Critical Digital Making in Art Education. Группа авторов
Peppler, K. (2010). Media arts: Arts education for a digital age. Teachers College Record, 112(8), pp. 2118–2153.
Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Quinn, T. M., Ploof, J., & Hochtritt, L. J. (Eds.). (2012). Art and social justice education: Culture as commons. New York, NY: Routledge.
Raley, R. (2009). Tactical media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ratto, M., & Boler, M. (Eds.). (2014). DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richardson, J. (2002, August). Language of tactical media. Subsol. Retrieved from http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors2/richardsontext2.html
Romm, T. (2019, July 24). U.S. government issues stunning rebuke, historic $5 billion fine against Facebook for repeated privacy violations. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190724135703/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/24/us-government-issues-stunning-rebuke-historic-billion-fine-against-facebook-repeated-privacy-violations/
←16 | 17→
Sayers, J. (Ed.). (2017). Making humanities matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Schaer, C. (2019, July 12). Microsoft office 365: Banned in German schools over privacy fears. ZDNet. Retrieved from: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-office-365-banned-in-german-schools-over-privacy-fears/
Simon, B. (1981). Why no pedagogy in England? In B. Simon & W. Taylor (Eds.), Education in the eighties (pp. 121–145). London, UK: Batsford.
Singer, P. W. (2019). Likewar: The weaponization of social media. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.
Snaza, N., & Weaver, J. (Eds.). (2015). Posthumanism and educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education. (2014). National core arts standards. National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. Retrieved from https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/
Sweeny, R. W. (2015). Dysfunction and decentralization in new media art and education. Chicago, IL: Intellect.
Tavin, K. (2003). Wrestling with angels, searching for ghosts: Toward a critical pedagogy of visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 197–213.
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven: Yale University Press.
van der Meulen, S. (2017). A strong couple: New media and socially engaged art. Leonardo, 50(2), 170–176.
Wallin, A. (2017). Feminism in the archives and the archive in feminism: Propositions gleaned from Alex Martinis Roe’s to become two. Performance Paradigm, 13, 134–147.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
←17 | 18→
←18 | 19→
SECTION I
Formation: Digital Materiality and New Media Arts
←19 | 20→
←20 | 21→
CHAPTER ONE
Toward a Practice of Digital-Handicraft
M.C. BAUMSTARK AND THERESA SLATER
This chapter speculates emergent themes in the practice of the digital-handicraft, a hybridized field of making by considering the sense of touch, and its implications in interdisciplinary artmaking, new pedagogical models, and alternative modes of organizing and resisting. We begin by acknowledging affinities between craft and digital, recognizing ways that multiple hybrid digital-handicraft practices challenge the false binaries of hand and/or machine. Then, we examine ways the sense of touch functions as critical feedback in order to explore the intersections between hand-making and digital labor, calling attention to tacit knowledge, traditional teaching methods, and digital prosthesis. Haptic technologies are key to this emergent practice, allowing users to touch digital objects, deepening the continuous space between physical and virtual intersections.
This digital-handicraft practice considers labor as a key component of cultural production immaterial or otherwise. Considering the invisible labor of workers behind technology and materials, the digital-handicraft practice is inherently collaborative, decentering the maker as the sole producer of culture. Further, as a practice demonstrating improved accessibility and utilizing various tactile modalities, digital-handmaking invites criticality within the making process. Digital-handmaking offers new modes of making and sharing culture, rendering traditional handcrafted objects virtual and dematerialized, ready to share, and digitally designed objects suddenly made physical through haptic technologies.
Exploring both the pedagogical and activist implications of a hybridized field, this text complicates existing models of craft education and activism (craftivism) ←21 | 22→and considers what traditional craft models may offer digital spaces and vice versa. Here, we speculate the future of a hybridized discipline, necessarily expanding both traditional craft and digital scholarship to include contemporary modes of production and accessibility.
REALIZING THE AFFINITIES BETWEEN CRAFT AND THE DIGITAL
Traditionally, craft was constituted by materials, techniques, function, and lineage. Romantic notions about the “human imprint” (Mazanti, 2011, p. 61) and craft’s authenticity continue to pervade the material culture. Scholars like Louise Mazanti and Glenn Adamson approach craft as a discourse and material position capable of reflexive change and transformation (Adamson, 2010, 2013; Mazanti, 2011). In this light, craft expands beyond the reaches of regional tradition, limited materials, and the touch of the hand to include 3D printed ceramics, LED-ridden textiles, and virtual showrooms. Given the rise of three-dimensional modeling, rapid prototyping, and haptic-digital controls, craft has gone digital.
The relationship between craft and digital fields is often positioned as antithetical, even binary, as craft was defined as “anti-technological” since the Arts and Crafts movement (Greenhalgh, 2002, p. 7). Just as our crafting ancestors confronted the changing landscape of mass production, contemporary issues between the handmade and digital exist on a continuum. In order for scholars to better analyze the contemporary work of cultural producers, for educators to equip and prepare future makers, and to expand the ways in which material production is entangled within economic and social frameworks,