For next week, we’re going to telescope forward to the present to consider the Makers movement, focusing on the claim that the user and the designer have become, or are in the process of becoming, the same person. Please read Part 1 of Chris Anderson’s book, Makers: The New Industrial Revolution (2012), pgs. 1-78.
Anderson’s career trajectory intersects with the content of our course in a number of ways: he worked in the hard sciences for a number of years, most notably as a physicist at Los Alamos and as an editor of the journals Nature and Science; in 2001, he became editor-in-chief at Wired, the magazine co-founded by Stewart Brand in 1993. As you read through Makers, I’d like you to think about the ways Anderson’s arguments tie back to the theories and projects we’ve discussed so far in class.
This is a relatively long reading, so make sure you carve out a chunk of time to plow through it. However, I think you’ll find that it’s a much easier read than most of the material we’ve looked at so far – it shouldn’t take you that long to get the gist of Anderson’s argument.
Because of the length of this reading, I won’t require you to print out a copy for class, but please do find a way to access the text from the seminar room, whether it’s a physical copy of the book or a pdf accessed via tablet or laptop.
History of the User 
I’ve heard this is Hugo’s Favorite Book! Actually reading this book now, and given the context of our class focus, the idea of the user as co-creator comes up so many times. Our IxD Dept. Chair often says we’re not designing an experience, we are designing for an experience and I think that is very appropriate when thinking of the notion of the user as co-creator.
Nick, I wonder if you could say more about the distinction between “designing an experience” and “designing *for* an experience.” What’s the difference here?
Sure Danny,
The idea that we are no longer designing an experience, but for an experience is around the idea that a design is no longer a closed system. It’s a dynamic system that must account for user feedback and control. Think more of a framework where the designer and user are co-cocreating. Open source software is a great example, Local Motors in Phoenix is another one. There are even projects where Nokia will release its design files then produce the designs created by its fans around their custom cellular phones. The internal parts are the same, but the exteriors are customized.
User generated content is another great example.
Got it, thanks for that clarification. When I first started planning this course, I had the idea – it was just an intuition, really – that at some point in the 1990s, there was a shift away from, or beyond, the terms and concepts of cybernetics. Now, however, I see that the opposite is true: feedback is everywhere in post-1990s tech and design discourse – if anything, it’s the apotheosis of cybernetic thinking, and the culmination of a seventy year-old tradition of thought. What comes after cybernetics, I wonder: A more tightly refined theory of user-generated feedback? Or a critique of the user?
Here is an interesting example of what Anderson seems to overlook, that the “open” tools and platforms offered aren’t as ubiquitous and adaptable as claimed (Kickstarter works in a very specific streamlined manner, for example).
http://www.3ders.org/articles/20131105-creator-of-the-eventorbot-it-might-be-the-biggest-regret-of-my-life.html
Here’s another example of the hazards of small batch production (especially via Kickstarter): http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rocknail/filabot-plastic-filament-maker/comments
For what it’s worth, I think Anderson gets the history of industrialization completely wrong; my advice to you all is to read his account of the first industrial revolution with a grain of salt – even a whole salt-shaker. The idea that industrialization magically lifted millions of British peasants into a middle-class standard of living and health is ludicrous, and ignores everything we know about the early stages of proletarianization in the 19th century – that is, the process whereby farmers and artisans were induced to sell their labor in factories, moving from city to country in the aftermath of the enclosure of local common land. This is a much larger and bigger topic than we can really deal with in one three-hour session, but suffice it to say that the history of industrialization is far more misery-ridden than the rosy picture sketched out in Anderson’s book. If you’re interested in the counter-argument, Friedrich Engels’ book The Condition of the Working Class in England would be a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Condition_of_the_Working_Class_in_England
I also recommend E.P. Thompson’s essay “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.” A classic work of social history – truly a wonderful read (though longer than your average essay). http://tems.umn.edu/pdf/EPThompson-PastPresent.pdf
Re: The eventorbot mishap, yes. Absolutely experienced this with fulfilling my own kickstarter campaign. It’s tricky as most creators don’t have a working knowledge of supply chain management and larger scale fulfillment and manufacturing. the DIY film and music community has been dealing with these challenges since 2007 / 2008 and are still figuring it out. The maker movement is slow burn as people adopt lifestyles, business models and technologies that can truly maximize what’s possible. Jeff Bezos still says it’s Day one for Amazon – http://m.fastcompany.com/3014817/amazon-jeff-bezos
One example of Direct to Consumer business models being explored is mentioned by Marc Schiller who helped Banksy self release Exit Through the Gift Shop. http://trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2013/10/the-360-equation-the-one-business-model-every-filmmaker-needs-to-know.html
It’s definitely Day Zero for the Maker Movement and Open design