Theorizing l’objet technique: reconciling the disparity between emerging “maker culture” and traditional “design/build”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper contributes to emerging phenomenon of maker culture and open source technology by proposing a theoretical vision that can help interpret the complexity of this developing global phenomenon and consider the far reaching implications it holds for traditional localized cultures of making in building arts. Contexturalized by principles of the social construction of technology (SCOT), the paper draws from two theories: Brian Stross’ cycle of hybridity as applied to the origins of innovation and the theory of technical individuation and concretization proposed by continental philosopher Gilbert Simondon in his mode d ’ existence de l ’ objet technique. This paper anticipates discourse grounded in a six-year action-research project into educational “design/build” in schools of architecture. It hopes to provoke a theoretical basis for exchange of resources specific to building arts, but influenced by distributed networks of “open source” technical exchange and collaborations based in maker culture. It aspires to a new model of architectural thinking induced by “design/build” pedagogy: learning by doing, doing it yourself, but most importantly, doing it by collaboration, situated within the emergent technologies of networked communications and fabrication. We situate the tradition of design/build as discrete building projects, built by students, academics and community groups within an academic but alternative to the mainstream professional education in architecture. A long-standing tradition, it generates hands-on experience to embody project synthesis. Design is continuous rather than predetermined. Communities (often in need) work with designer/builders to learn techniques through first-hand tacit knowledge. Though rarely discussed, design/build positions itself as an alternative to standard economic structure, to building industry norms, and to the lack of collaboration in design. This is fertile ground, particularly now when technological change presents opportunities of industrial accessibility, networked communications and alternative economic collaborative models, such as the open source “maker labs” and cloud-funding. Both SCOT and the theory of the technical object treat invention as stabilization and closure. Simondon’s theory follows the course of invention as individuating phenomena resulting from collision or chance occurrences between stabilizations underlining tendencies towards stabilization through concretization of inventions. Stross’ theory suggests that hybrids form in a competitive environment and refinements, ostensibly for competition, make processes more susceptible to combination with competitors. In both cases innovation originates from a process of continuous refinement and combination. Some unexpectedly meld to form discrete modes of fabrication. Stross warns us that diverse techniques can become homogeneous and resistant to further combination through hybridization. While the ethic of “maker culture” and “design build” seem parallel, they are quite removed. There is potential for a hybrid emergence of these two cultures. On the face of it, it contradicts the principles of “open” source. However, it is possible to do both — allow closure (produce objects) while keeping the process and constituent products open to recombination. The aim of this paper is to build a theoretical framework that might reconcile the architectural (professional - public infrastructure) with the communal and dispersed model of maker culture and open-sourced technology both theoretically and practically.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».