Together, these readings offer an interesting view of where the pace of technology has gotten us thus far and which technologies will be carried into the future.  Stewart Brand’s article says that some technologies will continue hurtling forward, while others will (and perhaps should) stay more static.  A change in technology may offer a faster or more efficient way of completing a task, but in the case of CAD in “The Craftsman,” there is sometimes something lost when the artistic manner is pushed to the background.  When a human spends time replicating every details of a project, they get to know it intimately, and understand what the end result will be better than anyone looking at a screen could.  Too many times, there is a comprehensive scale missing.  The Accelerate Manifesto, however, points of that because emerging technologies cost money, advances only occur when they are in the best interest of a capitalist- run society.  If it is not profitable, it will not move forward.

We are running. And made everything running with us. We are in Schivelbusch’s train. Running so fast the scenes are so blurry to see. Gradually missing out the aura. Making change in time and distance. Pacing up the speed of life more and more. Hallnas and Redstrom asked to slow down to think about the pencil itself to reveal details and system. A traveler I needs to run fast to grab the train, to be there on the right time to see the full moon, to save his front row in the concert, But at the same time he needs to sit down beside that sea to have his evening tea and do nothing. Time is needed to master a craft or a skill. In this speedy life modern education denying the repetitive learning process. As Weiner asked for computing to spare human from repetitive works and machines took over. For architects CAD as the drawing tool took over the place of a drafting table and spared us to redraw the same drawing over and over again. Makes it faster but left some problems with it. We tend to spend less time to draw, thus we skip small detail. We put the hatch rather that drawing each block of brick. Then we jump to other block but the previous one actually has tremendous scope to work with those small brick blocks to wonderful solution. We are missing out the details gradually. In process of this learning we are lacking in understanding. The scale of big projects get lost in the zooming in and zooming out of the window. We end to less understand the environmental fact, rather we put the coordinates to the simulation software to work on the environmental aspect. It is so precise that it actually discourage us to work on that on our own. It is good and bad at the same time. Some projects actually could not be done without the computer aided design. So it is not the CAD it is our knowledge and system that put CAD in distress. The utopia could be if the craftsman is taught CAD to produce crafts. So It is the responsibility of consciousness.

In Craftsman, Sennett makes the [typical] argument that drawing on the computer is less effective and subordinate process than drawing by hand.  The passage has a very biased and opinion-based demeanor.  The examples used to support his thesis are weak and very subjective.  As an emerging profession at the current time I am quite bothered when I hear things like this feel as though it is a conversation that is going to go on for the next couple decades.  The work place is split at the moment, on one side there are the seasoned professionals who did everything by hand for their entire career and on the other is the younger generations who have learned how to do everything on the computer.  The former feels that ‘right’ way is to make/draw by hand and that the computer is much inferior.  They also love to give us younins a hard time about ‘not knowing what trace paper is’  or ‘ not knowing how to draw by hand,’ and are serious about it while it is untrue.  The only valid argument I have heard on this topic is by architect Barry Burkis, who says ‘paper has a memory,’ and he explains how the drawings you do on paper do not go away, unless of course you through them away.  The argument is made that the memory is lost when drawing on the computer because instead of drawing over lines, we delete and redraw erasing the ability to periodically look back and compare.  Although this can, and most certainly does happen, I do not believe the ‘computer’ is the problem.  The problem lays in the skills the professional has developed. It is most certainly possible to draw with memory on the computer; it is as simple as continuously copying your drawing over each time you make a change or saving a new file as soon and the design changes or evolves.  I get quite annoyed when I hear these condescending remarks because I believe they are fueled by ignorance.  Instead of saying something’s dumb and unnecessary, look at when seems to be the issue and take a stab at breaching the gap.

more and more, technology has gained field and started to control everyday activities. from storing and organizing our correspondence to providing us with directions, we have become dependent of this technology relying on it more than how much we rely on one another; as if we could replace human interaction with a cellphone. however, at least for me personally, the input and constant stream of information can become overwhelming at times, being able to be reached (and require an immediate response) becomes more of a chore than a commodity.

I believe that there is in fact a disconnect (in the architectural world) between the architect and the architecture. technology has allowed us to obtain and go (virtually) to any point in the planet within seconds; however, the rest of the information that is not visual has not been able to be processed and translated rendering the decision making process deficient. there is also a disconnect with reality at the time of designing when a CAD user can (And feels the impulse to) create documents for a parametric solar responding wall/canopy when the budget will only allow a dryvit wall.

Speed, as described by physics is the result of division of distance on time passing to complete that distance. During the semester we read texts discuss the negative effect of speeding up the travels. When sitting in a train or plane passing a way, we are missing the landscape surrounding the path, in other words, the space between two points. The interesting point for me during this week’s articles was that actually by doing things fast, we are missing the opportunity to learn and master the skills of doing stuff. Today’s technologies and our will of doing things as fast as possible, ruin the times in which we can practice doing things. Though the example of using CAD is a very clear one, there are even more skills new generation is missing to master. In my point of view, even more important than master a skill is the opportunity to think about the procedures which used to take much time is a very important missing point.

I remember Krueger’s interactive art works in one of which a delay played a very critical role. The delay between the message that the human side of the work send and the response of the environment. That work can place among Hallnäs and Redström piece’s examples. The delay in Krueger’s work invited participants to “wait” and “think” about possible correlation of their actions and environmental changes. This delay is an artificial effect despite the simultaneous response of the machine.

In the time that our society is speeding up the speed of events, speeding down the process can only be an artificial break since all new technologies surrounding us are self-catalyst phenomenon which are accelerating each other each day. The main question is that who is intended to stop the speeding of speed of technology-based events. In the “manifesto” article we can see a wave of new left political stream that asks even for more acceleration and in Brand’s short article he named conservatives as critics of the accelerating world. I don’t find myself eligible to judge whether accelerating the progress regarding the criticisms over it, is a right decision or not. What I can guess is that the reason why the conservative/religious part of the society may be against the fast speed of events is not the fact that we are losing opportunities (like thinking or master a skill) during this process but that they can’t move that fast to accord themselves with changes.

The acceleration manifesto claims we haven’t moved forward much and that much of this is due to outdated capitalist policy. I’m inclined to agree; capitalist policy tends to “protect” an individual’s “right” to their knowledge, property, etc. The claim that this has counter intuitively slowed us down is totally true. The system is set up for stability, namely stability to make money. Where mariginal improvement on one large breakthrough is the biggest development. And look at it, companies like apple suing over the bounce when one hits the bottom of the screen in an app. All the energy put into that to protect the right of a company to sell their idea, a relatively meaningless one at that. These sorts of “rights” are what comes out of capitalism and is where open source gives me hope. However, at the end of the day, the flaw is people and companies protecting themselves for their rights to make money. And while a society that doesn’t make money is hard to conceive, how much progress would a society like that make? Maybe none, maybe a ton. Look at Nicoli Tesla. The man gave away almost everything he did for free, and most of his inventions form the basis of our contemporary technological society. Our belief structures need to fundamentally change before we can again move forward.