Electronique, showing the imperfections of the hand etched in the pot’s form While looking at the work of l’Artisan Électronique from the analog/material standpoint of it

being a virtual remake of the traditional pottery it appears to dematerialize the process of creation. But in my view it actually approaches it the other way around, from the digital standpoint. l’Artisan Électronique tries to bridge both worlds and to actually materialize the world of virtual design both by researching the use of more tactile digital design tools where there is much more relation between what you do with your body and the forms you generate as opposed to traditional digital design tools that are no different in interaction than non-‐design tools like browsing or email. Also the use of clay materials in 3d printers as opposed to more sterile and synthetic plastics is an effort to take some of the digital on/off logic and esthetics out of digital manufacturing.

We are sandwiched in an era that is the early days of the post-‐digital era where the divide between the digital and the analog thinking is starting to fade away. It is not relevant anymore to think of something as either being digital or analog. The axe that a woodcutter uses to cut a tree is probably produced using a computer-‐controlled mill.

L’Artisan Electronique, by its makers describes the objects produced as “artifacts of a new history”. It is interesting to question what historical lineage(s) could one see L’Artisan Electronique acting within and given that the makers were working within the specific forms of pottery making, how can one refer to L’Artisan Electronique in relation to ceramic history.

In an interview with Claire Warnier and Dries Verbruggen of Unfold design studio, the creators of L’ Artisan Electronique by The Journal of Modern Craft spoke about the lineage their Morph Tool shares with ceramic history:1

Stacy Jo Scott, ‘Unfold Interview–the Virtual Potter’s Wheel | The Journal of Modern Craft’, The website of The Journal of Modern Craft, 2011 <http://journalofmoderncraft.com/responses/unfold-‐interviewthe-‐virtual-‐potters-‐wheel> [accessed 2 October 2014].

The history of pottery has evolved from an artisanal way of working with small editions to industrial mass production. The difference between pottery and design, is that in the field of pottery, you still have a great deal of people working in an artisanal way and the industrial production still has a lot of handwork in it. And it seems in pottery, these two tendencies still look at each others as rivals: the artisans don’t like industrial production, the ceramic industries seem to find artisanal production childish. The same you found a bit in the Arts and Crafts Movement, where machines and industry was presented as something bad and small minded, while the crafts were seen as a noble way of working. People often think in antagonisms: intelligent – stupid, high art – low art, good – bad. But things are not that black and white. With L’Artisan Electronique we want to show this. We want to overcome these antagonisms.

The objects that have been made on the digital pottery wheel and the 3D ceramics printer have a lot of traces of craft. They are not perfect, even if they are produced on a machine and with digital design software. (As shown in Figure 9) One can see the imperfection of the hand in the design. None of the objects designed on the virtual pottery wheel are completely symmetric. The hand is never stable enough. The software will register every small movement of the hand. One can also see the traces of the digital representation within the objects, such as the polygonal mesh. And the machine leaves traces while producing, due to air in the clay, the layered deposition or designs that are not perfect enough for printing. This means that the objects L’Artisan Electonique print are not sterile (something people often say about industrial production), but they are also not really handmade. This is an interesting intersection point. And that’s where I think a new history evolves. It is the difference between the crafts and the industries that these digitally morphed tools can bridge. They feel like the first artifacts of a story that will further unfold.

Implications of using digitally morphed tools Prompting Open Knowledge Sharing How does digital open source innovation in decentralized manufacture approach the still very physical challenges that face our culture?

Open source innovation is a mentality change. It’s not only about digital innovation, it’s as much about sharing as it is about using. If we want to overcome problems such as resource depletion, we need to rethink the way we work and live and adopting an open source mentality is a very viable option. I think open source mentality could help rethink our lives; it is based on a social principle. By sharing your code with others, you get access to someone else’s knowledge. It gives the power of solving problems into the hands of a billion, it could solve issues faced by certain people by certain other people, and eventually it will help to make a better, cheaper shared product. If people have the same mentality and share physical things, we could probable solve quite a few of the urgent problems that we are facing these days.

Both examples of Morph Tools: smart chisel and digital potter’s wheel promote the idea of creating unique crafted artifacts using a common digital resource file which could be shared amongst people without geographical boundaries. Certain examples of online platforms that are functioning as manufacturing agencies of Morph Tools include Shapeways, Kraftwurx, i.Materialise and Sculpteo.1 Then there are other platforms that make it possible to get access to a massive pool of digital resources such as make.com and instructables. More local initiatives such as Fablabs, Open Source Ecology are competitors to the online platforms.

Nancy Yi Liang, ‘Who Are Shapeway’s Competitors’, Quora, 2013 <http://www.quora.com/Who-‐are-‐Shapeways-‐competitors> [accessed 30 September 2014].

They run on the ideology of using digital open source knowledge sharing to cut down on cost of production, create products that are more centralized to our own needs and create much 1

quicker upgrading cycles for products.

An important example that points out how Morph Tools can enable decentralized 2

manufacturing is Global Village Construction Set by the Open Source Ecology. The image on the next page shows the GVCS, a set of the simplest 50 modular open source tools designed to create the basic comforts of modern civilization and provide material sufficiency. This includes devices like tractors, bread ovens and circuit makers. The tools are designed to build each other from raw feedstocks, and are designed to be user serviceable and modifiable, and to have swappable lego-‐like modular components, and quick connect couplers -‐ much like your childhood erector set. Combined with the documentation in the Civilization Starter Kit, an economy could be created and maintained by a small group of individuals. In contrast to the iPhone -‐-‐ designed in the US, made from African minerals, assembled in China, with parts from Japan, the GVCS is designed by contributors all over the world to have a supply chain no farther than neighborhood back yard, and the local scrap heap. Its’ subcomponents range from basic manual manufacturing to highly automated software-‐ based precision tools.3

1 Oliver Gassmann, Ellen Enkel and Henry Chesbrough, ‘The Future of Open Innovation’, R&D Management, 40 (2010), 213–21 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-‐9310.2010.00605.x>. 2 Open-‐Sourced Blueprints for Civilization, Marcin Jakubowski, 2011 <http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski?language=en> [accessed 2 October 2014]. 3 ‘Toward an Open Source Civilization -‐ Draft X’, Evernote <https://www.evernote.com/shard/s167/sh/c0f9b697-‐0c78-‐4d5b-‐8c0d-‐ bd71bb7f9125/f45d9505747f2a35756425a2a04eb600> [accessed 2 October 2014].

Figure 10: 50 tools in Global Village Construction Set

I see GVCS as a natural intersection of the open software, and open hardware movements and basic human needs. It summarizes the precise need for Morph Tools by challenging the established polarity between two methods of making: utilizing the main components for the GVCS from centralized industrial manufacturers and making use of it in localized surrounding by using the ingenuity, skills and needs of the labor force at the task site.

Conclusion: Digital Realm of Craft My intention behind this dissertation was to understand and promote the alternative paradigm of making in the digital era. Today, Fablabs1, DIY and Makerspace2 culture influences makers from a wide range of disciplines that incorporate diverse skills and technologies. They are using digital tools to investigate new creative territories or enjoy the opportunities technology creates for fabrication. It also allows sharing of knowledge, instructions and experiences with others via online platforms. We need to encourage a dialogue within the design community that leads to authenticity, and participation with these new methods of making.

To conclude I want people responsible for making to think about the how their tools shall be put to work in this digital realm. What is unique in the way that craftspeople use digital tools and systems? Let us not endanger digital makers into seduction with the latest technology and software release. We need to prevent autonomous wizard driven systems from becoming prevalent, which would make it difficult to differentiate between two craft practitioners working with the same software or tool. Perhaps these individual styles of making can be saved in tools as embedded knowledge, which can be then used to teach an amateur that would help them master new techniques.

I fear that digital craft is heading in the same direction as architecture in the 90's, where an exploration of NURBS surfacing tools resulted in a uniform aesthetic sometimes referred to as 'blobtecture', the lure of complex forms unable to be made

1 Bakhtiar Mikhak and others, ‘FAB LAB : AN ALTERNATE MODEL OF ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT’, 2002.Bakhtiar Mikhak and others, ‘FAB LAB : AN ALTERNATE MODEL OF ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT’, 2002. 2 Margaret Honey and David E. Kanter, Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (Routledge, 2013).

by hand and often by machine achieved with a couple of clicks of the mouse; as McCullough (2006) states, ‘any fool could do it’. 1

If the beginning of utilizing computing in manufacturing has to appear to the future historians as the most significant point of achievement of our times, they are not likely to do this solely of the basis of functional utility. Social and aesthetic concerns have always been a key part in the growth of a civilization. The artifacts and practices that the computational manufacturing produces will demand and reward more refined interpretations.

Amit Zoran, inventor of wise chisel (as discussed in Chapter 2, FreeD) in the closing notes of his doctorate thesis expresses his viewpoint on the meaning in the process of making that is derived from maker’s relationship with the environment.2 These qualities of meaningful practice result in a unique artifact. I believe that contemporary design can benefit by embracing a hybrid perspective, by merging digital technologies and embracing subjectivity, uniqueness and imperfection. The more unique and special our environment is, the more unpredictable our interaction and experience with it should be. Therefore, we should consider investing in the design of artifacts and interactions that are local, one‐of‐a‐kind, and unexpected.

1 McCullough. 2

Amit Zoran and Leah Buechley, ‘Hybrid Reassemblage: An Exploration of Craft, Digital Fabrication and Artifact Uniqueness’, Leonardo, 46 (2012), 4–10 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00477>.

Bibliography 1. Anshuk, Gandhi, Carmen Magar, and Roger Roberts, ‘How Technology Can Drive the next Wave of Mass Customization’, McKinsey & Company, 2014 <http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/how_technology_can_dr ive_the_next_wave_of_mass_customization> [accessed 20 September 2014] 2. Benjamin, Walter, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, trans. by J. A. Underwood (London: Penguin, 2008) 3. Botvinick, Matthew, and Jonathan Cohen, ‘Rubber Hands /`feel/’ Touch That Eyes See’, Nature, 391 (1998), 756–756 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35784> 4. Carlson, Thomas A., George Alvarez, Daw-‐an Wu, and Frans A. J. Verstraten, ‘Rapid Assimilation of External Objects Into the Body Schema’, Psychological Science, 2010 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371962> 5. Cheng Guo, ‘Mouth Factory’, Mouth Factory, 2012 <http://www.chengguo.co.uk/index.php?/project/mouth-‐factory/> [accessed 30 September 2014] 6. Chua, C. K., K. F. Leong, and C. S. Lim, Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications, 3 Har/Dvdr edition (New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2010) 7. Gassmann, Oliver, Ellen Enkel, and Henry Chesbrough, ‘The Future of Open Innovation’, R&D Management, 40 (2010), 213–21 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-‐9310.2010.00605.x> 8. Gershenfeld, Neil, Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop-‐-‐from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication (New York: Basic Books, 2007) 9. Heidegger, Martin, Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays, The (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1982) 10. Honey, Margaret, and David E. Kanter, Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (Routledge, 2013) 11. John, Nancy R., ‘Putting Content onto the Internet’, First Monday, 1 (1996) <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/477> [accessed 2 October 2014] 12. Koren, Leonard, Wabi-‐Sabi: For Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers (Point Reyes, Calif.: Imperfect Publishing, 2008) 13. Kruth, J. -‐P., M. C. Leu, and T. Nakagawa, ‘Progress in Additive Manufacturing and Rapid Prototyping’, CIRP Annals -‐ Manufacturing Technology, 47 (1998), 525–40 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-‐8506(07)63240-‐5> 14. ‘Made in the Future’, Made in the Future <http://madeinthefuture.co> [accessed 2 October 2014]

15. Marx, Karl, and Ernest Mandel, Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, trans. by Ben Fowkes, Reprint edition (London ; New York, N.Y: Penguin Classics, 1992) 16. McCullough, Malcolm, Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998) 17. Mikhak, Bakhtiar, Christopher Lyon, Tim Gorton, Neil Gershenfeld, Caroline Mcennis, and Jason Taylor, ‘FAB LAB : AN ALTERNATE MODEL OF ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT’, 2002 18. Nancy Yi Liang, ‘Who Are Shapeway’s Competitors’, Quora, 2013 <http://www.quora.com/Who-‐are-‐Shapeways-‐competitors> [accessed 30 September 2014] 19. Olwal, Alex, Jonny Gustafsson, and Christoffer Lindfors, ‘Spatial Augmented Reality on Industrial CNC-‐Machines’, 2008, 680409–680409 – 9 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.760960> 20. Open-‐Sourced Blueprints for Civilization, Marcin Jakubowski, 2011 <http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski?language=en> [accessed 2 October 2014] 21. Patrick Haggard & Matthew R. Longo, ‘You Are What You Touch: How Tool Use Changes the Brain’s Representations of the Body’, Scientific American, 2010 <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-‐are-‐what-‐you-‐touch/> [accessed 2 October 2014] 22. Pye, David, The Nature and Aesthetics of Design (London: A&C Black, 2000) 23. ———, The Nature and Art of Workmanship (London: A&C Black, 2007) 24. Rich, Travis, ‘Encoding Data into Physical Objects with Digitally Fabricated Textures’ (unpublished Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013) <http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/82431> [accessed 2 October 2014] 25. Rivers, Alec, Ilan E. Moyer, and Frédo Durand, ‘Position-‐Correcting Tools for 2D Digital Fabrication’, ACM Trans. Graph., 31 (2012), 88:1–88:7 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2185520.2185584> 26. Sennett, Richard, The Craftsman (Penguin, 2008) 27. Stacy Jo Scott, ‘Unfold Interview–the Virtual Potter’s Wheel | The Journal of Modern Craft’, The website of The Journal of Modern Craft, 2011 <http://journalofmoderncraft.com/responses/unfold-‐interviewthe-‐virtual-‐potters-‐ wheel> [accessed 2 October 2014] 28. Steins, Christian, Sean Gustafson, Christian Holz, and Patrick Baudisch, ‘Imaginary Devices: Gesture-‐Based Interaction Mimicking Traditional Input Devices’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-‐computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI ’13 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013), pp. 123–26 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2493190.2493208>

29. Symes, Mark D., Philip J. Kitson, Jun Yan, Craig J. Richmond, Geoffrey J. T. Cooper, Richard W. Bowman, and others, ‘Integrated 3D-‐Printed Reactionware for Chemical Synthesis and Analysis’, Nature Chemistry, 4 (2012), 349–54 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1313> 30. ‘Toward an Open Source Civilization -‐ Draft X’, Evernote <https://www.evernote.com/shard/s167/sh/c0f9b697-‐0c78-‐4d5b-‐8c0d-‐ bd71bb7f9125/f45d9505747f2a35756425a2a04eb600> [accessed 2 October 2014] 31. Trapp, Kenneth R., and Howard Risatti, A Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007) 32. Uchitelle, Louis, ‘A Nation That’s Losing It’s Toolbox’, The New York Times, 21 July 2012 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/business/what-‐happened-‐to-‐the-‐ craftsmanship-‐spirit-‐essay.html?pagewanted=all> [accessed 14 July 2014] 33. Vance, Ashlee, ‘3-‐D Printing Is Spurring a Manufacturing Revolution’, The New York Times, 13 September 2010, section Technology <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html> [accessed 2 October 2014] 34. Willis, Karl D.D., Juncong Lin, Jun Mitani, and Takeo Igarashi, ‘Spatial Sketch: Bridging Between Movement &#38; Fabrication’, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’10 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2010), pp. 5–12 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709890> 35. Wrensch, Thomas, and Michael Eisenberg, ‘The Programmable Hinge: Toward Computationally Enhanced Crafts’, in Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’98 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1998), pp. 89–96 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/288392.288577> 36. Z33 Art Centre, ‘L’Artisan Electronique’, Unfold, 2010 <http://www.unfold.be/pages/projects/items/l’artisan-‐electroniqu> [accessed 30 September 2014] 37. Zoran, Amit, and Leah Buechley, ‘Hybrid Reassemblage: An Exploration of Craft, Digital Fabrication and Artifact Uniqueness’, Leonardo, 46 (2012), 4–10 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00477> 38. Zoran, Amit, and Joseph A. Paradiso, ‘FreeD: A Freehand Digital Sculpting Tool’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’13 (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013), pp. 2613–16 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481361>