CAPÍTULO IV: RESULTADOS Y DISCUSIÓN
Anexo 04: Validación de los instrumentos por jueces
Having briefly described a series of relevant D.I.W.O. related activities and having analysed their particularcharacteristics, we cansafelyarrive at a series of conclusions.Firstly, a D.I.W.O. movement did hap- penin Greece and did changethe local artistic landscape invariousrespects.Thestandardisation of such a move- ment cannot be attributed to pre-existent domestic
tendenciesand—despitebeing also indebted to interna- tional influences—has to be understood as primarily
fuelled bytheunprecedentedchangesin local economy.
As shown,the Greek D.I.W.O.movement did offer very pragmaticsolutions to veryspecific real-life problems and,hence,provedsustainableinthosenewconditions. On its turn, such a workshop turn to a certainextend changedthe rules of artistic production,eventuallysug- gesting a completelynewtype of “relationalaesthetics”
and, following, a less strict distinction between artists
and audiences.Then,while it hasbeen suggested that D.I.W.O. approaches advance economic rationalities that are some howalternative to theexistent,there are
noconcreteevidences to supportsuch a claim. On the contrary, it is trivial to show that the contemporary D.I.W.O. movement ingeneral, andthe Greek one in particular,appears to benothingbutanintrinsiccontin- gency of thedominantcommodity-basedsystems of our times. Nevertheless,and as shownhereinbefore,such a
contingencycanbeperfectlybotheconomicallyandeth- ically functional and did offer pragmatic solutions to
concreteproblems related with artistic production, self- sustainability, entrepreneurship and education in con- temporary Greece. Accordingly, if we understand the currentsituation as a newlyestablishedeconomical re- ality,ratherthan as a temporal“crisis”to besmoothened
out some time soon, [1] we can also understand the
Greek D.I.W.O.movement as a model which will most
likelydetermine artistic productioninthenear future.
Wemay also expect similar models to rise inother areas of the social and economical life of contemporary
Greece.
REFERENCES
1. T. Mariolis Greece, European Union and Economic Crisis (in Greek), Athens: Matura, 2011.
2. T. Moutsopoulos. (ed). Athenian Underground 1964-1983 (in Greek). Athens: Athens Voice, 2013.
3. “5 dimensions”. Retrieved from http://is- suu.com/apo33/docs/5_dimen-
sions_10_juin/11?e=6402316/10883424 [Accessed July 5, 2015].
4. “We have a situation”. Retrieved from http://is- suu.com/apo33/docs/whas-v11-
web/23?e=6402316/5125267 [Accessed July 5, 2015]. 5. D. Kera, “NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana: disruptive proto-
types and experimental governance of nanotechnologies in the hackerspaces”, Jcom, vol 11, issue 04, December 2012.
6. F.D. Rimini (Ed). A Handbook for Coding Cultures. Syd- ney: d/Lux/MediaArts and Campbelltown Arts Centre, 2007.
7. J. Richards. “Beyond D.I.Y. in electronic music”. Organ- ised Sound, vol 18, issue 3, pp. 274-281, December 2013.
8. Jo, K., Parkinson, A., & A. Tanaka. “Workshopping Partic- ipation in Music”. Organised Sound, vol 18, issue 3, pp. 282-291, December 2013.
9. M. Meyer. “Build your own lab: Do-it-yourself biology and the rise of citizen biotech-economies”. Journal of Peer Pro- duction, vol. 2. 2012. Retrieved from https://hal-mines- paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00710829 [Accessed July, 6, 2015].
10. M. Hatch. The maker movement manifesto. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
11. D.M. Sperling, P.C. Herrera, & R. Scheeren. “Migratory Movements of Homo Faber: Mapping Fab Labs in Latin America. In Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures” In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Com- puter-Aided Architectural Design Futures, CAAD (São Paulo, July 2015): The Next City-New Technologies and the Future of the Built Environment. pp. 405-421. Berlin: Springer, 2015.
12. S. Kuznetsov & E. Paulos. “Rise of the expert amateur: D.I.Y. projects, communities, and cultures”. In Proceed- ings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer In- teraction: Extending Boundaries. pp. 295-304. ACM. Oc- tober 2010.
13. C. Atton (Ed). The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. 14. J.G. Tanenbaum, A.M. Williams, A. Desjardins, & K.
Tanenbaum. “Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in D.I.Y. and maker practice”. In Pro- ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2603-2612. ACM, April 2013. 15. K. Gkoutziouli, M. Christophi, M. Varela (Eds). Heath Bunt-
ing, How to Build a New Legal Identity: A close look at Heath Bunting's work and the workshop in Athens. Athens: Frown Publishing, 2014.
16. A. Ozkal. “A D.I.Y. Book Project on women’s networks: De- sign process of Gün: Women’s Networks”. Retrieved from https://www.aca-
demia.edu/12156184/A_D.I.Y._Book_Pro-
ject_on_women_s_networks [Accessed July 6, 2015]. 17. C. Nieuwenhuys. “New Babylon”. Constant: New Babylon,
154, 1974. Retrieved from http://isites.har- vard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic709752.files/WEEK%207/CNieu wenhuis_New%20Babylon.pdf [Accessed July 5, 2015]. 18. J. Richards. “Getting the hands dirty”. Leonardo Music
Journal, vol 18, pp. 25-31, November, 2008.
19. A. Toombs, S. Bardzell, & J. Bardzell. “Becoming Makers: Hackerspace Member Habits, Values, and Identities”. Journal of Peer Production, 2014. Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/be- coming-makers.pdf [Accessed July 6, 2015].
20. M.C. Nahm The Artist as Creator, an Essay of Human Freedom. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, 1956. 21. R. Serra. “From the Yale Lecture”. In C. Harrison & P.
Wood (Eds.) Art in Theory 1900-1990: An anthology of Changing Ideas, pp. 1124-1127. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publ. 1992.
22. J. Dewey. Democracy and Education. New York, NY: Do- ver Publications, 2004.
23. C. Rinaldi. In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Re- searching and Learning. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006. 24. M. Cobussen. “The Trojan Horse: Epistemological Explo- rations Concerning Practice Based Research”. Dutch Journal of Music Theory, vol 12, issue 1, pp.18-33, 2007. 25. D. Novitz. “Post Modernism: Barthes and Derrida”. In B.
Gaut & D.M. Lopes (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Æsthetics, pp. 213-224. New York, NY: Routledge, 2001. 26. J. Dewey. Art as Experience. New York, NY: Perigee
Books, 2005.
27. N. Bourriaud, S. Pleasance, F. Woods & M. Copeland. Re- lational aesthetics. Dijon: Les presses du réel, 2002.
28. J. Hartley. “Silly citizenship”. Critical Discourse Studies, vol 7 issue 4, pp. 233-248, September 2010.
29. M. Stacey. The FAB LAB Network: A Global Platform for Digital Invention, Education and Entrepreneurship. Innova- tions, vol 9 issues 1-2, pp. 221-238. Winter-Spring 2014. 30. D. Kera. “Grassroots R&D, Prototype Cultures and D.I.Y.
Innovation: Global Flows of Data, Kits and Protocols”. In A. Ferscha (ed), Pervasive Adaptation: The Next Genera- tion Pervasive Computing Research Agenda. Linz: Insti- tute for Pervasive Computing, Johannes Kepler University. 2011. Retrieved from http://www.soft.uni- linz.ac.at/fet11/RAB.pdf#page=51 [Accessed July 5, 2015].
31. A. Arvidsson ‘The ethical economy: Towards a post-capi- talist theory of value’, Capital and Class, vol 33 issue 1, pp. 13-29. Spring 2009.
32. A. Arvidsson. “The ethical economy of customer coproduc- tion”, Journal of Macromarketing, vol 28, issue 4, pp. 326- 338, December 2008.
33. D. Zwick. “Utopias of ethical economy: A response to Adam Arvidsson”. Ephemera: theory & politics in organiza- tion, vol 13, issue 2, pp. 393-405, 2013.
34. D. Zwick. “The myth of metaphysical enclosure: A second response to Adam Arvidsson”. Ephemera: theory & politics in organization, vol 13, issue 2, pp. 413-419. 2013. 35. A. Arvidsson. “Thinking beyond neo-liberalism: A response
to Detlev Zwick". Ephemera: theory & politics in organiza- tion, vol 13, issue 2, pp. 407-412, 2013.
36. A. Arvidsson. “The potential of consumer publics”. Ephem- era: Theory & politics in organization, vol 13, issue 2, pp. 367-391, 2013.