MAT 111PF Week One Reading Response

--------

-------------

Free Universal Construction Kit

I really appreciated the designer’s dedication to making this toy accessible by keeping the 3D print files free and open source. Designing this product with being able to adapt to different stages of child development in mind was really interesting to me in that it subverts a lot of the expectations people have of 3D printing. In the same vein, I think the existence of this project could be considered commentary about the domestication of plastic, in that it sees the trend of 3D printing being used for creating wasteful trinkets that often cost money to access the files of, and creates a theoretically infinitely useful product that people can access for free. A potential disadvantage that could come up in people’s at home 3D printing experience is a varying degree of quality; if a print has superficial imperfections the pieces might not work together due to the very specific measurements that allow the pieces to fit so well.

The Domestication of Plastic

Great article! I was really intrigued by the project that the article describes and I really like this kind of work that takes a given material condition and uses it to comment on that condition and other condition. I do think, however, that while the intention is good, this artist’s messaging being tried to the consumer level poor quality of 3D printing in general might be less impactful when these printers get better and cheaper as they have been getting for the last several years. The messaging of course is still important but I wonder if the work can also center the ways in which even a very well printed reproduction of a meaningful historical artifact is in many ways wasteful. I also worry at the implication of this art practice becoming a popular way to make social commentary which in turn makes more trash.

Print Green

This project was designed to consider different techniques and materials that could be use for 3D printing, however the project was slightly confusing to me, as though the article seems to encourage readers to try this method at home it presents several steps that while possible, are not particularly practical or accessible to most people. The instructions for example feature the body of what looks to be a 3D printer that has been adapted to pipe mud, which already limits it as to who can participate in this method to people who have 3D printers they are willing to heavily modify (though someone would be able to hand pipe the mud which would lead to less precise prints). Similarly inaccessible is the expectation that cement is something people would buy non-zero amounts of for any other reason than this project. I also would be concerned about the waste of this cement that wouldn’t involve ending up in a landfill. An element I do like is the slowness of the process, I think the time investment in this project could mean more thoughtful and not wasteful designs as opposed to the traditional methods of 3D printing which in commercial hands often means plastic trash.