PROMPT: Take one of your previous reading
responses and work to develop it into the format of a
“six paragraph argumentative essay” as outlined
below. You also must reference at least 2 different
chapters of the course textbook (Hertz) to develop
your argument. **MORE DETAILS IN THE PDF ATTACHED PLEASE READ IT! ALSO HAVE ATTACHED THE TEXTBOOK BELOW!
MY PREVIOUS READING RESPONSES:
OPTION 1 (CH. 4 & 5). Although the Demanufacturing Machine (DFM) is not as useful as one would hope to be, it still serves as a great example of zombie technology. The DFM is composed of equipment taken by Mark Pauline from a brewery and the brewery itself happened to be decommissioned recently. What once belonged to the brewery ultimately became a machine that shreds objects.
It fits under the category of zombie technology as it revives and repurposes the materials into something new. If you were to deconstruct the DFM, the equipment keeps the same form it originally had, but when it becomes a part of the DFM—the objective of the equipment changes such as the fire alarm. In normal context, the alarm would be used to alert people of an emergency or a fire. However in the case of the DFM, it is set off and starts ringing out loud to signal that the machine is starting to run.
I found it fascinating how this machine really defines the term, “zombie technology”, because after the material is reborn, it’ll most likely not be reused into another new body again. It’s the idea of constraint and working with what you have to form something innovative with the limited things you find which incorporates punk culture and the maker culture as well which makes zombie technology very relevant to D.I.Y. It may not always be the most productive technology, but it definitely can evoke engagement between people and pieces of work. With the used materials you find, you can make one new thing, but the next project you won’t always be able to reuse the same equipment and it drives you to create something unique once again.
OPTION 2 (CH. 8 & 10). Transparent DIY aims to display the inside working components of technology and is an essential tactic used by artists, designers, and hackers as described by Hertz. Think of it as another form of unblackboxing, but instead it disregards the exterior and emphasizes the interior.
Diana Burgoyne’s Wire Figures (1985) proves to be a successful example of transparent DIY. The interpretation of transparent design made by Burgoyne is both “metaphorically and physically transparent” (102). Visible to the eyes, we can see what is physically unmasked from the surface. The exterior is stripped away and it focuses on the wires that construct the core of the sculpture. Everything is handed to the audience raw and
Although looking somewhat complex, the sculpture simplifies how it functions through the interactivity it has with human engagement. It creates a conversation between the sculpture and the participator. The technology communicates through making different sounds when certain actions trigger it. Through the method of interacting with the handlebars or triggering the light sensors, viewers can learn how this sculpture really works. The functionality of the technology becomes transparent. Almost in a way, the engagement becomes punctualization itself because of how it becomes a building block for the audience to understand this work better.
Transparent DIY is not simply exposing what’s inside, but also to demystify the integrated technology “…instead of sealing it up or hiding it away” (107). Wire Figures is not the perfect example of transparent DIY as it isn’t completely transparent with how the sound system flows through the speakers, but it has strong evidence that proves it to be a tool to unravel technology.