An authentic commons is not a temporary affair

9th October 2022 at 11:59pm
Word Count: 8

participation in the community, rather than individual reputation…

Rick Prelinger

9th October 2022 at 11:56pm
Word Count: 14

Founder of Prelinger Archives. Writer, Filmmaker, and long time advocate for the public domain.

Inbound

    Ostrom’s 8 rules

    9th October 2022 at 11:53pm
    Word Count: 68

    Elinor Ostrom's 8 rules for managing The Commons

    1. Commons need to have clearly defined boundaries. 2. Rules should fit local circumstances. 3. Participatory decision-making is vital. 4. Commons must be monitored. 5. Sanctions for those who abuse the commons should be graduated. 6. Conflict resolution should be easily accessible. 7. Commons need the right to organise. 8. Commons work best when nested within larger networks.

    Inbound

      Massimo De Angelis

      9th October 2022 at 10:26am
      Word Count: 63

      Massimo De Angelis (Italy) is Professor of Political Economy at the University of East London. He is author, most recently, of The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital, and editor of The Commoner web journal, at http://commoner.org.uk.

      Contributor to Wealth of the Commons

      https://archive.ica.art/whats-on/massimo-de-angelis-commons-and-social-change/index.html

      Inbound

        Lets Reclaim the Commons

        9th October 2022 at 11:54pm
        Word Count: 64

        What's your most valuable stuff? Not the house or car. It’s the things we share in common: gifts of nature, like air and water, and the sum of all human knowledge and experience, including science and culture. They form the basis of humanity’s common wealth, and without them we couldn’t breathe, drink, or create. We call them, collectively, "The Commons."

        Inbound

          Outbound

          The Commons

          3rd October 2022 at 4:48pm
          Word Count: 28

          All the things we collectively own and have an obligation to pass onto future generations undiminished.

          Things we must protect and share: air, water, etc.

          Moral, personal connection

          020210306000915 Entry

          16th July 2021 at 9:53pm
          Word Count: 286

          I have been going through a lot of old work, old writing, old lectures, just all of my past “work.”

          What kind of useful revisionist history can I tell about all these pieces that a) make a useful connection between all of my work, and b) create some new understanding...

          Is one of the connections my own understanding, my interest in seeing how things are connected, seeing where I can better learn? Is the connection an exploration of various technologies? is the connection an ever growing desire to access more tools?

          Also Created This Day:

          This Land is Our Land

          3rd October 2022 at 4:45pm
          Word Count: 132

          For more than three decades, transnational corporations have been busy buying up what used to be known as The Commons —everything from our forests and our oceans to our broadcast airwaves and our most important intellectual and cultural works. In This Land is Our Land, acclaimed author David Bollier, a leading figure in the global movement to reclaim the commons, bucks the rising tide of anti-government extremism and free market ideology to show how commercial interests are undermining our collective interests. Placing the commons squarely within the American tradition of community engagement and the free exchange of ideas and information, Bollier shows how a bold new international movement steeped in democratic principles is trying to reclaim our common wealth by modeling practical alternatives to the restrictive monopoly powers of corporate elites.

          Inbound

            Dave Crossland

            3rd October 2022 at 11:50am
            Word Count: 35

            Dave Crossland reads Ellen Lupton's Free Font Manifesto, helps inspire his Libre Font interests. Mentions Ellen's aTypi talk in his Dissertation.

            Crossland is now in charge of Google Fonts

            The Free Font Movement

            9th October 2022 at 12:35am
            Word Count: 43
            Author
            Year
            2008

            Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA Typeface Design, University of Reading, 2008

            By Dave Crossland. Outlines how libre fonts have grown out of free software and other movements. Outlines some issues and opportunities for free fonts moving forward.

            Free Font Manifesto

            3rd October 2022 at 4:42pm
            Word Count: 72

            A small but growing number of designers and institutions are creating typefaces for the public domain. These designers are participating in the broader open source and copyleft movements, which seek to stimulate worldwide creativity via a collective information commons.

            This web page provides information and airs ideas about the concept of free fonts. Its annotated appearance reflects my conversations with type designers about the danger and necessity of free fonts.

            Ellen Lupton

            Ellen Lupton

            3rd October 2022 at 1:46am
            Word Count: 54

            In 2006 Ellen Lupton presented a talk at aTypi called Univers Strikes Back. The conclusion of this lecture was summed up in her Free Font Manifesto: What if every … (copy over text, maybe just use her image as the slide here?)

            Univers Strikes Back

            3rd October 2022 at 4:41pm
            Word Count: 0

            Inbound

            Outbound

              aTypi

              3rd October 2022 at 11:49am
              Word Count: 3

              Association Typographique Internationale

              Outbound

                New Design Commons 0202210021252

                2nd October 2022 at 1:59pm
                Word Count: 1720

                A New Design Commons?

                As I was working on this talk, I woke up one morning to find that Adobe had acquired the company Figma for 20 billion dollars. One of my former students that works there wrote me:

                Obviously, this sucks for the entire design community. Adobe has done a lot of harm to the design community with their exploitative pricing strategy and their refusal to fix existing products. Everyone, even students, are forced to use it not because they like the tools, but because Adobe is sort of the only option. It's great to see other design tools becoming more popular in recent years as people start finding alternatives. The tools we use influence what we make and dictate the people who have access to them. Having a diverse toolset to choose from is good. Even if Figma doesn't change much in the first few years, relying on just one company for design gives Adobe way too much power in dictating which people and how people design.
                — Amanda Yeh

                Why bring this up? This concern: that we're forced to use something because there is a monopoly on our tools of creation, not because it's the best or even good, presents potential issues for the design industry at large.

                If we hook onto this some other annoying things the internet public find with Adobe's practices:

                There's a clear path here — we don't own these tools, we are granted access to them. And even paying our "rent" isn't always sufficient to keep access to them.

                This is intellectual enclosure. And it seems to me a troubling signal…

                In 2006 Ellen Lupton presented a talk at aTypi called _Univers Strikes Back_. In this talk, Lupton says about her book, thinking with type:

                My book was never intended for experts. It is a book for everyone, because I believe that everyone on earth needs typography and can benefit from working with letterforms at the highest level.

                If we expand this out, my goal is to reframe Ellen's message in terms of design generally. That everyone on earth needs design and would benefit from working with design tools at the highest level…

                If we as educators wish to create new knowledge; to teach the next generation(s) of designers, and to spread and disseminate our craft so as to make a difference, well, we need to embrace open, shareable framework(s) for design. We need tools and content free of enclosure. Our teaching can influence each other, and the broader world around us if we return to more open ideologies. This to me is the "new design commons."

                Who controls your design tools? Who controls your computer? Who controls your pedagogy? Is it you? Or is it some big company? Adobe? Apple? Google? Someone else???

                So, to finish the op ed and get to something more concrete: I am against the apple and adobe hegemony, but I don't really want to talk about that in graphic design — I want to get be talking about how we take the recipes and resources we have and find more and better tools to build and make and share and remix them. Sure you COULD use the proprietary tools to make these recipes, but it would be even better to not! Why? Well, for a variety of reasons: its a critical act ala Dunne and Raby's critical design; its more accessible; its more equitable; we can turn more energy on solving real NEW problems, rather than resolving old problems…

                What do I mean by a design commons? Basically that the recipe of a design work is shared for anyone to use.

                A lot of the language around these things in contemporary culture comes from software — well, the last 40 years of software, Stallman's Free Software rants started in 1983!? But this is really just the way the world of cultural production has operated. Lawrence Lessig and the rest of the thinkers that put together Creative Commons were driven by this same return to how cultural artifacts used to be produced.

                Stallman's Free Software Four Freedoms... - The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). - The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

                Can they be better explained for creative production as: - Access to the source (recipe?): basically what are the raw materials you need to do this, and how can it be insured that users/community can access them? - vernacular design examples? - The ability to remix/redistribute work as one needs (provided proper credit!) - End to predatory vendor lock in - Increased collaboration

                What are some Myths of the commons and open source? 1. No control of work - what can be added/removed from a specific project is controllable 2. Open is unsafe? 3. Everything is FREE as in Gratis - NO! The "recipe" might be free, but all the constituent parts might have costs associated - House building?

                When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” – https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

                This is a key aspect of learning — we as design educators need to adopt this as part of our pedagogy right? If we want students to get the most of their time with us, but using "free" tools that are free in this way, we increase access to learning! Take a font for example — requesting the use of open source or libre fonts in a project prompt means that students not only can use the fonts however they see fit, they can also change nd customize the font, or look at the source files and learn something extra about how a font has been made!?

                My interest in the commons is grounded in a desire for the conditions necessary to promote social justice, sustainability, and happy lives for all. As simple as that. – Massimo De Angelis
                Basically, free software combines capitalist, socialist and anarchist ideas. The capitalist part is: free software is something businesses can use and develop and sell. The socialist part is: we develop this knowledge, which becomes available to everyone and improves life for everyone. And the anarchist part: you can do what you like with it. – Richard Stallman, Talking to the Mailman, NLR 113, September–October 2018

                Software as a service models — while perhaps "convenient" — are a form of intellectual enclosure. Models like Adobe Creative cloud deprive us our rights of access and privilege. This is the software equivalent of running barbed wire across the Great Plains, or walling in an English pasture. We can be cut off from these now rented tools at anytime. We've created a blockade for our future access to the resources and tools of our discipline.

                "The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, managed for collective benefit…" — this is a riff on Wikipedia's definition ...

                If we are in the business of cultural production, of knowledge creation, and of passing on better possible futures, then we have to be thinking about "the commons" as design educators.

                The commons is a term that is used to describe a shared resource that is available for everyone to use. Contemporaneously, the term is often used in the context of open source software or creative works, like those that are released under a Creative Commons license. The idea behind the commons is that when we all have access to and can use these resources, we can create something greater than what any one of us could create on our own. This is how cultural production has historically worked — so why not return to this?

                Vernacular Design

                The vernacular, common design by common people, of and for and from the commons.

                Can we design this way anymore? I mean, trends still exist — but following a trend isn't the same as building upon the commons. (Why? And why not?)

                Vernacular design, often this is

                Critical Design

                Dunne and Raby, critical design…

                If we are critical of the status quo, if we are trying to create alternatives, well then we need alternative tools, alternative visual references, and alternative ways to share with and learn from each other.

                ≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠

                ABANDON YOUR PURSUIT OF AUTHENTICITY! Normalize copying... but only copy from the top. anticipate the theft of your intellectual property and time, so practice your own time theft and bootlegging. Conserve your energy by letting go of originality...
                a commercial system bent on turning the free range intellectual culture that gave birth to computer science into a rude agglomeration of proprietary gated communities
                — Free as in Freedom (v2.0); preface by sam Williams; pg vii

                If something is good enough to solve your problems, is it not good enough to solve someone else's problems too???

                Why not share it out of a simple desire for good karma? This system of cooperation was being undermined by commercial secrecy and greed, leading to peculiar combinations of secrecy and co-operation.

                Ostrom's Law: A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory.

                What if we re-conceive the archive as a point of origin, as a birthplace for new works and a rebirthing venue for old works?
                - Rick prelinger

                Adobe is equivalent to enclosure of the commons? Ala Linebaugh

                ≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠

                I have CCed this content > Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

                Also Created This Day:

                Modified This Day:

                  The Four Freedoms

                  3rd February 2022 at 12:56am
                  Word Count: 96
                  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
                  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
                  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
                  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

                  New Design Commons (020220904)

                  1st October 2022 at 9:22pm
                  Word Count: 2114

                  A New Design Commons?

                  As I was working on this talk, I woke up one morning to find that Adobe had acquired the company Figma and their tools for 20billion dollars.

                  Obviously, this sucks for the entire design community. Adobe has done a lot of harm to the design community with their exploitative pricing strategy and their refusal the fix existing products. Everyone, even students, are forced to use it not because they like it they but because it is the only option, and have to pay hundreds for it. It's great to see other design tools becoming more popular in recent years as people start finding alternatives. The tools we use influence what we make and dictate the people who have access to them. Having a diverse toolset to choose from is good. Even if Figma doesn't change much in the first few years, relying on one company for design gives them way too much power in dictating who and how people design. – Amanda Yeh

                  20 billion? woah. And seriously?

                  Now, Figma isn't open source – it's built on a lot of open source tools, but the app itself is closed. However, the ethos around using the tool and the community that build up quickly around Figma IS open — how might this change moving forward?

                  Why bring this up?

                  Amanda's concerns: that we're forced to use something because its the monopolistic hegemony, not because its the best or even good...

                  Do you know how to hook a room full of design educators? Quote Ellen Lupton…

                  In 2006 Ellen Lupton presented a talk at aTypi called _Univers Strikes Back_. In this talk, Dr. Lupton says about her book, thinking with type:

                  My book was never intended for experts. It is a book for everyone, because I believe that everyone on earth needs typography and can benefit from working with letterforms at the highest level.

                  If we expand this out, my goal is to reframe Ellen's message in terms of design more generally. That everyone on earth needs design and would benefit from working with design tools at the highest level…

                  If we as educators wish to create new knowledge; to actually teach the next generation(s) of designers, and to spread and disseminate our craft so as to make a difference, well, we need to embrace open, shareable framework(s) for design. We need tools and content free from enclosure. Our teaching can influence each other, and the broader world around us if we adopt a more open ideology—create a digital design commons!!??

                  From Knuth: This work and thinking is _in progress_, rather than _finished_ research or designs… And maybe this is good: trying to figure out what exactly you're doing and designing is often more interesting than critiquing a design once completed...

                  Now, onto the show.

                  Who controls your design tools? Who controls your computer? Who controls your pedagogy? Is it you? Or is it some big company? Adobe? Apple? Google? Someone else???

                  Adobe turned off access to all of the creative suite on Venezual a couple of years ago (cite!?) October 2019? https://www.itsnicethat.com/news/adobe-block-venezuela-digital-111019

                  A computer is a universal machine — computers take instructions and then do them! Who's supplying these instructions? Who is allowing for what instructions they get?

                  How to keep this from just getting into a software discussion???

                  I am against adobe, I am against apple, but I don't want to just talk about that in graphic design — I want to get be talking about how we take the recipes we have and find more and better tools to build and make and share and remix them. Sure you COULD use the proprietary tools to make these recipes, but it would be even better to not! Why? Well, I don't know why other than its a critical act ala Dunne and Raby's critical design.

                  What do I mean by a design commons? Basically that the recipe of a design work is shared for anyone to use.

                  Four Freedoms...

                  Can they be better explained as: - Access to the source (recipe?): basically what are the raw materials you need to do this, and how can it be insured that users/community can access them? - vernacular design examples? - The ability to remix/redistribute work as one needs (provided proper credit!) - End to predatory vendor lock in - Increased collaboration

                  A lot of the language around these things obviously comes from contemporary software — well, the last 40 years of software, Stallman's Free Software rants started in 1983 I believe!? But this is really just the way the world of cultural production has operated.

                  What are some Myths of the commons and open source? 1. No control of work - what can be added/removed from a specific project is controllable 2. Open is unsafe? 3. Everything is FREE as in Gratis - NO! The "recipe" might be free, but all the constituent parts might have costs associated - House building?

                  When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” – https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

                  This is a key aspect of learning — we as design educators need to adopt this as part of our pedagogy right? If we want students to get the most of their time with us, but using "free" tools that are free in this way, we increase access to learning! Take a font for example — requesting the use of open source or libre fonts in a project prompt means that students not only can use the fonts however they see fit, they can also change nd customize the font, or look at the source files and learn something extra about how a font has been made!?

                  How does this help in the general "commons" idea?

                  What kind of "cookbook" might we make?

                  My interest in the commons is grounded in a desire for the conditions necessary to promote social justice, sustainability, and happy lives for all. As simple as that. – Massimo De Angelis

                  This talk is nothing new, it is a remix of all manner of other's writing and ideas and lectures — including my own.

                  Basically, free software combines capitalist, socialist and anarchist ideas. The capitalist part is: free software is something businesses can use and develop and sell. The socialist part is: we develop this knowledge, which becomes available to everyone and improves life for everyone. And the anarchist part: you can do what you like with it. – Richard Stallman, Talking to the Mailman, NLR 113, September–October 2018

                  Software as a service models — while perhaps "convenient" — are a form of intellectual enclosure. Models like Adobe Creative cloud deprive us our rights of access and privilege. This is the equivalent of running barbed wire across the Great Plains, or walling in an English pasture. We've created an annoying block for our future access to the resources and tools of our discipline.

                  "The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, managed for collective benefit…" — this is a riff on Wikipedia's definition ...

                  If we are in the business of cultural production, of knowledge creation, and of passing on better possible futures, then we have to be thinking about "the commons" as design educators.

                  The commons is a term that is used to describe a shared resource that is available for everyone to use. Contemporaneously, the term is often used in the context of open source software or creative works, like those that are released under a Creative Commons license. The idea behind the commons is that when we all have access to and can use these resources, we can create something greater than what any one of us could create on our own. This is how cultural production has historically worked — so why not return to this?

                  One of the first and very technical typesetting tools for the world of computers was Donald Knuth's TeX and the accompanying Metafont. If you are in the practice of typesetting scientific documents or graduate thesis, TeX — or more likely its progeny, LaTex or ConTeXt … This has had legs, not because of force buy in, but because of technical superiority AND open-ness…

                  This is a fabulous typographic tool — why did no designer ever show this to me? Why did my college room mate that went on to become a biologist have to tell me about it? Why did I learn about Donald Knuth too late! I mean, this guy dreamed up variable fonts in the 80s…

                  Adobe and their subscription service are the latest kind of "enclosure" on the commons

                  The vernacular, common design by common people, of and for and from the commons.

                  Can we design this way anymore? I mean, trends still exist — but following a trend isn't the same as building upon the commons. (Why? And why not?)

                  Vernacular design, often this is

                  Dunne and Raby, critical design…

                  If we are critical of the status quo, if we are trying to create alternatives, well then we need alternative tools, alternative visual references, and alternative ways to share with and learn from each other.

                  The pursuit of uniqueness is devalued; dynamicism and flexibility are more important than originality, because originality itself is unattainable. … “Normcore is about adaptability, not exclusivity.”
                  — 3.2 Normcore as Brand Strategy, https://libbymarrs.net/post-authentic-sincerity/
                  graphic design being codified and converted into algorithms
                  ABANDON YOUR PURSUIT OF AUTHENTICITY! Normalize copying... ...but only copy from the top. anticipate the theft of your intellectual property and time, so practice your own time theft and bootlegging. Conserve your energy by letting go of originality... *** > a commercial system bent on turning the free range intellectual culture that gave birth to computer science into a rude agglomeration of proprietary gated communities > — Free as in Freedom (v2.0); preface by sam Williams; pg vii > The notice was simple, something along the lines of \The printer is jammed, please fix it," and because it went out to the people with the most pressing need to fix the problem, chances were that one of them would fix it forthwith. > — FAIF, pg3 ¶2 L10 > A program would develop the way a city develops," says Stallman, recalling the software infrastructure of the AI Lab. \Parts would get replaced and rebuilt. New things would get added on. But you could always look at a certain part and say, Hmm, by the style, I see this part was written back in the early 60s and this part was written in the mid-1970s.'" > — FAIF, Pg5 ¶3 If something is good enough to solve your problems, is it not good enough to solve someone else's problems too??? > Why not share it out of a simple desire for good karma? This system of cooperation was being undermined by commercial secrecy and greed, leading to peculiar combinations of secrecy and co-operation. > Stallman later explained, \If he had refused me his cooperation for personal reasons, it would not have raised any larger issue. I might have considered him a jerk, but no more. The fact that his refusal was impersonal, that he had promised in advance to be uncooperative, not just to me but to anyone whatsoever, made this a larger issue." > — FAIF Pg9 > Eben Moglen, Columbia University law professor and Free Software Foundation general counsel. But it works. And it works because of Richard's philosophy of design." > — FAIF pg 184 ¶2, last lines... *** Ostrom's Law: A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory. *** I wrote this essay in SimpleNote & Google Docs — neither of these tools are really open, Google docs is based on Etherpad, which is open... Simplenote's apps themselves are open source, but the underlying codebase isn't exactly... however, I have CCed this content > Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ *** What if we re-conceive the archive as a point of origin, as a birthplace for new works and a rebirthing venue for old works? - Rick pelinger *** Autoprogettazione? What other open source-y, commons-y stuff can I talk about, reference, visualize?!? *** Devon Calvin Tanvi Eli Heuer Crossland Braithwaite Eric Who else can I reach out to? Not more white guys!? Yana? Amanda? Karen Shea Rick Prelinger? Cooper Hewitt Typeface Guy? Mary otsuka? *** Colonialism, software, etc.? Adobe is equivalent to enclosure of the commons? Ala Linebaugh

                  Inbound

                    Outbound

                    0202201001 New Design Commons

                    1st October 2022 at 9:22pm
                    Word Count: 378

                    As I was working on this talk, I woke up one morning to find that Adobe had acquired the company Figma and their tools for 20billion dollars.

                    Obviously, this sucks for the entire design community. Adobe has done a lot of harm to the design community with their exploitative pricing strategy and their refusal the fix existing products. Everyone, even students, are forced to use it not because they like it they but because it is the only option, and have to pay hundreds for it. It's great to see other design tools becoming more popular in recent years as people start finding alternatives. The tools we use influence what we make and dictate the people who have access to them. Having a diverse toolset to choose from is good. Even if Figma doesn't change much in the first few years, relying on one company for design gives them way too much power in dictating who and how people design. – Amanda Yeh

                    20 billion? woah. And seriously?

                    Now, Figma isn't open source – it's built on a lot of open source tools, but the app itself is closed. However, the ethos around using the tool and the community that build up quickly around Figma IS open — how might this change moving forward?

                    Why bring this up?

                    Amanda's concerns: "that we're forced to use something because its the monopolistic hegemony, not because its the best or even good... "

                    This is a form of intellectual enclosure; and I have some other adobe examples that concern me.

                    Venzuela

                    In 2019, when the Trump administration put sanctions on Venuzuela, Adobe ended up cutting off access to creative cloud to those with neeuellan IP addresses. This is wrong...

                    So, we've got, CC just cutting people off with no warning or refund — this is a problem of freedom to access one's tools. We have a company dead set on maintaining a monopoly on the tools of our trade, and we also have a company that Loe $$$ so much, they'll do all sorts of strange collaborations... (rings of power things)

                    What would change this? I propose a new "design commons" — a library of design tools and resources shared and cared for by all

                    How would this work?

                    020221001201944 New Design Commons Aggregate

                    1st October 2022 at 9:21pm
                    Word Count: 18

                    try to collect a lot of similar ideas into one place... how to actually make this a lecture?

                    A New Design Commons (0202209252330)

                    1st October 2022 at 9:21pm
                    Word Count: 1034

                    A New Design Commons (0202209252330)

                    There is not much new in this talk, but I hop to have remixed it enough that it sounds intriguing …

                    I am worried about the current state of affairs of design teaching and design tools.

                    If we want to save ourselves from the climate crisis, we need design disciplines that can rapidly come up with implementable solutions, properly reuse existing old solutions, innovate new solutions where appropriate, and rapidly distribute all solutions in reusable,remixable, and repurposeable forms as quickly as possible. Our current state of intellectual copyright isn't conducive to this. The mythology of newness and the individual design genius (though thankfully changing) isn't conducive to this...

                    So what is this then?

                      1. Adobe vs ...

                    I am worried that my tools can be turned off (Adobe/Venezuela) I am concerned that any new tools I enjoy might be gobbled up (Adobe/Figma) I am troubled that the makers of my tools care about nothing but money (adobe/rings of power) PS, AI, ID splash screens all carry subtle ads for RoP > you could also download specialty templates, effects, etc. to do RoP style designs of your own > this is weird CAPITALIST commons > we want you to share and remix these things so that it makes it more likely people will pay for adobe stuff and Amazon prime video stuff moving forward!?

                    Intellectual Enclosure

                    I don't want to talk about software; I don't want to talk about licenses. I want to talk about cultural resources that should and can belong to all of us. Though, I'm worried this can go away too!? (Unsplash/Getty) To protect cultural resources for reuse, we need an updated set of customs, rules, and behaviors for sharing our work.

                      1. Define Commons?

                    The commons, int eh context of this talk, regress to the idea of a shared set of resources that are upkeep by a community.

                    One of the more commonly cited documents for one's right to the commons in the Magna Cart

                    quote that here? bring up the "local use" clause?
                      1. Ownership. Authorship.

                    Mr. Keedy writes about a "Global Style" an affected modernism that now adorns all sorts of (in particular cultural) institutions around the globe. I don't desire this sameness. I don't think a commons should inspire sameness. A functioning, healthy commons has no single style or set of solutions.... IS this sameness because we all share the same tools? Is this intellectual enclosure? Is this the stylistic colonization of our tecno-social overlords? I mean, if Silicon Valley is all about softened corporate modernism... and then their tools are built based on that aesthetic assumption... and then we are told to use their tools to make new stuff... the systems for designing USING capitalist modernism are baked into everything... so we have no way to make EXCEPT within that framework

                    So where do you go that is outside that!?

                    The commons. The web. The F/LOSS community (sometimes)

                    Critical Design > D&R references again Speculative Design?

                    A commons to me is a place where yes, ideas may spread across cultures, across socio-economic/political divides, sometimes this may reach near-appropriation terms... But! The point is necessity, quality, Loe, new metaphor, doing something new, reviving something old but great, expanding knowledge, reconnecting with forgotten knowledge...

                    Everything is a Remix by Kirby Fergesun Copy Transform Combine

                    Lessig Doctorow Stallman Raymond Knuth Dunne + Raby Braithwaite Crossland Elinor Ostrom (Need non-white and non-male refs) ???

                    Open license Open file format Open tools Open forum Open access

                    The 4 freedoms from GNU, but better written for cultural content/production?

                    Collaborate More Share More Do More Repeat More purposefully...

                    Professors and students ... we can share and dig more, learn from each other, build on the shoulders of each other (of giants!?)

                    Don't want to lose the trail of authorship. On the contrary, I would hope that this would make it more likely and easier that the trails of where ideas came from can be highlighted. The lineage doesn't need to be secret — if you've properly accredited your remixing, then the old myths can die... the old lies can stop...

                    This talk, the words are all in a text files you can grab, it is CC-SA-4... the slides are from pent, so you can fork it and edit it there, but they are also PDFs and can just be taken in that form... Share-Alike: you can use this however you want as long as you reference me, and then also share whatever you do with it the same way!

                    KEEP SHARING

                    Stop phordering your content, your old designs, your good but unused designs... just let them out in the world. It doesn't have to be cheap, or dirty or whatever... but just give something way... how do you give the thin you designed away but still he paid???

                    Are you really concerns with someone taking your syllabi or projects? What if you just Share-Alike them!? Don't keep them enclosed!?

                    An informal intellectual commons: the vernacular. Stewart Brand, the whole earth catalog, hippie modernists.. a better world through sharing.

                    Vernacular: How Buildings Learn describes the same process for buildings as is in use for things like RedHat linux or other open source software. Many eyes make light work. Rapid iteration and prototyping and error finding and fixing. The right person to find the problems and the right person to solve the problems aren't usually the same people, how do we connect them together? How does this work in the classroom or in the world at large for problems beyond software.

                    Stewart brand again > how buildings learn

                    Progressive education Version control Utopia is no place The commons is some place

                    Open tools and open culture

                    Dunne and raby against the status quo

                    If the status quo is a proprietary set of tools and illectual enclosure, the to design alternatives to that we need some critical praxis: how do we use liberated tools and resources from the world of FREE CULTURE instead.

                    What is free culture? How does this lean to a new design commons!?

                    The old powers resist... Established power hates change.

                    Inbound

                      Outbound

                      New Design Commons (Too Much Content)

                      1st October 2022 at 9:26pm
                      Word Count: 3517

                      Submission to AIGA DEC Surface Conference, Oct 20, 2022. https://educators.aiga.org/2022-dec-mini-conference-surface/

                      Open licenses, libre software, and the public domain in the classroom.

                      Cultural production has always been about remixing. We take inspiration from the world around us, and build on the work of others to create something new. In the digital age, this process has become even easier, with an ever-growing pool of available images, fonts, tools, and other resources.

                      As the field of graphic design has evolved, so too has the way we think about copyright and intellectual property. With the rise of the internet and social media, it's easier than ever to share our work with the world, easier to see and gather and reference creative inspiration from anywhere, and… even easier to infringe on the copyrights of others.

                      That's why it's important to understand the role that open licenses, libre software, and the public domain can play in contemporary graphic design — in the field and in the classroom. By utilizing and creating open, public resources, we can build a new design commons for everyone. This has cultural and educational upsides.

                      Open licenses, such as Creative Commons, allow us to share our work with others while still protecting our copyright. Libre software, such as Inkscape or Blender, is free to use and modify, making it a great option for collaborative projects. And the public domain provides a wealth of resources that we can use without fear of infringing on someone else's copyright or violating EULAs.

                      As educators, our role is the creation, cultivation, dissemination, and — sometimes — the protection of new ideas. Better utilizing free, open licenses and tools allows for a larger space where we can learn from each other and build upon the works of those who have come before us, and work alongside us.

                      FEEDBACK FROM REVIEWERS

                      Feedback from Reviewer 01: Highly relevant topic with clear connection to the design classroom. Reference to some of the key players and ideology of the history of alternate copyright would have beefed up the abstract. However, this is a rich topic perfect for a short paper.

                      Feedback from Reviewer 02: This proposal feels a bit wonky, in that it gets into the weeds with some of the more technical and less exciting elements of being a professional creative person. But it is important work, and I believe would be a popular topic at this conference. Remix culture and the democratization of design and communication tools together make this incredibly topical and relevant. This presentation feels like a manifesto or call-to-action, and I support it.

                      Feedback from Reviewer 03: I would suggest making the point of the paper a little clearer. I am confused if you mean to teach us about those commons we have access to now or talk about the benefits of those tools. It might also be a little of both. Overall, it sounds interesting and definitely of use to the design community with just a bit of clarification.

                      TECH SPECS AND PRESENTATION DETAILS

                      We are asking ALL presenters to submit their final presentations in PDF form, NO LATER than Monday October 10th. Please submit your final presentation to this this Google Drive folder.

                      We need presentations ahead of time so that we can keep the event running on time—there will be 34 different presentations, spread across 15 different sessions and 5 distinct rooms, all happening in a very short amount of time.

                      You are free to create your file in any software, but it should be sized 16:9 (1920 x 1080 pixels). Please also keep your file under 50 MB if possible.

                      Updated abstract:

                      A New Design Commons.

                      Open licenses, libre software, and the public domain in the classroom.

                      Cultural production has always been about remixing — or, as Kirby Fergesun says: Everything is a Remix. We take inspiration from the world around us, and build on the work of others, creating something new. In our digital age, this process is ever easier, with an constantly growing pool of available images, fonts, tools, and other resources to recombine. It is also ever easier to infringe on the copyrights of others. Modern copyright and software licenses act as the newest form of enclosure, making it impossible to create creative works remixed from the old.

                      That's why it's important to understand the role that open licenses, libre software, and the public domain can play in contemporary design — in the field and in the classroom. Through utilizing and creating open, public resources, we can build a new design commons for everyone. This has cultural and educational upsides.

                      Open licenses, such as Creative Commons, allow us to share our work with others while still protecting our copyright. Libre software, such as Inkscape or Blender, is free to use and modify, making it a great option for collaborative projects. Open fonts allow for more and more representation of languages and writing systems. And the public domain provides a wealth of resources that we can use without fear of infringing on someone else's copyright or violating EULAs.

                      As educators, our role is the creation, cultivation, dissemination, and — sometimes — the protection of new ideas. Better utilizing free, open licenses and tools allows for a larger space where we can learn from each other and build upon the works of those who have come before us, and work alongside us.

                      Things to reference?

                      2022-08-17 Revisions! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                      So, Adobe a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                      A New Design Commons? Better Title? Make it more of a manifesto or call-to-action? A script for a lecture… do it sort of pecha kucha style? Remix a lot of video/images/texts somehow as the background visuals?

                      Do you know how to hook a room full of design educators into what you’re presenting? Quote Ellen Lupton…

                      In 2006 Ellen Lupton presented a talk at aTypi called Univers Strikes Back. The conclusion of this lecture was summed up in her Free Font Manifesto: What if every … (copy over text, maybe just use her image as the slide here?)

                      Dave Crossland read Dr. Luptons FF manifesto …

                      Dave crossland is now in charge of google fonts …

                      Google Fonts is PAYING type designers to make excellent fully featured, open source fonts that push technological boundaries and try to handle as many languages as is possible…

                      In Univers Strikes Back Dr. Lupton says about her book, thinking with type:

                      My book was never intended for experts. It is a book for everyone, because I believe that everyone on earth needs typography and can benefit from working with letterforms at the highest level.

                      If we expand this out, my goal is to reframe this idea in terms of design more generally. That everyone on earth needs design and would benefit from working with design tools at the highest level…

                      Now, onto the show.

                      Reference to some of the key players and ideology of the history of alternate copyright Remix culture and the democratization of design and communication tools together make this incredibly topical and relevant. This presentation feels like a manifesto or call-to-action >>>>

                      I come to you today with a prompt. That together we build a new collective design commons — tools, images, typography, and “recipes” — that we all share for creating better future possibles.

                      If the goal of academia is knowledge CREATION and DISSEMINATION, then perpetuating the “norm” of proprietary software and unusable, strictly copyrighted materials doesn’t really do this?

                      A more equitable and sustainable tomorrow requires sharing and remixing today…

                      The vernacular

                      Copy. Students often copy things to learn how to do them We copy style and aesthetics and solutions all the time When and why and how does it get a bad wrap? Why have we made it so hard to copy things?

                      I propose unlimited copying, but with reference.

                      Vernacular design was about common things by common people…

                      The trend in software as a service and proprietary, locked tools is another form of “land enclosure” - or that which killed off the physical commons…

                      Lawrence Lessig Richard Stallman Linus Torvald Loraine Furtner & Eric Schrijver Garth Braithewaite ???

                      A New Design Commons?

                      Do you know how to hook a room full of design educators? Quote Ellen Lupton…

                      In 2006 Ellen Lupton presented a talk at aTypi called _Univers Strikes Back_. In this talk, Dr. Lupton says about her book, thinking with type:

                      My book was never intended for experts. It is a book for everyone, because I believe that everyone on earth needs typography and can benefit from working with letterforms at the highest level.

                      If we expand this out, my goal is to reframe Ellen's message in terms of design more generally. That everyone on earth needs design and would benefit from working with design tools at the highest level…

                      If we as educators wish to create new knowledge; to actually teach the next generation(s) of designers, and to spread and disseminate our craft so as to make a difference, well, we need to embrace open, shareable framework(s) for design.

                      This work and thinking is _in progress_, rather than _finished_ research or designs… And maybe this is good: trying to figure out what exactly you're doing and designing is often more interesting than critiquing a design once completed...

                      Now, onto the show.

                      This talk is nothing new, it is a remix of all manner of other's writing and ideas and lectures — including my own.

                      Software as a service models — while perhaps "convenient" — are a form of intellectual enclosure. Models like Adobe Creative cloud deprive us our rights of access and privilege. This is the equivalent of running barged wire across the Great Plains. We've created an annoying block for our future access to the resources and tools of our discipline.

                      "The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, managed for collective benefit…" — this is a riff on Wikipedia's definition ...

                      If we are in the business of cultural production, of knowledge creation, and of passing on better possible futures, then we have to be thinking about "the commons" as design educators.

                      The commons is a term that is used to describe a shared resource that is available for everyone to use. Contemporaneously, the term is often used in the context of open source software or creative works, like those that are released under a Creative Commons license. The idea behind the commons is that when we all have access to and can use these resources, we can create something greater than what any one of us could create on our own. This is how cultural production has historically worked — so why not return to this?

                      One of the first and very technical typesetting tools for the world of computers was Donald Knuth's TeX and the accompanying Metafont. If you are in the practice of typesetting scientific documents or graduate thesis, TeX — or more likely its progeny, LaTex or ConTeXt … This has had legs, not because of force buy in, but because of technical superiority AND open-ness…

                      This is a fabulous typographic tool — why did no designer ever show this to me? Why did my college room mate that went on to become a biologist have to tell me about it? Why did I learn about Donald Knuth too late! I mean, this guy dreamed up variable fonts in the 80s…

                      Adobe and their subscription service are the latest kind of "enclosure" on the commons

                      The vernacular, common design by common people, of and for and from the commons.

                      Can we design this way anymore? I mean, trends still exist — but following a trend isn't the same as building upon the commons. (Why? And why not?)

                      Vernacular design, often this is

                      Dunne and Raby, critical design…

                      If we are critical of the status quo, if we are trying to create alternatives, well then we need alternative tools, alternative visual references, and alternative ways to share with and learn from each other.

                      The pursuit of uniqueness is devalued; dynamicism and flexibility are more important than originality, because originality itself is unattainable. … “Normcore is about adaptability, not exclusivity.”
                      — 3.2 Normcore as Brand Strategy, https://libbymarrs.net/post-authentic-sincerity/
                      graphic design being codified and converted into algorithms
                      ABANDON YOUR PURSUIT OF AUTHENTICITY! Normalize copying... ...but only copy from the top. anticipate the theft of your intellectual property and time, so practice your own time theft and bootlegging. Conserve your energy by letting go of originality... *** > a commercial system bent on turning the free range intellectual culture that gave birth to computer science into a rude agglomeration of proprietary gated communities > — Free as in Freedom (v2.0); preface by sam Williams; pg vii > The notice was simple, something along the lines of \The printer is jammed, please fix it," and because it went out to the people with the most pressing need to fix the problem, chances were that one of them would fix it forthwith. > — FAIF, pg3 ¶2 L10 > A program would develop the way a city develops," says Stallman, recalling the software infrastructure of the AI Lab. \Parts would get replaced and rebuilt. New things would get added on. But you could always look at a certain part and say, Hmm, by the style, I see this part was written back in the early 60s and this part was written in the mid-1970s.'" > — FAIF, Pg5 ¶3 If something is good enough to solve your problems, is it not good enough to solve someone else's problems too??? > Why not share it out of a simple desire for good karma? This system of cooperation was being undermined by commercial secrecy and greed, leading to peculiar combinations of secrecy and co-operation. > Stallman later explained, \If he had refused me his cooperation for personal reasons, it would not have raised any larger issue. I might have considered him a jerk, but no more. The fact that his refusal was impersonal, that he had promised in advance to be uncooperative, not just to me but to anyone whatsoever, made this a larger issue." > — FAIF Pg9 > Eben Moglen, Columbia University law professor and Free Software Foundation general counsel. But it works. And it works because of Richard's philosophy of design." > — FAIF pg 184 ¶2, last lines... *** Ostrom's Law: A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory. *** I wrote this essay in SimpleNote & Google Docs — neither of these tools are really open, Google docs is based on Etherpad, which is open... Simplenote's apps themselves are open source, but the underlying codebase isn't exactly... however, I have CCed this content > Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ *** What if we re-conceive the archive as a point of origin, as a birthplace for new works and a rebirthing venue for old works? - Rick pelinger *** Autoprogettazione? What other open source-y, commons-y stuff can I talk about, reference, visualize?!? *** Devon Calvin Tanvi Eli Heuer Crossland Braithwaite Eric Who else can I reach out to? Not more white guys!? Yana? Amanda? Karen Shea Rick Prelinger? Cooper Hewitt Typeface Guy? Mary otsuka? *** Colonialism, software, etc.? Adobe is equivalent to enclosure of the commons? Ala Linebaugh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things to think about: A lot of people are interested in the canon of white male dominated design culture, for the sake of the argument they just refer to this as the canon of design culture, but we all know what that has come to mean. Here open source design philosophically has a similar issue with what we may refer to as the capitalistic aesthetic, the term may need work, the concept here is that because sole institutions have deemed what looks good. Mr Keedy talked about how international style was becoming global style and how post authentic sincerity, a web essay I will send you, showed that norm core design has continued that trend, but that’s because things that are deemed Libre culture is not sexy or sleek. A New Design Commons The commons is a realm of resources that is open for anyone to use. This includes things like traditional knowledge, folklore, and works that have expired copyrights. A Design Commons is a project that aims to create a shared space for designers to build off each other's work and ideas in a more free, open, accepting environment. As educators, our role is the creation, cultivation, dissemination, and — sometimes — the protection of new ideas. Better utilizing free, open licenses and tools allows for a larger space where we can learn from each other and build upon the works of those who have come before us, and our contemporaries. This approach also increases access to people in need or people in novel contexts that traditional design systems may not be considering. it's about rethinking the entire design process from start to finish. We are freeing ourselves AND our ideas from the shackles of capitalism and opening up other possibilities. We are in a remix culture. Cultural creation is always a remix; lets embrace this. The beauty of most of the open licenses is that they aren’t about giving up copyright or ownership, they are about linking people together, linking ideas together. When we design using FLOSPD imagery and tools, we are making a statement that we are no longer willing to be limited by what the commercial software companies tell us is possible. We are saying that we can create our own designs, on our own — or on the planet's — terms. Sustainable graphic design brings with it lots of new technologies, new social structures, and new tools. The more these ideas, structures, and tools are shareable and remixable, the more that all life will benefit. So what does this all mean for the future of design? I believe that we are on the cusp of a new era of creativity, one in which FLOS tools and works will play a major role. This is the beginning of a new Design Commons, one that is based on collaboration, sharing, and sustainability. This requires we learn more about licensing, new tools and file formats, and adopt new ideas around the ownership of ideas. Academia is good place to incubate and protect this new direction. We are also contributing to the public domain — making it richer and more diverse for everyone. Another form of regenerative designing. Designers who understand and embrace Free/Libre Open Source (F/LOS) can create more meaningful work, freed from the shackles of capitalist design. We will explore what F/LOS is and how graphic designers can use it to their advantage. We will also discuss the ideological underpinnings of F/LOS and how they can benefit both the individual designer and society as a whole. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A New Design Commons. Open licenses, libre software, and the public domain in the classroom. Open Source culture > solving ideas faster Promotes designer as author Educators. Classroom. Open Licenses. Why should we care. What is the benefit to students? What is the benefit to educators? Open source sharing, sharing your content, social good. Distribute the ownership. Image citation as social good. Why image citation is (and isn’t) important to the field of design Open source has helped out the field of computer science and development for decades. This could also help graphic designers, partially by bringing better access to universities and the underserved and underfunded. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Embracing the malleability of digital type, Open Source fonts allow one to open up, modify and appropriate their forms. Open Source fonts also enable new methods of open-ended collaboration. Using platforms like GitHub, fonts can now potentially invite contributions from anyone. Loraine Furter and Eric Schrijver work with MICA Baltimore’s students, remixing and extending Seb Sanfillipo’s Open Source typefaces. Along the way, they invent the protocols: how do we work together? https://furter.github.io/public-domain/ https://www.design-research.be/open-source/ http://fonts.github.io/typographic-collaboration/ https://i.liketightpants.net/and/no-one-starts-from-scratch-type-design-and-the-logic-of-the-fork >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who am I? What do I do? What do I love about it? What do I hate about it? The three pillars? ME Sector of Cultural Production I am writing about… Something Timely/Something Timeless… The triad of the critic (the author), context (sector of cultural production), subject (who/what s being written about), and object (philosophical lens) are at the heart of convincing criticism > but how to get to fun criticism!!?? Timeless: THE COMMONS Who is the villain? [[Adobe]]? [[Capitalism]]? [[The Global Style]]? Lazy teaching? >>>>>>>>>>> Bibliography: [[A *New* Program for Graphic Design]], by [[David Reinfurt]] [[Copy This Book]], by [[Eric Schrijver]] [[New Modernisms]], by [[Ben Duvall]]

                      RiP

                      Word Count: 0
                      Author
                      ISBN
                      Publisher
                      Year
                      Prompt
                      PPM
                      Summary
                      Written from
                      , ,
                      URL
                      Wikipedia

                      Missing tiddler "RiP" – click to create

                      Editions At Play

                      31st July 2021 at 2:27pm
                      Word Count: 17

                      Tea Uglow's team at google working on this...

                      Alternative ideas for what a Book might be.

                      Inbound

                        Outbound

                        Elegance

                        18th June 2021 at 8:46pm
                        Word Count: 26

                        Wealthy “elegance” abounds, but true Elegance appears when simplicity and craft are used to solve everyday problems. Sustainabilitists desire ease and grace in all situations.

                        Emergence (Quote)

                        28th September 2022 at 4:52pm
                        Word Count: 21

                        The harder we tighten things down, the less room there is for a creative, emergent solution.

                        —Andrew Hunt, The Pragmatic Programmers

                        Emergence

                        28th September 2022 at 4:52pm
                        Word Count: 0

                        Tagged with Emergence

                        Outbound

                          Everything Is Connected

                          16th December 2021 at 12:40pm
                          Word Count: 160

                          Something I tend to say alot. This is important to understand for the greater, high level consideration of sustainability. Understanding that all energy is finite, that matter transmutes back and forth from energy, that a choice isn't just limited to the small scope in front of you, that we are all passengers on Spaceship Earth

                          This also is related to The Triple Bottom Line — It's sort of an addendum philosophy to bring that into better focus. Spaceship Earth, Nature, contains everything! Our economy would not exist without society; our society cannot exist without nature. The economy is a construct of society, society is a construct of nature… What's the term in physics? emergent? Nature is fundamental – society and economy are emergent from nature... In this way, any economic choice IS a societal choice; and is also an environmental choice.

                          Related:

                          Spaceship Earth

                          19th July 2021 at 2:38pm
                          Word Count: 44

                          An R. Buckminster Fuller-ism

                          Earth is a self contained object. Other than a bit of solar radiation and the spare meteor, no matter enters earth's systems – we must make do with what we have, there is no resupply mission for spaceship earth.

                          Thermodynamics

                          28th September 2022 at 4:53pm
                          Word Count: 0

                          Outbound

                            Environmentalism

                            18th June 2021 at 8:46pm
                            Word Count: 0

                            Enzo Mari

                            15th July 2021 at 11:03pm
                            Word Count: 16

                            One of my favorite designers, period.

                            He made furniture, objects, books, posters, art, and wonderful ideas.

                            Design is only design if it communicates knowledge

                            14th July 2021 at 11:37pm
                            Word Count: 3

                            Inbound

                              Outbound