[Kathleen] Franz's narrative can be read as a gradual marginalization of the user, first of women and then of male tinkerers. Analyzing 100 patents and 200 letters to Henry Ford, she places the tinkering mania in a context of an American, democratic belief in (largely masculine) "ingenuity." This framework is then used to perform a case study of the efforts by Earl Tupper (of later Tupperware fame) to market a "collapsible top for rumble seats," mounted at the back of the car body to accommodate an extra passenger. But Tupper was too late: by the 1930s automobile manufacturers managed to push the users out of their realm of "scientific" expertise, mostly by changing the multipart body into a unitary, "tinker-resistant," and streamlined design.

... the registration statistics of several states contained hundreds of cars with unidentifiable brand names, clearly the result of home-made tinkering. In this phase, the differences between producers and users were small, indeed. My own research largely confirms that the tinkering movement was certainly not negligible, but at the same time new middle-class users who joined the army of adopters were less inclined to see the car as an object of active adaptation to their personal tastes. From this perspective, the marginalization of the users was not the result of a conspiracy but was co-constructed by a (growing) number of the users as well.

Take, for instance, the motor car. In its young phase, it could quite appropriately be called a "mechanical bride," the term used by Marshall McLuhan to describe the relationship between car and owner. Care was regularly lavished by young men upon their vehicles, polishing and tuning them, repairing them and improving their performances. There was a sense of camaraderie among the owners and they would admire each other's mechanical brides. Little is left of this era in today's real world of technology. In the automobile's middle age, it is hard, if not impossible, to tune or repair one's own vehicle. (p.94)

The real joy of owning wheels, the sense of independence that allowed drivers to go wherever and whenever they wanted to go, became muted because, in reality, there were usually thousands and thousands of others who wanted or had to go at the same time to the same place.

The early phase of technology often occurs in a take-it-or-leave-it atmosphere. Users are involved and have a feeling of control that gives them the impression that they are entirely free to accept or reject a particular technology and its products. But when a technology, together with the supporting infrastructures, becomes institutionalized, users often become captive supporters of both the technology and the infrastructures. ... In the case of the automobile, the railways are gone — the choice of taking the car or leaving it at home no longer exists. (p.95)

I love the mechanical bride description of young men and their technology. Could this even be the same bride who finds herself stripped bare by her bachelors?

There has been some push-back lately from "makers" (tinkerers on the old sense) who despise the alienation from the workings of things: Maker's Bill of Rights


- ...g 6-13-2008 3:10 am

I am willing to go on a general strike for those rights.
- L.M. 6-13-2008 4:04 am

LM: I *am* on strike for those rights.
The author of that bill of rights, Mr. Jalopy, has written a lot of wise stuff on the nature of tinkering and making.
This is a must-read on the topic of cars, and the nature of user mods:
http://hooptyrides.blogspot.com/2005/09/all-hail-ragged-edge.html
Anyone who's taken any of my workshops has heard me go on about the parallels between hod-rodding culture of the 50s and hacker culture today.
Unfortunately,there's a disturbing trend in new media art these days to denigrate those who actually understand the technology involved. I've been called "elitist" for suggesting that that an artist will produce better art by knowing their tools. Apparently the correct approach these days is to dream up a lofty, preferably interactive artwork, which is then fabricated by little anonymous gnomes. God forbid that anyone actually picks up a soldering iron.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to skim the Canada Council grants of these folks, and save their asses in time for the big show, but I'd rather teach 'em all to write code.
- rob (guest) 6-13-2008 7:25 pm

That is a disturbing trend, Rob. I can't think of anyone less elitist than you are. You have lots of generosity and enthusiasm for cool ideas that aren't your own, even though your own ideas are fan-f*cking tastic and blow most other art out of the water. But, speaking as a sometime tinkerer wannabe and not a real tinkerer, I do think there is a problem when artists start berating each other for using consumer technology. I was never a mix-my-own-pigments-and-rabbit-skin-glue kind of painter, and I'm not a code-my-own-software kind of media artist. But I still think I exercise awareness about the media I use. On the other hand, what you are describing sounds like a bit of a labour issue. Artist has the grand idea, technician implements it and makes it work. Artist is paying for technician's skills which he/she has only honed to the point where the artist can make use of them because the technician is in fact an artist and knows how to trouble shoot and invent machines in interesting ways. And there's an aesthetic to that that cannot be duplicated (ie; some other technician would do it differently and the work would look/feel different as a result). But technician doesn't get credit as an artist and artist gets credit for the tech. Now that sounds bad.
- sally mckay 6-13-2008 8:41 pm

It's an interesting area. Certainly there's nothing wrong with using "consumer technology"- that's what it's there for. And there's a lot of interesting stuff happening specifically for artists- like the programming languages Processing, and Pure Data. These are the coding equivalent of pre-mixed pigments, and are an undeniably great thing. And the artist/technician partnership has a long history- the example I like to use is bronze sculpting. An artist will make a sculpture, take it to a foundry, and have it produced in bronze to their spec. Nothing wrong with that. The process goes a lot more smoothly when the artist understands the process, and makes the piece with a full understanding of the strengths and limitations of the casting process.
A lot of new media art, however, would be the equivalent of going to the foundry, and telling them you want a bronze of a dog, and make it nice, with pointy teeth and floppy ears, and I'll call you in a week . It'll get made, but it's not really your vision. If you can't even sculpt a dog out of wax, should you really be calling yourself a bronze artist? I dunno.



- Rob (guest) 6-13-2008 11:21 pm

I have difficulty saying what artists should or should not do. It's part of what bugs me about a lot of net art discussion, as if there is a good kind of art and a bad kind of art based on ethics or paradigms or process. Which I don't think is the way art works. In general, though, I agree with Rob, and if I think about what I would/would not do personally as an artist then I definitely agree.
- sally mckay 6-13-2008 11:59 pm

Sally and I had a phone chat about this stuff, and she made a good point- there's a difference between art that uses technology as a means to an end, for instance the film industry, where even small films are the product of many skilled people, and art where the technology is itself part of the content of the work. It's a fuzzy line, but a significant one.
- Rob (guest) 6-14-2008 5:21 pm

Veronica Verkley's amazing work on Rhinocerous Eyes being a case in point!
- sally mckay 6-14-2008 5:41 pm

So apparently, I cross the line whenever I drunkenly make a sketch on a cocktail napkin, pass it over to Rob and slur "fabricate this".

Seriously, this a horse that left the barn a long long time ago. (If there is anything to crank about it's the potential for gimmickry that is rife in new media, and in every other medium that artists have ever used) Personally, I'm not really interested in making things without some understanding of the tools, but lots of artists can and do very successfully. (I also admit to a great pleasure when I can just purchase a major component of a piece at a department store, in fact that is pure bliss for me as an artist)

I once had a hilarious discussion with an artist who insisted I could and should make my own projectors, but it was ok to hire a video editor.
- L.M. 6-14-2008 5:47 pm

I like this article by Olia Lialina. She's very pragmatic and direct. Her description of the kind of computers required for "good relations of net art and gallery spaces" is kind of hilarious in its specificity. She quotes the specs from a company called Torch Computers who make flat computers for artists:

• The whole appearance must be as plain and uncluttered as possible
• There should be no manufacturer's marks or logos visible when hung on the wall
• The screen should be capable of being hung in either portrait or landscape orientation, with no cabling or connectors visible in either mode
• The screen, with its integrated computer, must be as slim as possible and lie flat against the wall
• The bezel should be as narrow as possible
• The bezel should be offered in any colour required by the artist
• The unit should run as quietly as possible, generating as little heat as possible

Working in New Media means to be very closely attached to a particular medium, thats why I'm suspicious about people who call themselves New Media artists or New Media workers. That's too general. Net artist or web artist or game artist, or software artist, satellite jockey, home computer musician sounds appropriate and appealing.

Not only the audience is mature now, but the medium itself. The Web is an every day environment. I'm happy to see that my favorite medium is not going to die despite bad prognoses convoying it for more than ten years.

And at the same time I don't find the right place for myself there anymore. Because there is a right place for everything and everybody already arranged. To me it appears futile trying to tell stories to users who are very busy watching youtube or writing blogs. I could challenge the technology, but this is not very interesting to a audience overloaded with "rich user experience". I would like to experiment, but even this became a guided tour, as artists online are now supposed to make mash-ups with interfaces kindly provided by the internet behemoths.

I wouldn't agree that the right place for everything is already arranged. But I do get it when an artist realizes that she has taken a medium, any medium, as far as she wants to go with it. (I've felt that way about a lot of stuff over the years)

I'm in agreement with everything you write about stake-holding and turf. I used to think this was specific to Canada as the gallery systems can be fragmented and geared towards specific media and/or attitudes. (I also like to think that declaring the sort of artist that I am is a type of drag)
- L.M. 6-14-2008 8:59 pm

I say, "I use all kinds of media, some installation, some performance and some video." Then people start to frown and back away slowly.
- sally mckay 6-14-2008 9:23 pm