5.3 Three Takeaways from the Week 5 Readings

1. Papert and Solomon begin by offering a troubling view of computers and education, wherein educators and schools frequently resort to "using bright new gadgets to teach the same old stuff in thinly disguised versions of the same old way." What they describe here is a very formulaic approach in which computers are only introduced into the classroom for two reasons; either to be programmed by the student (i.e. used as a tool to reinforce what the student is already learning), or to program the student (i.e. to introduce the student to the technological way of doing or learning what they have already been doing or learning in the classroom). I certainly agree that this is immensely problematic because this approach is severely bereft of any potential for experimentation, creativity, and most importantly, actual doing. As discussed in other previous readings, technology in our society is already prevalently used for the aforementioned purposes of programming and being programmed, thus it is counterintuitive and completely redundant for this to also take place in the classroom. Classroom spaces (whether artistic or not) should be places of learning, and learning certainly should include introduction to new ideas and possibilities. By educators and schools resorting to this formulaic approach, they are "shooting themselves in the foot" by hindering both the function of computers, and what students can do and achieve with computers. 
2. Charny helpfully illuminates that since the Industrial Revolution, there has been a persistently growing gap between "the maker" and "the user," as most people are beginning to relinquish their ability to create in favor of simply using the technologies that societal advancement has afforded them. With this, comes the death of knowledge, understanding, and appreciation, in regard to the culture of making, as well as the actual practice of making itself. While this viewpoint is extremely credible, I believe the true power of Charny's argument lies in how it serves to build upon the problems put forth in other readings. In week one, we read about how technology is often misused, and incorporated into the human continuum of time (when in reality, technology is meant to be timeless and exist outside of this space). From this reading, we concluded that the problem lied in over-use, a conundrum where many have resorted to being "always-on" in regard to their technological devices. However, from Charny's argument, perhaps the true problem is "use" in general. Whether this be over-use, or even under-use, Charny illustrates that this reliance on "using" is extremely detrimental to our natural human faculties. While I don't think that he is necessarily advocating for us to use nothing at all, I do believe he is suggesting that we aim to consider our making/using ratio. If ever using tips to a higher percentage than making, technology is having an anti-humanizing effect on us, and there is likely a problem that needs to be remedied. If making is at a higher percentage than using, we should consider ourselves well-off because making is essential for forging new forms of knowledge for our future.
3. Aside from the power of making in a general sense, a common theme throughout these readings seems to be the idea of "learning through making" (and tinkering). This is a crucial theme that becomes somewhat obscured in the surrounding talk about the history of making and the various societal implications of making culture, however, the importance of this concept cannot be understated, especially for future art educators. One of the things these readings do exceptionally well, whether intentionally or not, is that they equate "making" to "doing." Rather than strictly defining "making" as a process where something is created, these authors allude to there being much more than this. Similar to "doing," making involves utilizing brain activity to engage with a problem or idea, implementing problem-solving skills to troubleshoot and come up with practical solutions/responses, and finally, taking action (i.e. the actual process of creation). By this view, making is more than just a physical activity, or the literal concept of "creating with your hands." It is an active process of doing, wherein learning is achieved on multiple fronts, starting from the mental and working its way down into the product that our minds inform our hands to create. This sort of "making," and not the traditional definition, is the type of making that we as art educators should strive to encourage and foster within our classrooms.