CIS.doc # 04Open Design

English

CIS.doc # 04

Open Design

Creative Industries Convention 2011

–Markus Beckedahl Andrea GoetzkeBre PettisMark FrauenfelderPonokoWienettPeter Troxler

–Yochai BenklerGeorg RusseggerRonen KadushinWhite ElephantGarmzPatick DaxEvan Jones

–Armin MedoschCory DoctorowManfred FaßlerLev ManovichPaul AtkinsonGerin TrautenbergerHannes Walter

ConTRiBuToRs

9 7 8 3 9 0 2 7 4 8 0 3 4

Kiss#2: Collage of 340 pictures under CC-by license (page 21)Artist: Evan Jones

Creative Industries Convention2011

Contents Contents

page 04

Introduction Christian Buchmann

page 06 – 07

Open Design

page 10

Armin Medosch

open Design as a new

„Design Culture“

page 12

Cory Doctorow

Love the Machine, Hate the

Factory

page 14

Manfred Faßler

Where is open?

Contents/ Theory

page 16

Lev Manovic

Who is the Author?

page 18, 20

Paul Atkinson

Ghosts of the Profession

page 22

Gerin Trautenberger

Creative Commons Basics

page 24

Hannes Walter

Designer and a Little More

page 26

Yochai Benkler

Today innovation is Coming

from All Directions

page 28, 30, 32, 34, 36

Georg Russegger

Aleatory Design Models

page 04

Introduction Eberhard Schrempf

page 11

Ronan Kadushin

Products in a networked

Culture

page 13

Open Design Now

Why Design cannot Remain

Exclusive

page 15

White Elephant

Balloon Light

page 17

Garmz

Crowdsourcing

page 19

Fluid Forms

intelligent Design by Means

of Creative Coding and open

source software

page 21

Evan Jones

How the images Are Created

page 23, 25, 27

Markus Beckedahl /

Andrea Goetzke

Creative Commons in open Design

page 29

Bre PettisThe Future of Working At Home

page 31

Mark Frauenfelder

Do it Yourself innovation

page 33

Ponoko

The Factory of the Future

page 35

Wienett

Handwerk 3.0

page 37

Peter Troxler

The Proliferation of Fab Labs

Contents / Practice

– Concept of publication: Gerin Trautenberger & Patrick Dax, Microgiants GmbHAndreas Hirsch, andreas-hirsch.netProject Management: Barbara TscherneTranslations: otmar LichtenwörtherProofreading: otmar LichtenwörtherGraphic Design: moodley brand identityPrint: Medienfabrik Graz

– This publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Austria License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/at/

– Imprint:Publisher: Creative industries styria GmbHCEo: Eberhard schrempf Marienplatz 1, 8020 Graz, Austria T: +43 316 890 598, E [email protected], February 2011

isBn no.: 978-3-902748-03-4 Distribution: Verlag neue Arbeit, 1070 Wien

Medienfabrik GrazDreihackengasse 20, 8020 Graz

Telefon: +43 (0) 316 8095-0www.mfg.at

IHRE IDEEN

WERDEN GRÜN.

Ökologisch nachhaltiger Druck bei der Medienfabrik Graz:• Verwendung von FSC und

PEFC zertifi zierten Papieren • Klimaneutrale Produktion durch

CO2-Kompensation

Unserer Umwelt zuliebe!


Seite 5

Open design is indeed one of the most radical develop-

ments in the field of the creative economy. This radical

innovation is an important source of inspiration for

both economy and society and it facilitates the further

development of traditional businesses and economic

sectors. Thus not only modern and communicative ent-

repreneurs benefit from this innovation but, in the long

run, traditional business too profits from the changed

economic environment.

The creative industry is regarded as a forerunner

when it comes to using technological innovation and it

is a pathfinder for fundamental social changes. These

changes encompass all areas of life and are by no means

restricted to the creative sector. The paradigm shift that

has been accelerated by digitization and digital commu-

nication is no longer a science-fiction story but is already

happening. Today we are still witnessing the beginnings

of these fundamental changes and can thus determine

the direction these developments should take. Just like

in the times of the invention of the printing press even

the most brave forward thinkers cannot foresee the

further development of the phone, the Internet and

social networks.

Nothing has changed the role of the designer as radi-

cally as the digitization of the technological and com-

municative interfaces. Not even twenty years ago the de-

signer was only responsible for shaping a product or for

the graphic design/illustration of an entire magazine.

The rest of the process – from the initial idea to distri-

bution – was reserved to other specialists. But today the

new role of the designer is not only restricted to one sin-

gle step but ranges from the strategic product decision

and the design process right up to product or customer

communication.

Open design and open source are comparatively

young concepts of creation and production. The key

question is as follows: What can product, communica-

tion and service design as well as fashion and architec-

ture learn from the open source movement? Creative

Commons, Linux or the collaborative tools of Web 2.0

show how collaborative working and living can work. In

the process innovative forms of work and production are

created which are based on exchange at eye level. The

traditional boundaries between product, customer and

production are disappearing. The Internet doesn’t only

facilitate the distribution of digital works but also of

construction plans and patterns for material products.

Hence open design is a current development within

the creative economy that is to encourage open collabo-

ration among creative minds and the exchange of ideas.

Moreover, open design holds the potential for the Sty-

rian creative economy to open up new perspectives and

market opportunities both right here, at the business

More economic growth through innovation takes

center stage in our new economic strategy “Steiermark

2020”. Only by means of innovation we can generate va-

lue creation, growth and jobs in Styria. In the frame of

the new economic strategy “Steiermark 2020” the crea-

tive economy – as a main crossroads – will be of special

importance. What we aim for is to create new jobs by

implementing creative ideas.

Thus this open design initiative by the Creative Indus-

tries Styria is a useful supplement to the strategic guide-

lines of the Provincial Government of Styria. Open de-

sign is a new motivating force for all those who are in-

terested in a future-oriented Styrian economy and thus

enabling a closer interlocking of innovation design

and economy.

Open design promises a lot and it is necessary to have

a close look at these promises. What we aim for is exa-

mining open design with its possible future potential in

mind and sounding it out with regard to potential fields

of application for designers, but also for entrepreneurs

and consumers. Hence keeping track of these new devel-

opments and giving possible stimuli for new innovation

is of great interest for the Provincial Government of

Styria.

location of Styria, and beyond Styria’s borders. In ad-

dition, local producers can benefit from open design by

means of a wider product range that can be produced at

a local level.

Since they were founded in 2007 the Creative Indus-

tries Styria have been dealing with all new forms of

design and the collaboration of designers. Not only col-

laboration between creative people has been of interest

to us but also the collaboration between the Creative

Industries Styria and traditional business. In this re-

spect the Creative Industries Styria acts as a source of

inspiration making topics of future relevance available

for the public at large.

The Creative Industries Styria will deal thoroughly

with subjects such as Creative Commons, open source

and open culture as well as the changed role of the de-

signer in a digitized value-adding process. The Con-

vention 2010 on the subject of „Designing the Creative

Societies of the Future“ with the controversial theorist,

writer and blogger Cory Doctorow as keynote speaker

opened up thematic fields we can use as a starting point

in 2011, for both our Convention and this CIS.doc on the

subject of open design. On the occasion of the Conven-

tion 2011 we examine if open design is more than just a

theory – i.e. a novel working method or even an innova-

tive business model.

Eberhard schrempfCEO OF

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES STYRIA GMBH

Christian Buchmann

HEAD OF DEpARTMENT FOR ECONOMY, EUROpE AND CUlTURE,

pROVINCIAl GOVERNMENT OF STYRIA

introduction introductionCreative Industries Convention2011

Seite 7Seite 6 Creative Industries Convention2011


Seite 09

Open Design Put to Good Use

OpenDesign

Creative Commons, Linux or the collaborative tools of Web 2.0 show how collabo-rative working and living can work. Standardized inter-faces, the simple exchange of files and communication at eye level between all participants facilitate new forms of working and pro-duction for creative people. Today the World Wide Web doesn’t only facilitate the

In 2010 and, first and foremost, in the Creative Con-

vention in February, CIS emphasized the theme of

“Designing the Creative Societies of the Future“. This

vol-ume of the CIS.doc series might be seen as a conti-

nuation of our topical focus on open source and Creati-

ve Commons (CC). Along with up-to-date open design

theory it also presents concrete examples and projects

which make use of open source and describe collabora-

tive work among creative people.

With regard to its content this publication can be di-

vided into two separate fundamental strands. On the

one hand it presents examples, applications, tools and

models and, on the other, it introduces theoretical ap-

proaches and information on open design. The new de-

sign of the CIS.doc publication also aims at fulfilling the

requirements of additional presentation formats such as

iPad and Internet. Beside a theoretical part this reader

also provides an overview of the present debate on the

subject of open design. In addition to this it also contains

a practical part, a cross-section of all current trends and

projects using the open design method in their day-to-

day work.

Moreover, our open design publication consists of four

thematic blocks. The first block of articles (Manovich,

Faßler, Walter, Russegger, Benkler) aims at ex-plaining

altered processes with regard to authorship and the

paradigm shifts related to this. Collaboration on the

Internet requires new skills from all participants and

entails clear consequences with respect to authorship,

rights of use and sharing of works. Open source soft-

ware and Creative Commons are attempts to simplify

communication among creative people and to respond

to present-day requirements by means of technological

and socio-cultural changes. These multifaceted aspects

are examined in the second block of articles. The con-

tributions written by Medosch, Troxler, Trautenberger,

Fluid Forms, Beckedahl/Götzke describe ideas and the

use of open design at work as well as the newly cre-ated

aesthetical forms of expression for designers. Open de-

sign and open source are not only tools and methods but

have brought forth a clear and recognizable aesthetics,

which is expressed by one‘s choice of the tools and mate-

rials. Last but not least, we could win over Cory Docto-

row to allow us to publish his essay “Love the Machine,

Hate the Factory” in German language.

The third block, with contributions by Frauenfelder,

Kadushin, White Elephant and presentations of wienett,

garmz (fashion), crowdsourcing as a business model, Po-

noko and Bre Pettis from Makerbot, and Evan’s graphic

work, deals with projects and the tools and methods

employed in open design, and introduces select Good

Practice examples. These examples illustrate the band-

width of the topic with contributions ranging from con-

crete application examples to business cases and discus-

sions of various other aspects of open design. The fourth

Part shows two examples where open design is used by

designers. The Hackchair by Ronen Kadushin and the

Balloon-lamp by White-Elephant are published under

creative commence license (cc-by-sa) and can be used

free by everyone.

This publication is meant to be the description of and

a starting point for a new development which is still in

its infancy today. The examples, theories and projects

described herein still have to be negotiated and do not

claim to be exhaustive or finalized. For these reasons we

placed a great deal of value on inclusiveness when we se-

lected authors, examples and projects and thus avoided

exclusion.

Gerin Trautenberger

MICROGIANTS

distribution of digital works but also of construction plans, patterns and plans for material products. In the this CIS.doc and on the occasion of the Convention 2011 Creative Industries Styria examines if open design is more than just a theory – i.e. a novel working method or even a new busi-ness model.

“WHAT CAN PRODuCT,

COMMuNICATION AND SERvICE DESIGN AS

WELL AS FASHION AND ARCHITECTuRE LEARN

FROM THE OPEN SOuRCE MOvEMENT?

”Gerin Trautenberger

introduction

This term has no fixed meaning yet.

Open design is a concept, a proposal.

On the analogy of open source soft-

ware this could mean: Give us insight

into building plans and construc-

tion principles so that a new colla-

borative design culture can emerge.

Moreover, open source also means re-

moving the barrier between consu-

mers and producers. What motivates

open source programmers is the fact

that they use the jointly created pro-

grams themselves too. Thus the pro-

duct “software” turns into a process

shared by many – the programmers but

also the testers, the authors of bug re-

ports and manuals, in short, the enti-

re lively community. In line with this

open design might mean to free oneself

from the notion of the product as an

already finalized thing and to see de-

sign as an open-ended process. Alrea-

dy 40 to 50 years ago, between 1955

ArminMedosch

and 1968, such basic approaches to a

new design culture were developed at

the ulm School of Design. Initially,

the ulm School adhered to the Bau-

haus principle of the “Gute Form” (i.e.

good form or good design), which ex-

presses an object’s function. Yet from

1957 a new team under the direction

of Tomás Maldonado from Argentina

pursued a more modern and more ra-

dical program. As Maldonado’s colle-

ague Gui Bonsiepe analyzed in a book

which was published a few years ago,

artistic creativity was not supposed

to simply accept the existing world of

products uncritically but to keep an

eye on the bigger picture. What was

called for was “social imagination”. In-

dustrially produced objects are a prod-

uct of social relationships and create

themselves social relationships again.

Instead of modifying the outward ap-

pearance of a given product design can

contain a social outline. Defined like

this, open design questions the context

a product is embedded in. Which raw

materials are required? Which work-

ing procedures with which machines,

which hierarchies and chains of com-

mand? How are the people involved in

the process? And how do we eventually

get rid of the produced things without

any negative environmental impact? Of

BIOGRApHY

Armin Medosch is a freelance writer, media artist and theorist who has already participated in many in-ternet projects. since 2007 he has worked on thenextlayer, a collaborative research platform on the subjects of art, politics, open mind and open source software.

course, it would mean to overtax them

to make the designers alone respon-

sible for all these considerations. Mal-

donado and Bonsiepe saw them as team

workers who moderate the processes.

Their dictum was not to put up with

what was given but to “create unrest”.

In this sense open design is a commit-

ment to change the world. Back then

the ulm School of Design failed due to

the narrow-mindedness of the funding

authorities. Today both the technologi-

cal and the social framework are much

more favorable for the realization of

such a program.

“DESIGN IS

AN OPEN-ENDED PROCESS

”Armin Medosch

In today’s market-driven culture, industrial designers commit

themselves to producers in order to realize their creativity. Produ-

cers, with the power to control all aspects of a product, are the gate-

keepers of design creativity, deciding what and how products are

available to consumers. This situation begins in Industrial design

education systems that train designers to integrate into an indus-

trial production scenario and accept that producers have the right

to regulate design and indoctrinate their set of values and ends.

Fresh approaches and radical views are marginalized as they do

not conform with the dogmas of the Church of Industrial Design.

But other creative fields that found their products in phase with

the realities of the Internet and information technology (fields such

as music, communication design, animation photography, text, etc.)

are experiencing an unprecedented flood of freely available crea-

tive content. Industries that once dominated these fields and have

not adapted to this reality are quickly becoming redundant.

RElATED lINKSthenextlayer.org/blog/2

BIOGRApHY

Ronen Kadushin is an israeli designer and design educator living in Berlin since 2005. He developed the open design method, where the designs of his products can be downloaded, copied, modified and produced, much as in open source software.

Ronen Kadushin

RElATED lINKSronen-kadushin.com

Enter the open source method, one that revolutionized the soft-

ware industry, created a viable economy, and gave birth to a flour-

ishing social movement that is community-minded, highly creative

and inclusive.

A revolution in product development, production and distribu-

tion is imminent due to the Internet’s disruptive nature and the easy

access to CNC machines. Open design is a proposal to make this

happen. It’s aim is to shift Industrial Design to become relevant in

a globally networked information society.

Designing and producing with this method have an effect not

only on the characteristics of the object itself, but also on its modi-

fication possibilities and transformation potentials into other prod-

ucts. It suggests a new model for an unbiased marketplace for all to

take part. And it empowers the designer to freely pursue creative

expressions, realize them as industrially repeatable products and

have the ability to globally distribute design.The presentation will

be accompanied by a product making demonstration.

WHATIS OPENDESIGN?

PRODuCTS IN A NETWORKED CuLTuRE.

Armin Medosch Creative Industries Convention2011


photo: Ronen Kasushin, Vague chair

We’ve heard a lot about how scary the in-

dustrialrevolution was — the dislocations it

wrought on the agrarian population of the

early 19th century were wrenching and ter-

rible, and the revolution was a bloody one.

From that time, we have the word Luddite,

referring to uprisings against the machines

that were undoing ancient ways of living

and working.

But the troubles of the 1810s were only the

beginning. By the end of the century, the

workplace was changing again. Workers

who’d once again found their lives being

dramatically remade by the forces of capital,

through a process called “scientific man-

agement.” Scientific management (which

was also called Taylorism, for its most prom-

inent advocate, Frederick Winslow Taylor)

was built around the idea of reducing a man-

ufacturing process to a series of optimized

simple steps, creating an assembly line where

workers were just part of the machine.

Taylor, Henry Ford, and Frank and Lillian

Gilbreth used time-motion studies, writ-

ten logbooks, highspeed photography, and

other empirical techniques to find wasted

motions, wasted time, and potential log-

jams in manufacturing processes. Practi-

cally every industry saw massive increases

in productivity thanks to their work.

But all this gain was not without cost. The

“unscientific” worker personally worked on

several tricky stages of manufacture, often

seeing a project through from raw materials

to finished product.

He or she could choose how to sit, which tool

to use when, and in what order to complete

the steps. If it was a sunny day with a fine

autumn breeze, the worker could choose to

plane the joints and keep the smell of the

leaves in the air, sav-ing the lacquer for the

next day. Workers who were having a bad

day could take it easy without holding up

a production line. On good days, the work

could fly past without creating traffic jams

farther down the line. For every gain in ef-

ficiency, scientific management exacted a

cost in self-determination, personal digni-

ty, and a worker’s connection with what he

or she produced. For me, the biggest appeal

of steampunk is that it exalts the machine

and disparages the mechanization of hu-

man creativity (the motto of the excellent

and free SteamPunk Magazine is “Love the

Machine, Hate the Factory”). It celebrates

the elaborate inventions of the scientifically

managed enterprise, but imagines those

machines coming from individuals who are

their own masters. Steampunk doesn’t rail

against efficiency — but it never puts effici-

ency ahead of self-determination. If you’re

going to raise your workbench to spare your

back, that’s your decision, not something

imposed on you from the top down.

Here in the 21st century, this kind of ma-

nufacture finally seems in reach: a world of

desktop fabbers, low-cost workshops, and

communities of helpful, like-minded ma-

kers puts utopia in our grasp. “Finally, we’ll

be able to work like artisans and produce

like an assembly line”.

CoryDoctorow

BIOGRApHY

Cory Doctorow is a Canadian blogger, journalist, and science fiction author who serves as co-editor of the blog Boing Boing. He is an activist in favour of liberalising copy-right laws and a proponent of the Creative Commons.

LOvE THE MACHINE, HATE THE FACTORY

The book open Design now – Why Design Cannot Remain Exclu-

sive documents the current state of open design from a variety of

perspectives—art history, information and design research, business

and legal, arts and design, education, and political science.

Open design as the collaborative creation of artifacts by a dis-

persed group of otherwise unrelated individuals has been growing

since the nineteen sixties and since then the Cult of the Connoisseur

or specialist has had to give way to the Cult of the Amateur - those

who know themselves what is best for them. Open design builds on

generative principles that include major features such as open access,

reconfigurability and reproducibility, and cover all four aspects of

design: object, process, practice and infrastructure. Parts of this in-

frastructure are copyright tools, ensuring the four freedoms of open

source (use, study, redistribution of copies and of modifications), ma-

nufacturing tools like the self replicating MakerBots, and fabrication

laboratories as places for making and sharing that become the libra-

ries of open design.

Designers are starting to adopt open design practices for them-

selves. The position of design literacy is changing when confronted

with digital tools and media. Yet collaborative work combined with

individual autonomy, as in open source software development, has

not been common practice in design. Current educational models

need to be reformulated to reflect the flexibility, openness, and con-

tinuous development of open design.

Open design could also become relevant to other domains. Govern-

ment projects striving for participation and citizen empowerment

could benefit from an open design approach. The world s bigger prob-

lems such as depletion and wasting of natural resources, population

growth, consumerism and wide-spread poverty may find novel so-

lutions through open design. Eventually, making itself, being at the

core of open design, could become a way of material and conceptual

exploration and creation of novel understandings and critical solu-

tions.

The consequences of this development are enormous, not only for

the design profession. End-users of designed products will have to

decide to which extent they want to get involved in the design proc-

ess, or if they simply want to follow the decisions a designer has made

for them. Designers and even more so their clients will have to decide

how closed they can keep a design project or if they can retain desi-

gning for themselves at all. Open design is happening here and now,

and design cannot remain exclusive between the arts, science and

the media.

Open Design Now – Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive.

A book by Creative Commons netherlands, Premsela und Waag society. With articles amongst others from Paul

Atkinson, Michel Avital, Caroline Hummels, Ronen Kadushin, Andrew Katz, Joris Laarman,

Bert Mulder, Jost smiers, Pieter Marleen stikker,

John Thakara, Peter Troxler; Bis publishers, Amsterdam.Pictures from Peter Troxler

“FINALLY, WE’LL

BE ABLE TO WORK LIKE ARTISANS AND

PRODuCE LIKE AN ASSEMBLY LINE.

”Cory Doctorow

open Design nowCory Doctorow

RElATED lINKSopendesignnow.orgpetertroxler.net

RElATED lINKScraphound.comde.wikipedia.org/wiki/steampunksteampunkmagazine.com

Open Design NowWHY DESIGN CANNOT REMAIN ExCLuSIvE



photo: Joi ito, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

1. WHERE IS OPEN? IS THIS A STuPID quESTION?

Not at all, I hope. After a couple of years

in Internet, media and communication

research one may ask the following:

Where actually, and what actually, is

this new country called “Open”? Is it a

legend, a paradise, a post-revolutionary

utopia, a Serious Game, an office, a

fanfold of networked individualism?

Renaissance opened up a small door

towards well-proportioned aesthetics.

Who walked through it, entered the civ-

il society. Industrial design of the late

nineteenth and early twentieth century

opened the gates of functionality and

everybody was taken in by its alleged

forms. The Electronic Frontier Foun-

ManfredFaßler

dation of the late nineteen eighties and

early nineteen nineties backed the im-

minent open country of networks and

at least thought about pioneering, the

highly straining act of founding new

worlds. It’s still worth reading J.P.

Barlow’s “Declaration of Independence

in Cyberspace” in order to understand

visions of open networks at that time.

Where something was going to happen,

was evident: right ahead, who knows.

And today? That’s why I’m asking once

again: Where is OPEN? What is invent-

ed, designed and maintained? Do we

aim for an aesthetics of change-sensi-

tive openness beside self-organization,

a kind of concept or project aesthetics?

2. To begin with: There has never

been so much openness! Yet this is no

answer to our questions. Not even if

we refer to participation, interactivity,

tit for tat or collaborative work. First

and foremost it is about self-com-

mitment. Free access to everything

digital and available in the matrix of

online/offline is to be arranged and

maintained. So is this rather a free

market for a slowly emerging global

creative middle class, an open market

for patent-free ideas? It seems that this

much-trumpeted openness with re-

gard to the use of algorithms, product

ideas or blueprints has become some

kind of design testing market, beta

design; or, as a individualistic gesture:

first hand openness. A testing market

would be convenient and cost-efficient

for many, as the actual costs for infor-

mation products and product infor-

mation cannot be calculated anyway.

Yet one question remains: When does

openness close again, when are the

FOSS projects (free [without market

prices] and open [changeable in use]

source) software projects used in

economic and professional life? Open

must be consumable outside the mar-

ket, it must be creative barter busi-

ness. Yet how is creativity, and thus

design, conceived in this respect? Is

the message “Eat as much as you want

from the web cake of OPEN, put your

copyrights in the dungeon of economic

rules of life and enjoy the Schlauraf-

fenland of OPEN”? Or does “open”

imply more than the uncontrolled

consumption of other people’s chair,

cupboard or software visualization

ideas, hence coherent and interrela-

ted creativity? If this is the case – and

some websites seem to integrate this

idea –, we need concepts dealing with

the material, concrete, practical and

theoretical closure of this openness,

with the transition from an idea into

a product, no matter if it is a commu-

nity, content or a chair. Project Poïesis

must enable project aesthetics.

BIOGRApHY

Manfred Faßler is Profes-

sor at the institute for Cultural

Anthropology and European

Ethnology of Johann Wolfgang

Goethe university, Frankfurt

am Main. in his research and

teaching he mainly deals with

the evolution of the media and

media-integrated knowledge

cultures.

to be continued on page 32

WHERE IS OPEN?

BALLOON LIGHTThe lamp is suspended in midair; its base turns from a static element

into merely a counterweight that prevents the lamp from flying away.

If you unplug it, it rises to the ceiling and waits there for someone to

use it with its dangling cable. All elements used are easily available in

DIY stores or on the Internet. The construction manual is published

under a CC:BY-NC-ND license:

CONSTRuCTION MANuAL:1) Open the lampholder and remove the

existing cable

2) Cut off 2 meters from the electric cable,

remove insulation and clamp it into the

lampholder

3) Cut off the felt pen 2 cm under the tip

using a saw and remove the core. Cut off

its cap 1 cm away from the lower end

using a Stanley knife.

4) Stick the piece cut off from the cap

through the lower part of the lamp-

holder from inside and also insert the

tube of the pen as far as possible until

it is clamped force-fit and flush.

5) Pull the cable through the tube and clip

the lampholder. Attach the flat plug to its

loose end and quickly test it with the

candle lamp.

6) Cut off 10cm of aquarium tubing and

plug it into the plug-in sleeve together

with the unit consisting of cable, lamp-

holder and tube.

7) Place the unit consisting of cable, lamphol-

der and tube centrically arranged in the

plug-in sleeve and fix it with duct tape on a

durable surface.

8) Generously foam the plug-in sleeve with

Pu foam holding the tubing with one hand

in order to adjust its position if necessary.

9) A the foam hardens cut off a 2cm piece from

the tube coupling and seal it with hot glue.

Then drill a small hole on the lower end

and hang up the key ring.

10) Let the foam harden overnight and cut off

the excess hard material with a Stanley

knife on the next day without damaging the

cable or the tubing.

11) Cautiously pull the balloon over the fini

shed lamp, inflate it with helium and plug it

in – done.

White ElephantManfred Faßler Creative Industries Convention2011


WhiteElephant

RElATED lINKSwhite-elephant.at

RElATED lINKSuni-frankfurt.de/fb/fb09/kulturanthro/staff/fassler_home.html

illuminant 40W

lampholder E14

tube Ø 9mm, slightly tapered (e. g. from felt pen)

Pu foam

pipe end, plastic or bamboo Ø 40mm

two-core 230V cable

aquarium tubing Ø 6mm inside

plug, Ø approx. 7mm

key ring

BIOGRApHY

White Elephant was founded

by Tobias Kestel in Graz in 2005

and was joined later by Florian

Puschmann. The White Elephant

DesignLab specializes in the field

of Product Design and Experi-

mental Design. Experimentation

and Exploration of materials and

their excitability by external in-

fluences is an important resource

of inspiration.

All pictures from White Elephantunder cc-by-sa

“The new media culture involves a number of new

models of authorship, which all entail different forms

of collaboration”, writes the media theorist Lev Ma-

novich in his text “Who is the Author? Sampling/Re-

mixing/Open Source”.

But according to Manovich collective authorship is

not a specific characteristic of the new media – histo-

ry teaches us that it has always been the rule rather

than the exception. The romantic model of the “lone

individual author” only takes up little space in the

history of human culture.

Yet the new media offer new variations of earlier

forms of collaborative authorship. In the wider con-

text of a contemporary cultural economy, says Mano-

vich, it is in the new media – which can be regarded

as the avant-garde of the cultural industry – where

new models of authorship, new relationships between

producers and consumers and new distribution mod-

els are tested.

Among other things, Manovich refers to the remix as

an example for this. Combining, appropriating and

rearranging content is something constant and an in-

tegrative element of all human culture. Most human

cultures, as Manovich writes elsewhere (remixabili-

ty essay), developed from integrating and modifying

forms and styles derived from other cultures.

Digital technologies and the rapid growth of infor-

mation on the Internet enable new possibilities of col-

laborative remixes: No matter if designers integrate

historical or cultural forms into their work and mod-

ify them or if texts are linked with one another in a

weblog entry – all this follows the same

principles, says Manovich: “Both put to

practice remixability.”

In his highly acclaimed book The Lan-

guage of new Media Manovich re-

cognized modularity as an essential

basic principle of the new media. It is

the combination of modularity and re-

mixability that brings forth exciting

LevManovich

perspectives. The new cultural modu-

larity – where cultural objects are de-

signed from discrete samples results

in the future possibility of combining

cultural objects with one another like

Lego bricks regardless of their materi-

ality and medium.

While the traditional definition of cul-

tural modularity – as it was used by

designers, architects and artists – was

restricted to a limited vocabulary, the

new modularity does not draw upon a

previously defined vocabulary anymore

but any cultural object can become a

component of another cultural object

– hence we will be able to subscribe to

modules – in much the same way as we

subscribe to RSS feeds today. Remixa-

bility is becoming the key feature of a

digitally networked media universe.

WHO IS THE AuTHOR?

RElATED lINKSmanovich.net

„Today innovation is coming from all directions“, says law scholar

Yochai Benkler elsewhere in this publication. The two fashion start-

ups garmz and useabrand impressively illustrate this thesis. They

use new technologies to open up and democratize the selection, pro-

duction and distribution mechanisms of the fashion industry.

The principle behind this is called crowdsourcing and is used in

many other economic sectors too. Here the creativity and the skills

of Internet users are integrated into processes that have formerly

been reserved to specialists.

„Fashion shall be no dictatorship“, says useabrand head designer

Anna Rihl. She calls her vienna-based startup “Mo-demokratie“

(mo-democracy). users can upload their sketches to the online plat-

form and they are also involved in the decision making process as to

what is going to be produced and what not.

While at useabrand the ideas and sketches of the community flow

into the label’s collections the startup garmz, which was also foun-

ded in vienna, wants to help young designers to take their first

steps in the industry.

The designers present their sketches on the online platform and the

users can rate them and comment on them. Then garmz produces

first prototypes of selected fashion design. If sufficient demand is

apparent, the items go into serial production and are distributed

worldwide via the company’s own online shop. Garmz fully assumes

the financial risk and the shares the revenues with the designers.

“Concepts such as open innovation or user innovation enable us to in-

volve several parties directly into the creation of an item and thus to

see already at an early stage the strengths and weaknesses of a pro-

duct”, garmz co-founder Andreas Klinger explains. “The designers

get feedback already at the design level and can thus bring the pro-

duct to the market together with the future customers without ta-

king any risk.”

It seems that the online platform, which was launched in summer

2010, touched a nerve with its concept. The uploaded sketches have

already been rated more than 30,000 times. By the end of the year

garmz had already 6,500 users from more than 200 countries. First

products are available in the online shop, which has been available

since early December 2010. Along with production and distribution

the company also helps its designers organize their online market-

ing activities in social networks.

By means of crowdsourcing concepts garmz might also be able to

estimate the demand for different fashion items and thus minimize

market risk. “By including the users in the process we can also

create stronger ties to both the platform and the brand”, says Klin-

ger. “garmz helps customers realize their requirements and thus

even niche products get their market”. Or, as prominently placed on

the company’s website: “Good night, fashion industry. Good mor-

ning, designers.”

“REMIxABILITY IS BECOMING

THE KEY FEATuRE OF A DIGITALLY

NETWORKED MEDIA uNIvERSE.

”Lev Manovich

GarmzCROWDSOuRCING

“FASHION

SHALL BE NO DICTATORSHIP

”

RElATED lINKSgarmz.comuseabrand.com

Seite 16 Creative Industries Convention2011

BIOGRApHY

lev Manovich is a Russian American media

theorist, critic and artist. He currently teaches

as a professor for visual arts, art and theory

of the new media at the university of Califor-

nia, san Diego and at the European Graduate

school in saas-Fee, switzerland. His book The

Language of new media has been translated into

several languages and is commonly regarded as

the first comprehensive description and theory

of contemporary new media.


Seite 17Lev Manovich

photos: www.garmz.com

photo: www.manovich.net

Open Design and post Industrial Manufacturing

For most of our history, the design and production of

goods have been carried out by individuals, without

the requirement for any kind of professional frame-

work or system. In fact, only since the onset of the

Industrial Revolution has the design of a product be-

come so divorced from its manufacture and a heavi-

ly regulated process of production, distribution and

consumption been put in place. As manufacturing

technology progressed, and world-wide communi-

cation developed, the 20th Century saw huge refine-

ments in the mass-production of goods to a fixed, pre-

PaulAtkinson

BIOGRApHY

paul Atkinson is an industrial designer, design

historian and design educator. He is currently a

Reader in Design at sheffield Hallam university.

He has spoken at a number of international confe-

rences around the world and has had articles pub-

lished in a number of international design journals.

determined design and the establishment of complex,

global infrastructures to distribute and sell enor-

mous numbers of identical products – a development

that significantly changed the world in which we live.

Ironically, it is the latest manufacturing and commu-

nication technologies that are moving the processes

of design and production away from large centralized

systems and placing them in the hands of the indi-

vidual consumer. The latest developments in desktop

digital manufacture, especially 3D printing, coupled

with the open distribution network of the Internet,

mean that there is no longer a need for a design to be

made in the thousands to justify the cost of its pro-

duction, or for that design to be the result of professi-

onal design activity.

Fluid Forms

Photo: Fluid Forms

Our aesthetic feeling experiences natu-

ral forms created by evolution as har-

monious and enjoyable. The logic be-

hind this can be simulated by program

code, which in its turn can be used for

product design. In this way a favorable

impression is automatically created.

n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com makes use of this

principle as a starting point for all its

products, which manifests itself imme-

diately in a very natural aesthetics. At

the same time the source code for the

products is made publicly available.

Fluid Forms, in turn, uses geodata as a

starting point for very individual jewel-

ry. This too contributes to an aesthetics

which is strongly inspired by nature. In

addition to this, the layer structure of

3D printing is actively used as a design

element. The source code for this will

also be publicly available sooner or la-

ter, enabling other designers to pick up

the basic logic and use it for their own

work.

More and more frequently, program

code is becoming the logical material

for the definition of three-dimensional

shapes. If the code serves its purpose

well and is made available to other

creative coders, there is a good chance

that the latter combine it with addition-

al functions. So a virtual toolbox, so

to speak, for various design purposes

is created. First prototypes of chairs

whose structure has been automatic-

ally created by program code on the

basis of its future user’s weight and the

desired weight distribution, and which

have subsequently been 3D printed, al-

ready exist.

Over time such software functions

will take on more and more complex

tasks. Thus some kind of intelligent

aesthetics will take shape which gives

form to the desired function at the

touch of a button. In this respect the

designer’s job will be increasingly to

work out the right definitions of task

and the appropriate framework condi-

tions.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY MEANS OF CREATIvE CODING AND OPEN SOuRCE SOFTWARE

BIOGRApHY

Fluid Forms is the result of

its founder’s, Hannes Walter’s,

diploma thesis on the subject

of creative coding and design

interfaces. Together with ste-

phen Williams, who specialized

in algorithmic/generative

product design and geometri-

cal modeling, he founded Fluid

Forms in Graz, Austria, in

2005.

RElATED lINKSfluid-forms.comn-e-r-v-o-u-s.com

“ THE WORLD IS

CHANGING ONCE MORE.

”Paul Atkinson

RElATED lINKSpaulatkinsondesign.co.uk

GHOSTS OF THE PROFESSION:




Fluid FormsPaul Atkinson

Stephen Williams and Hannes Walter in front of the “Streets Clock”

Design: Fluid Forms, Foto: Karin Lernbeiß

Foto: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jro-

senk/5328024329/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Rapid Prototyped Automake bowl by Justin Marshall

- What happens when there are no ‘standard’, identi-

cal products to purchase?

- What happens when the professional designer has

little control over the appearance of products?

- should professionally mass-produced and non-

professional, individually designed products be

valued differently?

- Does the fact that the consumer is involved in the

creation of a product detract from or add to its value?

I started to explore these questions through running

two Post Industrial Manufacturing research proj-

ects, Automake and FutureFactories. Both of these

systems utilize computer generated random elements

and consumer decision-making processes within flex-

ible schemes defined by a designer and a craftsman/

maker. The results have changed the perceptions of

consumers towards the products that they create and

the processes of design, as well as their perceptions of

their own capabilities. The systems not only liberate

the designer from the sterile perfection of the manu-

factured form, but also free the consumer from the

dictatorship of owning identical products. Clearly,

Post Industrial Manufacturing systems will change

the meaning of design.

Paul Atkinson

continued from page 18

Evan JonesThe first part of the process is to obtain

or create a suitable target image. This

is the image that I attempt to recreate

in the large scale of the collage. It usu-

ally takes quite a bit of time and invol-

ves trawling image galleries for some-

thing suitable. A lot of images simply

will not work or not be interesting

when reproduced as a collage. I also

often look for specific characteristics

with which I can test new ideas.

After I am happy with the target

image, I start matching the component

images to the target. I do this using

software tools I have been writing for

the last couple of years. Essentially the

software runs through a large library

of potential components and chooses

the one that is closest to the underlying

image.

In this stage I will typically set restric-

tions to regions of the target image

on how the matches can be made. For

example, in some areas I am happy to

match larger images with little rota-

tions, while in other areas I may want to

allow for much smaller images, great-

er rotations and maybe even adjust-

ments to the color channels. These

choices affect how closely or loosely

the underlying image is reproduced,

and on the other hand, how easy it is to

view the component image. These sorts

of choices allow me to accentuate some

areas and make artistic decisions about

the final image.

This process can take anywhere be-

tween a couple of days and a few

months to complete, a lot of this is just

the computer processing time. For my

collages I will run anywhere between

a dozen and a hundred matching rou-

tines.

When I am happy with the matching

between components and the target I

will then generate the final image. This

involves going back the original

component images and performing

whatever transformation that are requi-

red – rotations, scaling, cropping, color

tweaks, etc – and then layering them

into the final image. Over the years

I have written quite a few routines for

doing this final rendering so I will of-

ten make ten or twenty images using

various different approaches before I

am happy with the final result.

Typically I will use between two hun-

dred and six hundred component ima-

ges to create a collage. These will come

from a library of over fifty thousand

images from more than four thousand

photographers. I developed my library

from Flickr images which have been

offered under the CC Attribution licen-

se. So when I post my collages I also

put appropriate acknowledgements to

all the artists whose work I have used.

From a purely logistical level, being

able to use the CC licensed images

has made the whole project feasible. I

would have almost certainly not got

nearly as far as I have if I had to rely

on my own and friends, images. It is

also invaluable from an artistic point

of view, because what I can show is not

just my work but a synthesis of crea-

tivity from hundreds of other artists. I

aim to generate synergy, something I

consider to be the fundamental goal for

this type of work.

RElATED lINKSevanjones.com.au

BIOGRApHY

Evan Jones works in Brisbane, Australia;

he completed an honours degree in Mathema-

tics at the university of Queensland. He tra-

velled to Cambridge university on scholarship

and completed a PhD in Mathematics and

studied Architecture at Kings College. Evan

Jones is a talented software engineer and

recently he has focused on producing collages

from large sets of digital images provided by

flickr.

INTELLIGENT FORMAL LANGuAGEThe boundaries between professional and amateur

design (or to put it another way, between designer

and user) are quickly being eroded. The bar has been

raised from “co-design” and “user-centred design”

processes as now, the designer and user are essenti-

ally one and the same thing. We are entering a post-

professional era of open design. We are far closer

than might be thought to a position where high-qua-

lity products, indistinguishable from those produced

professionally, can be downloaded, adapted and man-

ufactured by anybody, anywhere, in any material.

This not only changes the way we think about design

practice and the consumption of design, but the way

we need to teach design to future designers.

In order to maintain a significant role in the design

and production of goods, professional designers will

have to lose their egos and change their role from the

design of finished products to the creation of systems

that will give people the freedom to create high qual-

ity designs of their own; systems which free the user

from requiring specialist skills in design, yet which

produce results retaining the designer’s original in-

tention. The better a particular designer’s system

works, the more successful that designer will be. De-

signers unwilling to change risk becoming ghosts of

the profession.

Evan JonesPaul Atkinson Creative Industries Convention2011


photo: Automake user with printed bowlby Justin Marshall

Collage of 200 pictures under CC-by flickrwww.flickr.com/photos/28594411@n06/

Future Factories Lampadina Mutanta luminaire by Lionel Dean

The emergence of Creative Commons licenses (CC)

and the Creative Commons movement have to be un-

derstood as closely related to the massive growth of

the Internet and the currently newly developed col-

laborative forms of work. Digitization and the easy

exchange of texts and images mark a paradigm shift

with regard to copying and the way we deal with copy-

righted works.

The creation (Schöpferprinzip, a central principle of

German copyright law) of a work is in principle pro-

tected by national and international copyright law

and does not need any separate registration. What is

regulated there, is first and foremost authorship and

not the various ways of using a work. usage rights

for a work must always be negotiated separately, of-

ten with the help of lawyers. These conditions often

stand in the way of free, flexible and straightforward

communication between creative people.

The core of copyright as we know it today is more

than 150 years old. Today’s copyright too cannot keep

pace with the social and technological developments

and needs to be adapted in fundamental ways. For

this reason the CC principle was developed in the

uSA in 2001. Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at

the Stanford Law School, contributed substantially

to the implementation of the concept and today it is

supported by a broad Creative Commons movement.

Gerin Trautenberger

BIOGRApHY

Gerin Trautenberger,is a

trained product and furni-

ture designer and has been

working as a designer, writer

and curator for net culture

projects since 1992. in 2005

he founded the design collec-

tive Microgiants. Moreover,

he is vice chairman of creativ

wirtschaft austria.

RElATED lINKSmicrogiants.com

RElATED lINKSnewthinking-communications.deCREATIvE COMMONS BASICS

In digital design communities Creative Commons licenses were al-

ready in use at a rather early stage, e.g. for sharing clip art images,

graphics or photos on platforms such as flickr.com. Yet what is re-

ally interesting are the first steps out into the material design world

of real objects. More and more projects, experiments and examples

for how the open source idea can be carried over into the real world

can be subsumed under the notion of “open design”.

Creative Commons is a uS-based non government organization

that has been publishing standardized license texts for copyright-

ed content since 2001. What is so special about it is the fact that

these licenses have meanwhile been adapted to the respective na-

tional copyright laws in more than 50 countries and their clauses

and freedoms are in force everywhere. The person who takes center

stage is the creator, who can grant certain freedoms to use his or her

work. With the help of a license kit the creator chooses if the work

can be used commercially or non-commercially, if it can be remixed

or not and if the same conditions shall apply for the remixes (i.e. any

resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same licens-

ing agreement) as specified in the copyleft principle from the world

of free software. The only condition in all six Creative Commons

licenses is the following: The creator must always be named as a

source. Free software with its manifold licenses has been the model

for the idea of Creative Commons licenses. “All rights reserved” of

classic copyright has turned into “Some rights reserved”. So crea-

tors can enter their works into a large shared pool of knowledge and

creativity, and in the best case scenario, the works can be further

processed without any further inquiry and additional agreements.

“ TO ALLOW ARTISTS, CREATORS, TEACHERS, JOuRNALISTS AND

SCIENTISTS TO SHARE THINGS IN A SIMPLE AND LAWFuL MANNER

uSING THE OPEN NETWORK PROvIDED BY THE INTERNET.

”Yoichi ito

CC enables the creator of a work to predefine dif-

ferent licensing possibilities on a step-by-step basis.

Thus exchanging and using licenses can be simpli-

fied significantly – and without any tedious license

research or contract negotiations. So everybody can

freely use a work, or the licensing rights can be re-

stricted for further usage (see illustration below). Yet

CC also provides the possibility to specify the com-

mercial usage of a work.

Only the use of Creative Commons or related software

licenses, such as GNu-GPL, facilitates the creation

of complex collaborative projects such as LINux or

other open source projects. But Creative Commons

does not only help create social works of art but is

also a tool for working in small groups or on/with the

Internet.

ExAMPLES

The Berlin-based designer Ronen Kadushin is one of the pioneers of

open design. Already quite early he experimented with publishing

his raw data under a Creative Commons license. This is what moti-

vated him: “It should encourage designers to share their creativity

and to create a collection of high quality products.” Thus he sha-

res the objects he designed such as furniture or lamps online under

a non-commercial CC license. Owners and users of a laser cutter

can manufacture the products using the digital template, e.g. laser

machining them from a steel sheet and manually forming the final

product. In this way computer-controlled production technologies

and manual work go hand in hand.

The CC-BY-NC license grants the right to use for private (non-com-

mercial) purposes if all derivative works are shared under a license

identical to the license that governs the original work. If you want

to commercially produce the objects, you have to conclude a con-

tract with the designer.

RONEN-KADUSHIN.COM/

Yet Kadushin mainly produces and distributes his objects in a con-

ventional manner. Publicly sharing the designs under a CC license

is just an additional distribution channel. Along with the crea-

tions of other designers his works are available on platforms such

as “Movisi – The inspirational furniture store”. The raw designs

can be found on his website, but also on platforms such as “flexible

stream”.

Digital distribution of the designs under a CC license facilitates de-

centralized production and distribution. Thus the designs can be

found in countries where designers otherwise would have never ex-

ported their products nor would have advertised for themselves. So

if somebody finds a design there and is interested in producing it, he

or she can experiment with the design for a start and then possibly

agree on jointly producing it with the designer.


Gerin Trautenberger

MarkusBeckedahl/Andrea GoetzkeCREATIvE COMMONS IN OPEN DESIGN



BIOGRApHY

Markus Beckedahl is a co-founder of newthinking commu-

nications GmbH and as such a consultant on many issues of our

digital society and online strategies. in collaboration with Andrea

Goetzke, who is responsible for international collabo-rations and

works as a copywriter and project manager for newthink-ing, he

works on projects such as “re:publica” or “open everything”.

Andrea Goetzke works in the field of open source strategies

and topics on digital cultural societies. she has managed projects

suchs as the series if events “openeverything Berlin” and “all-

2gethernow” - a discourse on new strategies for a society rich in

music and culture.

photos: Markus Beckedahl, Andrea Goetzke

pAMOYO.COM

The Berlin-based label Pamoyo in-

troduces the ideas of open design into

the world of fashion. It aims at creating

sustainably produced fashion based on

public domain patterns and designs.

“Live green, look good“ is Pamoyo’s

motto, and Pamoyo wants to be more

than just a fashion label. “For all those

who want to create their own fashion

patterns instructions are available as

to produce one’s own favourite Pamoyo

style; e.g. to breathe new life into the

worn-out T-shirt you simply cannot

live without” – this is how the makers

of the label explain one of their mo-

tives. The goal is to build a community

of designers and people with a sense of

style in general who are interested in

the philosophy of openness and sustai-

nability. http://flexiblestream.org/

When they use CC licenses for their

patterns the people behind Pamoyo

want, among other things, to acknowl-

edge the creative process and make

it visible – a process that started out

a long time before me, the designer,

and still is a long way from comple-

tion when I have completed my design.

Further activities such as clothing up-

cycling events shall encourage users to

reveal the producers in themselves to a

greater extent. Is it the designer’s role

to sketch out or deliver finished prod-

ucts or rather to provide help and ad-

vice for other people in their aesthetic

work and to inspire these people’s own

creativity with his or her designs?

Within the present economic system no individual designer piece is

in demand but rather a product that solves a problem for as many

customers as possible. The digital revolution has led to a total virtu-

alization where knowledge about production and forms are created

and communicated in the form of CAD data. Let us assume some-

one wants to publicly share such a CAD file. Thus within a demo-

cratized design system – we can safely call it open design – the roles

of designer and producer, marketer and customer, blur. For this re-

ason a redefinition of these terms might make sense.

Already the act of sharing this file makes this evident. Platforms

such as thingiverse.com, ponoko.com or shapeways.com are online

platforms that have been conceived with sharing production files

for physical products in mind. If the file is publicly shared under

an appropriate license, it can be downloaded and manipulated at

pleasure. This is the starting point for collective or evolutionary de-

sign where various co-designers – i.e. designers rather in the sense

of agents – work on a design and good design prevails automatically

as it is more frequently manipulated and improved. As to be seen

quite well on thingiverse.com, this system leads to mashups of mul-

tiple already well-functioning parts.

For several reasons CAD files are increasingly being created with

program code specifically created for this purpose rather than with

full software solutions and the mouse. Depending on the type of

coding this form of design is called generative design, parametric

design or creative coding. Here the coder is at the same time design-

er and his or her code does not define any fixed product shape but

a large number of possible shapes. The term meta design has been

suggested for this space of possibilities, which is for logical reasons

defined in a way that each and every shape is functional, produc-

Hannes Walter

DESIGNER AND A LITTLE MORE

ible, aesthetically appealing and economically viable. An essential

element of such design systems can be found on e.g. fluid-forms.com

or n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com: the intuitive and easy-to-use user interfaces.

With their help the customers become the co-designers of their in-

dividual products. When the program logic, as in the case of n-e-r-

v-o-u-s.com, is published under an appropriate Creative Commons

license, the open source software and open design cycle comes full

circle as this code can also be copied and manipulated ad libitum.

As it is all about free production data the democratization of pro-

duction plays an important role. In the current post-industrial rev-

olution mass production is being replaced by individual production

carried out from the living room. This can be done by open source

production machines such as makerbot.com, by online services such

as i.materialise.com or by production networks such as makerfacto-

ry.com or cloudfab.com.

At the same time platforms such as ponoko.com and shapeways.

com also offer marketing opportunities for the individually crea-

ted and possibly even individually produced designs. In this way

the boundaries between designer, customer, producer and marketer

totally blur. The notion of prosumer, i.e. a term blending ‘producer’

and ‘consumer’ has become common usage for this.

“EACH AND EvERY

POSSIBLE FORM OR vARIANT IS FuNCTIONAL, PRODuCIBLE, AESTHETI-CALLY APPEALING AND

ECONOMICALLY vIABLE.

”Hannes Walter

OpENWEAR.ORG

Pamoyo also supports the openwear

community. Openwear is a platform

experimenting with new collaborative

and open approaches to both the pro-

duction and distribution of fashion.

For this openwear worded their own

license, which is similar to the CC li-

censes, but in addition aims at esta-

blishing an open and collaborative

openwear brand. For example, you are

obliged to publish a derivative design

in the openwear community. This is

part of this specific agreement (http://

openwear.org/info/license). http://fa-

shionreloaded.com/

ARDUINO.CC

The Arduino project is becoming

more and more popular among design-

ers and artists. The platform consists of

hardware and software and has been

developed further as an open source

project since 2001. Its core elements are

a simple microcontroller which can be

triggered with a rather simple develop-

ment environment. While the develop-

ment environment was licensed under

the GNu GPL, the hardware design

was published under the Creative Com-

mons ShareAlike license, which grants

extensive freedom of usage, so that the

CAD files can be developed further and

shared.

Arduino products are extensively

used at art schools for creating interac-

tive installations and the hacker com-

munity too has quickly accepted the

project and contributed its share to its

success in recent years.

FRITzING.ORG

Building on Arduino the Fritzing

project at the Fachhochschule Pots-

dam – university of Applied Sciences

is developing software and a commu-

nity with the help of which users can

document and collaboratively develop

further prototypes. Moreover, Fritzing

is said to facilitate the creation of PCB

layouts for professional production.

At the same time this platform serves

as a possible application scenario for

hands-on electronics teaching.

Markus Beckedahl/Andrea Goetzke

Continued from page 23

Software and platforms for docu-

mentation, sharing and collaborative

further development of designs for ob-

jects, hardware and fashion are vital

tools in the open design process. A lot

is still up-and-coming. Such software

tools and platforms should, on the one

hand, enable us to come up with doc-

umentation of a plan that facilitates

its full reproduction but, on the other,

allow for the creation of derivative de-

signs. Last but not least, they should

be able to handle authorship issues.

(Which change was added by which

user?)

MAKERBOT.COM

The Makerbot project offers another

outlook on future trends. The company

of the same name produces an open-

source rapid prototyping 3D printer.

With this device it is possible to pro-

duce plastic objects up to maximum

dimensions of 10x10x15 cm at afforda-

ble prices and thus print out 3D designs

in plastic. The Makerbot printers are

sold as assembly kits (and they are, by

the way, themselves open design prod-

ucts, i.e. they are permanently devel-

oped further by a community). A large

community of designers has gathered

around 3D printing technology who

share their designs and further develop

the technology. The company-owned

platform Thingiverse enables users to

publish their documentation and raw

data and to collaboratively develop

them further.

Markus Beckedahl / Andrea Goetzke




BIOGRAFIE

Hannes Walter Due to his childhood ex-

perience in his father’s smithy Hannes Walter

has always been highly interested in the crafts.

As a trained electrical engineer he discovered

the possibilities of huge laser-cutting facilities

when working as a 3D CAD designer. After

working in product development in the footwear

industry for a while he studied Media Design.

That’s when he joined the real and virtual world

to launch www.fluid-forms.com. As one of the

two co-founders and CEo of the company he

is responsible for product development and

organization. For this reason he is particularly

interested in digital production processes and

creatively linking up different people and fields

of research.

RElATED lINKSfluid-forms.com

photo: Karin Lernbeiß

Yochai Benkler

BIOGRApHY

Yochai Benkler is a law professor at the Harvard Law school

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_university>. in his book

The Wealth of Networks and the essay “Coase‘s Penguin”, among

other publications, he deals with questions pertaining to internet

production and copyrights.

RElATED lINKSbenkler.org

„TODAY INNOvATION IS COMING FROM ALL DIRECTIONS“

In which ways have the new collabo-

rative modes of production changed our

culture?

Benkler: The pool of people who can

actively participate in the production

of information and cultural goods

has radically widened. The industri-

al model of information production,

which appeared in the nineteenth

century, requires a high amount of

costs for the production and distribu-

tion of cultural goods. Due to incre-

ased mobility and broadcasting the

distribution opportunities have been

extended too. Both the cost and the

coverage have increased. Those who

had sufficient funding to create an

effective production and distributi-

on system could also decide who says

what to whom with which authority.

The Internet has led to an inversion of

the funding structure. Today we have

a billion people who have the means to

produce, store and circulate informa-

tion. The new productive communities

neither need a business model nor pro-

prietary rights to participate in cultural

production. This has resulted in mani-

fold perspectives and modes of expres-

sion, in a new form of popular culture.

How does this affect the economy?

Benkler: Today innovation is coming

from all possible directions. Before,

innovation came predominantly from

enterprises and was market-driven. To-

day we see that significant innovation

comes from the periphery. Wiki, blog-

ging and peer-to-peer software, for ex-

ample. Today innovation does not only

happen within an enterprise or within

the frame of the copyright and patent

system anymore. It develops from social

interaction and collaboration.

Thus a new form of competition arises

for enterprises. For example, the music

industry had to deal with peer-to-peer

file sharing. At the same time also many

business opportunities arise for enter-

prises. So Google incorporated Blogger.

And Google’s PageRank too defines rel-

evance primarily in terms of what is in-

teresting for the people.

The new modes of production also ques-

tion traditional business models, which

are based on copyrights. So where do

peer production and copyrights tread

on each other’s toes?

Benkler: Copyrights basically as-

sume that there is a business model that can put the

production of information and cultural goods to good

use. This model is based on exclusion and paying for

cultural goods. Yet this is far from being the only mo-

del.

E.g. two thirds of the software industry’s turnovers

are generated with services that do not depend on

copyrights. In the music business the labels main-

ly make money with copyrights. Musicians primari-

ly make money with live shows, which have nothing

to do with copyrights. When peer-to-peer networks

shook the traditional copy system, the record industry

fell into crisis. Yet today artists have more possibili-

ties than ever before, they can do what they want and

make money with live concerts or develop other busi-

ness opportunities.

The text printed here is an excerpt from a longer in-

terview on the occasion of the ars electronica, Linz,

in 2008, which was also published in the ORF Futu-

rezone.

THINGIVERSE.COM

The designs on the Thingiverse plat-

form are published under CC licenses.

People experiment with new possibil-

ities of 3D printing and the creation

of modified and technically improved

works is more often than not clearly

welcome. The more people deal with a

design and check out how an object can

be technically improved, the more fully

developed a printing template eventu-

ally becomes. E.g. already on the home-

page you can find the category “Newest

Derivatives”.

DAIlYDUMp.ORG

Another illustrative example for the

use of CC licenses for open design in

practice comes from a small business

in India. The Daily Dump offers com-

posters made of Terracotta, plus plenty

of information on the subject of com-

posting. The entire business model, the

design of the pots, info material and all

sorts of other items used in the business

process, such as aprons etc, are public-

ly available on the Internet under a CC

license. Prospective business partners

can experiment with the material; if

they want to open their own shop and

enter a business relationship with Dai-

ly Dump, they have to make a contract

with the parent company.

If this business is successful it can

achieve much more than only one sing-

le small composting business. So what

can be achieved?

* Pots and info material are permanent-

ly improved – and thus of the working

basis for all people involved

* It inspires many people to work in the

composting business

* It tackles the waste problem in India

on a much broader basis

Nevertheless there will be still enough

work on the local level.

But the idea of open design also pene-

trates further into other communities.

OpenDrawCommunity wants to create

a shared pool for the creation of etch

templates for model railways which

can be made available for private use

under a Creative Commons license.

EN.WIKIpEDIA.ORG/WIKI/FAlAB

In contrast to open source software,

where everybody can work on a com-

puter at home, the production of design

objects always requires materials and

in many cases specific tools, from sol-

dering irons and sewing machines to

laser cutters and 3D printers. Thus,

along with the open design movement,

we have also seen the emergence of

places where tools can be collabo-

ratively used. In many countries of the

world there are meanwhile so called

Fab Labs, which make tools for the

production of open design objects

available. Open Design City in Berlin

is one such example.

These examples illustrate that CC licenses are used for

different reasons and for different uses in the field of

the design of physical objects. Some share their designs

in addition to traditional local production, as a source

of inspiration for others, to advertise themselves in

order to maybe establish new contacts this way etc (as

is the case with Ronen Kadushin or the fashion label

Pamoyo). Others aim at improving a design by means

of collaborative work, as is the case with many design-

ers of 3D printers or Arduino hackers. Design proj-

ects that are collaboratively laid out from scratch,

like Makerbot perhaps, are not yet that widespread.

http://odc.betahaus.de/

What we see now are tentative first steps and open

design pioneers are drawing additional attention due

to a still small market which can easily be kept track

of. But more and more young designers are taking the

philosophy behind open design, sharing and collabo-

ration, for granted. Open design has come to stay.

“WE ARE IN THE

MIDST OF A TECHNO-LOGICAL, ECONOMIC AND ORGANIzATIONAL TRANS-FORMATION THAT ALLOWS uS TO RENEGOTIATE THE

TERMS OF FREEDOM, JuSTICE, AND

PRODuCTIvITY IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY.

”

Yochai Bwnkler

Markus Beckedahl/Andrea Goetzke


“ OPEN

DESIGN HAS

COME TO STAY

”



photo: http://www.gutestun.com/copyme/?p=88by GuTEsTun production Berlin

photo: http://www.flickr.com/Fotos/joi/538158535/

GeorgRussegger

RElATED lINKSdatadandy.net

BIOGRApHY

Georg Russegger is a software developer, curator, media and communication scholar. As an artist

he uses the pseudonym of Grischinka Teufl. He lives and works in Vienna and Tokyo. Currently he is

scientific Manager at Kunstuniversität Linz, AT.

My idea of design in the given context

is one of an artificial process (Poiesis)

of conceiving and creating possible

realities. But I don’t refer to “artifici-

ality” as opposed to “naturalness” be-

cause we cannot make this distinction

so easily in a highly complex neural

network of invention such as the hu-

man brain. According to Herbert A.

Simon’s seminal work, engineering,

medicine, economy, architecture and

art do not deal with necessities but

with contingencies, i.e. contexts that

operate with the transformation of un-

likely things into probabilities hence

frequently under conditions of aleatory

moments (coincidences). In this short

text contribution I am going to focus on

the question how things can be (design)

with particular reference to the human

capabilities and knowledge cultures

linked to this, which claim so called

openness for themselves.

Proceeding on the reality of sociocul-

tural everyday life which is increas-

ingly being negotiated in digitally

networked, multi-sensorial codified

and computer-centered communica-

tion dispositions and cultures of inter-

action, complexity design has now more

than ever become a fundamental and

global requirement for humankind.

Collaboration models between humans

and machines can only be perpetuat-

ed within these data and information

structures, if access and possibilities of

modification and intervention are, as

a matter of principle, laid out open for

communities and projects, so that the

complexity associated to them can be

kept manageable and developable in the

long run. Computerized and automated

systems are increasingly being deplo-

yed in order to relate human producti-

vity especially to the fields of invention

and design. To achieve this we test, de-

velop and apply smart, i.e. intelligent,

clever, ingenious, shrewd, skillful and

elegant or resourceful methods, in or-

der to put the complexity around us,

which results from computer-assist-

ed operating systems and living envi-

ronments, to good use in an innovative

manner.

Although this starting point is marked

in principle by the linking of human

and non-human powers, it manifests

a shift in the material relationships,

SMARTJECTHybrid program consisting of subject culture and modi-fications of artifacts, collabo-ratively coupled in project dispositions

SMARTIFACTS semi-intelligent, multi-senso-rially networked and partially automated soft- and hardware agents in media-integrated interaction environments and configurations of information


A SMAll MACHINE, ...

... not bigger than a microwave which can produce everything you need for

everyday life – sounds like a science-fiction novel, doesn’t it? But already

today we can see what will be taken for granted in many households in the

foreseeable future. The replicator of star Trek, which “replicated“ food

and everyday consumer goods still was an idealistic thought experiment

but the projects that have been underway in the DIY scene for the past

three years are bringing us a big step closer to this vision of the future.

Founder Bre Pettis describes the idea behind it as follows: “We want to

democratize manufacturing ... and therefore we developed the MakerBot

self assembling kit ...... it s about personal manufacturing“. In another

interview, which can be found on the Shapeways website, Bre Pettis

outlines its differences to the two other comparable projects: “The main

difference between a MakerBot Cupcake CNC and a RepRap is how much

time it takes to make one. The RepRap project is an academic research

project and it can take a few months to gather the materials and then put

a RepRap together and then a lot of experimentation to get it to print. The

MakerBot CupCake CNC is a kit and can be printing things out after a

weekend of assembly with a friend.“

Along with commercially distributing the MakerBot assembly kit, the

founders of MakerBot also run a platform for sharing and exchanging 3D

designs – Thingiverse.

With these projects the idea of independent self-supply has indeed come

within reach. You can build your own home manufactory and, in addition,

you can deliver commissioned work for others whenever there are surplus

time and resources available.

Bre PettisTHE FuTuRE OF WORKING AT HOME

BIOGRApHY

Bre pettis is an entrepreneur, video blogger and foun-der of Makerbot industries. Bre is also known for DiY video podcasts for MAKE and for the History Hacker pilot on the History Channel. He is one of the founders of the Brooklyn - based hacker space nYC Resistor.

ALEATORY DESIGN MODELS

RElATED lINKSbrepettis.com

photo: scott Beale / Laughing squid

photo: Patrick Dax

Pre BettisGeorg Russegger

In a interview with cnn, you where talking about

democratizing manufacturing - could you describe

what you mean by that?

Our mission with MakerBot is to bring the tools of

manufacturing to the masses. We‘re dedicated to sup-

porting creative people so they can make anything.

We got started hacking on 3D printers so that we

could afford to have a 3D printer and then we decided

to make it so that everyone could have one.

Makerbot is a huge success - who is buying this

machine?

It‘s a mix. It‘s mostly programmers, engineers, tin-

kering moms and dads, and regular folks that want to

live in the future.

How do people use it in their business - or do people

create new business opportunities by using a Maker-

Bot?

Most people use a MakerBot for their own satisfac-

tion and to make the things that they need but there

are a bunch of people using a MakerBot in their busi-

ness. My favorite is when people come up with a pro-

duct and sell it. I‘ve seen everything from camera

accessories to iPod docks. People also use it to make

parts for other 3D printers like the RepRap and then

sell those parts on eBay. Also, when used in design

shops it gets used to make prototypes for mass manu-

factured things.

Bre Pettis in a conversation with Gerin Trautenberger.



attention performance, attendance models and colla-

borative relations between these agents, which no lon-

ger can be classified along the lines of the traditional

distinction between subject and object. It is in the re-

production of skills rather than in the replication of pro-

ducts where I see the foundations of the abilities which

gain significance under the paradigm of open design.

Already in 1982 Serge Moscovici noted in this respect

that: “manpower is modeled by skills and abilities,

by a code that provides it with a leeway to work in a

given frame”. In project-related design environments

(cf. Flusser 1989, Faßler 1999) this updated open sour-

ce coding of ability models and working methods is

increasingly being transformed in a way that the pro-

ject participants’ own skills become communicatively,

collaboratively and normatively linkable and acces-

sible, in the form of design and production processes,

techniques being edited and presented in line with

Open Cast objectives.

These basically highly dynamic forms of cooperation

and co-organization in project communities are ar-

ranged by information and design programs in short-

term or medium-term models in order to be concen-

trated in material contexts. Project sense is always

marked as open (changeable, adaptable, etc) in relati-

on to the respective know-how of the project commu-

nities and, due to its flexibility, it is the opposite of the

standardized production process because it is fueled

by heterogeneous skills and techniques of individual

project participants. Thus design, form and function

(with regard to the design process) cannot be separa-

ted from both: technology and medium, the software

becomes cultureware in the process. This suggests

that we use “open source intelligence” (Stalder, Hir-

sh; 2002) in form of complexity design and informati-

on design based on related knowledge cultures.

In this respect the definition of the moddr, who in

modification cultures not only modifies and extends

existing design models and systems on the basis of

computerized design and production environments

but also rebuilds and uses them contrary to their ini-

tial purposes, takes up an important position in open

design prototyping. In the course of the further de-

velopment of existing generations of technological,

social and cultural codes existing de-

signs are transformed in such a way

that they are transferred into novel

versions or variants in the form of a

reconfiguration of existing offers. This

fundamental formability is an impor-

tant basis for further development and

the creation of dynamic norms and

standards. In the recent human design

history, which was and still is marked

by media evolution, the shift from

highly standardized design processes

towards normative yet open source sys-

tems marks a fundamental paradigm

shift in design processes.

What takes center stage in this study is

a life form (or form of survival) which I

call Smartject. As a hybrid socio-cul-

tural program of bio-neuronally and

technologically and medially coupled

bodies it makes use of cultural operat-

ing systems by applying the method of

self-design. This self-design manifests

itself in the interactive interconnec-

tion of semi-intelligent agents (Smarti-

facts) and multi-senso-mechatronically

coupled programs. So the Smartject

by necessity provides new framework

conditions and criteria for productivity

and life planning which are only over

time transformed into conventions and

values. Yet these values are not neces-

sarily subject to a logic or causality but

more and more come into operation in

the form of biographical scenography

which must be understood as a view

through the eyes of a player on his or

her game – a game whose rules can be

constantly transformed as required or

desired.

In this context aleatory moments and

situations, which can be cross-read

as synonyms for combinatory coinci-

dences and loss of control that goes

along with them, the center action is

applied in form of a ludic turn within

creation processes – which claims a

fundamental error-friendliness and

dynamics of modification in the pro-

duction processes of open design as it

places its emphasis on playing or ex-

perimentalizing – a known innovati-

on strategy but definitely one that has

to be revisited in explorations for the

future. Here, coincidence plays a more

and more important role, as it does

in all creative processes. Or, as Klaus

Mainzer puts it: “The interplay of

contingency and redundancy enables

creativity and innovation” (Mainzer,

2007). These randomizers will show if

an open design paradigm can set off

the artificial introduction of changes

of perspective and thus can be used for

constructively further developing de-

sign processes and exploring the blind

spots inherent in them. What is pre-

sently necessary for the terminological

frame of open design is the following:

To design open and collaborative alea-

tory processes in such a way that ma-

ximum accessibility of (in)formation

offers are guaranteed, coupled with

models of usable complexity, generate

globally connectable forms of commu-

nication and thus new foundations for

innovation.


In the last couple of years do-it-yourselfers have gained access to

a myriad of new tools and services to help them design, prototype,

fund, manufacture, and sell the things they make. Most of these

tools and services are free or very inexpensive, and they hint at a

future in which individuals and small collectives will offer viable

alternatives to mass-produced goods.

When I went to work in 1985 at Memorex as a disk drive design en-

gineer, I designed components on a drafting table with pencil and

paper. In 1986 the company installed a CAD/CAM system, which

cost many thousands of dollars per seat with an additional charge

for every minute anyone used the software.

Today, 3D design programs like Google Sketchup, Blender, and

Alibre PE are not only much more powerful than the software I

was using 25 years ago, they are much cheaper, too. (Alibre PE is

$99 and Google Sketchup and Blender are free.) DIYers are using

these programs to design everything from bicycles to chicken coops

to model rocket components. And they are sharing their 3D designs

on websites like Thingiverse.com, where other people can download

the designs, modify them, and then make their own versions of pro-

ducts using the models.

And the tools that they are using to make these objects are getting

more powerful and cheaper all the time, too. Do you remember when

laser printers, which cost $100 today, used to cost $10,000? A similar

thing is happening with manufacturing machines. Low-end laser

cutters cost about $7000, compared to $20,000 just a couple of years

ago. And 3D printers, such as MakerBot Industries‘ Thing-O-Matic

(a rapid prototyping machine that prints out objects in the same

kind of plastic that Lego bricks are made of) sell for about $1200.

Eventually 3D printers will become as commonplace in people‘s ho-

mes and offices as laser printers are today. But in the meantime,

websites like Ponoko.com and Shapeways.com are the equivalent

of desktop publishing service bureaus. For a small fee you can send

your 3D design to Ponoko.com and Shapeways.com and have them

print out a model in plastic, metal, or other material. These ser-

vice bureaus will also manufacture and sell your product to anyone

around the world who wants one.

Most of the things that DIYers make are funded out-of-pocket. But

for more ambitious garage entrepreneurs, websites like Kickstarter.

com allow DIYers to post requests for project funding. The next

phase in crowdsource funding will be small scale securities mar-

kets in which individual investors will share in the profits of finan-

cially successful project.

And finally, the Web itself has become the great enabler of do-it-

yourself innovation. It allows communities of interest to communi-

cate with each other, greatly accelerating the evolution of designs of

everything from amateur unmanned flying drones to cigar box gui-

tars. The Web also serves as an indexed surplus store where almost

anything anyone would want can be found with a simple search.

In the 19th century people made most of the things that they used

– furniture, clothing, shelter, food. We may see a return to a world

where individuals make many of the things they use every day, but

be connected to other innovative individuals around the world who

help them realize their goals.

RElATED lINKS

boingboing.net

makezine.com

GeorgRussegger

Mark FrauenfelderGeorg Russegger

“COMPLExITY DESIGN

HAS NOW MORE THAN EvER BEFORE BECOME A FuNDAMENTAL

AND GLOBAL REquIREMENT FOR HuMANKIND.

”Georg Russegger



Mark Frauenfelder

DO IT YOuRSELF INNOvATION

BIOGRApHY

Mark Frauenfelder is a blog-

ger, illustrator, and journalist.

He is founder and editor-in-

chief of MAKE magazine and

co-editor of the collaborative

weblog Boing Boing.

3. We cannot rule out that Open De-

sign is a real but virtual cloud of cog-

nitive capitalism (T. Negri; Y. Boutang-

Moulier). Hence: How is OPEN? What

for? I have nothing against openness

beyond or even against traditional

hierarchies, institutions and power

structures. Even less if it is about on-

line structures, online/offline habitats,

neighborly web action, the intelligence

of correlations / in correlations. Yet

this is exactly what can only very rare-

ly be found on the web pages, forums

and blogs on the issue of openness

that I have viewed. I guess this contin-

ues on all the more than one hundred

million websites that call for, present,

explain and praise open design, open

access, open creativity, open whatever

– I wasn’t able to check out all of them.

But if openness is linked to creativity,

or even any variant of design – thus

crosses the borderline between main-

tenance and moderated access rights –

it isn’t first and foremost about market

and consumption anymore. Then the

inventing and designing subject not

only has to differentiate him- or her-

self from others but also to make his or

her design distinctive, one-of-a-kind

and eye-catching. And this means:

highlight it. So difference as a brand

merges into the claim for openness.

Possibly, community as a project brand

is aimed for within the FOSS struc-

tures. Yet this would require commu-

nity design – not in the fashion of Se-

cond Life but with a similar gesture.

So the question >WHERE is OPEN?<

turns into >HOW is OPEN?<, or into the

following question: Who on the Inter-

net shuts the door, for how long and for

which people?

4. Is this the betrayal of the online

commons? No. If the creative abun-

dance of inconsistency means a lot

to designing web users, they cannot

exclusively refer to openness. If they

did, some sort of design per contin-

gency or design per click frequency

would at best remain. Designers as

clickworkers? It is possible that some

of us think along these lines. Yet for

me the artistic, creative, aesthetic, po-

etic and functional decision for a de-

sign is not only more than all this. It

is something different. It is deliberate

and well-justified differentiation from

ego-consuming the big web cake. Pos-

sibly, using Web 2.0 events and product

formats is cool, at least cooler than

over-air-conditioned malls and sudo-

rific style shops. But consumption is no

design only because design encourages

consumption. Thus this phrase doesn’t

express any equation. Design is an op-

tion, an expectation; design is billions

of options and expectations. Of course,

any design plays in the world league

of promise, and of appearance. As op-

posed to the big truths and grand narra-

tives that emphasize the >once forever<

design stands for >forever for once<, for

the moment of use and consumption.

And as we deal with a travelling cir-

cus here, travelling consumption, the

styles are subject to change. Only for

this reason can design disappear and

reappear in a different shape, or, rare-

ly, turn into a classic, beyond its initial

promise of use. No openness can re-

place this. The singularity of any crea-

tion of color, form, function, movement

or use is a double agent: it encourages

us to consume an offer but, possibly, it

is also the vehicle of status advantages

within different social strata. What is

even more important is the fact that it

can evoke changes in our perception or

perhaps support socio-political pro-

grams such as the architectural ideal of

functionalism of the nineteen twenties

– light, air and sun. This worked out

because the times of the social func-

tions, the designs, and the times of the

consumption of the living space didn’t

get in each other’s way. Design subsist-

ed on these highly prolonged asyn-

chronies which were alien to or remote

from each other. Design had his own

economy of time, although it depended

on the market. Yet precisely this has

broken away. So talking about open-

ness without considering the collapse

of temporal and perceptive borders is

something I definitely cannot relate to.

5. SO HOW SHALL WE CONCEIvE OF DESIGN IN REAL TIME? TIMELESS? I guess this won’t work, as taking out products from

the open market randomness brings lifetime into

play. How can we conceive of design between the po-

les of offline and online? Design as border-crossing

in a collaborative no-man’s-land, or as an interme-

diary? Which economies of time are thinkable? Real

time/lifetime or real time = lifetime or real time plus

lifetime, or real time minus lifetime? What looks

playful at first is serious web culture. When we read

about user generated content today, go in for it and

represent it, we are mediators of complex dynamics

where collapse is no day-to-day event but the cri-

sis of our concepts of control and design more than

apparent. Our web present isn’t marked by open-

ness anymore but by “competing paradigms” (Nina

Lilian Etkins). And this competition manifests itself

in all those discussions about knowledge, attention

deficits, the dumbing-down through the Internet and

saving our society (an educated and well-informed

society where reflection is encouraged). It’s about

interpretative supremacy, patterns of regulation and

lead concepts. The battle for the virtual topologies,

the political and economical reach, is in full swing,

not only since documentation of the cyber attack

on nuclear facilities in the Iran, which are run with

Siemens software, has been available. And this has a

considerable impact on the discussion of the aesthe-

tics and pragmatics of openness.

Not only the starting point of the value chain – such

as design and product development – is changed by

the digitization and standardization of interfaces but

also the end of traditional value creation: production.

In the near future traditional manufactories and the

production of small series will follow rules of the game

which are completely different from today’s rules.

The present picture of productive holdings is either

marked by the craftsmanship of a family business or

specialized departments of medium-sized companies.

Within these structures traditional working tech-

niques are passed down from generation to genera-

tion or specialized production techniques become the

unique selling proposition by means of extensive ma-

chine use in order to be able to produce standardized

products at low cost. These closed systems work ac-

cording to their own rules and new innovative pro-

duction or collaborative working models have a hard

time asserting themselves within these structures

One project that aims to break this closed cycle is a

small startup from New zealand named Ponoko. Po-

noko call themselves digital fabricators who want to

offer new freedoms to creators, and new possibilities

of participation in the design process to buyers.

PonokoA creator can use the digital platform to present

and sell his designs and cutting plans of a product.

Customers who like a product design can pay for the

design in the Pomoko online shop and download the

files. After successfully downloading the files the

customer can have the product manufactured by the

producer of his confidence or by Ponoko. Then it is

packaged and shipped to the customer.

Thus the radical new approach exemplified by Pono-

ko promises the division of design, payment and pro-

duction. So a product can be designed in Europe, it is

paid via Ponoko in New zealand and it is produced in

a local production facility in the united States.

THE FACTORY OF THE FuTuRE

BIOGRApHY

ponoko calls itself „your personal factory“ and is a small, but significant manufacturer of three-dimensional products based in Wellington, new Zea-land. it gained some considera-ble media attention because of its unique business model. Ponoko is one of the first manu-facturers that uses distributed manufacturing and on-demand manufacturing.

RElATED lINKSponoko.com


ManfredFaßler

Manfred Faßler




photos: ©Ponoko

wienett was founded as an online marketplace for

handicraft and design created by small businesses.

More than three years ago, its two founders, Anita

Posch und Martina Gruber, had the idea to create a

sales platform for local products. What wienett aims

for is selling one-of-a-kind handmade and sustainab-

le products and making them available for the public

at large via sales exhibitions.

At the same time wienett is a community of small

businesses and creative people who jointly run and

further develop the online platform.

On the basis of our experiences with wienett and in

collaboration with a large number of small-scale pro-

ducers we created the manifesto Handwerk 3.0 for

the wienett platform in summer 2009.

NEW WORK

What lasts longer is what counts for us.

In the wienett online shop you find a large selection of

sustainably produced products from the region. Nei-

ther people nor the environment have been exploited

for the products we bring to market. This is what we

consider important.

- Production in the region

- Fair working conditions

- Ecological aspects

- Products that last

- Handicraft products, i.e. handmade products

- Guarantee the continued existence of the small

businesses

NEW CRAFTS

We, the wienett team, coined the term HANDWERK

3.0 in the frame of a project and as the title of a sales

exhibition in summer 2009. What we mean with

HANDWERK 3.0 is the renaissance of crafts among

the ‘neue Selbstständige’ (i.e. the new self-employed, a

term that only applies to Austria) and entrepreneurs.

These include crafts such as bookbinding, shoe mak-

ing, jewelry design, textile and furniture design etc.

HANDWERK 3.0 demands independent and high

quality design, product sustainability and ethical

manufacture. 3.0 refers to the appreciation of work as

we claim it. It must be self-determined and positive,

and it must create values – for the producers too. Thus

we ask for the end of the exploitation of all the people

working self-employed, not only of those who work in

the creative field. Entrepreneurs create jobs, creativi-

ty derives from diversity.

3.0 also stands for innovation within the crafts –and

here, first and foremost, for the further development

of existing and available manual skills by means of

fresh approaches and with a focus on their actual

application. In this respect we remove creations and

products from their traditionally known contexts and

newly interpret and develop them (as prototypes). The

final result is, ideally, a new, marketable, individual

and local product.

wienett

BIOGRApHY

wienett is an online marketplace for local handicraft and design products. The platform was founded by Anita Posch and Martina Gruber in 2007. What wienett aims for is sel-ling one-of-a-kind handmade and sustainable products and making them available for the public at large via sales exhibi-tions.


6. Only a quick glance on backs of books and into

digital archives reveals that we are still looking for a

coherent understanding of digital transformations of

our everyday life in the information age. The unas-

suming library in my office alone is filled with design

words such as cyberspace, smartmobs, virtual real-

ities, intelligent environments, science of the artifi-

cial, visual intelligence, networks, scaled networks,

geospaces, evolutionary algorithms, post social time,

cultural evolution, artificial intelligence, glocali-

sation, second modernity, games, e-sports, Space In-

vaders, homo ludens, screenagers, Interface I, II, III

and time and time again media, communication, in-

formation, les immateriaux, cyborgs, weblogs, social

software, Second Life. We abandon the questions that

result in these terms as quickly as we consume the

terms and some of their points and learn about them.

Above all, what we learn from them, slowly but never-

theless: The world’s experimental cultures cannot be

reduced to things, and the latter cannot be reduced to

materials and functions. Things are conceived, have

programmatic and generative kinship relations to us

human beings, and, more recently, they even think,

are networked and interactive in a cybernetic sense.

Do we have an idea, a concept, or several ideas and

concepts that might help us to explain the pressing

questions of the present life of our species? No, we are

still looking for them. understandably. For 40 years

of digital media stand against 4,000 years of analog

explanations of God and the world, hence 1% against

99%. Pointing out that nowadays not only a small

bunch of wise guys but billions of clever friends par-

ticipate can be well justified though but this is also

where the difficulties actually begin, as these friends

have no common home, no common city, no perma-

nent territory. The digital classical age begins with

the end of the Neolithic Period. Moreover, the friends,

fans and communities are no displaced people but

fall in the categories of nomads, driven people, exper-

imental people, developers or beta testers. How can

we speak of culture, of social systems, when there is

no final test, no guarantee that it works and no perma-

nent functional dependencies? So what are we talk-

ing about when talking about design?

7. Linguistic help to describe this

was provided by Alvin Toffler, with

“prosumer”, hence the merging of

“producer” and “consumer”. In his

book The Third Wave (1980) he respon-

ded with this term to the end of serial

mass production seeing the emergence

of a stronger product and market po-

wer of the consumer. In recent years a

successor of this neologism emerged –

the “produser”, a combination of “pro-

ducer” and “user”.

This is a response to the creative and

collaborative participation required in

user-controlled projects. In these proj-

ects information is not only dissemi-

nated but it is provided with semantic

markers. Content is created, informa-

tion and content is collected. They pro-

vide the structural frame for the inter-

temporal consumption of information.

This can be found in the fields of open

source software, computer games, file

sharing, video hosting, photo sharing,

platforms such as Flickr, Wikipedia

and real-time sharing. Although dif-

ferent in focus they nevertheless build

upon a small number of universal basic

principles.

This directs our attention to different

formats of information transformation

and links up questions pertaining con-

sumption to the product and its pro-

duction. The concept underlying this

assumes that information consumption

is commons-based, that it consists of

peer-to-peer relations and that inno-

vation is guaranteed by creative com-

mons. This comes close to the model of

endogenous growth as proposed by the

Portuguese economist Sérgio Rebelo

in 1991 but won’t take us any further

forward if we want to find an answer

to the following question: What kind of

correlations are we talking about when

talking about information-based hu-

man lifestyles?

8. WE HAvE TO FIND A DIFFERENT APPROACH. Consumption has moved to the top of

the list of issues.

What I want to propose is to eventually

talk about what’s happening: about

consumption, about experimental

consumption, about converging con-

sumption and performance-enhancing

consumption. It’s not noble lounge or

seminar room reflection that calls for

the slowdown and selection of informa-

tion streams but the consuming body:

it is the biochemistry of perception, of

fun, of sensomotorics, of recognition, of

the dull or electrifying thought. In this

case switching from communication

to consumption means taking altered

conditions of context seriously. What

takes center stage is learning & selec-

tive consumption. This covers the con-

sumption of data, information, images

and communities. Learning is a change

of behavioral possibilities that outlasts

time. It is initiated by experience and

observation, use and reflection. It won’t

be immediately and easily make sense

to everyone to hear of the consump-

tion of informational group life. But for

a couple of years already the problem

hasn’t only been about data, image,

film and information streams that peo-

ple expose themselves recklessly to.

Meanwhile it seems that communities

and content networks represent a haz-

ard similar to the immense volumes of

data.

We are talking about content overload

(Steve Hardagon), content overdose

(Rob Blatt), or social network overdose.

In the context of the social media hype

we are talking of overload caused by

social networks, of an overdose of rela-

tionships. Who would have thought five

years ago that at some point in the fu-

ture an overdose of the social is brought

forward as criticism of digital changes

of the world as we know it? Overdose?

Wasn’t the social of the past centuries

RElATED lINKSwienett.at

HANDWERK 3.0

Manfred Faßler




photo: susanne Jakszus

THE PROLIFERATION OF FAB LABS


With the advent of digital fabrication technology, what used to be

called ‘shared machine shops’ and hackerspaces are becoming the in-

cubators of the digital age: Fab Lab, short for fabrication laboratory.

Based on a concept developed by Neil Gershenfeld at the MIT,

these initiatives are typically centred around workshops equipped

with relatively inexpensive, digitally controlled fabrication machi-

nes such as laser cutters, CNC routers and 3D printers. users produ-

ce two- and three-dimensional things that once could only be made

using equipment that cost hundreds of thousands of Euros. They use

digital drawings and open-source software to control the machines;

and they build electronic circuits and digital gadgets.

From a handful of Fab Labs in 2004 the network has grown to

over fifty active labs with as many in preparation. Some of the labs

are part of an educational institution, be it a high school or universi-

ty, some act as business incubators for inventors and tinkerers, and

others have found their place as catalysers for artists, designers and

other creative minds.

The Alpine region has been relatively slow in taking up the con-

cept of Fab Labs. The Ars Electronica Center, Linz, operates a Fab

Lab, equipped with a small selection of digital production tools and

geared more towards playful learning than open design. The vienna

Happylab – founded in 2006 as an innovation incubator, later hacker-

space – has recently been rebranded as a FabLab. The first Fab Lab

in Switzerland has just opened in Lucerne, and a few more labs are

planned at the university of Erlangen-Nuremberg and in Munich.

What makes Fab Labs different from just any

shared machine shop is that they explicitly subscribe

to a common charter that firmly institutes Fab Labs

as a global network of local labs, stipulates open ac-

cess, and establishes peer learning as a core feature.

The charter makes Fab Labs the ideal places to

practice open design, as it requires that ‘designs and

processes developed in fab labs must remain available

for individual use’. Beyond that it allows intellectual

property protection ‘however you choose’. Even more,

the charter explicitly continues that ‘commercial ac-

tivities can be incubated in fab labs’. Yet it cautions

against potential conflict with open access, and en-

courages business activity to both grow beyond the

lab. Successful businesses should give back to the in-

ventors, labs, and networks that contributed to their

success.

Fab Labs incorporate an interesting mix of char-

acteristics that might seem contradictory at first, but

might well be considered the best practical approx-

imation of what Yochai Benkler describes as com-

mons-based peer production that gives more people

more control over their productivity in a self-directed

and community-oriented way, essentially the basis of

open design.

Peter Troxler

the Holy Grail of modernity, which is

being invoked now to save what can

still be saved? Hence, no OPENNESS

but conventional CLOSEDNESS? And

what should this be? And how can

OPEN COMMuNITY DESIGN positi-

on itself in this matter?

What we hear from the direction of di-

gital communities are proposals that

only relate to the communities them-

selves – which is logical. A little bit of

technological assistance is added to the

content overdose: ping.fm, for simul-

taneous news updates, TweetDeck, to

select the forwards of the news, RSS,

to be able to read blogs, websites and

updates in a structured way.

Yet there is indeed reason to fear that

we fail in the social aspect of the net-

works; that we fail in the social, as if

social software betrayed the social.

Shall a society which is differentiated

along the lines of class and function be

ideologically activated against social

networks?

Over the past decades of digital over-

whelming we still haven’t learnt to keep

the right distance from the switches,

ports, hard-discs, soft-, hard- and wet-

ware items, information streams and

data that allows us to switch from the

aesthetics of information to intelligent

consumption, to conceive a condition

of life organized around information.

We talked and we are still talking of

interactivity, immersion, participati-

on, deliberative or direct democracy,

creativity – yet there is a fundamental

lack of discourse around the economic,

normative, legal, ethic and competitive

condition of informational contexts.

“THE CREATIvE

PARADOx OF DESIGN CONSuMING CONTENT, THE SELF-CONSuMING

OPENNESS THAT ALWAYS AIMS FOR A NEW

EvENT.

”Manfred Faßler

9. Has this still anything to do with

culture, economy and society, with po-

litics and the public? If yes, in which

sense? If no, is there any change we

can embrace? If no again: What drives

us? Which rules do we follow? Or are

the rules only options anymore, shouts

from the sewer or from the roadside?

And which options do we support? In

2005 Michel Bauwens addressed this

issue in his book Peer to Peer and Hu-

man Evolution, thus discussing what

he called integral processes of infor-

mation use. The gist of it: Leave off all

attitudes of observation from the out-

side. In 2006 Chris Anderson published

The Long Tail, which was subtitled

How Endless Choice is Creating unli-

mited Demand. Both approaches shif-

ted our attention to processes whose

formats are unclear or not yet exist-

ing. In a way as if the consumption of

information created the information

economy, which in its turn, creates the

consumption of information, one could

speak of integral consumption and of

“intertemporal consumption” (A. Stob-

be 1991).

This new format of consumption con-

tradicts the classic theory of the pre-

servation of the current working pow-

er – as productive consumption was

formulated from John Stuart Mill to

Karl Marx. Thus neither management

scientists nor socialists got themselves

into this so far. The idea behind the

term “intertemporal consumption“, as

used by Stobbe and others, is a decision

to save up money and accrue interest.

Hence we deal with a rational indivi-

dual decision. Future production and

distribution shall be influenced.

Yet this term can also be used in a dif-

ferent sense, i.e. as consumption with-

out a clear goal in mind, as random or

networked consumption. For this, con-

sumption can be translated from the

individual decision into a network or

group decision. This might not make

sense to everyone: group consumption.

In this way the intertemporal, prepar-

ative consumption could be translated

into interactive consumption. Possibly,

this wording contradicts our common-

sensical feeling for language, as we

are used to understand consumption

exclusively on an individual or micro-

economical level. Interactive consump-

tion focuses on networking and puts the

individual’s satisfaction on the waiting

list. Thus we have achieved a threefold

definition of consumption: As uninten-

tional storing of future possibilities,

as current preservation of the working

power and adaptation to given condi-

tions, and as the production and main-

tenance of interactive group processes.

10. Not user generated content but

content consuming design to achieve

content generated design. It is about

the creative paradox of design con-

suming content or: the openness that

consumes itself, that always aims for

a new event. So, which community are

we looking for, which one do we really

want and dream of, design and pro-

gram? Then openness means: to adapt

to the heterogeneity of both the origin

of ideas and the future of projects. So,

no randomized design but the respon-

sibility to design the forms of open-

ness with an open civilization in mind.

Hence, WHERE is OPEN? In the per-

manently changing forms of collabora-

tion between the people.

BIOGRApHY

peter Troxler is an inde-

pendent researcher at the

intersection of business ad-

ministration, society and

technology. His interest and

expertise are in management

systems, such as quality and

knowledge management.

Currently he is editor of the

book Open Design Now – Why

Design Can No Longer Be

Exclusive.

RElATED lINKSopendesignnow.org

petertroxler.net

Manfred Faßler

photo: www.happylab.at © innoC



photo: Light bottles http://www.flickr.com/photos/fablabamsterdam/

Documents

CIS.doc # 04Open Design