The most recent group session on February 16, 2017, centered around 3D printing, virtual reality, maker spaces, and provided the opportunity for those in attendance to actually “test” the technologies.
In handling the 3D printed material, it is hard not to get excited about the possibility of using this technology as a pedagogical tool. Now, not only can we teach visually and audibly, but also tactilely. As Clough states, 3D technology not only promotes education but also profits scholarship. Clough’s example of the Cosmic Buddha, denotes how a well-scanned object can further scholarship. The articles from both Clough and Knowlson focus on public outreach and engagement with museum artifacts. They envision 3D technology as the incubator that will encourage more people to visit museums. The availability of 3D renderings will also allow for inspection of objects long after the exhibits have closed or the original objects have been placed into the museum archives.
Conversely, one must ask if this technology will encumber scholarship. If a scholar has only to download a file and print out an object, will this hinder or enhance collaborative work? The humanistic disciplines that utilize physical objects can see an immediate benefit to 3D printing, but what about those disciplines without the tangible materials. Can we ask and answer the humanistic questions of thought, experience, and emotion through 3D printing?
Virtual reality may be one way in which those disciplines not involved with material objects can explore the humanistic questions. Scholars and non-scholars, alike, can be given the opportunity to experience the humanities, not just by lecture or video, but by using their own hands. As suggested by the Unimersiv article, one can walk through a performance of Shakespeare’s plays or Ancient Greek tragedies, or immerse oneself in the difficulties of historical travel, as Davis suggests. Virtual reality has huge potential, but can we unlock this potential for humanistic purposes? There is a caution to this tale as Davis points out. Without critical reflection, this potential will fail.
Finally we come to maker spaces or innovation centers in a campus setting. As the Delaney article explains, by providing a comfortable environment with high-tech tools, visitors will hang out, collaborate, learn, and become inspired to build innovative creations. This is a laudable goal and one that I am proud to note that FSU is striving to attain. There are obstacles to consider. These spaces are for relatively small groups of people. In addition, training in the technology is essential, equipment is expensive, and space is at a premium on most campuses. How quickly and easily can these spaces grow in scale? The capacity of these spaces seem to fit a small classroom setting, but what happens when the class size is 50, 100, or even 200 students?
As I reflect on the discussion, I am left with more questions than when I entered. Did our discussion engage the main point of Drucker’s article? What impact does the humanistic disciplines have on 3D technology?