This virtual space is an extension of AEAH 3770 Computer Art Applications and will be used to record class discussions and ongoing conservations relating to the course.
Im still a little iffy about this product making products. For art rooms off the top of my head I dont know what it could be used for. Most of the small plastic things I can think of have more than just plastic parts. That would mean having to make additional purchases to create finished things... It is very cool I just dont know how I myself would use it. That could cause problems with just teaching people to use the reprap.
RepRap is really strange to me. The concept is kind of cool but I don't feel like its really necessary. In an art classroom, the only thing it be used for in terms of creating a project would be a sculptural type object. It would be the same idea as casting just in a different form. I personally would not want it or want to use it, there are other art forms that I think are better than this machine. If someone were to try and get one to use in the art classroom, it would probably be pretty difficult to convince the people responsible for allowing them to get reprap that it's worthwhile since there aren't a lot of different things you can do with it in the classroom setting.
I think that if the cost of the REPRAP printer could be reasonable (maybe under $100) then it would be a great addition to an Art Classroom. I think it could help kids with transferring 2D objects to 3D, which is not very easy to do. Plus, they would be able to print out their creation and take it home.
People have a hard time accepting art made on the computer as actual art. This may be because nothing physical is created. The REPRAP, however, would be able to transfer the art made on the computer into a physical object. This would be a way to bridge the gap between computer art and traditional art because it would be like making a sculpture.
I don't think it is worth several hundred dollars for a classroom because in order to justify that expense, you would need to basically spend an entire semester or even an entire year using it. I really don't think that would be worth it and I think it would be a waste of time. There are too many other things that could be covered in an art class.
As I said earlier, it would be a great addition, but I don't think anyone should focus their entire curriculum on it.
REPRAP is an interesting machine and I believe that it may help people to make simple plastic objects, but I can't see it being useful in the Art Education world. Maybe in a design field, this may be more useful for making models and learning how transfer a drawing to a 3D object. I personally would not use this in my classroom. Besides the fact that whatever I would be able to make with this would just be made of cheap plastic, most things would still need other parts that would need to be ordered and I would have to put it together myself. I would much rather recycle other materials and be resourceful, not creating more plastic junk. The idea that REPRAP is like insects and plants feeding off one another and reproducing is a great idea, but I think we can do this in a better way that wouldn't increase unemployment in the US and around the world.
I have never heard of REPRAP until today and I am not exactly sure how I feel about this machine. I think that the cost of the machine might deter people from buying it. Will 1000 dollars for a machine be equal to a few shopping trips to the dollar store or Walmart every once in a while? Is it worth putting down all that money at one time? Or does it make more sense to keep buying plastic knick knacks from stores? Will people actually use the REPRAP daily or weekly? I am trying to figure out how the machine could be useful in art ed and am having a difficult time. I honestly cannot see a strong enough correlation between the two. The only thing the machine might be useful for in art ed is to replenish art supplies. I cannot think of how it might be relevant to anything period except for creating button or coat hangers. I can see the REPRAP taking off and changing everything about manufacturing or flopping and being a trendy idea of the past.
RepRap is useful in Art Education not only in a "handy" manner as well as utilitarian and knowledgeable aspect. A few useful ideas that could be utilized not only in an art classroom but any other classroom are making storage for supplies, procuring shelving for books, or even creating new surfaces. I believe that RepRap could aid an artist in plight in that one could build stencils or 3D replications of an idea. On that note, hypothesize that a teacher wants to aid a student who may be having a difficult time understanding or representing a particular subject matter. We'll example a vehicle such as a truck. This educator could print out a 3D model of a Chevrolet and physically present the subject to the student in order for the child to get a better understanding and mental image. This could aid tremendously not only in an art classroom but in math, science and many other curriculum.
i think in the end yes, REPRAP can help art education, by being another sculpture form of art. Maybe students can learn to build robots, but that would just help reindustrialize...... I think this machine would become standardized.. so that everything produced of this machine is to teach something that can be built from the REPRAP.
I feel that the idea of being able to make your own things could work for Art Ed and against it. I could see it being a good thing for classes such as sculpture because you can design all of the pieces you need to create the sculpture and then let REPRAP do most of the work for you. All you would have to do is put it together once its done. It would cut a lot of work time in half because you wont have to cut out each piece you need to create the sculpture. When I think about the ways that REPRAP could negatively affect Art Ed I think of what we just learned in the Foundations of Education class. This idea may be way out in left field but it could be possible. We learned about how when Art Ed started out it was more of a class to teach kids how to copy and recreate designs of things such as bowls and then reproduce them. It was almost like a little factory instead of an art class. I could possibly see art classes going back to how it was back then if we used REPRAP. The classes could become more focused on reproducing objects and could possibly turn into a mini factory instead of an art class.
I don't see REPRAP being a realistic resource considering its price. However, if money was not a problem, I think it could be used in the classroom. Students could learn a program like blender and make their own creations with REPRAP, but that takes longer than just forming something with clay. It might be more interesting to use REPRAP as a collage element and give students an assignment in which they take an object already designed for printing with REPRAP and re-purpose it or add a new meaning to it. I think the most interesting thing about REPRAP is the idea that it could potentially create the exact same object several times. One small piece of plastic might not be great art, but using REPRAP something intricate and large could be formed by putting pieces together.
The only way that I can really think of the RepRap being utilized in the art room would be in utilizing it for sculpture purposes. Like someone else has already said, most of the objects that are used in the classroom can't just be made with plastic, so it wouldn't be too handy in the sense of reproducing these objects. But I feel that it could be useful in making models and objects to draw (like for still lifes), and even help students make 3D objects, even if they're not entirely skilled in 3d (like me).
As for using the Reprap in art education, I can see smaller children getting introduced to it and making toys with it, and later on it being used in technology based classrooms (high schools these days seem to be specializing their art classes more, and having more specialized choices for students) to design models and toys, etc. But as for every day use, there are still many unanswered questions, some very god ones being that not all the parts would be available and would have to be purchased even so, making not as economical. But the point can be made that it would be very interesting to have children participate in the making of their very own consumer products.
REPRAP represents a powerful idea, but in terms of Art Education I believe it is more of a tool rather than a full-out medium. I think it could create some very interesting artwork especially within the elementary school level. However, as an artistic medium, I think it lacks depth. On a secondary level, REPRAP would be most useful as a tool for thumbnails. However the greatest feature of REPRAP is its potential. In the right hands, this machine could be a powerful artistic medium for great works of art.
THe RepRap would be a great tool in demonstrating the process of work from a 2D design to a computer image, to a 3D product. It could serve as a great discussion topic as a concept as well. Realistically, I think at this stage of it's development it is very limited in function. Very few useful things are made solely from plastic. However, it could be used to construct building blocks much in the same fashion legos are made and in that regard it could provide limitless expression and creative thinking...for a thousand dollars.
Freeing information would allow allow a large number of the population, those that were educated with and had access to the technology, the opportunity to be exposed to vast amounts of knowledge. Also, if information were free it would be less likely to be controlled by " The Man". It wouldn't work however, as there are production costs that would need to be attended to.
I can see the benefit of having REPRAP in a classroom. Being able to use that technology to make childrens designs' come to life would be really empowering to them. To be able to make something that would normally be manufactured by a company far away could help show children where goods come from, and could lead to a good discussion on production and consumption in our society. However, the actual possibility of a school being willing and able to adopt such technology is highly unlikely. Also I don't see there being a whole lot of activities for it to be used in a classroom for.
Maybe if there was a place like a museum that had one. That way children could see it an experience possibly trying it out, but the school wouldn't have to spend money on something that doesn't seem to have a whole lot of uses yet.
I think the REPRAP is an interesting tool. Introducing this tool to children could give them new ideas about 3D art. And I do like the idea of exposing children to different ways of making their artwork. I think when students have more options they feel more open to the idea of art. The only thing about having the REPRAP apart of the curriculum is money issues. I've heard of teachers who have 50 dollar budgets for the whole year. In a situation like that I would think the teacher would spend their money on other things than a REPRAP. I still believe children should be exposed to it even though it can't be apart of their curriculum.
I'm having a lot of difficulty putting my thoughts into words, and being brief, but I'll try.
I do not feel the reprap is an appropriate piece of technology for k-8 at least. I think this mainly hinges on my observation of 3D modeling, and how difficult it is for most people to learn with any sort of speed.
While I mentioned replacement parts for tablets and such, it'd probably take the too long to pay for itself to make it a worthy investment to most schools, unless it was used by the whole school and not just the art department.
I can see this tool being used by more mature artists, either to mass produce an object, and/or for some conceptual purpose.
I feel that the reprap could take a CNC Routers place in some cases, simply because it can produce some of the same results a router could, with less noise/mess/space required. Of course I imagine few if any k-12 schools have a cnc router to begin with.
The use of plastic as a medium could be an issue in the future, I am aware that we have "green" plastics now, and they are looking into it using mediums other than plastic but I still do get to thinking of the petroleum content when I look at this tool.
It could be possible for students to use to help create pieces need for an art piece. Breaking the cycle of “I can’t do that, because…” The mythical copy machine cause to student to make plastic parts for projects, making them more evolved almost every part of the art making process, by taking the time to create objects wither that is hand drawing or using software on the computer. In my opinion it make the creating process a little bit more tangible. With the diminishing budgets for education as a whole, then art departments it would be exceedingly difficult to just get the Reprap let alone convincing administration that it could benefit the entire school.
I think that Reprap is an interesting machine but I think that it takes away that special unique quality that artworks can have when made by hand. Even artworks that are done on the computer are being done by hand by the person that created it so you still are putting the time and effort you would in a painting or drawing. In my opinion, the process of creating an artwork is the most important and fun part. So I wouldn't want a machine doing everything for me...in that case I can just go buy the pieces I need from a store instead of paying tons of money for a machine that does it. I am sure it is not even affordable for schools to even invest in something like that. Not only do you have to buy the machine you also have to buy the materials for the machine.
Although I think that REPRAP is an innovative piece of machinery and idea, I do not know if teachers will be able to convince supervisors to spend the money on such a machine. Although children may be able to utilize REPRAP in designing architectural pieces, I do not believe that REPRAP is versatile enough to be used in art classrooms. I also believe that having a machine make things for students takes away some of the learning and hands on approach of many artworks. Having a "factory" in a home or classroom takes away some of the originality and handcrafted look of many art pieces that children could create. Overall, unless REPRAP is being used in classrooms that are based on architecture or something of the like, I do not believe that it will be so useful in everyday art classrooms.
I do not see REPRAP as being conventional. The machine itself confuses me and I am unsure it is useable in the modern day classroom. It seems almost pointless ? I do not see this invention taking off anytime soon as a success. Although it is an original and creative concept in regards to part-making, I do not feel the REPRAP machine will ever heighten in popularity. The average educational board would not permit funding for a machine that only makes small plastic parts. It just doesn't make much sense to me.
I believe REPRAP is an innovative product that will slowly change the way small things are bought and produced. With this said, I believe REPRAP in a classroom can help students learn design principles. Also, students can learn computer based techniques and programs, which they can continue to use in architecture and industrial production. However, this may hinder students from understanding and expressing their creativity in other aspects. I am a hands on person and would prefer to create something with my own hands rather than having a printer create it.
If REPRAP were to be used in the Art Ed classrooms, the entire purpose/focus of Art Education would shift to a more industrial/society-centered orientation. A mechanical drawing to produce physical objects would result because of the useful intentions of REPRAP. I foresee drafting becoming the more prevalent type of drawing if REPRAP were to be introduced in the classroom setting. Art education would most likely return to its roots in the Industrial Revolution as a result of REPRAP.
REPRAP could also be used to produce sculptures in the classroom. Students would be caused to combine multiple mediums which would be profitable to their learning. They would have to sketch the design, make physical prototypes, and then use the computer to recreate their sculpture. REPRAP could possibly lead to the combined use of drawing, sculpting, and technology in the classroom.
Overall if a teacher was able to procure a REPRAP for an affordable price, then it would definitely be worth getting for the classroom. It is always better to have more mediums for your students to experiment with rather than less.
This is the first time I have heard of Reprap. Although it's a neat invention, I'm not sure how practical it would really be in a regular classroom. The cost seems really unreachable for a normal school. And then to justify spending that money, you would have to constantly use it, which would probably take a lot of time and resources compared to other art room products.
I have not heard of REPRAP until I watched the videos. In theory it seems amazing and extremely beneficial to creating and technology. However, it looks fairly complicated and intimidating. If the proper time was taken to teach artists and art educators how this machine works exactly, and the skills were passed on to our students, I think that they could play around with it, feel it out, and possibly come up with a lot of creative ideas.
Im still a little iffy about this product making products. For art rooms off the top of my head I dont know what it could be used for. Most of the small plastic things I can think of have more than just plastic parts. That would mean having to make additional purchases to create finished things... It is very cool I just dont know how I myself would use it. That could cause problems with just teaching people to use the reprap.
ReplyDeleteRepRap is really strange to me. The concept is kind of cool but I don't feel like its really necessary. In an art classroom, the only thing it be used for in terms of creating a project would be a sculptural type object. It would be the same idea as casting just in a different form. I personally would not want it or want to use it, there are other art forms that I think are better than this machine. If someone were to try and get one to use in the art classroom, it would probably be pretty difficult to convince the people responsible for allowing them to get reprap that it's worthwhile since there aren't a lot of different things you can do with it in the classroom setting.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the cost of the REPRAP printer could be reasonable (maybe under $100) then it would be a great addition to an Art Classroom. I think it could help kids with transferring 2D objects to 3D, which is not very easy to do. Plus, they would be able to print out their creation and take it home.
ReplyDeletePeople have a hard time accepting art made on the computer as actual art. This may be because nothing physical is created. The REPRAP, however, would be able to transfer the art made on the computer into a physical object. This would be a way to bridge the gap between computer art and traditional art because it would be like making a sculpture.
I don't think it is worth several hundred dollars for a classroom because in order to justify that expense, you would need to basically spend an entire semester or even an entire year using it. I really don't think that would be worth it and I think it would be a waste of time. There are too many other things that could be covered in an art class.
As I said earlier, it would be a great addition, but I don't think anyone should focus their entire curriculum on it.
REPRAP is an interesting machine and I believe that it may help people to make simple plastic objects, but I can't see it being useful in the Art Education world. Maybe in a design field, this may be more useful for making models and learning how transfer a drawing to a 3D object. I personally would not use this in my classroom. Besides the fact that whatever I would be able to make with this would just be made of cheap plastic, most things would still need other parts that would need to be ordered and I would have to put it together myself. I would much rather recycle other materials and be resourceful, not creating more plastic junk. The idea that REPRAP is like insects and plants feeding off one another and reproducing is a great idea, but I think we can do this in a better way that wouldn't increase unemployment in the US and around the world.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of REPRAP until today and I am not exactly sure how I feel about this machine. I think that the cost of the machine might deter people from buying it. Will 1000 dollars for a machine be equal to a few shopping trips to the dollar store or Walmart every once in a while? Is it worth putting down all that money at one time? Or does it make more sense to keep buying plastic knick knacks from stores? Will people actually use the REPRAP daily or weekly? I am trying to figure out how the machine could be useful in art ed and am having a difficult time. I honestly cannot see a strong enough correlation between the two. The only thing the machine might be useful for in art ed is to replenish art supplies. I cannot think of how it might be relevant to anything period except for creating button or coat hangers. I can see the REPRAP taking off and changing everything about manufacturing or flopping and being a trendy idea of the past.
ReplyDeleteRepRap is useful in Art Education not only in a "handy" manner as well as utilitarian and knowledgeable aspect. A few useful ideas that could be utilized not only in an art classroom but any other classroom are making storage for supplies, procuring shelving for books, or even creating new surfaces. I believe that RepRap could aid an artist in plight in that one could build stencils or 3D replications of an idea. On that note, hypothesize that a teacher wants to aid a student who may be having a difficult time understanding or representing a particular subject matter. We'll example a vehicle such as a truck. This educator could print out a 3D model of a Chevrolet and physically present the subject to the student in order for the child to get a better understanding and mental image. This could aid tremendously not only in an art classroom but in math, science and many other curriculum.
ReplyDeletei think in the end yes, REPRAP can help art education, by being another sculpture form of art. Maybe students can learn to build robots, but that would just help reindustrialize...... I think this machine would become standardized.. so that everything produced of this machine is to teach something that can be built from the REPRAP.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the idea of being able to make your own things could work for Art Ed and against it. I could see it being a good thing for classes such as sculpture because you can design all of the pieces you need to create the sculpture and then let REPRAP do most of the work for you. All you would have to do is put it together once its done. It would cut a lot of work time in half because you wont have to cut out each piece you need to create the sculpture. When I think about the ways that REPRAP could negatively affect Art Ed I think of what we just learned in the Foundations of Education class. This idea may be way out in left field but it could be possible. We learned about how when Art Ed started out it was more of a class to teach kids how to copy and recreate designs of things such as bowls and then reproduce them. It was almost like a little factory instead of an art class. I could possibly see art classes going back to how it was back then if we used REPRAP. The classes could become more focused on reproducing objects and could possibly turn into a mini factory instead of an art class.
ReplyDeleteI don't see REPRAP being a realistic resource considering its price. However, if money was not a problem, I think it could be used in the classroom. Students could learn a program like blender and make their own creations with REPRAP, but that takes longer than just forming something with clay. It might be more interesting to use REPRAP as a collage element and give students an assignment in which they take an object already designed for printing with REPRAP and re-purpose it or add a new meaning to it. I think the most interesting thing about REPRAP is the idea that it could potentially create the exact same object several times. One small piece of plastic might not be great art, but using REPRAP something intricate and large could be formed by putting pieces together.
ReplyDeleteThe only way that I can really think of the RepRap being utilized in the art room would be in utilizing it for sculpture purposes. Like someone else has already said, most of the objects that are used in the classroom can't just be made with plastic, so it wouldn't be too handy in the sense of reproducing these objects. But I feel that it could be useful in making models and objects to draw (like for still lifes), and even help students make 3D objects, even if they're not entirely skilled in 3d (like me).
ReplyDeleteAs for using the Reprap in art education, I can see smaller children getting introduced to it and making toys with it, and later on it being used in technology based classrooms (high schools these days seem to be specializing their art classes more, and having more specialized choices for students) to design models and toys, etc. But as for every day use, there are still many unanswered questions, some very god ones being that not all the parts would be available and would have to be purchased even so, making not as economical. But the point can be made that it would be very interesting to have children participate in the making of their very own consumer products.
ReplyDeleteREPRAP represents a powerful idea, but in terms of Art Education I believe it is more of a tool rather than a full-out medium. I think it could create some very interesting artwork especially within the elementary school level. However, as an artistic medium, I think it lacks depth. On a secondary level, REPRAP would be most useful as a tool for thumbnails.
ReplyDeleteHowever the greatest feature of REPRAP is its potential. In the right hands, this machine could be a powerful artistic medium for great works of art.
THe RepRap would be a great tool in demonstrating the process of work from a 2D design to a computer image, to a 3D product. It could serve as a great discussion topic as a concept as well. Realistically, I think at this stage of it's development it is very limited in function. Very few useful things are made solely from plastic. However, it could be used to construct building blocks much in the same fashion legos are made and in that regard it could provide limitless expression and creative thinking...for a thousand dollars.
ReplyDeleteFreeing information would allow allow a large number of the population, those that were educated with and had access to the technology, the opportunity to be exposed to vast amounts of knowledge. Also, if information were free it would be less likely to be controlled by " The Man". It wouldn't work however, as there are production costs that would need to be attended to.
I can see the benefit of having REPRAP in a classroom. Being able to use that technology to make childrens designs' come to life would be really empowering to them. To be able to make something that would normally be manufactured by a company far away could help show children where goods come from, and could lead to a good discussion on production and consumption in our society. However, the actual possibility of a school being willing and able to adopt such technology is highly unlikely. Also I don't see there being a whole lot of activities for it to be used in a classroom for.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if there was a place like a museum that had one. That way children could see it an experience possibly trying it out, but the school wouldn't have to spend money on something that doesn't seem to have a whole lot of uses yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the REPRAP is an interesting tool. Introducing this tool to children could give them new ideas about 3D art. And I do like the idea of exposing children to different ways of making their artwork. I think when students have more options they feel more open to the idea of art. The only thing about having the REPRAP apart of the curriculum is money issues. I've heard of teachers who have 50 dollar budgets for the whole year. In a situation like that I would think the teacher would spend their money on other things than a REPRAP. I still believe children should be exposed to it even though it can't be apart of their curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI'm having a lot of difficulty putting my thoughts into words, and being brief, but I'll try.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel the reprap is an appropriate piece of technology for k-8 at least. I think this mainly hinges on my observation of 3D modeling, and how difficult it is for most people to learn with any sort of speed.
While I mentioned replacement parts for tablets and such, it'd probably take the too long to pay for itself to make it a worthy investment to most schools, unless it was used by the whole school and not just the art department.
I can see this tool being used by more mature artists, either to mass produce an object, and/or for some conceptual purpose.
I feel that the reprap could take a CNC Routers place in some cases, simply because it can produce some of the same results a router could, with less noise/mess/space required. Of course I imagine few if any k-12 schools have a cnc router to begin with.
The use of plastic as a medium could be an issue in the future, I am aware that we have "green" plastics now, and they are looking into it using mediums other than plastic but I still do get to thinking of the petroleum content when I look at this tool.
It could be possible for students to use to help create pieces need for an art piece. Breaking the cycle of “I can’t do that, because…” The mythical copy machine cause to student to make plastic parts for projects, making them more evolved almost every part of the art making process, by taking the time to create objects wither that is hand drawing or using software on the computer. In my opinion it make the creating process a little bit more tangible. With the diminishing budgets for education as a whole, then art departments it would be exceedingly difficult to just get the Reprap let alone convincing administration that it could benefit the entire school.
ReplyDeleteI think that Reprap is an interesting machine but I think that it takes away that special unique quality that artworks can have when made by hand. Even artworks that are done on the computer are being done by hand by the person that created it so you still are putting the time and effort you would in a painting or drawing. In my opinion, the process of creating an artwork is the most important and fun part. So I wouldn't want a machine doing everything for me...in that case I can just go buy the pieces I need from a store instead of paying tons of money for a machine that does it. I am sure it is not even affordable for schools to even invest in something like that. Not only do you have to buy the machine you also have to buy the materials for the machine.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that REPRAP is an innovative piece of machinery and idea, I do not know if teachers will be able to convince supervisors to spend the money on such a machine. Although children may be able to utilize REPRAP in designing architectural pieces, I do not believe that REPRAP is versatile enough to be used in art classrooms. I also believe that having a machine make things for students takes away some of the learning and hands on approach of many artworks. Having a "factory" in a home or classroom takes away some of the originality and handcrafted look of many art pieces that children could create.
ReplyDeleteOverall, unless REPRAP is being used in classrooms that are based on architecture or something of the like, I do not believe that it will be so useful in everyday art classrooms.
I do not see REPRAP as being conventional. The machine itself confuses me and I am unsure it is useable in the modern day classroom. It seems almost pointless ? I do not see this invention taking off anytime soon as a success. Although it is an original and creative concept in regards to part-making, I do not feel the REPRAP machine will ever heighten in popularity. The average educational board would not permit funding for a machine that only makes small plastic parts. It just doesn't make much sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI believe REPRAP is an innovative product that will slowly change the way small things are bought and produced. With this said, I believe REPRAP in a classroom can help students learn design principles. Also, students can learn computer based techniques and programs, which they can continue to use in architecture and industrial production. However, this may hinder students from understanding and expressing their creativity in other aspects. I am a hands on person and would prefer to create something with my own hands rather than having a printer create it.
ReplyDeleteIf REPRAP were to be used in the Art Ed classrooms, the entire purpose/focus of Art Education would shift to a more industrial/society-centered orientation. A mechanical drawing to produce physical objects would result because of the useful intentions of REPRAP. I foresee drafting becoming the more prevalent type of drawing if REPRAP were to be introduced in the classroom setting. Art education would most likely return to its roots in the Industrial Revolution as a result of REPRAP.
ReplyDeleteREPRAP could also be used to produce sculptures in the classroom. Students would be caused to combine multiple mediums which would be profitable to their learning. They would have to sketch the design, make physical prototypes, and then use the computer to recreate their sculpture. REPRAP could possibly lead to the combined use of drawing, sculpting, and technology in the classroom.
Overall if a teacher was able to procure a REPRAP for an affordable price, then it would definitely be worth getting for the classroom. It is always better to have more mediums for your students to experiment with rather than less.
This is the first time I have heard of Reprap. Although it's a neat invention, I'm not sure how practical it would really be in a regular classroom. The cost seems really unreachable for a normal school. And then to justify spending that money, you would have to constantly use it, which would probably take a lot of time and resources compared to other art room products.
ReplyDeleteI have not heard of REPRAP until I watched the videos. In theory it seems amazing and extremely beneficial to creating and technology. However, it looks fairly complicated and intimidating. If the proper time was taken to teach artists and art educators how this machine works exactly, and the skills were passed on to our students, I think that they could play around with it, feel it out, and possibly come up with a lot of creative ideas.
ReplyDelete