Conceptualizing the Maker

Empowering Personal Identity through Creative Appropriation

Binaebi Akah, Master’s Candidate

Advised by Dr Shaowen Bardzell

Indiana University
School of Informatics and Computing
Human Computer Interaction Design
May 2010
Dedication

This is dedicated to the two persons who gave me the

curiosity, talent, intelligence, tenacity, and quirkiness to
pull off this project, my parents. I know without their
support and encouragement, I would not have succeeding
in completing my graduate degree.

And to my siblings; you guys are crazy in so many

awesome ways. Remember what Barney the Dinosaur used
to say? “‘Be careful’ means ‘I love you.’”
Contents
Abstract 12

1. Introduction 14 2. Theoretical Foundations 25

From End User to Maker 16 Identity 26

Motivations 17 Everyday Definitions 27

Why should you care? 17 Academic Definitions 29

What will you get out of this? 18 Working Definition of Identity 31

Why is Appropriation Important? 18 Appropriation 31

Why Steampunk? 20 Everyday Definitions 31

Social Constructivism 24 Human-computer Interaction Definitions 35

Beliefs 25 Working Definition of Appropriation 38

Overview 38
3. Triangulating the Maker 40 4. Theorizing the Maker 97

Case Study: Steampunk 42 Supporting the Maker 99

Autoethnography 44 Discussion and Contribution 101

Steampunk Interviews 50 Reflections 102

Summary of Findings 71 Acknowledgments 103

Case Study: Appropriation in the Wild 72 References 108

Bodily Appropriation 72

Appropriation of the Everyday 74

Appropriation, Steampunk-style 77

Summary of Findings 94
Conceptualizing the Maker
“Products can be more than the sum of the
functions they perform. Their real value
can be in fulfilling people’s emotional
needs, and one of the most important
needs of all is to establish one’s self-image
and one’s place in the world.”
Donald Norman, 2005

|9
Conceptualizing the Maker
Abstract
This research thesis discusses the design of artifacts. This is done in an
attempt to conceptually explore the relationship between designers and
users, suggesting that users have far more agency on “finished” designs than
designers perhaps acknowledge. This work suggests that users are makers.
The world of today’s technological artifacts is homogenized, as exemplified
by all Apple products which look and act the same when shipped from the
factory. Not only are the artifacts homogenized, but they are proprietary;
they are designed to discourage an exploration of the parts and pieces. Once
bought, however, an artifact’s biography is determined by its owner, owners,
and/or user.
The appropriation of an artifact, i.e. the adoption of an artifact so it fits an
individual’s life-world and identity, and therefore the community life-world
and identity the individual belongs to, is difficult to pinpoint. The result of
an act of appropriation, however, is not so difficult to distinguish.
How does one know when an artifact has been appropriated? Are there
artifacts that encourage/discourage appropriation? What is the difference

Conceptualizing the Maker

between everyday appropriation, and creative appropriation? Does this
difference empower personally identifiable technological gadgets?
This research thesis attempts to define an existing subset of end users
as makers. These makers bridge the gaps between technological gadgets,
creative appropriation, and identity through their bricolage of hacking,
crafting, online tutorials, and the materials and knowledge ready at hand.
Further, in studying makers this thesis refers to the exploding online and
offline culture of Steampunk as a case study.
The physical aesthetics of Steampunk-appropriated technology rebel against
our always-connected-with-my-super-high-tech-homogenized-gadget culture
by finding inspiration in the past. Specifically, the Victorian era, when
industrialization did not mean homogenized yet.
What can the field of Human-computer Interaction learn from the
Steampunk makers? What will you, as an interaction designer, do to
empower and facilitate such personally identifiable creative acts?

What will you, as an interaction designer, do to make

appropriation possible?
| 13
 1 Introduction

Conceptualizing the Maker

Technology as we know it is meant to ease the burden,
as it were, of daily living. We are accustomed to using
technology, even at its simplest form (a hammer, perhaps),
to solve our problems. We have cell phones that connect
us to loved ones, co-workers, clients. Our calculators
compute simple math as well as integrals and derivatives.
Our global positioning units tell us where we are, where
we are heading, and where our desired destination is in
relation to these two pieces of information.
Technology, when put in this light, is wonderful.
Technology solves our problems and does it faster than
we could without it. Yet, we are dissatisfied with the
technology we have. It is never fast enough, feels good
enough, or accomplishes exactly what we want. And so, we
reject it, hoping the next iteration will save us.
That is, those of us without a connection to our
technology reject it, hoping the next iteration will save
us. There are a number of us who, rather than looking
for the next best thing, are satisfied instead to develop
relationships with our existing technology. We appropriate
the technology in our lives to suit our own purposes,
rather than relying on the next iteration designed by some
other to get a little closer to what we actually want.
As with anything, there are varying degrees of
appropriation. For some, appropriation merely means to
“adapt and integrate” into one’s “everyday life” (Carroll).
For others, appropriation means “unpacking” the
object into its “constituent parts or functions” and then
creatively “customizing” the object so that “the user has
transformed the shape” (Carroll).
While both ends of the spectrum are interesting, the act
of creative appropriation is most intriguing because of
the sometime immense amount of energy required to
accomplish it. The creative act of appropriation, emphasis
on the verb act, becomes a creation of the self, rather than
the other. The other, in this case, is the designer/design
team behind the artifact.
“Once you modify something, you personalize it. And I
mean personalize in a rather true sense. It’s no longer the
creation of some other, but of one’s self ” (Rosner).
In varying degrees, we are all a part of a tradition in
which we “are driven to customize their artifacts and build
things;” it is not enough to simply accept artifacts as they
are sometimes, we instead spend “copious amounts of time
tinkering” (Buechley).
| 15
“According to the ethical motive for user participation, people have a moral
right to influence their own destiny, and users have a right to influence
technological decisions affecting their private and professional life.”
Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbrost, 2008

Yet, certain artifacts are more likely to be appropriated,
and certain persons are more likely to creatively and
explicitly appropriate.
From End User to Maker
Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbrost introduce the
“discourse” of the user in terms of computing technology
began in the 1970s, where the user was a “victim.” In the
1980s, the user became a “competent practitioner” before
shifting to a “serious professional” in the 1990s,” and a
“source of inspiration” in the new millennium.

Walk with me a moment as I trek this journey of
understanding the ever-changing relationship between
designers, end users, and artifacts.
As it stands, designers have a limited understanding
of their end users. This is not for a lack of trying;
participatory design, ethnography-inspired study,
contextual inquiry, and the like do not exist without
reason. These methods have been incorporated into the
interaction design community over the years in its quest
to understand the role of the user.
No designer can design the perfect design; to have a
perfect design, we would need perfect users. Given that
we interaction designers happen to design for people and
people are not perfect, I am sad to say that this endeavor
of designing the perfect design is, while noble, futile.
This thesis takes the ever-changing view of the user a
step further. Not only should the user be considered an
“inspiration,” the user should also be recognized for who
they are, the lay-designer, or, as I like to say, the maker.

Conceptualizing the Maker

Motivations
Having grown up in a do-it-yourself household where if
something broke you were expected to attempt to fix it
before buying its replacement, I am disappointed by the
current trajectory of the design of technological artifacts.
It is growing increasingly difficult, if not impossible,
to repair the artifacts in my life. What if I don’t want
to repair something that is broken, but simply alter the
physicality of the artifact, or alter the configuration of a
menu so it makes sense to me, rather than following some
arbitrary configuration by some designer?
We all have things we would like to change in order to
make the artifacts in our lives work better for us. This,
then, is the inspirational source for this study.
The fact remains that we all appropriate the artifacts
in our lives, digital or analogue, consciously or
subconsciously. This is an interesting research area because
of its relationship with personal identity, and the influence
a designer has over the personal identity of the end user.
Why should you care?
Not to be alarmist, but it seems to me as though designers
are too far hidden from the practicalities of their designs,
and some users are tired of it. Shapiro puts it quite nicely,
in fact:
“As computing becomes mundane, so too
do its designers, and it is harder to see why
or how they should be able to exercise more
leverage for change than anyone else.”
Do you want to lose your credibility as an interaction
designer simply because the realm of your designs is now
“mundane,” and your users are questioning why you get to
make the decisions?
I would prefer instead to give the users their fair due,
and recognize that they are “intelligent, creative, and
productive contributors to communities, organizations,
and society if they are equipped with the right tools”
(Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbrost).
The tools, in this case, are our designed artifact, whether
it is a laptop, keyboard, email client, or cell phone menu.
| 17
What will you get out of this?
As I mentioned before, we interaction designers simply
cannot share the “life worlds or world views” of our
users due to the knowledge we have of the technology of
our designs; we are “limited in the extent to which [we]
are capable of understanding each others’ experiences”
(Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbrost). The same goes for our
users in terms of understanding the designer’s life world.
By keeping this in mind, and seeing your end user as a
maker, you will not have to determine the “use-before-use
as suggested by Redström (Ehn). This is the impossible
task I spoke of earlier, where interaction design utilizes
participatory design as a way to “meet the unattainable
design challenge of fully anticipating use before actual
use” (Ehn). Let’s lift some of the burden from our
shoulders as designers by deferring some of the design
until after the design, and place decisions in the hands of
our users.
Conceptualizing the Maker
Why is Appropriation Important?
First, one must admit that “in all human cultures,
material artifacts are social communicators” (Mackay).
It is unavoidable to judge another person based on their
clothing, what shoes they wear, etc.
This is not to say that this judgment is negative, per se, it
is merely a level of understanding a person based on the
artifacts they choose to wear. Should one visit the home
of a friend, there is an added layer of understanding into
the personality, morals, etc, of said friend. The color
of the walls, the style of chairs, the types of kitchen
utensils, are all indicators of the person and their preferred
understanding of their surrounding world.
There are many who feel they “might as well have a
relationship with the items” with which they surround
themselves (Rosner). As Norman says,
…Products can be more than the sum of the
functions they perform. Their real value can be
in fulfilling people’s emotional needs, and one
of the most important needs of all is to establish
one’s self-image and one’s place in the world.
It is not enough to have artifacts in
one’s life, as found by Odom et al.
People “desire to develop a strong
attachment to particular digital
things such as laptops” (Odom).
In order to engage digital material
artifacts, people have turned to such
do-it-yourself activities as “IKEA
hacking,” where one “takes something
off-the-shelf, alters it to fit [one’s]
needs—to be more personal, to
make a statement, to improve it
better than mass marketing could”
to provide interaction designers with a theory that will provide the basis for
(Rosner). The importance behind
designs that make appropriation possible.
this is that through this “hacking,”
i.e. appropriation, the object is “no I am not advocating that we make our designs easier to appropriate, only that
longer the creation of some other, but we should not make our designs impossible to appropriate.
of one’s self ” (Rosner).
Appropriation happens in multiple realms, from bodily appropriation
This is the subject of this capstone: (piercings, tattoos), to appropriation of everyday items (furniture, buttons,
to study the overlap between identity etc), to the extreme creative appropriation of digital material artifacts, and the
and appropriation, to empower the case study of this capstone, Steampunk.
user to make him- or herself through
the design concept. In studying Steampunk, informally speaking, is a “cultural movement” that is “much more
identity and appropriation, I mean than just an aesthetic,” it’s “also about being more deeply connected to what

| 19
you create” (Poeter). It began as a literary movement in
the 1980s as an “outgrowth” of the futuristic Cyberpunk;
an “antiquated re-imagining of Cyberpunk set 100 years
in the past rather than 100 years in the future” (Gross,
C). Please refer to the literature review section for a more
formal definition.
Why Steampunk?
Steampunk is a “non-luddite critique of technology”
(Catastrophone). Persons involved in the Steampunk
movement, also known as Steampunks, are “dialing down
their digital existence in favor of embracing physical
materialization as a route to creative satisfaction” (Hell).
This has a direct relation to the do-it-yourself movement
as discovered in the field of human-computer interaction,
where it was noted that:
This is the subject of this capstone: to study the overlap
between identity and appropriation, to empower the user
to make him- or herself through the design concept.
Conceptualizing the Maker
We are in the midst of a tinkerer-maker revolution
where everyone from amateur geeks to world-class
artists are sharing a common spirit of creative energy.
The DIY attitude is one of play, experimentation,
and an appreciation for an intellectual landscape
of possibility and undefined paths (Diana).
This is a preliminary answer to the question “why does
the do-it-yourself movement exist today?” After all, it is
more convenient and possibly even more practical to buy
a finished product. Yet, stores like Lowes, JoAnn Fabrics,
and Hobby Lobby; television shows like Design on a
Dime, Trading Spaces, and Carter Can; and websites like
Etsy, IKEA Hacker, and Instructables, are all flourishing.
Why is this?
Informally speaking, I often hear it is the “bad economy,”
and this explains why people are doing more on their own.
This is both true and untrue… it is still much cheaper
to buy clothing than to make it from a yard of fabric in
the United States, for instance, and I have the receipts
to prove it. So while I am sure that finances are always a
“The user autonomy […] is
factor, I contend that a large portion of the do-it-yourself connected to the very individual,
movement exists because it is in people’s nature to have a social, cultural and emotional
certain “creative energy” (Diana). value of the artifacts and perhaps
I contend that people want a certain number of artifacts
suggests that the designer
that are personal, meaningful, unique, and with a story. should look at ways in which to
After all, for an object to be “relevant to human life,” it leave space in the design for the
must be “interpreted” in order to “play a part in a human consumers’ own interpretation,
narrative” (Harré). People like to have a certain number rather than design a piece to
of artifacts that they keep for “so long” that they are
be used only as directed by the
“perceived as having personality, soul, charcter, and is
loved and cared for” (Battarbee).
designer. For example, enabling
the user to personalize an object
People are more than “just problem solvers;” we are or adapt the way it is used.”
“creatures of boundless curiosity” (Paulos). More than
that, there are certain people, do-it-yourselfers, also Lacey, 2009
known as “makers,” who “find resonance with materials
and people” (Silver).

Echoing Lacey, I feel human-computer interaction

designers can learn from the creative act of appropriation
by studying Steampunks, a conveniently enthusiastic

| 21
group of do-it-yourselfers who are prolific online through
blogs, forums, and merchant websites to name a few.
Steampunk has multiple connotations with fashion,
fiction, music, and technological physical aesthetics,
among others (Ratt). I am focusing on the latter. The
technological aesthetics of Steampunk rebel against our
always-connected-with-my-super-high-tech-homogenized-
gadget culture by finding inspiration in the past,
specifically, the Victorian era, when industrialization
did not mean homogenized yet. Why do people join this
movement, and how? What is their creative process? How
does this creative act of appropriation reflect, influence,
and potentially define their sense of self?
By studying Steampunks, how they define themselves, and
their relationships with the artifacts they choose to (and
not to) appropriate, I will identify key characteristics of
that encourage appropriation, and develop a framework
based on these characteristics.
The ideas I present are not meant as a formula for
appropriation. Instead, they are meant as a starting point
for designers to think about the artifacts they design, and
the potential they provide for user appropriation.

With all this said, my goal with this project is to provide a

foundation for understanding technological appropriation
by studying the motives behind the act of creative
appropriation within the Steampunk movement.

Conceptualizing the Maker

 2 Prior Work

Conceptualizing the Maker

The underlying assumption guiding this research is that
people desire to be attached to artifacts. There are varying
levels of desire, attachment, and the relationship between
them, and depend completely on the person, their history,
culture, etc.
Despite this variance, designers need to be aware that
there is a need for people to feel a connection with the
artifacts brought into their life-worlds.
In this way, the topic of appropriation is suited for
a human-centered research project. When someone
appropriates an artifact, it speaks to the level of
connection felt. But how can we know when someone
has appropriated an object, why, if they are aware of it,
and how it reflects/influences their sense of self and/or
personal identity?
Additionally, this research assumes that all persons are
creative, with the caveat that there are as many types of
creativity as there are people. Because of this, and the
aforementioned assumption, much of the research for
this project will be qualitative, based firmly in a social
constructivist understanding of the information gathered.
Social Constructivism
I was once asked how I define myself and if my self-
perception had any bearing on how I perceived the world.
The simple answer is, of course, yes.
I see myself as a maker, an artist, a writer, a designer,
and an engineer. I believe this order greatly impacts how
I understand the world. I tend to see every event as a
narrative, which I can then extract something beautiful
or ugly from it that provides insight into a design I may
someday implement.
I realize, however, that how I see the world is not how
others see it. In fact, the way I see the world is entirely
dependent on me; on my history, emotions, and
perceptions. How I understand the world is a foreign set
of concepts to those around me, and vice versa.
This capstone project is based in social constructivism. As
mentioned in the Creswell text, I “seek understanding of
the world” in which I “live and work” (Creswell). Meaning
is “constructed” by humans as they “engage with the world
they are interpreting,” and it is important to “understand
the context” (Creswell). I am using a social constructivist

Conceptualizing the Maker

approach because it provides “sensitivity to the importance
of both technological and social issues and the interaction
between the two” (Carroll).
Beliefs
“You live in a fantasy world, where every
day is a musical and inanimate artifacts
speak back to you.” – Jacqueline Akah
The quote above is an anecdote in which my mother
informed me that I am not of this world. You see,
I anthropomorphize everything. Rest assured, I am
not psychotic, nor am I schizophrenic. I treasure my
engagement with the world around me. It is not enough
for me to simply exist; I need to have explicit relationships
with the artifacts and persons in my life. I need to be able
to touch an artifact and register the sensation.
Therefore, this project was guided by the belief that I,
as a tactile person, care more about physical artifacts
than digital artifacts, and that these artifacts have (or
develop) personalities. As such, I focused on the act
of appropriating physical technology, rather than the
ephemeral digital artifacts hidden behind the LCD screen.
That said, I believe quite firmly that the insights gathered
from a study of physical artifacts can inform and/or
inspire designs based in the digital realm.
Theoretical Foundations
The term “appropriation” is generally used in terms
of finances and property, relating to illegal possession.
Within human-computer interaction, however, it has
been used as a positive reflection of users relating to
the technology in their lives. Not only is it a positive
phenomenon, it seems to be a desired outcome of
technological design.
The benefits are obvious from a business standpoint:
design a product, interface, etc, that allows and encourages
a potential customer/user to relate to it, see themselves in
it, allow it to reflect how they see themselves and in turn
allow it to influence how they see themselves…
It is a powerful thing, to feel an artifact reflects and
influences how one sees oneself. If a company can tap into
that experience then they have possibly created a customer
for life. Additionally, the customer is able to take pride in,
and feel empowered and encouraged by, the product.
| 25
With this in mind, how do I define this ephemeral
phrase, personal identity? What do I mean when I refer
to one’s ‘sense of self?’ How does this definition relate to
appropriation, and my case study of Steampunk?
This literature review section is divided into the following
sections: identity, appropriation, and Steampunk. Within
each section, I review pertinent resources and definitions
in order to build my working definitions, which will,
once coupled with interviews and observations, help me
crystallize a design theory/framework about identity and
the appropriation of technology.
Identity, in its simplest form, is how we define our
sense of self defines how we see and/or interpret and/
or comprehend the world around us. Identity colors our
actions and scopes our interests. Identity and sense of
self are large, they “contain multitudes,” to loosely quote
Whitman. However, I have come to realize that identity is
in no way the same thing as sense of self.
Identity is a representation of that self, but not necessarily
the self itself.

Identity
According to my research, identity is a hot topic in the
psychology, sociology, anthropology, folklore, and other
related realms of study. As such, I have no intention of
launching into a ground-breaking study about identity
and technology. I am happy to rely on those who have
come before me; they have a much stronger understanding I approached defining identity from two angles, the
of identity and its importance. established everyday definition, and the established
academic definitions. The everyday definition establishes a
good working definition to then understand the technical
Conceptualizing the Maker
use within psychology, anthropology, and folklore papers,
which led to my definition of identity.
Everyday Definitions
When the general public wants to understand what
identity means, where do they turn? Being a member
of the general public myself, I turned to what I always
turn to when in doubt about the meaning of a word: the
dictionary. Given my experience with dictionaries, I have
realized that the definition varies depending on the source.
To triangulate the everyday definition of identity, I
referenced the online Free Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
the Oxford English Dictionary, and Wikipedia.
Below are my findings followed with a discussion behind
why that particular definition relates personal identity and
appropriation. The emphasis is mine.
Free Dictionary1: (1) The collective aspect of the set
of characteristics by which a thing is definitively
recognizable or known. (2) The set of behavioral
or personal characteristics by which an individual
1  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identity
is recognizable as a member of a group. (3) The
quality or condition of being the same as something
else. (4) The distinct personality of an individual
regarded as a persisting entity; individuality. (5)
Information, such as an identification number,
used to establish or prove a person’s individuality,
as in providing access to a credit account.
This definition emphasizes the importance of
“distinction,” that is, a recognizable attribute about a
person which makes them different from others. It is, I
assume, the way that helps us “identify” one another as
separate persons in the first place.
Merriam-Webster2: (1a) Sameness of essential
or generic character in different instances.
(1b) Sameness in all that constitutes the
objective reality of a thing: oneness. (2a) The
distinguishing character or personality of an
individual: individuality. (2b) The relation
established by psychological identification.
To have an “identity,” one must be an “individual” with at
least one “distinguishing characteristic or personality.”
2  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity
| 27
 Oxford English Dictionary3: (1) The quality
or condition of being the same in substance,
composition, nature, properties, or in particular
qualities under consideration; absolute or essential
sameness; oneness; absolute identity, that asserted in
the metaphysical doctrine of Schelling that mind and
matter are phenomenal modifications of the same
substance. (2) The sameness of a person or thing
at all times or in all circumstances; the condition
or fact that a person or thing is itself and not
something else; individuality, personality; personal
identity (in Psychology), the condition or fact of
remaining the same person throughout the various
phases of existence; continuity of the personality.
Through the Oxford English Dictionary, we finally get
an explicit reference to personal identity, describing it as
the simple fact of “remaining the same person,” that is, a
certain “continuity of personality.”
3  http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50111220?query_type=word&qu
eryword=identity&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_
place=1&search_id=om2G-HMcDAB-17104&hilite=50111220
Conceptualizing the Maker
Why is this important? Because it showcases that even if a
person acts one way in a certain environment, e.g. work,
and a completely different way in another situation, e.g.
home, they are the same person. The characteristics may
change depending on the environment, yet, there is still
the matter that the person defines him- or herself as him-
or herself, and not anyone else.
Wikipedia4 (philosophy): identity (also called
sameness) is whatever makes an entity definable
and recognizable, in terms of possessing a set
of qualities or characteristics that distinguish
it from entities of a different type. Identity is
whatever makes something same or different.
The pattern these definitions form is that there must
be some definite, recognizable detail, particular,
characteristic, etc, that allows us to say, without a doubt,
that he is he, she is she, and that this he-and-she is not
another he-and-she.
Wikipedia 5 (social science): an umbrella term
used throughout the social sciences to describe
4  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28philosophy%29
5  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28social_science%29
 an individual’s comprehension of him or
herself as a discrete, separate entity.
Identity is about the individual. Identity is about the
unique properties, qualities, characteristics that make one
an autonomous entity.
Academic Definitions
According to the following academic definitions, there are
a number of theories about personal identity, one’s sense
of self, etc.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy6: Your identity
in this sense consists roughly of what makes you
unique as an individual and different from
others. Or it is the way you see or define yourself,
or the network of values and convictions that
structure your life. This individual identity is a
property (or set of properties). Presumably it is
one you have only contingently—you might have
6  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
had a different identity from the one you in fact
have—and one that you might have for a while
and then lose: you could acquire a new individual
identity, or perhaps even get by without one.
This is an interesting concept, because it shows that we
define our own sense of identity. It is not only what makes
you unique (that is, the unique properties, qualities, and
characteristics that make one an autonomous entity),
but also how you interpret these properties, values, and
convictions to define your identity.
If discussing the self, in particular, Leary lists the different
uses in the magazine Self and Identity, as shown below:
1. Self as synonym for person,
2. Self as synonym for personality,
3. Self as self-as-knower, I-self, self-as-subject,
4. Self-as-known, me-self, self-as-object; i.e. the
perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, evaluations and
feelings people have about themselves, and
5. Self as decision-maker and doer, the
agentic ghost in the machine.
In the instance of this capstone, I will be utilizing the
| 29
fourth definition, in which I will discuss self-as-known,
or the self-as-object. I am interested in the perceptions,
thoughts, beliefs, evaluations, and feelings people have
about themselves than in their personality, etc.
According to Markus and Kitayama, the self has two major
“constructuals,” you can have an “independent” view of
the self, or an “interdependent” view of self, which can
“influence” and “determine” the “very nature of existence.”
The differences between these two constructuals are
essentially (as found in a summary table on pg 230):
• Independent: internally-defined through thoughts
and feelings, separate from social context, bounded
and stable, determined to be unique, etc
• Interdependent: externally-defined through status
and relationships, connected with social context,
flexible and variable, determined to fit in, etc
That is to say, it is just as important to study the
independent identity as it is to study the interdependent
identity. In order to do this, it is important to look at
the community that the individual belongs to, in order
to determine the influences that help determine the
Conceptualizing the Maker
interdependent identity. What is a community? It could
be considered a collection of individuals, in the way that
“personal identity is shaped from experiences that are
unique to the individual as well as from those common to
a collection of individuals” (Oring).
It seems to me that identity must be and is interdependent
as well as independent. When alone, I think, see, and
interpret myself and my actions in one way. However,
once in a social setting (i.e. I am no longer completely
alone), I interpret my thoughts and actions in relation
to how I assume others may interpret them. As
such, my identity and understanding of myself shifts
interdependently with the persons surrounding me.
That said, I agree that identity is a collection of
characteristics, skills, qualities, etc, that make one an
entity, as with the common definitions. Since I also agree
with the academic definitions about interdependency,
especially as we are never truly alone but are members of
the culture in which we live, my definition of identity
must keep this in mind.
There is something to be said about having a collection
of qualities, experiences, etc, which are unique to an
individual but also to a community of individuals, as
Oring states. After all, “collective identity,” or the identity
of a community of individuals, is simply those “aspects
of personal identity” derived from “experiences and
expressions common to a group,” where the group is the
“intersection of personal identities and has no existence
apart from the psyche of particular individuals (Oring).
Working Definition of Identity
While writing this paper it was suggested that I read
Hebdige and Turkle’s thoughts on the matter of identity
and technology. They are on my reading list, but in the
meantime, I need a working definition of identity.
I am mainly focused on personal identity, rather than
individual identity or communal identity, though they
do have influencing roles. I do believe identity is about
being unique, yet influenced by the community/culture.
Therefore, my working definition of identity is:
Identity is the unique set of experiences, qualities,
characteristics, thoughts, behaviors, etc, that
recognizably define an individual or collection of
individuals, and the relationships between them.
See the next page for a representation of this definition.
With this definition of identity in mind, how do the
artifacts in our lives reflect and influence it? Why do we
choose these artifacts? What does it mean to appropriate?
Appropriation
As with my definition of identity, I approached defining
appropriation for this study from two angles, the everyday
definition, and the definition used by the field of human-
computer interaction. The everyday definition establishes
a good working definition to then understand the
technical use within human-computer interaction papers,
which led me to my definition of appropriation.
Everyday Definitions
Similar to my method for defining identity, I triangulated
definitions from Dictionary.com, the online Free
Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English
Dictionary, Wikipedia, and Wiktionary, in order to
understand what it means to appropriate an object.
| 31
Conceptualizing the Maker
Below are my findings followed with a discussion behind
why that particular definition relates personal identity and
appropriation. The emphasis is mine.
Dictionary.com7: adj (1) Suitable or fitting for
a particular purpose, person, occasion, etc. (2)
Belonging to or peculiar to a person. v (3)
To set apart, authorize, or legislate for some
specific purpose or use. (4) To take to or for
oneself; take possession of. (5) To take without
permission or consent; seize; expropriate.
(6) To steal, esp. to commit petty theft.
This definition of appropriation directly relates to the
individual, and therefore must be included in the factors
contributing to my definition of appropriation. This
definition brought the following questions to mind: does
it mean that by taking possession of an object, the object
becomes particular to that person? If it does become
particular to that person, does this reflect a portion of said
7  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appropriate?db=luna
person’s personal identity? Are there ever appropriated
artifacts which do not influence/reflect personal identity?
Free Dictionary:8 (1) To take for one’s own use, esp
illegally or without permission. (2) (Economics,
Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) To put
aside (funds, etc.) for a particular purpose or person.
This definition is important because it highlights the
importance of the individual taking possession of an
artifact without permission. Whose permission? In the
everyday sense, it is perhaps the permission of the ‘original
owner’ of the artifact. In terms of design, however, I read
this to mean the designer of the artifact.
That is, appropriation means to take an object for “one’s
own use” to use as one chooses “without the permission”
of the original designer, and disregarding the designer’s
intent. It is not to say that the designer forgot anything
in the design, it is only to state that the user “understands
8  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appropriate
| 33
and is comfortable enough with the technology to use it in
their own way” (Dix).
Merriam-Webster:9 (1) To take exclusive possession
of: annex. (2) To set apart for or assign to
a particular purpose or use. (3) To take or
make use of without authority or right.
Merriam-Webster’s definition marks the importance of
redefining an object by “adapting” the “technology in
ways never envisaged by the designers, or even deliberately
subverting the designer’s intentions” (Dix).
Oxford English Dictionary 10: (1) To make (a thing)
the private property of any one, to make it over
to him as his own; to set apart. (2) Const. to
oneself: = next. (3) Hence ellipt. To take possession
of for one’s own, to take to oneself. (4) Eccl. To
annex (a benefice) to some religious corporation, as
its property. (5) To allot, annex, or attach a thing
9  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate
10  http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50010959?query_type=word&que
ryword=appropriate&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_
place=2&search_id=YR1Y-4QkcEy-10313&hilite=50010959
Conceptualizing the Maker
to another as an appendage. Obs. (6) To devote,
set apart, or assign to a special purpose or use.
Const. to, for. (7) To assign or attribute as properly
pertaining to; to attribute specially or exclusively.
arch. (8) To make, or select as, appropriate or
suitable to; to suit. arch. (9) To make proper,
to fashion suitably. (So Fr. approprier.) Obs.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) begins to repeat
some of the aforementioned definitions, primarily because
the OED goes into the etymology and multiple definitions
of the word. It is the one of the most thorough resources
in terms of word definitions. Therefore, it helps solidify
the idea that appropriation is about making the object
particular to a person, that it includes taking possession,
and that it requires making the object suitable to a person.
Wikipedia11: Appropriation is the act of taking
possession of or assigning purpose to properties
or ideas and is important in many topics.
Again, we have a definition where appropriation means
11  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation
assigning (or reassigning) the purpose of an object as it design: appropriation as temporal experience, and
suits the owner. appropriation as adaptability.

Wiktionary12: v (1) To make suitable; to suit.

Appropriation as Temporal Experience
— William Paley. (2) To take to one’s self in
Based on readings from Adhe, McCarthy and Wright, and
exclusion of others; to claim or use as by an
Wakkary and Maestri, one can think of appropriation as
exclusive right. (3) To set apart for, or assign
the amount of time spent with an object. All three papers
to, a particular person or use, in exclusion of all
suggest there must be some sort of meaningful interaction
others. (4) To annex, as a benefice, to a spiritual
or experience with the object.
corporation, as its property. –Blackstone.
Adhe suggests the interaction/experience needs to
Wiktionary’s definition is an excellent clarification
be positive, whereas the other two papers make no
because it refers to the “exclusive” right one has to take
distinction. Indeed, not only does “the process of
an object in a way that “suits” one’s needs. I would like to
appropriation require pleasurable experiences,” the paper
extrapolate this to more than how one needs, but also how
also asserts that the “appropriation process is part of a
one wants, and how one chooses to see and interact with
biography of goods. It is part of the biography of the
the world.
products from the moment of purchase” (Ahde).

McCarthy and Wright seem to have a similar definition,

Human-computer Interaction Definitions saying that appropriation means “making an experience
our own by relating it to our sense of self, our personal
There are two major ideas of appropriation that I have
history, and our anticipated future.”
found within the field of human-computer interaction
Wakkary and Maestri reference McCarthy and Wright by
12  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/appropriate

| 35
saying “we mean the remaking of something through a use
that becomes personal, framed within our understanding
of our situation and our anticipated future.”
Appropriation as Adaptability
Appropriation as adaptability and appropriation as
temporal experience are inextricably intertwined, therefore
I do not want to say that the following quotations on
adaptability are in contrast to temporal experience.
At the same time, however, their motivations are slightly
different. One cannot learn to adapt an object without
spending time with it, and without having an experience
which suggests adaptation is an option.
As mentioned before, Dix has a definition which relates to
some of the everyday definitions of appropriation.
“These improvisations and adaptations around
technology are not a sign of failure, things the
designer forgot, but show that the technology has
been domesticated, that the users understand
and are comfortable enough with the technology
to use it in their own ways. At this point we
Conceptualizing the Maker
know that technology has become the users’ own,
not simply what the designer gave to them.”
March, Jacobs, and Salvador say that their focus for
appropriation is on “openness, transparency and
adaptability.” Similarly, Salovaara says appropriation is
when “users invent ways to use technology for purposes
that they had not been considered before.”
With these two definitions in place, I have to first say that
I do not believe one must have a positive experience in
order to appropriate an object. While a positive experience
helps, I feel one can appropriate something even under
negative circumstances.
For instance, how many of us hold on to our ‘lemon’ cars,
perhaps, because of memorable road trips with family/
friends, etc? Perhaps it was the first car we ever learned to
drive, even though the bottom is rusted out. It does not
matter if the car is decrepit. In our mind, it is still that
shiny car our parents gave to us, or the first car we could
afford to buy with our own money.
In that way, I agree with McCarthy and Wright in saying
that appropriation is when we “relate [the object] to our
sense of self, our personal history.” In order to appropriate,
| 37
the object must become a part of one’s personal narrative.
And how does one do that, exactly? Because it is not
enough to simply bring the object into one’s life. That is
not appropriation. That is possession.
Appropriation, then, is when one uses the object “in their
own way,” as according to Dix. It is when one “adapts,” as
per March, Jacobs, and Salvador, the object to one’s life/
task/style/etc. I especially like Salovaara’s appropriation,
i.e. using the object for something it hadn’t been
“considered before.”
Working Definition of Appropriation
Therefore, by pulling keywords and phrases from the
everyday and ACM definitions, I posit:
Appropriation is the act of adapting an object to
oneself in a way that not only redefines the object,
but also relates the object to one’s sense of self.
The previous page is a representation of this definition.
Conceptualizing the Maker
As mentioned in my approach and methods section, I
recognize that one can appropriate material (physical) and
immaterial (digital) artifacts, yet, I choose to focus on the
physical because of the interesting and interactive dynamic
that occurs through creative appropriation.
Overview
I began my research by reviewing existing literature. I
read articles on appropriation, creativity, do-it-yourself,
hacking, modification, enjoyment, and identity.
It seems this is a fairly new trend in the interaction design
field, as many of these papers, especially in terms of
creativity, do-it-yourself, hacking, and modification, were
published in and around the 2009 SIGCHI conference.
I looked at multiple styles, methods, and mediums of
appropriation to understand the creative process behind
the act. I allowed anything from body tattoos to the re-
imagining of computer keyboards to inspire and inform
my understanding of how and why people appropriate.
In order to understand how do-it-yourselfers and creative
persons perceive themselves, the artifacts in their lives,
and the relationship between the two, I utilized direct and
indirect user research.
In terms of direct user research, I performed
autoethnography, as I am a member of the creative,
do-it-yourself population with an interest in historical
artifacts and modern technology. I appropriated safety
goggles, bead containers, super glue and acrylic paint to
create my own set of (fake) Steampunk-styled goggles.
I collected clothing, keys, wrenches, brooches, etc, to
create a Halloween costume where I adopted a Steampunk
researcher-scientist-explorer-extraordinaire persona.
I utilized my elective ceramics course to explore the visual
aesthetic of Steampunk by reimagining a sewing machine
in the style, and by creating an imaginary machine, The
Lazarus, whose purpose was to transform Jell-O into
Jell-O cupcakes.
For indirect research, I scoured online blogs, forums,
Etsy merchant websites, and the independent Steampunk
Magazine for articles. The blogs, forums, and magazine
articles proved to be a wonderful introduction to the
Steampunk movement, as well as how the self-described
Steampunks commented on themselves and the artifacts
in their lives. The Etsy merchant websites were a great
resource for the actual creatives and do-it-yourselfers,
as they gave me the opportunity to study the artifacts
created, and how the creator introduced the artifact to
potential customers.
Essentially every conversation I had about this project
turned into a design session, especially if it occurred
in my bedroom where my whiteboard was available for
frenzied writing. I learned a lot from the questions people
asked me, as they revealed my own assumptions and
understanding of the world. Aside from conversations,
I utilized card sorting and affinity diagramming to help
scope the opportunity space of this project, and my
literature review, down to a manageable arena.
Although more literature could be read, more exemplars
found, and more user research conducted, what I have
accomplished helps frame the opportunity space for a
theory about appropriation, identity, and artifacts. The
hope is that this theory will lead to designs that exemplify
the theory, and provide a framework for fellow designers.
| 39
 3 Triangulating the Maker

Conceptualizing the Maker

To begin my user research, I used an indirect approach Utilizing Google Alerts to scour the internet for any
by looking at blogs and the independent, volunteer-run, article relating to the term “Steampunk,” I found potential
Steampunk Magazine, for two reasons. interview subjects from the following websites:

First, because this community of Steampunks is prolific • http://brassgoggles.co.uk/blog/

online; they write how-to articles, discuss how they • http://www.crabfu.com/
found Steampunk, what it means to them, encourage
• http://www.drupagliassotti.com/
others to join the fold, and to spread the word of the
newest creative venture that has taken everyone by storm, • http://www.ericfreitas.com/
among others. The persons involved in the blogs and • http://www.exoskeletoncabaret.com/
magazine tend to be a mixture of Steampunks from expert • http://herrdoktors.blogspot.com/
technicians to novice do-it-yourselfers. Due to the cosplay
• http://steampunkscholar.blogspot.com/
nature of Steampunk, there is a level of semi-anonymity
from either the Steampunk’s costume name, or associated • http://www.steampunkmagazine.com/
online identity. • http://www.steampunkworkshop.com/
From my indirect user research, I determined the
Second, due to the open nature of the blog posts, blog
Steampunks I wanted to speak to and observe belonged to
comments, and magazine articles, I felt that scouring
the following categories:
these sources would give me a meaty understanding of the
Steampunk community and movement, which would help • Artist: Skilled in imaginative, non-functioning
me situate my role in the community, as a do-it-yourselfer art meant for personal satisfaction
and as a researcher. It provided a solid foundation to
• Cosplayer: Skilled in creating imaginative fashion,
inform my primary research, by providing information
assuming a fictional identity while dressing the part
that helped me determine the type of questions I wanted
to ask the Steampunks who would allow me to interview • Commentator: Interested in reporting trends, new
and observe them. projects; the “town criers” of the community
| 41
 • Inventor: Skilled in imaginative,
potentially functioning art meant for
experimentation and/or exploration
• Merchant: Interested in receiving
payment for services and/or products
• Scholar: Interested in studying the
phenomenon of Steampunk itself
My holistic understanding of the Steampunk community
helped inform my autoethnography studies and direct user
research, consisting of interviews.
Case Study: Steampunk
When mentioning Steampunk to someone who has never
heard of it, I tend to receive blank looks. “Stream-punk?”
they ask, their brows furrowed. After a brief explanation
which generally includes some mention of brass goggles,
mad scientists, dirigibles, and corsets, I sometimes receive
a dawning expression as the other half of the conversation
exclaims, “Oh, you mean Victorian Punk.”
“No,” I sigh, “Steampunk. Think… um… League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Wild Wild West. No? Not
Conceptualizing the Maker
ringing a bell? How about Casper? Phillip Pullman’s His
Dark Materials trilogy? The Prestige?”
There is no one “true” definition of Steampunk, so it
is not surprising that when I speak of it, no one knows
exactly what I am talking about. There is a general
consensus of when and how the term was created,
however. It began, firstly, as a literary movement in the
1980s. K.W. Jeter, a “pioneer Cyberpunk author,” wrote in
1987 that,
Personally, I think Victorian fantasies are
going to be the next big thing, as long as we
can come up with a fitting collective term
for Powers, Blaylock, and myself. Something
based on the appropriate technology of the era;
like ‘steampunks,’ perhaps… (Gross, C).
According to Cory Gross, Steampunk is an “antiquated
re-imagining of Cyberpunk set 100 years in the past rather
than 100 years in the future.” This is the literary tradition,
perhaps, but what about the burgeoning movement that is
“only chartable through mid-2006?” (Poeter). According
to the Steampunk Magazine, it is a “non-luddite critique
of technology” (Catastrophone).
The Steampunk Magazine, an
independent, volunteer-run magazine
highlighting fiction, how-to articles,
music and movie reviews, etc,
identifies with the “punk” as much as
with the “steam” technology.
Some claim that Steampunk is a way
of “creating sublime awe within an
apathetic, overly connected, jaded
culture” (Hell). Still others say that
it is “popular now because people
are unconsciously realizing that the
way we live has already died. We
are sleepwalking” and too reliant on
technology (Sterling).
In this way, Steampunk is, in
fact, a “non-luddite critique of
technology.” It is, for the crafters, do-
it-yourselfers, and inventors drawn
to the aesthetic, a “counterculture
Arts and Crafts Movement in a 21st
Century guise” (Sterling).
Steampunk machines are real, breathing,
coughing, struggling and rumbling parts of the
world. …Too much of what passes as Steampunk
denies the punk, in all of its guises.
Punk—the fuse for lighting cannons.
Punk—the downtrodden and dirty. Punk—
the aggressive, do-it-yourself ethic.
Catastrophone, 2007
The Arts and Crafts Movement of Morris wished, to create “a thing of
the 19th Century was a rebuttal beauty and a joy forever” (Verbeek).
to the dangers of “standardization Luckily for Steampunks, they are
and mechanization,” from both an “equipped with a number of creative
“aesthetic and social” standpoint tools and approaches” that the Arts
(Verbeek). The point of the and Crafts movers and shakers never
movement was to “produce artifacts could have imagined, such as “design
that were both useful and beautiful” software, fabricators, Instructables
(Verbeek). In this way, the crafters, videos, websites, wikis, cellphones,
do-it-yourselfers, and inventors who search engines and Etsy.com”
utilize the Steampunk aesthetics (Sterling).
to redefine modern computing
technology are doing just as William
| 43
I look at the crafting aspects of Steampunk because
“learning, creativity, practical problem-solving, perception,
and action are central” to understanding the process of
appropriation, and all these concepts are necessary to
accomplish a Steampunk technological appropriation.
(Salovaara).
Appropriation, from a completely aesthetic Steampunk
standpoint, critiques the current designs of technology
because it uses “a shiny, polished chromium surface” that
looks “worn out with the first scratch,” as opposed to a
material that may “become more beautiful when it has
been used for some time,” like “leather” (Verbeek).
By appropriating artifacts, i.e. by making these artifacts
personal, we are less likely to throw them away in search
of something newer and better. This is what draws me
to Steampunk. This is why Steampunk is fascinating. It
is a “physical, hands-on subculture,” which, as I said in
my Prior Work section, is highly important to me as a
tactile person. Is the fact that these creative appropriations
occur on physical artifacts an important insight? I am not
sure. But I do know that I love the fact that the “lifestyle
encourages people to think creatively” (Bulloff ).
Autoethnography
In terms of doing primary design research, I utilized
my sketch book to work through my thoughts in the
form of sketchnotes, as found in the appendix. I also
performed autoethnography, which, as described by Spry,
is a “self-narrative that critiques the situatedness of self
with others in social contexts.” This fits in with my social

“Steampunk’s key lessons are not about the past.

They are about the instability and obsolescence of
our own times. A host of artifacts and services that
we see each day all around us are not sustainable.”
Sterling, 2009
Conceptualizing the Maker
constructivist understanding of the world, for, as Duncan
said, there is “no one right form of knowledge, and
multiple viewpoints are acknowledged and valued.”

This autoethnography was performed during my third

semester as a graduate student in the Human Computer
Interaction Design program at Indiana University. I was
taking my first ceramics course, a design theory course, I
was an assistant instructor and a mentor for the first year
students. I wanted to dive into the Steampunk culture,
and, taking my own advice to the first year students, spent
much of my time photo-documenting my process and
blogging my thoughts.

I chose to do autoethnography because I am already

involved in the crafting and DIY movements that also
define a large portion of the Steampunk population. By
adapting my interest in historical fashion, science fiction,
and DIY crafting, I hoped to gain additional insights into
the overlap between the act of appropriation and identity
through my experiences.

I read every available Steampunk Magazine issue, which

is the independent, self-proclaimed magazine of the
Steampunk culture. This was familiarize myself with
the “big names” in the culture, the vernacular, interests,
| 45

and concerns of the individuals and
community. Funnily enough, it turns
out I had far more in common than
with the Steampunks than I thought.
Do-it-yourself
To situate myself in the Steampunk
do-it-yourself creative movement, I
Conceptualizing the Maker
From doing this activity, I realized
that I relied on the knowledge I
had in order to create the goggles.
That is to say, I gathered materials
I was familiar with, and utilized my
previous knowledge of crafting in
order to create me goggles. Therefore,
it seems that what a person brings to
the object that is to be appropriated
(safety goggles and bead containers in
this instance) is paramount.
Creative appropriation
gathered the following materials and utilizes existing knowledge.
transformed them into a set of fake
Steampunk goggles. It also seems to me as though
• Safety goggles
• Bead containers
• Super glue
• Acrylic paint
• Time
appropriation is very much
something that can be taught. I grew
up in a household where we built
anything we absolutely could not buy,
in order to save money. This included
office furniture, kitchen tables, media
centers, etc. Having grown up in
a firmly established do-it-yourself
household, I have been unafraid
to try new things by using familiar
patterns from previous projects. I
recognize this same trait in my three
younger siblings.
Creative appropriation is
not intrinsic to a certain
personality, it can be taught.
Costume Play (Cosplay)
Another facet of the Steampunk
movement is costume-play, also
known as cosplay. I put my fake
Steampunk goggles to use for my
Halloween costume, where I assumed
the role of Lady Almyra Gunn,
Steampunk Researcher, Scientist, and
Explorer Extraordinaire.
This exercise was to determine
what it felt like to play the role of a
Steampunk. The majority of clothing
for the costume was pulled from
my closet, as I tend to own a lot of
military-style jackets, vests, etc. As
such, I felt comfortable even though
I was playing a role. I did buy some
vintage lockets and old keys to
dangle from my costume, and used
a childhood gift from my father,
a Nigerian purse, to solidify my
explorer role.
Why did I choose the role of a
researcher, scientist, and explorer? I
chose that multi-faceted role because
that is who I am. I am a researcher
on the hunt of Steampunks because
they creatively appropriate. I am
a scientist, because I like to find
patterns and be rigorous in my hunt
for some semblance of truth. I am
an explorer, because I do not know
where this capstone project is taking
me. So, even though I was playing a
character, that character was still very
much me.
Role-playing allows for
creative freedom because
it bypasses social norms.
In addition to the above insight,
cosplay is just plain fun. And who
doesn’t like to have fun?
Creative Aesthetic Modification
I used my elective ceramics course
to explore the Steampunk visual
aesthetic by imagining how a sewing
machine would look. While painting
the machine, I imagined where it
would rust due to water exposure,
where the pipes would have to run in
order to keep the steam moving, etc.
| 47
Conceptualizing the Maker
Obviously, this machine does not
actually work, since it is ceramic, i.e.
glass. That said, it was fun pushing
my imagination to see what I could
come up with while maintaining a
recognizable shape and function.

It is a rewarding challenge to
create something that retains
a recognizable aspect.

There is a lot of care, struggle,

frustration, and patience that goes
into creative works. It is because of
the struggle that it means something
in the long-run. I have memories of
my sewing machine cracking straight
down the middle, the terror and
panic that ensued, and the resulting
relief and pride that came from
solving the problem.

Problems are tolerable if

there is a perceived solution.

| 49
Picture on page 49 is my non-functioning machine I
dubbed The Lazarus, whose sole purpose is to transform
Jell-O into Jell-O cupcakes, a dessert my mother and I
make for any and every celebratory occasion. While this
machine does not work and is not based off any existing
machine, it has significant meaning to me.
• It is the first ceramics project that went as planned.
• It is meant to serve the dessert that
makes me think of my mother.
• It is a very Binaebi-distinct design, because
the handles, “pipes,” lettering, etc, are motifs
found in my other artwork pieces.
• Creative appropriation puts oneself into the object.
The insights I gathered, therefore, from my
autoethnographic exercises, as listed.
• Creative appropriation utilizes existing
knowledge from the creative appropriator.
• Creative appropriation is not intrinsic to
a certain personality, it can be taught.
• Role-playing allows for creative freedom
because it rejects social norms.
Conceptualizing the Maker
• It is a rewarding challenge to create something
that retains a recognizable shape and function.
• Problems are tolerable if there
is a perceived solution.
• Creative appropriation puts oneself into the object.
Steampunk Interviews
I wanted a nice mix of persons who could give me their
individual thoughts and opinions in order to get the
heartbeat of the Steampunk culture. I attempted to
contact each of the following Steampunk categories:
• Artist: Skilled in imaginative, non-functioning
art meant for personal satisfaction
• Cosplayer: Skilled in creating imaginative fashion,
assuming a fictional identity while dressing the part
• Commentator: Interested in reporting trends, new
projects; the “town criers” of the community
• Inventor: Skilled in imaginative,
potentially functioning art meant for
experimentation and/or exploration
• Merchant: Interested in receiving
payment for services and/or products
 • Scholar: Interested in studying the
phenomenon of Steampunk itself
Unfortunately, due to the limited time period of the study,
I was only able to get in contact with artists, cosplayers,
inventors, and merchants.
Information was gathered using interviews. Interviews
took place over Gtalk, Skype, phone, or in-person,
whichever was most convenient for the subject. The
interview took anywhere from half an hour to two
hours, depending on the interview subject’s interest and
availability. I had hoped to get some observations, but
it wasn’t possible given my location, and my interview
subjects’ availability.
I engaged in semi-structured interviews, meaning there
was a list of questions available, but the structure was
primarily conversational. Each interview began with
| 51
general questions about the subject’s understanding and
interpretation of Steampunk, how they came to that
conclusion, etc. From there, I asked about the subject’s
role in the Steampunk culture.

Since the subject was an artist, cosplayer, inventor, and/

or merchant, then the interview discussed tools, projects,
materials, etc, how it related to the subject’s understanding
and interpretation of Steampunk, and how it helped the
subject define their personal identity, if it did.

I recorded the interviews using audio recording tools,

and/or video recording software. I also took sketchnotes
and asked for copies of any documentation the subject
collected about their creative process.

When I had completed the nine interviews, I applied

grounded theory to the information. I used grounded
theory because I didn’t want to label the information as I
thought they should be, rather, I wanted the information
to speak for itself.

I pulled out the relevant quotations, one quote per index

card. I then sorted the cards according to the perceived
topic, creating a large affinity diagram to determine the
emergent topics. I didn’t trust my first round, however,

Conceptualizing the Maker

| 53
because I went to abstract too quickly. This was worrisome
because I didn’t want to miss an important emergent
topic because of my bias in knowing too much about the
Steampunk culture, the theory of personal identity, and
the HCI understanding of appropriation.
To combat this bias, I did another affinity diagram
exercise with the same cards, this time having my younger
brother read each card and sort it according to topic.
Because he didn’t have the bias I had, the topics were more
varied, more comprehensive, and more inclusive. The
Conceptualizing the Maker
topics pulled from these affinity diagram exercises are how
I have organized the direct quotes from the interviews.
Each interview subject had a slant on Steampunk, making,
personal identity, etc, specific to their personal history. I
didn’t want to discount any topics that would come from
looking at the overall interview, and not just the words
that were spoken. With the quotes organized, I went back
to my original notes from the interviews and asked the
holistic question, “What is this about?”
I sketched out the holistic emergent topics from each
interview onto an 18” by 24” piece of paper. The topics
were interrelated, as represented by the arrows. Each topic
was coded with a number, the number representing the
number of arrows pointing to/from the topic.
With each topic so coded, I typed them into a spreadsheet.
The spreadsheet was organized with the rows being the
topics, and the columns being the numbers corresponding
to each interview subject.
I totaled the numbers per topic. The top 25 topics
were chosen as being the most relevant to this study. I
put each topic onto a sticky note, and created another
affinity diagram of the top 25 topics, only to discover
that the central theme of the interviews came down to the
question, “What if?”
This seems like an obvious question, something not worth
noting, right? I argue that this is a different kind of what
if, because its topic of interest is modern computing
technology. What if I didn’t have to leave the computer
as it was when I bought it? What if I wanted to have a
computer as imagined by the Victorians? What if I like
velvets and hardwood detailing?
With all this said, I’d like to analyze the intertextuality of
what the interview subjects said. The categories for the
quotes were as follows, listed from most-to-least discussed:
Community; learning/sharing/problem-solving;
unique/individual (story); drawn to unique
things; creative tools; mechanical comprehension;
craft vs. art vs. …?; inspirational source; what
is Steampunk?; material knowledge; creativity;
the importance of DOING; discovery;
creative process; negative use of “punk”.
The names have been changed to preserve anonymity.
“The thread that connects us
is that we didn’t discover what
to be interested in, we just
got a name for our interest.”
Walt W.
| 55
To give you some context to the selected quotations, I
have listed the anonymous names with their self-selected
categorization, which I happen to agree with, as well as
how long they estimate being an explicit member of the
Steampunk community.
I say explicit because it of the Steampunks I spoke to,
they all felt they had been doing some sort of Steampunk
variation for most of their creative lives, but now have a
name to go with it.
Community
There was an emphasis on the importance of sharing.
According to Mary, it’s “rare to find someone with like
interests,” especially when, as put by Margaret, “we live
isolated lives now.” The common thread among all the
interviews was the fact that the Steampunks tended to
feel disconnected from their neighbors and co-workers.
With the shared Steampunk interest, there is a “feeling of
exploration,” a “point of discussion.”

Name Category Duration

Herman M. Merchant Three years
Louisa A. Cosplayer Two years
Lucy M. Cosplayer Eight months
Edgar P. Inventor/Merchant Three years (unofficially Eighteen years)
Mary S. Artist/Merchant Six months
Harriet S. Cosplayer/Merchant One year
Margaret F. Artist (digital) Three years
Charlotte B. Cosplayer Two years
Walt W. Inventor/Artist Three years (unofficially Thirty-Six years)

*Those of you who have guessed at my naming structure get a cookie for being a fellow nerd.

Conceptualizing the Maker

 Edgar: “The Steampunk community is
open, friendly. You can’t have Steampunk
without science fiction nerds, freaks, geeks,
weirdos… all together, they’re cool.”
Mary: “This is a rich culture of
artists, actors, tinkerers.”
“People are learning they have talent.”
Margaret: “I don’t know my neighbors…
it would be weird to knock on their
door and speak to them.”
Walt: “If I could only keep one thing, it would
be the friends I’ve made while doing this.”
It was through their involvement with the online
Steampunk community that encouraged the Steampunks
to be “deliberate” rather than “casual” about their
“modifications.”
Edgar: “If the true Steampunk fans think
you’re a poser, you’ve lost credibility.”
Margaret: “I want to know what others are doing,
and that they know what I’m doing. I like to
know that what I’m doing isn’t in a vacuum.”
Edgar P.
Until searching for Steampunk online, many of my
interview subjects were doing these modifications/
creations because these topics of science fiction, alternative
histories, Victorian interpretations, modifications, etc,
were interesting, rather than trendy.
Margaret: “I just want to connect. You
can get involved in Steampunk without
making your life more complicated.”
| 57
“[Today’s tech] is so boring-looking!”
Lucy M.
There are elitists within the community, but they were
dismissed by my interview subjects.
Edgar: “There aren’t many Steampunk elitists.
They take the fun out of Steampunk!”
My interview subjects also spoke about outside opinions
about the Steampunk community, and how it is more
accepting of Steampunk than other communities and
cultures perceived as “niche.”
Edgar: “When together, Steampunks
are cool to everyone; not a menace
the way society sees Goth.”
Walt: “We’re loners. We like autonomy. We
don’t want to be in charge, we just want to be.”
Edgar: “Even if people don’t love
Steampunk, they tend not to shun it.”
Conceptualizing the Maker
An interesting insight from all of this is that the internet
brought these people together; they are from all over the
Western world and tinker in their homes and garages. It
was made clear to me by almost every interview subject
that without the internet, he or she never would have
known about Steampunk. Why would they? It’s a spin-off
of a niche literary genre that was popular in the 1980s.
Learning/sharing/problem-solving
This could be considered a sub-topic to the community
topic. This topic is important because the Steampunk
community is peopled with tinkerers, yes, but tinkerers
who share their process. This is where we begin to see
delineation between crafters, artists, and makers, which I
will go into a bit later in this paper.
Margaret: “My hobby is to read how-to articles
online. ...Steampunk is full of people saying ‘hey,
do this. See how I did this.’ ...I’m not the kind of
person to make something and keep it to myself.”
 Harriet: “I’m always interested
to see what others make.”
There is a feedback loop within the community that
comes from sharing techniques. This loop is fostered and
encouraged by Steampunks, as is this pervasive mood of
exploration, innovation, and experimentation. This is
why the blogs, forums, and websites are imperative to the
explosion and nurturing of Steampunk; it requires the
interest of people who want to learn and do more.
Walt: “Showing your technique comes from
open source geek and maker culture.”
Harriet: “I like that, I’m gonna
try that, I’m gonna do it.”
“It’s sad that the computer is this lump of beige plastic and metal.
It should look like its importance.”
Charlotte: “I have a tendency to learn trades that
aren’t viable anymore. By teaching, I get to feed
off the conversation of another’s creativity.”
Margaret: “It wasn’t until I saw someone else
do it that I thought I could learn to do it.”
Louisa: “You can tell what the good
ideas are because everyone does it.”
Edgar: “You are not evolving as an artist
unless you are teaching someone else.”
Mary: “When you teach someone, you open their
eyes creatively. …I make things to teach/publish
so others are excited to make, teach, create.”
Walt W.
| 59
Through Steampunk’s online presence, those new to the
culture and community are able to discover things about
themselves as they read, experience, and absorb available
information and projects.
The Steampunk community is about empowering others
to utilize the talents and skills they have at hand to make
something of which they are proud.
Unique/individual (story)
My interview subjects spoke of the importance of items
being “personal” to them, and unique. Now, given that
they were all members of Western culture, there was a
heavy emphasis on individuality that I wouldn’t, perhaps,
see in Eastern culture according to my research on
personal identity.
Louisa: “People like taking stuff and
making it their own thing, being individual.
Steampunk goggles are like snowflakes,
they’re always different, always intricate.”
Lucy: “You really don’t have individual
aesthetics in real life.”
Conceptualizing the Maker
Edgar: “I do everything I can to make [my
designs] fantastic because my name is on it.
These contraptions describe my personality.”
Mary: “This is completely personal. This is
unique to me, means something to me.”
Whether speaking about a Steampunk modification
they or someone else made, or speaking about a found
Victorian era artifact, there is an emphasis on the story
behind the artifact. My interview subjects said this didn’t
happen with bought, unmodified artifacts because no one
questioned its existence.
Herman: “With Victorian things,
everything has a story!”
Edgar: “I put a lot of thought into what
I build. There’s a story behind my design
and people want to know more.”
Harriet.: “It’s not just clothing and
fabric. There’s a story there.”
Not only is Steampunk about making artifacts meaningful
due to the time spent in the modifications, it is also about
the ability to be someone else, very like the cosplay I did
in my autoethnography study. Steampunk allowed my
interview subjects to be themselves, but a skewed version
of themselves, a version which emphasized a particular
aspect of their personality or history that they didn’t feel
comfortable emphasizing every day.
Louisa: “Steampunk accepts me, it’s an ultra-
cool version of me. I’m a chemist, so I made
a character inspired by Marie Curie.”
Lucy: “I love the military style,
it fits my tomboy look.”
Edgar: “[My designs] bring out the kid in me.”
Harriet: “I’m sure most Steampunks wouldn’t
call themselves designers, but when you create
something your personality comes out and
it is fun to see what they come up with.”
Charlotte: “I fall into the explorer, grungy, gypsy
arm of Steampunk. It’s a way for me to bring my
passion for historical clothing into everyday life.”
The idea of making items unique and individual
is prevalent in the Steampunk community due to
its patchwork history. Steampunk accepts multiple
interpretations and therefore encourages Steampunks
personal interests.
Drawn to unique things
This topic relates directly to the previous one, because it
is a collection of thoughts on taking an existing artifact
and altering it in some way because it makes it interesting/
intriguing. There is an explicit act my interview subjects
are taking in seeing the artifact not as a finished product,
but as a creative resource.
Herman: “It doesn’t have to be the
way it was when you bought it.”
Louisa: “It’s about what it could be, not what it
is. I’m always thinking in the back of my head…
finding replacements from traditional use.”
Lucy: “It’s nice to see reinterpretations of things.”
Edgar: “’That’s junk.’ ‘But it isn’t
to me, it’s potential art.’”
Margaret: “I want to take this and
transform it into something else.”
| 61
 Charlotte: “I love anachronistic things
not in any particular time.”
It was mentioned that there exists a disconnect between
people and the artifacts in their lives these days. We are
surrounded by items that have little meaning to us, and
don’t look their importance to our lives.
Herman: “We no longer have [traditional]
craftsmanship, beauty of objects. People may not
be able to verbalize, vocalize… but are attracted
to these solutions because they are elegant.”
Edgar: “Organic and beautiful means
something to the race of people.”
Harriet: “Things that we use
should be pretty, too.”
Walt: “Increasingly, technology is your
connection with friends, family, media; the
way culture makes its way into your home.
It’s sad that the computer is this lump of
beige plastic and metal. It should look like
its importance. You spend so much time with
technology and stuff; you want it to be pretty.”
Conceptualizing the Maker
I found these quotes particularly interesting because
I know many designers who would argue that the
Apple products are “pretty,” that they look like their
“importance.” While these products are sleek and modern,
they are homogenized, which counteracts the idea that
there is a beauty in “organic” designs.
Organic in this instance can be taken to mean unique,
individual, idiosyncratic, etc. Something is lost in the
design of technology because they are clones.
Creative tools
Because I spoke to artists, inventors, etc, it was important
to establish what the Steampunks considered their tool
set. There were traditional and surprising answers to
this question which reveals a lot about the Steampunk
community. Mainly, that everything is a creative resource
and therefore can be considered a creative tool.
Louisa: “I like to work with my hands.
Your biggest tool is your imagination.
And glue. Lots of glue.”
 Edgar: “I use mostly hand tools. I made my tools
by hand. I’ve used them since I was a teenager.
My mentor told me ‘these are the only tools you’ll
need,’ and for the most part, he was right.”
Mary: “I love having a hammer in hand.”
Margaret: “My favorite tool is the internet.
It’s like my second brain. My least
favorite tool is commercialism. Because
of money, people are afraid to share.”
There is an emphasis on this sort of bricoleur mindset, i.e.
the idea of utilizing existing and available knowledge and
materials to create a satisfactory artifact.
There is also an emphasis on handwork, the idea of
making something physically so one is able to react to
the physicality of the artifact. The tangibility factor is
in contrast to digital creativity, where the materials and
properties are abstracted behind a monitor screen.
The Steampunks I spoke to wanted to engage with their
materials on an intimate level which they felt was lacking
in the creative computing world.
Mechanical comprehension
Handwork ties back to the idea of mechanical
comprehension. For example, when you see a hammer, you
pick it up, feel the heft. You know you pick it up by the
handle because it looks as though it would fit your hand.
You notice the weight of the hammer head, which hints at
the hammer’s use.
Herman: “The romance of ‘I can better
understand this’ than current tech; people
are yearning for something they can hold
and understand. Modern tech is slim,
mini… you don’t understand the tech,
it’s not like being powered by steam. By
looking at something from the steam age,
you can get an idea of how it works.”
Margaret: “I can’t groc a computer. I can’t
conceptualize how a computer chip works. But I
can conceptualize a watch, and it’s amazing. We’re
looking at working with our hands as a romantic
thing because we no longer do it regularly.”
The Steampunks I spoke to mention the annoyance and
frustration that comes from not having the ability to, in
essence, study current technology the way one can study
| 63
a hammer. As mentioned in the capstone of one of my
peers, Matt Snyder, it is important to be able to unpack a
design into its parts.
Craft vs. Art vs. …?
Interestingly, the Steampunks I spoke to were very specific
when I asked them what they call what they do, is it craft,
is it art, it is something else? I’ve split their answers into
three subsections to highlight the differences, the italicized
emphasis is mine.
The last column of this table showcases the importance
of previously mentioned topics: community, learning,
sharing, problem-solving, etc. This bit of information is
where I began to hone in on the idea of the user-maker,
which eventually became simply, the maker.
Conceptualizing the Maker
Inspirational source
Many of the Steampunks admitted that the internet
lets them do “anything” and is a “lifesaver” because of
the aforementioned sharing that comes with the maker
methodology. The community sharing of methods,
tools, and inspirational sources influences individual
Steampunks, and vice versa.
It was mentioned that inspiration comes from an
“amalgamation of everything” Steampunks have seen, and
that there is something wonderfully fun about “layering
creativity atop the everyday.” In terms of Steampunk,
the Victorian era, and more specifically, the Industrial
Revolution, Walt emphasized that this era was “all about
how you make things.”
 Craft Art Make
Harriet: “Craft is the Harriet: “Why do you Margaret: “I craft, but I have aspirations
creative process applied always need a reason to say I make. Craft is for yourself.
to something physical, to do something? Some It’s not make until someone else
something useful. I art is just because the sees it. To say you are a maker, you
prefer the term ‘craft.’ artist felt like it.” need to pass on your knowledge in a
It’s more hands-on.” consumable, understandable manner.”

Margaret “Crafting Mary: “By making Walt: “I call what I do making. The
used to have a bad [Steampunk] jewelry, goal is in the time spent, not in the
reputation. Homemade I can wear it around, end product. And then the sharing.”
meant you didn’t have rather than hiding
enough money.” it at home.”

Charlotte: “Craft doesn’t Lucy: “I can’t afford

encompass all that I do.” to make art.”

| 65
We are in the midst of a similar revolution due to
ever-escalating issues with the world economy, an
overabundance of homogenized technology, and a
disconnect with the artifacts in our lives. We as people
want to know where our artifacts come from, and feel
connected to them.
It may not be technology for everyone, as shown by
my peer Charles Page; his artifacts orbit around his
passion for sports, and so he collects and admires sports
paraphernalia. He selects certain jerseys because of specific
players. As the jersey becomes imbued with his passion,
it allows him to feel connected to the player. By wearing
the jersey, it is as if he is one step closer to the player, and
therefore the game.
Similarly, I argue that technological artifacts (i.e. sports
jerseys by my analogy) can be imbued with our individual
passions, allowing us to feel connected to the “game,”
whether that game be connecting with family, friends,
professional peers, etc.
Conceptualizing the Maker
What is Steampunk?
Simply put, Steampunk is “kind of like Mad Max
meets Jane Austen,” as said by Mary. It is a “romantic
interpretation of the Industrial Age,” according to
Margaret, a “futuristic technological interpretation of the
past,” according to Lucy.
If there is anything this section should emphasize, it is, as
Mary explained, that Steampunk as a style isn’t “new, the
name is new.”
Steampunk as a style, community, ethos, etc, “reaches
out to everyone,” according to Edgar, due to its bricoleur
mentality because it’s “really all about what you bring,
your version, what you understand about it.” Louisa
emphasized that Steampunk is a “self-selecting moniker.”
Material knowledge
“Your technique, materials, and style determine
the artifacts you create.” — Mary S.
As mentioned before, Steampunk is a hodgepodge of
creativity, inspiration, and making. The emphasis is on
what a person brings to Steampunk, rather than what
Steampunk can give the person.
“I would like Steampunk’s definition to be a community.
People who feel they don’t quite fit, but there’s an enjoyment
in not fitting, together.”
Therefore, the material knowledge varies from person to
person. Many of the Steampunks I spoke to, however,
discussed using found objects as a preference over bought
objects (Louisa, Mary, and Walt).
Found objects are affordable. There is a freedom to make
something new out of something perhaps completely
unrelated to the end design because the found object
wasn’t financially valuable in the first place. It’s like Walt
said, “I always tell people break it until you make it. Pull
something out of the trash, experiment with it, rip out
parts until you know how to fix it.”
Creativity
“Being in information technology, I help
everyone else make stuff and be productive
and have something tangible.” — Walt W.
Walt W.
Many of the Steampunks spoke of the importance of
creativity during their time while not at their day-jobs.
Walt spoke of how his “real job is boring, I didn’t want to
do it, I fell into it more than anything.” For him, being in
his workshop is “therapy;” he can “work and concentrate
and having something tangible” that he can show to other
people. The fact that he can pick up his artifact and show
it to others who can hold it and physically understand the
work that went into it is key.
Digital artifacts don’t have the same sense of wonder and
experience that a physical artifact has, but that doesn’t
mean we can’t design for this sort of showing off, as it
were, in mind.
Louisa explained “if you only do one thing, you get
bored,” and that is why she dips her hand into multiple
crafts. Mary supported this claim by saying that “play and
| 67
creativity are appealing” to people because it is a way for
people to have fun and express themselves. Further, Mary
said that “beauty expresses the self, while creativity is in
the working.”
The importance of DOING
Everyone but the merchant spoke of the importance of
doing, and doing it yourself. It was mentioned that “going
the easy route,” i.e. buying something premade, or simply
choosing an easier method for creating something, “isn’t
as fun, not as creative.” Lucy said she loved the challenge
of determining her “resources, time, and skill,” because
it isn’t something her occupation requires. Harriet had
the great point that “anyone who is passionate about
something and can’t buy it is going to try to make it.”
This is key to so many things. This is why I went to
graduate school, for instance, because I wasn’t seeing the
human element in my software programming curriculum.
“If I was alone on a desert island, I think I’d be doing something.”
Margaret F.
Conceptualizing the Maker
This is why Chad Camara, one of my peers, designed
a way for World of Warcraft players to strengthen
their community by acknowledging the importance of
screenshots (i.e. photographs) in a digital world.
This is why Emily Allen designed an iPhone application
for the future, where teen diabetics can take a blood
sample and not suffer the social stigma.
This is why Lynn Dombrowski is talking about the
importance of digital memories in the form of photos, and
why digital photos are not merely files and data, but visual
triggers for our personal histories.
Sure, I am speaking of technological artifacts and how
we can empower our users, a.k.a. makers, to at least have
the possibility to appropriate our designs. But when it
comes down to it, this entire thesis is about passion. The
passion to do something, anything. The passion to create a
change. The passion to make a contribution to the world.
Discovery
When I speak of discovery as a topic of discussion, I
mean to say the discovery as Steampunk as a community,
culture, aesthetic. In terms of business, Edgar told me
that there are three definite categories in which merchants
group themselves: modification, building, and assembly.
Due to the proliferation of Steampunk blogs, forums, and
other communities, these merchants are able to advertise
their wares to people who had no idea Steampunk existed.
Margaret admitted that before she realized there was a
Steampunk movement, she “loved gears, airships, and
the movie Castle in the Sky,” so finding Steampunk was
a natural fit for her. Louisa said she became interested in
Steampunk from her anime cosplay, because her friends
were starting to do Steampunk interpretations of their
favorite anime characters.
Lucy found Steampunk through online webcomics such
as Babbage and Lovelace (a hilariously nerdy webcomic,
by the way, and I suggest you check it out), and Broken
Gears. She admitted, however, that because she is new to
the community, she still feels like she is “on the outside
watching in.” When I asked her why she felt that way, it’s
because she hasn’t had the time to “do” anything, to “make
anything” for her cosplay.
So again, it’s the realization that there are others in the
world who are interested in the same sorts of topics and
activities that make Steampunk what it is. Only through
sharing of one’s activities are others able to see it and say,
“wait, I like this stuff too, we should totally be friends.”
| 69
Creative process
The collective creative processes
of my nine Steampunks can be
summarized in the simple flow that
I drew. I encapsulated “bug in my
ear” for Charlotte, “seeing something
interesting” for Margaret, and
“drawing” for Edgar into inspiration.
Research encapsulates looking for
and gathering materials, surfing the
internet, etc.

I especially liked Walt’s creative

process, as it begins when he finds
something that “suggests what it
wants to be,” because he thinks the
“blank page is intimidating.” For
him, he likes to build off existing
Negative use of “punk”
The Steampunks who know of the ‘what if this happened?’” Herman
designs because it gives him a starting
history of the punk ethos, however, seemed to agree, stating that being a
point. Edgar’s process includes the
seem to rebel against the use of punk punk is about being a rebel, and he,
sharing his creative process to “prove”
within the Steampunk community. therefore, was more into the “steam
he isn’t a “poser” pretending to be a
“Punk,” said Harriet,” is about part of it.” To him, being a punk/
“true” Steampunk inventor.
screwing the establishment, not about rebel is bad for his business, and not
Conceptualizing the Maker
an appropriate indicator of his personality or interest,
which I found interesting. After all, Herman spends
a good deal of his money converting his technology’s
physical appearance to seem Victorian. To me, this speaks
of rebelling against the modern understanding of what
is beautiful technology, or simply, what is beautiful and
desirous in the home.
5. Steampunks use familiar materials and
to facilitate their creative projects.
6. Steampunks reference online communities to
faciliatate the use of new tools and materials.
7. Steampunks draw inspiration from
the mundane and beautiful.
8. Steampunks believe in doing
things with their hands.

Summary of Findings 9. Steampunks revel in the fact that there is a

community of persons with which they can
In summary, I feel the important aspects to pull from my reference, admire, and become friends.
interviews are the following:

1. Certain Steampunks belong to the

Maker culture, or aspire to belong.
2. Steampunks miss the days when they had
more control over the objects in their lives.
3. Steampunks are talented, and enjoy
sharing their talents with others.
4. Steampunks like items to be individualized,
and more than that, personalized.

| 71
Case Study: Appropriation in the Wild
The scope of my data included 33 magazine articles
analyzed, 68 blog posts examined, and 12 Deviant Art
artist galleries, 20 Flickr groups, and 11 Etsy merchant
websites viewed. To gain insight from the exemplars
chosen, I followed Fleming’s model of artifact study
because it studies the relationship culture and individuals
have with artifacts, and vice versa. The Fleming framework
for artifact analysis is two-fold: classification and analysis.

The five-point classification consists of the artifact’s 3. Appropriation, Steampunk-style:

properties: history, material, construction, design, and identity by modifying technology
function. The four-point analysis consists of a cultural
understanding: identification, evaluation based on values
of the present culture, cultural analysis using on selected
Bodily Appropriation
aspects of the artifact’s culture, and interpretation. Contrariwise, a blog collecting the photos and stories of
persons who get literary tattoos, has collected, at the time
I looked at Steampunk technological appropriations, but
of writing this paper, sixteen different versions of Kurt
also at unexpected examples of appropriation, organized
Vonnegut’s famous “so it goes.”
into these categories:
The story associated with the tattoo shown above13
1. Bodily appropriation: identity by
explains it was created by the wearer and his friend. The
tattooing the human body
image is a “triangle consisting of rock, scissors, and paper,
2. Appropriation of the everyday: identity
by repurposing everyday artifacts 13 http://www.contrariwise.org/tag/so-it-goes/
Conceptualizing the Maker
representing cycles of success and failure, gain and loss,
power and weakness, etc. Nothing is ever absolute.”
This tattoo, in comparison to other “so it goes” tattoos,
has additional meaning because it was designed between
friends, whereas other tattoos are only the words of
Vonnegut’s prose. That said, the fact that there are so
many renditions of the “so it goes” tattoo speaks to the
cultural significance of Vonnegut’s words in the United
States. Additionally, there is the fact that the two friends
chose the game “rock, paper, scissors” to represent “failure,
loss, gain/loss, and power/weakness.” Two friends designed
the tattoo which references the childhood decision game,
speaking to their steadfast relationship.
The significance of this tattoo is that while the message is
“nothing is ever absolute,” the tattoo itself is, in a manner,
absolute by the nature of its existence. The tattoo is a
reminder that “nothing is ever absolute” is, perhaps, the
one absolute.
Through tattooing, the wearer has appropriated his elbow.
He has done so by adapting the elbow, an innocuous joint,
to himself in a way that not only redefines the elbow,
| 73
 wearer accompanying the photo. However, knowing the
entire prose of the poem reveals, perhaps, that the wearer
is used to being the supportive friend/family member who
also needs a shoulder to cry on every now and then.

The photo does not do a very good job showing where the
tattoo is located, but again, its existence says something
but also relates the elbow to his identity; to his thoughts, about the wearer’s identity, and changes the wearer in a
beliefs, qualities, characteristics, etc, that define him. way relates to his/her identity.

Another Contrariwise find, the literary tattoo shown

above14 is an excerpt from Charles Bukowski’s poem 462-
Appropriation of the Everyday
0614, reading: “When the phone rings / I too would like
to hear words / that might ease / some of this.” Design Sponge, a blog dedicated to “reviews, articles,
features, rant and raves on all things design related,” often
The poem is about the troubling reality Bukowski finds
showcases the creative ways people use everyday artifacts
himself, now published and well-known, when admirers
to reflect their personal style. The image on the next page
phone him asking for his secret. His poem is about his
shows how someone has taken toilet paper rolls to make
readers, who contact him for words of wisdom, and it
wall art for their living room15.
tears him apart, for he too “would like to hear words that
might ease some of this.” This everyday appropriation of the toilet paper roll
showcases how creative persons tend to see art materials in
In comparison to other tattoos, there is no story of the

14 http://www.contrariwise.org/2009/09/28/462-0614/ 15 http://www.designspongeonline.com/2009/11/diy-project-toilet-paper-

roll-wall-art.html
Conceptualizing the Maker
 Through adapting the chair, he redefined it to become
slick, modern, “high society,” reflecting Will’s identity.

Ran Hwang’s work, showcased on page 75, utilizes

everyday materials such as push-pins and buttons to create
massive wall-sized art pieces17. The purpose in using
anything, from the most mundane (toilet paper rolls), to everyday materials, she says, is to use “materials related to
the most sophisticated (computer monitors). the fashion world.”

Why toilet paper rolls? Because they are always in supply,
easy to work with, and allow the do-it-yourselfer to
recycle. By appropriating the toilet paper roll into wall art,
the artist redefines it as an art material. In the process, the
artist creates a piece reflecting the importance of recycling,
which in turn relates the art piece to the artist’s identity.
It is pointillism, but rather than using tiny dots of paint,
Hwang uses buttons and push-pins. She takes innocuous
items and creates impressive works of art that amaze and
17 http://curbly.com/diy-maven/posts/7672-ran-hwang-s-button-and-push-
pin-art

Another Design Sponge find showcases the work of a man

with an old library chair16 he bought for $15 (right).

By applying paint, stenciling, and wooden veneer, he used

his do-it-yourself skills to update the chair and reflect his
personal style. What might have been considered an old
chair to throw away, or a chair to leave as a finished piece,
the artist, Will, used the chair as unfinished material.

16 http://www.designspongeonline.com/2009/12/before-after-wills-chair-

autumns-office.html
| 75
Conceptualizing the Maker
inspire, causing the viewer to rethink their relationship
with similar items.
The most important thing in terms of these everyday
appropriations is, again, the act of creation, of creativity.
Of adapting materials that would not normally be
considered fodder for creative projects in order to reflect
the creative/do-it-yourself identity and potentially
influence future projects.
Appropriation, Steampunk-style
And now, we come to the exemplars that really inspired
the direction of this capstone project: Steampunk! As
mentioned before, Steampunk has a very specific aesthetic
of brass and wood, with a sort of addiction to cog
wheels, gears, screws, and clocks. The exemplars in this
section include everything from jewelry to keyboards, all
following that same aesthetic and imagination of “the path
not taken” (Gross, C).
The materials used in the Steampunk style of
appropriation are pleasing and seem classic precisely
because they are “perceived to improve rather than
deteriorate with age” because they are natural materials
(Odom). Rather than the chrome of modern computing,
Steampunk harkens back to brass and cherry wood, which
encourages a “more enduring human-artifact relationship
and potentially slow our disposal of digital things”
because it “improves a product’s appearance in ways that
communicate its age and usage in dignified ways, which
its owner(s) may take pride in” (Odom).
Pictured on page 78 is a bracelet created by the Etsy
merchant 19 Moons. It was listed in the “handmade”
section of the online marketplace, with the following
description (emphasis mine):
“Constructed entirely of vintage elements, this is
an authentic time capsule and eco-friendly, too.
A partial 1940s-era Ruby jeweled watch
movement is collaged with genuine WWII
winged paratrooper balloon emblem and
clock/watch gears. This in turn is set onto
a vintage clock like brass wheel, telling of
frozen times past, or distant future.
All are mounted on a vintage brass cuff
bracelet of Art Nouveau style. The patina
on the clock dial and movement attest to
| 77

true age, beautifully ravaged by time. This
unique piece would not be out of place in
the world of Dr. Who or HG Wells.”
As mentioned by the merchant, this is a cuff bracelet made
in the Steampunk visual aesthetic. It is “eco-friendly” in
its reuse of “vintage” i.e. 1940s-era clock watch parts,
reflecting the growing sustainability movement within
Steampunk (Sterling). The description reveals the pride
that goes into the making of this bracelet, supporting
Conceptualizing the Maker
Bulloff ’s interview where a Steampunk explained
(emphasis mine),
“I feel as though the heart of Steampunk lies
in its ability to grasp at what works in a set
of moral and societal values and bring them
to the forefront. For example, the DIY culture
of anti-mass production is truly inspiring. I
love holding something in my hands that I
know a lot of time and thought went into.”
This, additionally, supports my suspicion that “physical
touch matters” more than many human-computer
interaction designers think (Norman). If designers want
to create artifacts that encourage appropriation, and
therefore empower their users to find themselves in the
appropriated object, there needs to be more than one level
of interaction, i.e. sight, touch, weight, etc. As mentioned
by Ratt (emphasis mine), “it is the physical nature of
Steampunk that attracted us to it in the first place,
however we first heard of it. We love machines that we
can see, feel, and hear. We are amazed by artifacts but are
unimpressed by ‘high technology.’”
One might argue that the Steampunk style of
appropriation is nothing more than customization. It
is a surface change to meet the
requirements of a specific user,
who just so happens to belong to a
community where many individuals
prefer that same set of requirements.
Perhaps this is true.
However, customization doesn’t
necessarily have the same meaning,
or deep level of meaning, the way I
imply appropriation does, because
appropriation, the way I have defined
it, insists that it is the act of adapting
the object to oneself in a way that
redefines the object and relates it to
one’s sense of self.
While the Steampunk appropriation
is, perhaps, a very specific style of
customization, it is still appropriation
due to the fact it is changing the
interaction with the technological
object. The USB drive on this page,
for instance, will elicit a different
sort of interaction that the typical
USB drive. In this way, the device
has been appropriated,
because its use has been
changed in a way the
original designer never
could have imagined.
This USB device was
created by Will Rockwell, an Etsy metal that tends to age well. It
merchant.18 As he describes it, the is handcrafted, first, because the
drive is a “4 GB flash memory,” and creator said as much in the original
while it “looks like something that description. Second, one can guess it
came out of Captain Nemo’s vest was handmade because it is imperfect,
pocket, I assure you this drive has not and rejoices in its imperfections.
been underwater. This is a one-of-a-
kind art object, hand made of brass One cannot argue “handmade
and copper.” artifacts” do not take a “significant”
amount of “time and skill to
It uses brass rather than silver or create” (Rosner). In fact, I believe
chrome, precisely because it is a it is because the handcrafted object
“physically embodies the skill and
18 http://www.etsy.com/listing/29791237/
steampunk-pocket-memory-usb-4gb-flash
| 79
time involved in its production” that such Steampunk-
appropriated items are popular.

I sincerely believe handcrafted artifacts are “charged” with

the “history, narratives, and memories of their creators
as well as the people with whom they interact,” and that
this encourages appropriation (Rosner). The ability to
interpret an object, where the interpretation comes from
one’s life-world and therefore is highly personal, enables
appropriation where the object is redefined in a way that
reflects one’s identity.

What is the USB drive saying about its creator? It says to

me that the owner/creator wants to ensure that he takes
careful care of the drive. Additionally, it implies that
the creator wants to ensure that he does not replace this
drive soon. The fact that he put time into customizing a
case, appropriating the aesthetics so that it changed his
behavior to what one might argue is a disposable storage
unit, suggests as much.
Pictured in this spread is an “all-in-one Victorian personal
computer,”19 assembled by the Steampunk inventor
Jake von Slatt (a pseudonym). He housed the computer
components and monitor in a wooden box made to seem
like a stage, as the 4:3 widescreen ratio is a remediation of
the Victorian stage.
The top and bottom of the housing are junkyard pieces
which Slatt painted to suit his style, which is ornate and
meticulous. The stage motif continues with side curtains
made of black fabric with gold floral detailing. The

19 http://steampunkworkshop.com/victorian-all-one-pc

Conceptualizing the Maker

| 81
side supports are soldered brass, a
popular alloy used in Steampunk
appropriations for its ability to age
well. The base is knick-knack shelving
found at the local dump, reflecting
Slatt’s interest in sustainability and
up-cycling.
Conceptualizing the Maker
Pictured is the appropriation of
the 1980s Nintendo Gameboy
system, made for Deviant Artist
ViperSneeker’s Steampunk costume20.
She painted the casing gold, relabeled
20 http://vipersneeker.deviantart.com/art/
Steampunk-Gameboy-110513331
the system by hand painting a
gothic font to resemble Victorian
typography, and assembled gears,
washers, and a little fan to simulate
the clockwork machinery of the
Victorian era.
According to the Deviant page, the system still works,
revealing the care and delicacy ViperSneeker took to
appropriate it. That she appropriated a 20-year-old
gaming system reflects her affection, and identification,
with it—even when using a Steampunk costume persona.

A similar appropriation is shown in top right, where

Deviant Artist Arph appropriated a Nerf Maverick toy
gun21. Inset is an image of the original toy. The attention
to detail is indicative of Arph’s artistic identity.

He used a Dremel tool to inscribe the flourishes into side,

and took the time to paint and stain each chamber of the
revolver cylinder. He reveals his historical knowledge of
guns by simulating leather detailing on the handle, and
representing a flint cock at the top of the gun.

Bottom right is a fully-encased CD player by Deviant

Artist Zuntaras22. The interaction in using the player has
become intimate because it requires the user to manipulate
it by hand, which suggests Zuntaras’ relationship with
music. By winding the hand crank on the right, Zuntaras
has an active role in turning on the player.

21 http://arph.deviantart.com/art/Dame-a-Sin-135071974

22 http://zuntaras.deviantart.com/art/Steampunk-CD-player-3-78537715
| 83
The water spigot and associated gauge control and report
the volume level, respectively. There are three horns which
rotate at their base to direct the stereo sound. To switch
CD tracks, Zuntaras must lift the lid of the cabinet and
flip an iron lever.

Computer Keyboards

Because I’m looking at the role personal identity plays working in his lab can help change the world by having
in appropriation, and vice versa, I will now do a case mastery over his machines.”
study of a particular subset of Steampunk appropriations,
Von Slatt is, as Charlotte from my interviews would say,
keyboards. I begin my keyboard artifact analysis by
is a maker. A maker, according to Charlotte, is more than
looking at the Steampunk inventor/artist who seems to
a crafter because of their willingness to be open with their
inspire almost everyone else, Jake von Slatt. A little bit of
process; to teach, to encourage feedback and discussion.
background, first.

It would be one thing for von Slatt to make his beautiful

“Meet Mr. Steampunk”
According to an article in Wired, von Slatt (a pseudonym)
is an “IT professional, managing Beowulf clusters for a
small research firm outside of Boston.” Von Slatt describes
himself as a “Steampunk mechanical hacker” who believes
the “do-it-yourself and Steampunk movements are driven
by the same obsession: the idea that a single mad engineer
Conceptualizing the Maker
inventions and keep them to himself and his family. It’s
an entirely different thing now that he’s put them online,
documented his process so others can replicate it and alter
it to suit their personal style.
According to von Slatt, he went into this modification
knowing he wanted to build a functioning keyboard that
was nice enough quality to use every day.
Identification
According to the write-up, this keyboard is made of the
original IBM Model M “Clicky” keyboard base, brass
plating, keyboard keys, brass-rimmed buttons, photo
paper to cover the buttons, felt, translucent acetate, G.E.
Silicon II Window and Door Sealant, gaffer’s tape, clear
lacquer, and black spray paint.
Evaluation
It’s fairly obvious to anyone looking at this keyboard
modification that not only is von Slatt a tinkerer, he
knows what he is doing. Not only does he know what he
is doing, but he is able to describe and explain what he is
doing so others can replicate his process.
For example, the reason why he chose the Model M
keyboard was because it has “removable key caps and the
under-cap has a flat surface ideal for affixing a new key
top.” What can we learn from this as designers? Perhaps
that it is okay if we make artifacts that our users can pull
apart without ruining the functionality? It should be
noted that even though the key caps were removable with
a screwdriver, von Slatt took care to do it properly.
After removing the keys, von Slatt cut off the “skirt” that
surrounds the key post by using a dremmel tool, and
sanded the edges so that the key post is flat enough for
a keyboard keys to be glued to it. It is this level of detail
that we can expect from von Slatt. He used gaffer’s tape to
deaden the sound of the keys clattering against the plastic,
and lined the top of the keyboard with black felt to cover
the beige plastic of the keyboard bed, I assume.
The base of the keyboard is made of brass plate, which,
while being the favorite of Steampunks, seems to be a
metal that von Slatt has liked for years, as said in his
Wired Science interview. As with other Steampunks, von
Slatt seems to have been interested in such metals and
aesthetics before there was such a term as Steampunk.
Contrary to the true Victorian aesthetic, which we tend
to see as an egregious amount of decoration, von Slatt
wanted the design of the keyboard to be “simple and
clean.” The resulting design actually takes up less space
than the original model.
The key faces are a mixture of typewriter keys and print-
outs for the function keys. As the typewriter didn’t have
| 85
the corresponding mappings for our function keys (1 –
12), von Slatt typed roman numerals on photo paper and
glued them to brass-edged buttons he found. The extra
spaces from the larger keys (enter, backspace, caps lock,
etc) were covered with the left-over holes from the felt.

Cultural Analysis
Everyone, and I mean everyone, in the Steampunk
community knows about Jake von Slatt. What he does,
and what he shows on his website, is gospel, as it were.
What, for him, are fun experiments to be shared with
others have become inspirational sources for those who and a knowledge of how to take
never knew they could have keyboards and LCD monitors it apart without destroying the
that fit their preferred style. He is using the typical actual functionality. There is also the fact that, being
materials of brass and typewriter keys, yet, also throwing an IT manager of Beowolf clusters, the keyboard is his
in felt, LEDs, other pieces of equipment and technology livelihood. He no doubt works at a keyboard every day,
that he knew how to work and manage, made a keyboard and why shouldn’t a professional of his caliber have a nice
completely suited to his purposes and personality. instrument with which to work?

Interpretation The Wooden Instructable

First, why choose a keyboard to modify? Von Slatt had Now this is an interesting keyboard modification above…
the keyboard, I assume, since 1989 based on the fact it’s entirely made of wood, with handmade brass keys! The
that he also knew the exact model of machine that came creator stated briefly on the Instructable page that he was
with the keyboard. There was history with the keyboard, “tired of the ever present brass frame.”

Conceptualizing the Maker

What other material was prevalent in Victorian designs,
and subsequently Steampunk? Wood, of course.
I haven’t been able to find a lot about this creator,
username Phirzcol on Instructables. Phirzcol’s profile on
Instructables states this is his only instructable since he
joined the website in 2007. He doesn’t have a personal
website, but plans on having one soon. Phirzcol’s interests
include “electronics, internet, hardware hacking, diy,
science and fantasy fiction, steampunk, and anything you
can make at home with few tools.”
This is my assumption (a fairly safe one, at that) based on
the fact that Phirzcol has been a member of Instructables
since 2007 and lists DIY and hacking as interests: Phirzcol
belongs to the DIY, user-creator arm of Steampunk that I
find so intriguing. Let’s analyze the keyboard with this bit
of information about the creator, shall we?
Identification
This is a superficial modification of a computer keyboard,
that is, the modification changes the look and feel of the
keyboard, but not the function. The style of modification
is declared to be Steampunk by the creator, though, to
me, it simply seems more organic, perhaps because of the
wooden frame, and lack of any indications that it could,
potentially, be steam-powered.
The keyboard is made from an old-styled mechanical
keyboard; one of the commenters suggested a keyboard
from 1995 or earlier. The 1/16th inch thick hardwood
was steamed for softening, and then glued to the original
plastic frame with a quick dry glue. The steaming was
done in order to mold the wood to the plastic. The keys
were handmade from brass tubes, metal tube cutter,
printed numbers and letters, cyanoacrylate for the glue,
and a polymer resin.
Evaluation
This guy knows what he is doing, and is able to give
instructions for people to replicate his work. Phirzcol
not only made an entire set of keys by hand by cutting
brass tubes to the correct height, printing out numbers
and letters, capping off one end of the brass tube with a
wooden circle and then filling the tube with a resin. He
bent wood by steaming it, applying a glue, and fitting it to
the original keyboard frame. He then drilled the key holes
from the back, using the plastic frame as a guide. This is
not, perhaps, the most beautiful Steampunk keyboard, but
a lot of time and ingenuity went into its inception.
| 87
Phirzcol knew what others were doing for their
modifications, and decided to do things differently. Is this
because he knew a different way to get the same effect? Is
it because he didn’t have the same materials or resources
as other modders? Is it because he likes to be different,
and do things in a unique way? I feel it’s probably a
combination of all three.
Cultural Analysis
Though this was posted in 2007, it seems those who
commented on this instructable were familiar enough with
Steampunk keyboard modifications that they asked why
Phirzcol didn’t use existing keys from a typewriter, rather
than making his own.
While commenters expressed their admiration for his
dedication, they seemed confused. Why create an entirely
new key, if typewriters exist and can be put to use? Why
put so much time into that particular part of the project?
Why not add wooden detailing, or add little mechanical
flags that pop up and down depending on the different
special function keys chosen (caps lock, num lock, etc).
Phirzcol’s answer to many of these questions is simply,
“just personal artistic preference.” I interpret this as,
Conceptualizing the Maker
“That’s a pretty good idea. You do that for your project. I
like mine.”
Interpretation
Once again the ability to pull the original artifact apart
without destroying its function is the first step to the
personalized appropriation. If we are to empower our
user-makers with our designs, therefore, I feel we need
to design for dis-assembly in some form or fashion. One
part of appropriation, at least in the manner I’m studying,
requires a feeling of “I can try this, and I won’t break it,”
or, “I can try this, and maybe I’ll break it, but I probably
won’t. Let’s find out…”
The Remington
On the next page is the “Remington keyboard,” created
by Quentin, a maker in Paris, France. According to the
blog writeup at Of Small Wonders and Great Wanders,
Quentin has been interested in the Victorian era for quite
some time. He mentions Houdini, Tesla, Art Nouveau,
etc, calling the era “rich,” “creative,” “dynamic,” etc.
As with other Steampunks, Quentin was intrigued by the
idea of “the future that never was,” and “retro-futurism.”
It wasn’t until he began looking online, however, that he

discovered the term Steampunk and the varied associations
with it. I’d like to use Quentin’s words to show how he
responded to Jake von Slatt’s keyboard; emphasis mine:
That’s how I discovered Mr. Von Slatt’s
creations and especially his “steampunk
keyboard“, a brilliant idea with great appeal
to the geek living inside of me (I hear him
sometimes at night, screaming insults to me in
php language… it’s hard you know). Inspired
by his work I decided to try it, but of course
without copying his original (first because I
don’t have any workshop and any of Von Slatt’s
tools, second because imitation is pointless, you
always have to, at least, add your own touch!).
This is a pervading attitude within the DIY community,
and DIY arm of Steampunk. It’s not enough to try to
replicate what someone has done previously, whether
it is because you don’t have the same tools, materials,
knowledge, etc.
The fact is that no matter how you try to replicate what
someone else does, it will never be an exact replica because
you are not that person. You are you, and therefore, you
will do things differently. You will flourish your paint
brush with a different flick of the wrist, etc.
Identification
This is a keyboard that belongs to a Remington typewriter.
It has been modified with leather, brass buttons, brass
tubing, other metal embellishments, and what looks like
gold paint beneath the leather.
Evaluation
According to the writeup, this is the first time Quentin
has attempted such a modification. Quentin must have
had some experience working with leather previously,
because it is known to be a difficult material to work with
due to its inflexibility and general unwieldy nature. The
brass and metal embellishments are a nod to the Victorian
aesthetic as admired through Tesla, Houdini, etc.
| 89
The name of the keyboard has more than one meaning,
especially to those with some historical interest. True, as
Quentin mentioned, the keyboard is a Remington brand.
However, there is also the Remington arms company, a
separate entity, as well as the company which produced
both Remington guns and typewriters. I suspect the style
of the keyboard modification is a nod to the historical
context of the keyboard itself.
Cultural Analysis
This is a perfect example of how Steampunks inspire
one another. Here we have Quentin, a blogger who was
so inspired by von Slatt’s work, and so empowered and
emboldened by von Slatt’s explanation of how he did his
modification, that Quentin thought, “Hey, he did it, I can
too.” Yet, Quentin didn’t have the same tools or materials
as von Slatt for the modification, which didn’t deter him,
I suspect, because he was confident in his ability to adapt
von Slatt’s detailed instructions.
There are multiple comments on the Of Small Wonders
and Great Wanders blog entry describing the keyboard
modification. Most are encouraging, though there is one
Conceptualizing the Maker
where the anonymous commenter stated the modification
didn’t look very good. Responses included:
• Isorobot: “Great job! looks more rustic than Von
Slatt’s. More of a laboratory or field use model than
the parlor room models!”
• Datamancer: “It’s a great mod, especially for a first
project.”
• Zupakomputer: “It looks great, don’t listen to that
insulter – I doubt they typed their ‘comment’ out on
anything other than a standard keyboard.”
• Anonymous: “Excellent work, especially for a first
project, as for the first Anonymous – the maker of
the Remington stated he wasn’t copying any other
keyboard, comparing it is not fair.”
• David: “Hey good job, I think it’s great that you
came up with your own design. I’m not as talented,
but I can copy so, I’m working on recreating Von
Slatt’s design myself. It takes quite a bit of time!!”
Interpretation
It seems the community aspect of the DIY arm of
Steampunk is integral to the creation of such artifacts,
especially similar modifications like keyboards. Not only
do individuals inspire one another, but the modification
of one will color the modification of another.

For example, Quentin’s modification looked like a “field-

use model” rather than the more typical “parlor room”
models one usually sees with Steampunk keyboard
modifications. Did this inspire other styles?

The explicit explanations from von Slatt’s modification
empowered and enabled Quentin to do his modification.
What can we learn from this as designers? Perhaps if we
provide the rationale behind our designs, it will allow our
more advanced makers to interpret, adapt, and/or alter the
design to their particular style.
When these advanced makers explain what they did and
why they did it on their blogs, intermediate and beginner
makers will feel inspired and enabled to do something
similar, but at their level. At least, it’s a theory I have,
based on what I’m seeing from the emerging communal
relationships between Steampunk keyboard makers.
The Wooden European
Here we have another wooden Steampunk modification
of a keyboard, this one from Marcus in Germany. I can’t
seem to find much information about this modder. I know
he’s a reader of Jake von Slatt’s Steampunk Workshop
website because that’s where I found this modification,
and that he had made a comment about a different
method for creating typewriter-style keys for the keyboard.
I take this to mean Marcus is a problem-solver, as are
most user-makers, and that he is worried about cost. As
he said on Steampunk Workshop, there are only “so many
typewriters in the world,” and not many are available on
eBay in Europe.

| 91
Identification
This modification is made using “fancy brass fasteners”
with the gems taken out for the key frames, paper,
polycarbonate sheet to protect the key printouts,
cardboard, an 80-yr-old wooden picture frame, three
analog displays for the status lights, a brown shoelace to
cover the power cord, and fabric.
Evaluation
This is one of the few keyboards that I’ve seen where
Marcus really focused on the analog metaphor. It wasn’t
enough to convert the keys to a typewriter style, even
the status lights had to be converted to analog gauges to
indicate on/off. This keyboard is a representation of the
maker’s dedication. For example, the method for creating
the keyboard keys is as follows:
1. Remove the key
2. Cut off the key skirt in the manner
described by Von Slatt
3. Remove gems from brass fasteners
4. Print new key labels
5. Paste new labels to cardboard backing
6. Cover new labels with polycarbonate sheet
Conceptualizing the Maker
7. Place label inside the brass fasteners
8. Insert brass fastener inside keyboard key leg
9. Replace key leg into keyboard frame
And this was the process for every key on the keyboard!
That’s dedication, as far as I’m concerned. From the
pictures I’ve seen, some keys look a little more neatly done
than others, which makes me wonder whether Marcus got
tired of the process. Too much repetition can equate to
boredom, I’ve found in my interview analysis.
It seemed important to Marcus to represent the implied
age of the keyboard modification. Rather than using
wooden molding and making it look old, he found old
furniture spare parts and fitted them together to encase
the keyboard frame.
I’m unsure why this particular fabric was used, as to my
eye, it doesn’t necessarily go with the analog gauges and
wooden frame. I would have gone with a deep velvet,
perhaps, or some other material that would more closely
complement the dark stain of the wooden frame. I think
it’s the hue of the green that gets me, but then, I’m very
picky about colors.
Cultural Analysis
I originally found this on Jake von Slatt’s Steampunk say that without the internet Steampunk wouldn’t exist,
Workshop, as it seems von Slatt is the go-to man for such because people involved with Steampunk have always been
modifications, or at least for sharing modifications. I interested in these topics… now they have a singular term
suspect this is because von Slatt shares his process and is to describe their varied interests.
very open and welcoming to other ideas and processes,
especially when compared to Datamancer, another well- Interpretation
known technology modder. What is the meaning behind this modification? Well,
it’s hard to say without speaking to Marcus so I’d like to
This isn’t to say that Datamancer isn’t open and
reference something from my interview with Walt which
welcoming at all, but this is simply to say that von Slatt
relates, I think. Walt mentioned that so much of how we
encourages discussion by posting to a blog, whereas
interact with the outside world, family, friends, etc, is
Datamancer has only recently created a blog and instead
through technology (our computers). As such, shouldn’t
posts to static HTML pages.
the metaphorical importance of our technology physically
look its importance?
Additionally, von Slatt doesn’t provide “DIY keyboard
kits,” and Datamancer does.
Walt said that it’s “sad” to see this “beige lump of plastic
and metal” whose ugliness doesn’t properly represent their
That said, Marcus has posted his process to a German
feelings about it, that being their connection to family,
forum named OffRoad Cult, and seemed very open to
friends, and culture.
answering questions about his process. He posted pictures
as he went along so others could follow and perhaps
With this in mind, I’m beginning to see that particular
determine where they would differ.
opinion in these modifications. People want their
computers and technology to physically represent the
The existence of the internet and its community is a huge
emotional or psychological importance. Not only that,
contributing factor to Steampunk’s existence. This isn’t to
| 93
but they want their technology to better represent their Constraints are good, right? We need to embrace
identity, how they interact with the technology, etc. constraints? So let’s embrace cost and disassembly. It
might be a step in the right direction, it might not. We
I find it fascinating that people are making these won’t know until we try.
modifications. Why keyboards, I wonder? Perhaps because
it’s easier to modify a keyboard in comparison to a
monitor or laptop keyboard. There are pieces to pull apart
Summary of Findings
and scrutinize.
There are six main ideas I have pulled from the artifact
There are tons of functioning keyboards in the dump analysis that go into conceptualizing the maker:
or Goodwill or in our basements to pull apart and
experiment with, without fear of ruining the keyboard 1. Affordability
we are currently using with our machines. As mentioned 2. Experimentation
by my interview subjects, people are more likely to
3. Learning
experiment with materials that don’t cost an arm and a leg.
4. Modification
So what can we, as designers, learn from this? Again, I like 5. Suggestion
the idea of designing for disassembly. Design something
6. Transparency
that can be taken apart in some fashion without destroying
the functionality or meaning.

If we’re attempting to empower our user-makers to make

personally identifiable appropriations, and making designs
that our user-makers can use, interpret, alter, adapt, and
explore, somehow we need to bring down the cost, as well.

Conceptualizing the Maker


Can we design for affordability?
In terms of affordability, it seems if the original artifact
does not cost a lot of money, people feel freed to use them
as creative resources. Examples of this include the toilet
paper rolls, push pins, buttons, and chair in the everyday
appropriation section, as well as the 1980s computer
keyboards in the Steampunk appropriation section.
Affordability is important because it ensures there isn’t a
lot of initial investment to keep the designed artifact as-is.
The user’s investment into the artifact occurs with the
time and energy spent by using the artifact as a creative
resource when making it into something else, something
more personal to the user.
Can we design for experimentation?
Experimentation is important because it acknowledges the
importance of success and failure. Steampunks spend a
great deal of time using the trial-and-error methodology.
Trial-and-error is used because it is fun, challenging, and
oftentimes the only method available to accomplish the
desired style. If we want to empower our users to become
makers, we need to give them an “in” to our designed
artifacts so they can try different methods without
outright breaking the artifact.
Can we design for learning?
Experimentation cannot happen without the by-product
of learning. Through failure we learn from our mistakes
and improve for the next time around. That said, is it
possible for us as designers to create artifacts that facilitate
this relationship?
Can we design for modification?
This is not to say that we ought to make modification
easier, as that takes away some of the pride that goes into
an unexpected modification such as Steampunk. However,
artifacts like Apple products are designed to discourage
modification at the very least.
I’d like to reference the Maker Manifesto from Make
Magazine, where it begins with the simple line, “If you
can’t open it, you don’t own it.”23 There is nothing to say
that even if we don’t make modification easy we can’t make
it possible.
23  http://makezine.com/04/ownyourown/
| 95
Can we design for suggestion?
As mentioned by Walt, sometimes he will see an artifact
in the trash bin and it will suggest that it wants to be
something else. I don’t know how much we can design
ahead of time to encourage such thoughts, as it really
depends on the maker involved with the artifact.
By using familiar, organic shapes and metaphors in our
technological designs, however, we may at least provide
the basis for our user’s imagination.
Can we design for transparency?
Sometimes all I have to do is look at an artifact and I
understand how it works. This seems to be happening less
frequently the more I surround myself with technological
artifacts, and it disturbs me.
There needs to be more transparency when it comes to
technological artifacts, whether hardware or software.
I shouldn’t have to click through menus if I want to
personalize/customize the features and appearance of my
computer, for instance. The Windows 7 operating system
finally realized the benefit of making the preferences menu
easily accessible: one right click on the desktop and I can
customize to my heart’s content. Now admittedly, I would
still need to know to right click to get to the preferences.
This is preferable over the former click path: Start »
Control Panel » Personlization » ... Have I lost you yet?

When I look at a painting, I see the brush strokes and

understand how it came together. I may not be able to
replicate the process to the exact same artifact, but I can
put my brush to canvas and try. When I see a ceramic
sculpture, I can imagine the sculptor’s hands smoothing
the clay with a tool; I may not have the materials and tools
to do it myself, but I get the gist of it.

Conceptualizing the Maker

 4 Theorizing the Maker

Conceptualizing the Maker

 In popular culture, designers are often seen as no different
“Designers are seen as from artists. The assumption is that we see ourselves as
creative people, often the creative genius, the keepers of design thinking, as my
peers Matt Snyder, Chad Camara, and Burr Walker might
indistinguishable say. But we know this is not true for a growing number
from artists.” of designers who recognize and encourage the value of
working in teams.
Gross 2007
We designers use the methods, tools, and philosophies
available to us in order to navigate a murky design space.
In navigating this design space, we utilize a design process
to create an artifact.

We struggle, doing our best to design for clients and users

who we may or may not meet. Sometimes we have clients
who know exactly what they want and we still don’t get
it right. Sometimes we have users who have no idea what
they want, and they expect us to figure it out. To have
perfect designs, we need perfect users.

As we will never have perfect users because there are no

perfect people, we will never have perfect designs. Despite
how dour this sounds, having an imperfect design can be a
really good thing, especially if our goal is to empower our
users to recognize they are makers/lay-designers in their
own right. So what do we do?
Conceptualizing the Maker
I’d like to argue that we empower makers to take ownership
of our designs. Makers, like designers, recognize that an
as-is design is good enough for the masses, but not good
enough for the individual.
As shown in the artifact study, makers see technological
artifacts as “creative resources” (Wakkary). By utilizing
their existing knowledge to interpret, alter, adapt, and
explore, makers are able to appropriate an artifact.
How do we augment the maker’s existing knowledge?
It might help if we provide the materials used in our
designed artifact, for, as Gross said, “knowledge of
materials is fundamental to making.” We need to create
artifacts that encourage the “unpacking” of their “parts or
functions” (Carroll).
How do we encourage makers to take that first scary
step to alter the artifact? They need to feel as if they can
interpret the artifact, emotionally or through beliefs
(Janlert and Stolterman). We need to create artifacts
made of materials that improve rather than deteriorate
with age (Beuchley). We need to “create spaces for play”
(Galloway).
Supporting the Maker
With all of this in mind I am sure you are wondering,
“this is fine, but how am I expected to do such things?” I
recognize that I am suggesting a radical idea to consider
the user not simply as a consumer of our designs and
to instead consider them a designer-after-the-design, as
it were. By doing so, I am“fundamentally challenging
conceptions of design as a profession and of what it means
to be a designer” (Albinson).
Never fear, your position as a designer isn’t challenged the
way you may think it is, and in order to convince you of
that, turn your attention to participatory design.
Participatory design gained steam—like that pun?—during
the 1980s as an “ethical motive for user participation,”
because “people have a moral right to influence their own
destiny, and users have a right to influence technological
decisions affecting their private and professional life”
(Bergvall-Kåreborn). To do this, users were brought to
“participate in the design process,” and “given influence”
so that the “focus” of participatory design is to “strengthen
the position of the users” (Bergvall-Kåreborn).
By strengthening the role of the user, some designers have
| 99
“We need to realize that people are intelligent, creative, and
productive contributors to communities, organizations, and
society if they are equipped with the right tools.”

Bergvall-Kåreborn 2008

questions what their role becomes. The fact of the matter

is that designers are still needed in the world, and that the
bringing in of users to the design process helps designers.
Let’s face it, users and designers do not and cannot share
“life worlds or world views” due to their knowledge and
experiences (Bergvall-Kåreborn).

Therefore, designers and users are “limited in the extent

to which they are capable of understanding each others’
experiences” (Bergvall-Kåreborn). I argue that we don’t
need to understand each others’ experiences as much as
we need to recognize that we cannot design for every
situation. Rather, by providing openings to the user, we
encourage them to continue our design so that it works
for their particular need. What I am speaking of is design-
after-design (Ehn).

Conceptualizing the Maker

Discussion and Contribution This shouldn’t be frightening but exciting as it encourages
us to ask the questions as listed by Ehn:

“How is design and use related? Who to

Because participatory design lacks an “in-depth analysis
of current work practices,” designers have adopted
ethnographic methodologies to cover the resulting blind
spots (Davies). This is wonderful work that we should
continue to do, I feel.
However, we should not feel as though we’ve failed if our
design fails to do everything we hoped even after all of our
ethnographic research and participatory design sessions.
Designers “work in variation” and have no “influence on
the adoption and appropriation of artifacts” (Bredies).
design for and with? Where, when and with
what means? How does a design project
and design processes align human and non-
human resources to move the object of
design forward, to support the emergence,
translation and performance of this object?”
The contribution of this work is to encourage designers
to take full advantage of the creativity of our users and
encourage them to be makers. To do so, we need to alter
our design thinking. Design-after-design occurs whether
we recognize it or not. If we do recognize its existence, I
feel an entire world of possibilities open.

“Once a professionally designed artifact is

released into society, designers have no influence
on how their work will be socially adopted.”
Bredies 2008

| 101
Reflections

I’m not even sure where to begin in terms of personal
reflections for this project. I began thinking I would
design something for nurses, and wanted a case study for
appropriation of technology… which somehow led me to
this radical idea that users are not users, but are, in fact,
makers who we as designers should respect. Funny how
things work out.
This project helped me find myself, after having been lost
for so long I didn’t even know I was lost in the first place.
I am a maker and a bricoleur. I am a Steampunk, and an
interaction designer. I am a researcher, and a student. I
am a scientist, and an artist. I’m a jack of all trades and a
master of some and this project made it explicit to me that
the world is my creative resource.

This project opened my eyes to the world of passionate For that, I am grateful.
research, something I’ve always had an interest in, but
never real guidance.

This project occurred during a very difficult time in my

life where I was struggling with health and personal issues,
and it was my refuge. Because of this project, I was able to
explore the Steampunk space through my ceramics class,
of all things.

Conceptualizing the Maker

Acknowledgments

DR SHAOWEN BARDZELL – I thought I was a bit crazy To my instructors and faculty

to follow this idea about Steampunk, but you assured
me that the topic was valid and had a place in Human
Computer Interaction Design. You have supported and
pushed me, challenged my thinking, and helped me find
my place in this world.
It doesn’t matter whether I discussed this project with
you explicitly, simply learning from you and having
discussions outside of class informed my thinking in ways
I can’t articulate.

Thank you for advising me through this thick design Dr Jeffrey Bardzell, Dr Eli Blevis, Christyl Boger, Annie
space. Thank you for being a kindred spirit. Campbell, Dr Martin Siegel, Dr Erik Stolterman, and
Samrat Upadhyay.
LYNN DOMBROWSKI – You taught me I am a spatial
learner, so that’s pretty cool. Let’s face it, I wouldn’t have
gotten through graduate school without you. You’ve
pushed and consoled me. You kept me laughing.

You’ve been my best friend, my best critic, and my best

roommate. Thank you. P.S. That’s what she said.

| 103
To my classmates
Thank you for participating in design sessions with me,
at all hours of the day and night. Without your help
and willingness to listen to my rambling mind dumps, I
wouldn’t have made it this far. It’s because of you that I
sound like I have anything worth saying. Thank you for
being my design guinea pigs.
Casey Addy, Thomas Baker, Robert Begley, Rachel Bolton,
Chad Camara, Jessica Falkenthal, Cheng Fan, Ammar
Halabi, Nathaniel Husted, Gopinaath Kannabiran,
Robert Kariuki, Bobak Kechavarzi, Lorelei Kelly, Vidya
Palaniswamy, Dane Petersen, Ben Serrette, Matt Snyder,
Jennifer Terrel, and David Warren.
Conceptualizing the Maker
To the Steampunks
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me and allow
me to use your experiences and artifacts to inform my
theory and provide its supporting legs.
Jean Campbell, Kimberly King, Liz Lutgendorff, Joey
Marsocci, Lindsey Robbins, Bruce Rosenbaum, Sean
Slattery, and Ann Uland.
And thank you to the unnamed Steampunks whose
openness, passion, and creativity inspired this project in
the first place.
I didn’t know it when I began this project, but it turns
out, I’m one of you. Thank you for helping me see that.
| 105
Conceptualizing the Maker
Biography

Binaebi Akah was the Art-English-History student in high

school. She went into Computer Science and Engineering
for her Bachelors of Science degree at The Ohio State
University, a paradigm shift her parents never understood.
Akah also pursued an English minor, covering poetry,
folklore, American Literature, business communication,
and technical writing.

Another paradigm shift occurred when Akah went into

Human Computer Interaction Design for her Masters of
Science at Indiana University. She pushed the boundaries
of her curriculum by taking Fiction Writing and Advanced
Ceramics for her electives.

These courses solidified her personal position on

Interaction Design, that being “making is thinking.”

Akah is a Maker. She lives in a world of office, art, and

cooking supplies, and books. So very many books.

You can reach her at http://siriomi.com.

| 107
References
1. Ahde, P. 2007. Appropriation by
adornments: personalization makes the
everyday life more pleasant. DPPI ‘07.
ACM, New York, NY, 148-157.
2. Albinson,L., Forsgren, O., and Lind, M.
2008. Towards a co-design approach for open
innovation. PDC ’08. Bloomington, IN, 1-5.
3. Anonymous. 2007. Interview with I-Wei
Huang. In Steampunk Magazine: Lifestyle, Mad
Science, Theory & Fiction 2 (2007), 22-23.
4. Battarbee, K., Cabrera, A., Mattelmaki, T.,
and Rizzo, F. 2008. Designed for co-designers.
PDC ’08. ACM, Bloomington, IN, 299-300.
5. Battarbee, K. and Mattelmaki, T. 2002.
Meaningful product relationships. DE
’03. Loughborough, UK, 337-344.
6. Bell, G., Blythe, M., Sengers, P. 2005.
Making by making strange: defamiliarization
and the design of domestic technologies. In
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction 12 2 (June 2005), 149-173.
Conceptualizing the Maker
7. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and Ståhlbrost, A. 2008.
Participatory design—one step back or two steps
forward? PDC ’08. Bloomington, IN, 102-111.
8. Bralker, B. 2007. Steampunking technology:
a subculture hand-tools today’s gadgets
with Victorian style. In Newsweek Web
Exclusive, October 31, 2007. http://
www.newsweek.com/id/67352
9. Bredies, K. 2008. Confuse the user! A user-
centered participatory design perspective.
PDC ’08. ACM, Bloomington, IN, 1-3.
10. Buechley, L., Rosner, D. K., Paulos, E.,
and Williams, A. 2009. DIY for CHI:
methods, communities, and values of
reuse and customization. CHI EA ‘09.
ACM, New York, NY, 4823-4826.
11. Bulloff, L. 2009. The Chronabelle, an interview.
In Steampunk Magazine: Lifestyle, Mad
Science, Theory & Fiction 5 (2009), 16-19.
12. Callero, P. 2003. The sociology of the self. In
Annual Review of Sociology 29, 115-133.
13. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J.,
and Murphy, J. 2001. Identity, power and
fragmentation in cyberspace: technology
appropriation by young people. In
ACIS 2001 Proceedings. Paper 6.
14. Catastrophone Orchestra and Arts Collective.
2007. What then, is steampunk? Colonizing
the past so we can dream the future. In
Steampunk Magazine: Lifestyle, Mad
Science, Theory & Fiction 1 (2007), 4-5.
15. Cerulo, K. 1997. Identity construction:
new issues, new directions. In Annual
Review of Sociology 23, 385-409.
16. Correia, A. and Yusop, F. 2008. I don’t want to
be empowered: the challenge of involving real-
world clients in instructional design experiences.
PDC ’08. ACM, Bloomington, IN, 214-216.
17. Davies, R., Marcella, S., McGrenere, J.,
and Purves, B. 2004. The ethnographically
informed participatory design of a PDA
application to support communication.
ASSETS ’04. ACM, Atlanta, GA, 153-160.
18. Diana, C. 2008. How I learned to
stop worrying and love the hackers. In
Interactions 15, 2 (Mar. 2008), 46-49.
19. Dix, A. 2007. Designing for appropriation.
BCS-HCI ’07. Swinton, UK, 27-30.
20. Duncan, M. 2004. Autoethnography: Critical
appreciation of an emerging art. In International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 4 (2004), 1-14.
21. Ehn, P. 2008. Participation in design things.
PDC ’08. Bloomington, Indiana, 92-101.
22. Eriksen, M. 2008. Design materials
designed for—and by—co-designers.
PDC ’08. Bloomington, IN, 1-4.
23. Fallman, D. 2003. Design-oriented human
computer interaction. CHI ’03. ACM,
New York, New York, 225-232.
24. Fleming, E. 1974. Artifact study: a proposed
model. In Winterthur Portfolio 9 (1974), 153-173.
25. Galloway, A., Brucker-Cohen, J.,
Gaye, L., Goodman, E., and Hill, D.
2004. Design for hackability. DIS ‘04.
ACM, New York, NY, 363-366.
| 109
 26. Gross, C. 2007. A History of Misapplied
Technology: The history and development
of the steampunk genre. In Steampunk
Magazine: Lifestyle, Mad Science,
Theory & Fiction 2 (2007), 54-61.
27. Gross, C. 2007. Varieties of steampunk experience.
In Steampunk Magazine: Lifestyle, Mad
Science, Theory & Fiction 1 (2007), 60-63.
28. Gross, M. D. and Do, E. Y. 2007. Design,
art, craft, science: making and creativity. SoD
‘07, vol. 364. ACM, New York, NY, 9-11.
29. Harré, R. 2002. Material Objects in
Social Worlds. In Theory, Culture and
Society 19, 5/6 (2002), 23-33.
30. Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: the meaning
of style. Routledge, New York, NY.
31. Hell, K. 2009. Clockworks and Carbon: The
Fantastical Escapades of the Steampunk Aesthetic.
Morbid Outlook, July 2009. http://morbidoutlook.
com/fashion/articles/2009_07_steampunk.html
32. Janlert, L. and Stolterman, E. 1997. The character
of things. In Design Studies 18, (1997), 297-314.
Conceptualizing the Maker
33. Killjoy, M. ?. A Journal of Misapplied
Technology. In Steampunk Magazine: Lifestyle,
Mad Science, Theory & Fiction 2 (2007), 2.
34. Kristensen, M., Kyng, M., and Palen, L. 2006.
CHI ’06. Montreal, Canada, 161-170.
35. Lacey, E. 2009. Contemporary Ceramic Design
for Meaningful Interaction and Emotional
Durability: A Case Study. International
Journal of Design 3, (2009), 87-92.
36. La Ferla, R. 2008. Steampunk moves
between two worlds. In The New York
Times, May 8, 2008. http://www.nytimes.
com/2008/05/08/fashion/08PUNK.html
37. Leary, M. 2004. Editorial: what is the self? A
plea for clarity. In Self and Identity 3, 1-3.
38. Lottridge, D. and Mackay, W. 2009. Generative
walkthroughs: to support creative redesign.
C&C ’09, Berkeley, CA, 175-184.
39. Mackay, H. and Gillespie, G. 1992. Extending
the social shaping of technology approach:
ideology and appropriation. In Social
Studies of Science 22 (4), 685-716.
40. March, W., Jacobs, M., and Salvador,
T. 2005. Designing technology for
community appropriation. CHI ‘05.
ACM, New York, NY, 2126-2127.
41. Markus, H., and Kitayama, S. 1991.
Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. In
Psychological Review 98 (2), 224-253.
42. McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. 2004. Technology
as experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
43. McCarthy, J., Wright, P., Wallace, J., and
Dearden, A. 2006. The experience of enchantment
in human-computer interaction. In Pers
Ubiquitous Computing 10, (2006), 369-378.
44. Merkel, C., Xiao, L., Faroq, U., Ganoe, C., Lee,
R., Carroll, J., and Rossen, M. 2004. Participatory
design in community computing contexts: tales
from the field. PDC ’04. Toronto, Canada, 1-10.
45. Norman, D. 2005. Emotional design:
why we love (or hate) everyday things.
Basic Books, New York, NY.
46. Odom, W. and Pierce, J. 2009. Improving with
age: designing enduring interactive products.
CHI EA ‘09. ACM, New York, NY, 3793-3798.
47. Oring, E. 1994. The arts, artifacts, and
artifices of identity. In The Journal of
American Folklore 107 (424), 211-233.
48. Paulos, E., Jenkins, T., Joki, A., and Vora,
P. 2008. Objects of wonderment. DIS
‘08. ACM, New York, NY, 350-359.
49. Poeter, D. 2008. Steampunk’s subculture revealed.
In The San Francisco Chronicle (July 6, 2008), F1.
50. Ratt, M. 2007. Putting the punk back into
steampunk. In Steampunk Magazine: Lifestyle,
Mad Science, Theory & Fiction 1 (2007), 2.
51. Rosner, D. and Bean, J. 2009. Learning
from IKEA hacking: I’m not one to
decoupage a tabletop and call it a day. CHI
‘09. ACM, New York, NY, 419-422.
52. Rosner, D. and Ryokai, K. 2008. Weaving
memories into handcrafted artifacts with Spyn.
CHI ‘08. ACM, New York, NY, 2331-2336.
| 111
 53. Rudman, L. and Spencer, S. 2007. The
implicit self. In Self and Identity 6, 97-100.
54. Salovaara, A. 2009. Studying appropriation of
everyday technologies: a cognitive approach. CHI
EA ‘09. ACM, New York, NY, 3141-3144.
55. Schwartz, L. 1996. Computes and appropriation
art: the transformation of a work or idea for
a new creation. In Leonardo 29 (1), 43-49.
56. Sengers, P., Boehner, K., Mateas, M., and
Gay, G. 2008. The disenchantment of
affect. Personal Ubiquitous Computing.
12, 5 (Jun. 2008), 347-358.
57. Shapiro, D. 2005. Participatory design: the will to
succeed. AARHUS ’05, Århus, Denmark, 29-38.
58. Silver, J. 2009. Awakening to maker methodology:
the metamorphosis of a curious caterpillar.
IDC ‘09. ACM, New York, NY, 242-245.
59. Spry, T. 2001. Performing Autoethnography:
An embodied methodological praxis. In
Qualitative Inquiry 7 6 (2001), 706-732.
60. Steel, S. 2008. Steam Dream. The Phoenix,
May 19, 2008. http://thephoenix.com/
boston/life/61571-steam-dream
All photos taken by Binaebi Akah unless noted otherwise.
Conceptualizing the Maker
61. Sterling, B. 2009. The User’s Guide to Steampunk.
In Steampunk Magazine: Lifestyle, Mad
Science, Theory & Fiction 5 (2009), 30-33.
62. Törpel, B. 2005. Participatory design:
a multi-voiced effort. AARHUS ’05,
Århus, Denmark, 177-181.
63. Torrey, C., Churchill, E. F., and McDonald,
D. W. 2009. Learning how: the search for
craft knowledge on the internet. CHI ‘09.
ACM, New York, NY, 1371-1380.
64. Van House, N. 2009. Collocated photo
sharing, story-telling, and the performance of
self. In the International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 67 (2009), 1073-1086.
65. Verbeek, P. and Kockelkoren, P. 1998. The things
that matter. In Design Issues 14 3 (1998), 28-42.
66. Wakkary, R. and Maestri, L. 2007. The
resourcefulness of everyday design. C&C
‘07. ACM, New York, NY, 163-172.
67. Watkins, J. 2007. Social media, participatory
design and cultural engagement. OzCHI
’07. Adelaide, Australia, 161-166.
| 113
Conceptualizing the Maker