The main point the article tries to get across is that 3D printing and its associated practices aren't just a new form of tool, but a form of "material engagement" along the lines of the innovation of styrofoam. It's in something of a complicated place right now - those that champion it speak of major societal and political breakthroughs, the improvements to automation, etc. but these claims also don't generally take into account the associated adjustments and possible repercussions associated with these breakthroughs, such as the economic impacts of massive improvements in accessibility and mechanics relative to fields such as automation.
Drawing parallels to other artificial materials such as styrofoam are effective in detailing the mundane utilities of 3D printing; printed materials can fill round holes in situations full of square pegs, and are also useful regarding physical concepts and demonstrations that would ordinarily have to be covered virtually, albeit still limited by the technology and resources available. However, it also presents more substantial shake-ups to material design, namely the materialization of digital materials, which - while possible in the past - is ultimately much more possible when generated natively in three dimensions across multiple forms of actual building materials (as opposed to paper crafts, etc.)
Also important is the workflow and associated pipelines in CAD spaces, which are generally more technical than printing documents or graphics, and involve a certain amount of "material labor" across both virtual and physical spaces.
How 3D Printing is Disrupting The Art World
The core of 3D printing's impact on the art world tends to do with its capacity for disruptive behavior, much like most past works of art. However, while art's disruptive nature tends to lend itself to commentary, the disruption that comes with CAD tends to be more mechanical or developmental, and (if you're of the mindset that accessibility is a good thing, which, I mean, why wouldn't it be) it also gives potential artists a lot more room to blossom into kinetic (realized) artists. As the article notes, "some people aren't good with their hands", and comparisons between studio art and computer graphics (e.g. Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) aren't exactly irrelevant here - being able to map out your works in more "objective" virtual terms is a huge hurdle that can now be overcome thanks to things like 3D printing.
Will Minecraft and Makerbot Usher in the Post-Scarcity Economy?
"Replicator" technology in fiction is basically older than dirt when you start getting into ancient mythologies and the various spoils it often tells of. While its modern incarnation was popularized in the public eye with media like Star Trek, interactive forms of media like sandbox-based video games (esp. Minecraft, which is one of the most - if not the most - popular sandbox game at this point) have also allowed players and audiences to actually see, in real time, what such a virtual "land of milk and honey" could ultimately yield. Procedural generation is a large part of Minecraft's particular blend of material environment, but it's ultimately the limitless playspace and continuously-produced materials in the sandbox that allow for impossible-yet-realized megastructures and the like.
Makerbot's a little more nebulous in that's an actual real-world replicator, albeit obviously limited by the real-world materials on hand. I think "usher in the post-scarcity economy" sort of falls into the overly-bold claims originally mentioned in Materializing Information above, but it does still provide some significant food for thought regarding the concept of post-scarcity. Star Trek's post-scarcity environment resulted in humanity exploring the stars "for the betterment of mankind", while Minecraft essentially boils down to a session-instanced socialist meritocracy where the people with the most ideas collect the most materials to build the biggest megastructures and things revolve around that, but given the real world doesn't exactly exist in a vacuum like that it's hard to say how things would go.
How 3D Printing is Disrupting The Art World
The core of 3D printing's impact on the art world tends to do with its capacity for disruptive behavior, much like most past works of art. However, while art's disruptive nature tends to lend itself to commentary, the disruption that comes with CAD tends to be more mechanical or developmental, and (if you're of the mindset that accessibility is a good thing, which, I mean, why wouldn't it be) it also gives potential artists a lot more room to blossom into kinetic (realized) artists. As the article notes, "some people aren't good with their hands", and comparisons between studio art and computer graphics (e.g. Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) aren't exactly irrelevant here - being able to map out your works in more "objective" virtual terms is a huge hurdle that can now be overcome thanks to things like 3D printing.
Will Minecraft and Makerbot Usher in the Post-Scarcity Economy?
"Replicator" technology in fiction is basically older than dirt when you start getting into ancient mythologies and the various spoils it often tells of. While its modern incarnation was popularized in the public eye with media like Star Trek, interactive forms of media like sandbox-based video games (esp. Minecraft, which is one of the most - if not the most - popular sandbox game at this point) have also allowed players and audiences to actually see, in real time, what such a virtual "land of milk and honey" could ultimately yield. Procedural generation is a large part of Minecraft's particular blend of material environment, but it's ultimately the limitless playspace and continuously-produced materials in the sandbox that allow for impossible-yet-realized megastructures and the like.
Makerbot's a little more nebulous in that's an actual real-world replicator, albeit obviously limited by the real-world materials on hand. I think "usher in the post-scarcity economy" sort of falls into the overly-bold claims originally mentioned in Materializing Information above, but it does still provide some significant food for thought regarding the concept of post-scarcity. Star Trek's post-scarcity environment resulted in humanity exploring the stars "for the betterment of mankind", while Minecraft essentially boils down to a session-instanced socialist meritocracy where the people with the most ideas collect the most materials to build the biggest megastructures and things revolve around that, but given the real world doesn't exactly exist in a vacuum like that it's hard to say how things would go.
