3D Printing, the Arts and Crafts Movement and the Democratization of Art

From P2P Foundation
Jump to: navigation, search

* MA Thesis: 3D Printing, the Arts and Crafts Movement and the Democratization of Art. Lassi Patokorpi. University of Tampere, School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies, English Philology, April 2014

URL = http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/95658/GRADU-1402572504.pdf


1. Lassi Patokorpi:

"The industrial era revolutionized society, manufacture and art. The days of old, when people lived in intimate communities in the countryside, when carpentry was a thriving trade and people would make a large part of their own things were over. Are those days now coming back? The Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 1800s, inspired by William Morris and John Ruskin, strove to make art popular, as it had been in the Middle Ages, and create a new, more beautiful world. Its ideas were aesthetic, democratic and socialist. The Movement had a great influence, which was most distinctly visible in Germany in the 1920s, but in spite of its influence all of the attempts to create a new popular art that would be widely shared by the people failed. It is my claim that today in the 21st century, new technologies such as 3D printing and revolutionary ideas like Open Source have created a new set of circumstances that might finally bring us closer to achieving the dreams of William Morris and the Movement he inspired.

In this thesis I am going to study the ideas of the Arts and Crafts Movement. More specifically I will study its ideas of the democratization of art, and attempt to point out similarities and differences that are apparent in the newly emerging 3D printing scene. I will ultimately attempt to uncover a possible philosophical or ideological kinship between the ideas behind these two historically distant and superficially very dissimilar phenomena. The second half of the thesis will be an analysis of the ambivalent role of the machine and how it relates to handcraft. The Arts and Crafts Movement had an adversarial view of the machine and yet the machine is the prerequisite for 3D printing." (http://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/95658/GRADU-1402572504.pdf)

2. Lassi Patokorpi:

The Arts and Crafts Movement of late 19th century England professed to democratize art and the production wares. The most prominent character of the Movement was poet, craftsman and socialist William Morris. I claim that today open source philosophy and peer production combined with 3D printing technology represents a similar philosophy about the democratization of production as the 19th century Arts and Crafts Movement. 3D printing is a nascent technology which allows the physical rendering (prototyping) of computer models. As The Arts and Crafts Movement was opposed to machines, I try to ascertain to what extent the Movement’s opposition toward the machine extends and what it is based on. Therefore, I discuss the machine’s two-sided role as, on the one hand, the destroyer of art, and on the other hand, the saviour of art.

The Arts and Crafts Movement and 3D printing along with its related philosophies are connected by their endeavour to make the production of wares more accessible to ordinary people. They also share ideas about co-operative work, the strive for quality instead of profits, and a kind of socialism. In the upcoming future, if current trends persist, it is foreseeable that progress toward an Arts and Crafts vision of society will take place. The concepts of art, handcraft and machine work have been, and still are, in a state of constant change. This entails that other related concepts will change, too, such as the concepts of authenticity and uniqueness, which are definitive concepts of the era of handmaking, and they will begin to denominate new, contemporarily more relevant phenomena. My discussion of Lewis Mumford’s concepts (Megamachine, polytechnics, monotechnics) details that the role of the machine as the destroyer or the saviour of art is contingent on the ideology of the man who wields power over the machine. In this light the Movement’s opposition toward the machine appears more as opposition toward the prevailing capitalist system rather than as simple Luddism.

I study the Arts and Crafts Movement through the texts of its members paying special attention to the writings of its father character William Morris. As 3D printing is still an emerging field of technology my study material, aside from academic articles, also includes news articles, popular literature, lectures and interviews that I have conducted myself. Study material on peer production and open source is based on academic literature. This thesis falls under cultural criticism in which I apply comparative analysis.



Excerpt from the examination report, J. Toikkanen, K. McGinley:

The question of who does art belong to and who has the licence to produce art is one that has persisted through the ages. In his MA thesis, Lassi Patokorpi undertakes the task of observing this issue from the perspective of a specific cultural analogy. The thought of the Victorian author William Morris and the famous Arts and Crafts Movement he helped inaugurate is set in comparison with 21st-century technological developments such as 3D printing, and the theme of democratization of art is identified as the one connecting the different eras.

As Patokorpi tells us, in terms of methodology, his MA thesis "falls within cultural criticism, applying comparative analysis based on a wide range of materials" (p. 3.). It follows that no specific theory is applied, and instead, Patokorpi sensibly focuses on making the all-important connection between the Victorian period and the 21st century as convincing as possible. For the purpose sections 3 and 5 that pivot on Morris and John Ruskin, and their lasting impact on the Arts and Crafts Movement, are respectively followed by sections 4 and 6 that clarify the corresponding phenomena in today's world. In addition to 3D printing, they include the "new, arguably socialistic ideas" (p. 25) of peer production and open source practices which, according to Patokorpi, recall the 19th-century ideals of Morris and Ruskin.

In section 7, the final part of the discussion, the thematic arc of the democratization of art is further traced from the 1800s to the 2000s through authors such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Benjamin and Lewis Mumford who have been selected for their influential views on the role of the "machine" in this very process. Patokorpi's point is that whereas thinkers like Morris and Ruskin rejected the machine, later intellectuals embraced the potential it proved for the democratization of art, and this insight culminates in Patokorpi's claim about the revolutionary potential embedded in the 21st-century technologies. For instance, he argues that, by redistributing the capitalist division of labour, 3D printing could "transcend debasing industrial working conditions" (p. 65) in which the worker is subservient to the machine. By the same token, should peer production and open source practices become the presiding norm in today's world, they might revive the discussed Victorian ideals by advocating "a kind of socialism that proposes the common good and good quality products in themselves as more important than individual gain and profits" (p. 73), as Patokorpi points out in the conclusion.


Peer Production and the Logic of the Artist

Lassi Patokorpi:

"The emergence of peer production and open source practices in the computer world have shown that the conventional methods of organizing labour and running a business are not the only viable options available. The open source practice, based on open access and free-willed participation, baffles corporate logic because it represents almost an opposite ideology: sharing instead of proprietary rights and voluntary labour instead of wage-driven work relationships. An open source community has, instead of pecuniary aims, more idealistic aims of creating good products for the sake of creating good products, something that does not fit into the mechanics of profit-driven entities. This new economic logic is called hyperproductivity by Bauwens (2009, 128). Hyper-productivity conveys “drive for absolute quality” (Bauwens, 2009 128). The phenomenon of hyper-productivity is also visible in more traditional self-managed worker co-operatives, where the products created often are of too high quality, and do consequently not meet the market demands (Holmström 1985, 10, more on worker co-operatives in section 6.4).

In my view this hyper-productivity, central to the open source culture and peer production, most likely derives from voluntary work. In other words, people collaborating in open source communities are most likely motivated to create products that respond to actual end-user needs – simply because they are themselves also end-users of the products – and they believe they are working towards a goal that is intrinsically valuable: a good product. In his historical account of medieval practices in arts and crafts, Morris points out that artists created their products to suit real needs (1889, 67–68). This is likely also a motivating factor in peer production communities. Moreover, workers’ co-operatives share the same objective of meeting consumers’ real needs, instead of catering to “false needs simulated by advertising” (Holmström 1985, 8). Peer producers, and to some degree workers in cooperatives, are exceedingly autonomous (Benkler and Nissenbaum 2006, 405–406). Ideally, it would seem to imply that people in peer production communities contribute only to causes that they see worthy of contribution.

This logic differs from wage-driven labour where the worker is, quite obviously, most often only motivated by salary. This dissimilarity between market-oriented and qualityoriented work is also apparent in Morris’s criticism of the industrial production of the 19th century. According to Morris, the ethic of the man of commerce, who is only geared toward the attainment of profit, is different from that of the artist who only aims to produce items as well as he possibly can.

Consider the following quotation from Morris’s lecture, “The Arts and Crafts of To-day”

- To the commercial producer the actual wares are nothing; their adventures in the market are everything. To the artist the wares are everything; his market he need not trouble himself about. (2000 [1889], 68)

The logic of the artist that Morris describes here bears resemblance to Bauwens’s hyperproductivity.

The artist and the peer producer are oriented towards the product, not the market. According to Morris, when the artisan is oriented towards the product in an industrial setting as a wageworker he or she loses touch with the wares themselves that he or she produces. As a result, the wageworker sees the wares only as a source of livelihood (1889, 66). This means that the business model itself eradicates the will or at the very least the possibility of crafting proper products. Morris regards this type of commercialism as destructive to art. But how realistic is it to disregard the wage-oriented approach and pursue more idealistic and altruistic aims? At the moment, peer production is a system that operates within the capitalist system, and is to a large extent dependent on it. According to Bauwens (2009, 130), the current system allows people to operate outside of the commodity and wage logic, but only as a hobby. Peer production is a system that is “sustainable collectively, but not individually” (Bauwens 2009, 131). Thus perhaps the biggest problem that faces the peer producer and the logic of the artist is the difficulty of its incorporation into the capitalist system. At the moment, peer production creates use value in the form of wealth (social capital) but the larger part of this use value stays outside of the market economy because the market economy operates around money and profit, not wealth. The market operates only on the margins of peer production (Bauwens 2009, 134). The question remains: is peer production at all possible inside the capitalist system which operates this way?

Peer production is a type of social production. People take part in producing something for the common good (Benkler and Nissenbaum 2006, 396) and the whole modus operandi of a peer production society is based on – and revolves around – mutual cooperation of peers. Because peer produced products are created in co-operation with the society, peer production reflects the needs of the whole society, and the created product does not only serve to increase profits of a single entity, the latter point being a source of much of Morris’s criticism. In this regard peer production resembles closely Morris’s ideals. People are contributing to purposes they find worthwhile and taking part in the collaborative process of creating things, not just being passive consumers, is an act of being an artist in the Morrisian sense. The independence and autonomy of individuals collaborating in peer production, and them acting largely outside the economic sphere, would seem to guarantee that things produced are of actual use to the peer producers themselves. In the Morrisian sense this guarantees that the product, or the art, that is produced is useful, and serves to 28 minister either to the body or the soul. In short, if you produce what you need, you produce something useful."


Lassi Patokorpi:

William Morris was an artist, craftsman and socialist who rebelled against capitalism and the ensuing culture of inequality. Morris held that art was not the preserve of geniuses but belonged to everyone. Because Morris defined art as everything man-made, including fine art and crafting, his concept of art is translatable to production or manufacture as well as to the contemporary sense of the word art. John Ruskin was fiercely antagonistic toward the machine. Morris, too, was in principle against the machine, but admitted that it could ameliorate exhausting and wearisome work. Yet Morris’s and Ruskin’s disdain for the machine should not simplistically be treated as Luddism, or outright opposition to technology. They opposed the machine because in the ruthless hands of the capitalist system it oppressed workers, seeing the production of commodities merely as a source of profit. The Arts and Crafts Movement followed Morris’s and Ruskin’s teachings of art and society, but was slightly more lenient in their attitude toward the machine. Later in the 20th century Lewis Mumford formulated the concepts of the monotechnics and polytechnics which separate technology into oppressive forms of technology and forms of technology that support natural human development, respectively. Mumford’s view highlights the fact that technology is not inherently good or bad but is instead dependent on its user’s philosophy.

What peer production, the idea of the Arts and Crafts workshop, as well as workers’ co-operatives, all share is a similar effort toward the attainment of quality for its own sake and the appreciation of co-operation. The underlying idea behind these phenomena seems to be a kind of socialism that proposes that the common good and good quality products in themselves are more important than individual gain and profits. In the 21st century, these ideas are subversive to the current economic system. At the same time, these ideas are reminiscent of the pre-industrial conventions of manufacture and organization.

The capitalist logic has led to severe environmental concerns and distorted the way society perceives the value of commodities. 3D printing, peer production and the open source 74 philosophy could change the way the economy (base) is organized, and therefore also change the culture (superstructure) and its view of material objects. It would also reduce wasteful mass manufacturing and fossil fuel reliant transportation, both of which are important causes of environmental decay, but at the same time induce wasteful manufacturing behaviour due to the ease by which 3D printers function.

3D printing has definite revolutionary potential. It promises a new way of manufacturing items and along with the open movement and peer production, a new way of organizing an economy. In an ideal world 3D printing would be able to give everyone access to the means of production, and as a consequence, democratize production or at least make the connection between the maker and the user more intimate. In the end, 3D printing could turn out to be a technology that would support human development; it could be polytechnics. Different projects that aim to take the society in this direction have already been established, such as the WikiHouse project which proposes to give everyone the possibility of constructing buildings. The ideas behind these projects are reminiscent of the philosophy or ideology of the Arts and Crafts Movement of creating a public and democratic art.

Designing 3D models could become the primary occupation of craftsmen who would practice digital craftsmanship. The machine in this situation is very different from that which Morris criticized in the 19th century, as it does not relegate workers into performing menial, repetitive tasks. Morris defined art as pleasurable work, and digital craftsmanship can indeed be considered pleasurable activity. Morris’s definition also entails, however, that the end product is also the product of human hands. This is not the case with 3D printing.

The question whether a reproduction can be art was brought up by Walter Benjamin.

Benjamin formulated the concept of aura which was based on the uniqueness of handmade objects. Benjamin’s concept of authenticity is problematic because it is a product of a bygone historical understanding of objects. In today’s world authenticity of objects does not necessarily need to rely on uniqueness. In spite of that, even reproducible objects appear to 75 sustain some level of uniqueness. All reproductions are not as valuable, even if they are in some sense exactly the same. This is because humans ascribe authenticity to objects and thus authenticity is not a material attribute of the object.

Ruskin found the value and beauty of handwork in its imperfection. Morris believed artisans could communicate something salient through their work. This would seem to suggest that a handmade object is valuable because it can convey humanity (Morris would perhaps call it ‘the human spirit’) and tell something about its maker. The question arises whether 3D printed objects can convey a human relationship in the same way. The matter gets even more complicated when computerized design and mathematical algorithms appear on stage. Computerized design and certain algorithms can simulate imperfections created by handwork or organic forms and patterns that can be found in nature and which can only be recreated with 3D printers.

It is evident that the concepts of art, craftsmanship, reproduction, and authenticity have transformed through the centuries. During this time technological developments have pushed the boundaries of these concepts. In the 21st century post-industrial world 3D printing will move these boundaries again. Further inquiries into the subject of democratization of art, and into the relationship between man, the machine, and nature, ought to be made. The Deutscher Werkbund and the German Bauhaus School of the 1920s–1930s and their role in the development of the concept of the democratization of art would be a fitting continuation for the work done in this thesis. Finally, I think William Morris and Lewis Mumford warrant more academic attention as they continue to offer valuable perspectives into the societal and cultural issues of the post-industrial world."


Works Cited:

Anderson, Chris. Makers, the New Industrial Revolution. New York: Random House Business Books, 2012.

Ashbee, Charles Robert. An Endeavor Towards the Teaching of John Ruskin and William Morris. London: Edward Arnold, 1901. Internet Archive. Available at https://archive.org/details/endeavortowardst00ashb [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Ashbee, Charles Robert. A Few Chapters in Workshop Re-Construction and Citizenship. London: The Guild and School of Handicraft, 1894. Internet Archive. Available at https://archive.org/details/fewchaptersinwor00ashbrich [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Atkinson, Paul. “Orchestral Manoeuvres in Design.” Open Design Now. Eds. Bas van Abel, et al. Amsterdam: Bis Publisher, 2011. Available at http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/orchestral-manoeuvres-in-design-paul-atkinson/ [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Atkinson, Paul. “Do it Yourself: Democracy and Design.”

Benkler, Yochai, and Helen Nissenbaum. “Commons–based Peer Production and Virtue.” Journal of Political Philosophy 14.4 (2006): 394–419.

Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006.

Boos, Florence and William Boos. “The Utopian Communism of William Morris”. History of Political Thought. 7.3 (1986): 489–510.

Ceraso, Antonio, and Jeff Pruchnic. “Introduction: Open Source Culture and Aesthetics.” Criticism 53.3 (2011): 337–75.

de Bruijn, Erik. “On the Viability of the Open Source Development Model for the Design of Physical Objects: Lessons Learned from the RepRap Project.” MSc Thesis. University of Tilburg, 2010. The Netherlands.

Greenstead, Mary, ed. An Anthology of the Arts and Crafts Movement: Writings by Ashbee, Lethaby, Gimson and their Contemporaries. Hampshire: Lund Humphries. 2005.

“Home Factory: 3D Printing to Change our Shopping Habit.” Voice of Russia. 9 Jan 2014. Available at http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_09/Home-factory-3D-printing-tochange-our-shopping-habit-0826/ [Accessed 9 April 2014]78

Huang, Samuel, et al. “Additive Manufacturing and its Societal Impact: A Literature Review.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 67.5-8 (2013): 1191–203.

Kaur, Satwant. “How is “Internet of the 3D Printed Products” Going to Affect our Lives?” IETE Technical Review 29.5 (2012): 360–4.

Kennedy, Gabrielle. “Joris Laarman’s Experiments with Open Design.” Open Design Now. Eds. Bas van Abel, et al. Amsterdam: Bis Publisher, 2011. Available at http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/joris-laarmans-experiments-with-open-sourcedesign-gabrielle-kennedy/ [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Klaassen, Roel, and Peter Troxler. “Do it with Droog.” Open Design Now. Eds. Bas van Abel, et al. Amsterdam: Bis Publisher, 2011. Available at http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/do-it-with-droog-roel-klaassen-peter-troxler/ [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Kurman, Melba. Skype Interview conducted by Lassi Patokorpi. 21 Oct 2013.

Liedes, Jarkko. “Kädet Ylös! Valmistamisen Vallankumous – Revolverista 3DTulostukseen.” Tieteessä tapahtuu 31.4 (2013): 44–50.

Lipson, Hod, and Melba Kurman. Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. Somerset, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2013.

Magnani, Lorenzo. Morality in a Technological World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Marx, Leo. “Lewis Mumford: Prophet of Organicism.” (1989) MIT. Available at http://web.mit.edu/STS/pubs/pdfs/MIT_STS_WorkingPaper_2_Marx.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2014]79

Mitcham, Carl, and Robert Mackey, eds. Philosophy and Technology. New York: The Free Press, 1972.

Moilanen, Jarkko, and Tere Vadén. “3D Printing Community and Emerging Practices of Peer Production.” First Monday (2013): Oct 29 2013.

Morris, William. “Art and Socialism.” 1884A. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/as/as.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “Art under Plutocracy.” 1883. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1883/pluto.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “The Art of the People.” 1882A. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at <http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1882/hopes/hopes.htm#chap-2 [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “The Arts and Crafts of to-Day.” [1889] The Theory of Decorative Art: An Anthology of European & American Writings, 1750-1940. Ed. Isabelle Frank. New Haven and London: Yale University Press for The Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture, 2000. 61–70. ---. “The Beauty of Life.” 1882B. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at <http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1882/hopes/chapters/chapter3.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “A Factory As It Might Be.” 1884B. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/justice/10fact1.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “Feudal England.” 1888. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1888/signs/chapters/chapter3.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “How We Live and How We Might Live.” 1884C. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1884/hwl/hwl.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. News from Nowhere, An Epoch of Rest. [1890] New York: Dover. 2004. ---. “The Lesser Arts.” 1882C. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1882/hopes/chapters/chapter1.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] 80 ---. “The Prospects of Architecture in Civilisation.” 1882D. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1882/hopes/hopes.htm#chap-5 [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “The Revival of Handicraft.” [1888] The Theory of Decorative Art: An Anthology of European & American Writings, 1750-1940. Ed. Isabelle Frank.New Haven and London: Yale University Press for The Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture. 2000. 169–177. ---. “The Socialist Ideal: Art.” 1891. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1891/ideal.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “Some Hints On Pattern-Designing.” 1881. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1881/hints.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014] ---. “Statement of Principles of the Hammersmith Socialist Society.” 1890. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1890/hammer.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Mumford, Lewis. “Art in the Machine Age.” The Saturday Review of Literature. 9 Sept 1928. Unz.org. Available at http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1928sep08-00102 [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Mumford, Lewis. “Authoritarian and Democratic Technics.” Technology and Culture 5.1 (1964): 1–8.

Mumford, Lewis. “Technics and the Nature of Man” [1966]. Mitcham, Carl, and Robert Mackey, eds. Philosophy and Technology. New York: The Free Press, 1972.

O’Sullivan, Patrik. “Morris the Red, Morris the Green – a Partial Review.” The Journal of William Morris Studies 19.3 (2011).

Parvin, Alastair. Architecture for the people by the people. Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED), 2013. Online video clip. Available at http://www.ted.com/talks/alastair_parvin_architecture_for_the_people_by_the_people [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Patokorpi, Erkki. “Role of Abductive Reasoning in Digital Interaction.” Åbo Akademi, 2006: Åbo. Ph.D. Thesis. Available at http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/patokorpi/abduction.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2014]81

Pevsner, Nikolaus. Pioneers of Modern Design. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991. Prettejohn, Elizabeth. Art of the Pre-Raphaelites. London: Tate Publishing, 2007.

Ruskin, John. The genius of John Ruskin. Ed. John D. Rosenberg. United States: University of Virginia. 1998.

Ruskin, John. “The Nature of Gothic.” [1853] On Art and Life. Ed. Clive Wilmer. England: Penguin, 2004A. Penguin Books of Great Ideas.

Ruskin, John. The Two Paths. Ed. Christine Roth. Indiana: Parlor, 2004B.

Shiner, Larry. The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Spicer, Arwen. “Toward Sustainable Change: The Legacy of William Morris, George Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells in the Ecological Discourse of Contemporary Science Fiction.” Ph.D. Thesis. University of Oregon, 2005.

Stoll, Steven. Larding the Lean Earth: Soil and Society in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.

Swer, Gregory Morgan. “Technics and (Para)Praxis: The Freudian Dimensions of Lewis Mumford’s Theories of Technology.” History of the Human Sciences 17.4 (2004): 45–68.

Thackara, John. “Into the Open.” Open Design Now. Eds. Bas van Abel, et al. Amsterdam: Bis Publisher, 2011. Available at http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/into-the-openjohn-thackara/ [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Thompson, E. P. A Lecture to the Williams Morris Society. 1959. Marxists Internet Archive. Available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1959/william-morris.htm [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Triggs, Oscar Lovell. Chapters in the History of the Arts and Crafts Movement. Chicago: The Bohemia Guild of the Industrial Art League, 1902. Internet Archive. Available at https://archive.org/details/cu31924032649828 [Accessed 9 April 2014]2

Troxler, Peter. “The Beginning of a Beginning of the Beginning of a Trend.” Open Design Now. Eds. Bas van Abel, et al. Amsterdam: Bis Publisher, 2011. Available at http://opendesignnow.org/index.php/article/the-beginning-of-a-beginning-of-the-beginningof-a-trend-peter-troxler/ [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Valve Corporation. Handbook for New Employees. Valve Corporation. 2012. Available at http://newcdn.flamehaus.com/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Vance, Ashlee. “3-D Printing Spurs a Manufacturing Revolution.” New York Times. 13 Sep 2010. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html [Accessed 9 April 2014]

WikiHouse. Available at http://www.wikihouse.cc/ [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Witzel, Morgen, ed. Encyclopedia of the History of American Management. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum. 2005.

Wolff, Richard. “Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism: Mondragon shows the way.” The Guardian. 24 June 2012. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon [Accessed 9 April 2014]

Wright, Frank Lloyd. “The Art and Craft of the Machine.” [1901] The Theory of Decorative Art: An Anthology of European & American Writings, 1750-1940. Ed. Isabelle Frank.New Haven and London: Yale University Press for The Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture, 2000. 201–212.