We went from an identity defined by “I am what I produce” to “I am what I consume” to arrive to “I am what I prosume”. What happens if we break definitively with this paradigm to come to “I am what I take care of? “ Without going to the thought of Fukuoka for whom behind every act of creation or crafts lies an act of destruction, is it possible an oil and conflict-minerals free digital fabrication? What is its ecological footprint? What if we borrow from the wisdom of the plants a biomimetic model? What would be the seeds of an object? And what are its fruits?
Is it possible to imagine a digital fabrication as a tool in the fight against climate change? How much energy and resources can be saved from its continued spread? Which cultural models should accompany that? How to disseminate them? Is it actually recycled what is prototyped and self-produced? What is its “unplanned” obsolescence? How long last a prototype? What guidelines can promote a continuous upgrade of an object instead of its abandonment? What is its symbolic value? What is the relationship between objects and tools? Is it possible to definitely break the pact between innovation and consumerism? Which and how many items we should produce? How to balance their access and distribution? Which needs are they covering? Do we really need objects to maintain social relationships? Or are they just fetishes that hide our fears and doubts of being unaccepted?
On what ethics, this new mode of production is based? How is it different from mass production? Can it really offer solutions to the humankind’s evolution and growth? Or is it just a nice curtain behind which the deepest eternal problems hide? Which is its social and ecological resilience? Does it protect or destroy cultural biodiversity and local artisanal practices? In front of the massive and global sharing of new knowledge and techniques, how to preserve the ones that are seculars and the result of adaptation to the place of origin?
How accessible is the maker’s culture? In ancient times to transmit and spread cultural models and good practices, we were using the mythological tale. Can the figure of maker be considered as a descendant of the archetypal figure of the creator? In Jungian psychology the gesture of creation is closely linked to the values of authenticity, identity and responsibility. A gesture to get closer to our entelechies instead of feeding our egos. Which is the path of the Maker?
The proposal then of an open manifesto that places and tries to answer these questions, is sublimated into an artifact: an accessible game by which we can operate and analyze our practices as experimenters and prototypers; a materialization in a symbolic language capable of communication with our most intimate and profound creativity; a series of lenses, which one at a time, able to emphasize individual aspects of an idea or project that we intend to achieve.
How should a Tarot of the Maker look like?