지지씨 기관 회원 가입 안내
경기도내에 위치한 국공사립 문화예술기관, 박물관, 미술관, 공연장 등 도내의
문화예술 소식과 정보를 발행해주실 수 있는 곳이라면 언제든지 환영합니다.
지지씨 기관 회원은 지지씨 콘텐츠를 직접 올려 도민들과 더욱 가까이 소통할 수 있습니다.
기관에서 발행하는 소식지, 사업별 보도자료, 발간도서 등 온라인 게재가 가능하다면 그 어떠한 콘텐츠도 가능합니다.
지지씨를 통해 더 많은 도민에게 기관의 사업과 콘텐츠를 홍보하고, 문화예술 네트워크를 구축하세요.
지지씨 기관 회원으로 제휴를 희망하는 기관은 해당 신청서를 작성하여 메일로 제출바랍니다.
지지씨 기관 회원 혜택
신청서 작성 및 제출안내
경기 문화예술의 모든 것, 지지씨는
기관 회원 분들의 많은 참여를 기다립니다.
지지씨플랫폼 운영 가이드
지지씨는 회원 여러분의 게시물이 모두의 삶을 더욱 아름답게 해 줄 거라 믿습니다. 경기문화재단은 여러분이 작성한 게시물을 소중히 다룰 것입니다.
제1조(목적)
본 가이드는 재단법인 경기문화재단의 ‘온라인 아카이브 플랫폼 지지씨(www.ggc.ggcf.kr. 이하 ‘지지씨’)’의 기관회원(이하 ‘회원’)의 정의 및 권리와 의무를 규정하고, 회원의 생산자료에 관한 기록 저장과 활용에 관한 내용을 규정함을 목적으로 합니다.
제2조(정의)
본 가이드에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음과 같습니다.
① ‘지지씨’는 경기도 소재 문화예술기관의 생산자료 등록과 확산을 위해 경기문화재단이 운영하는 온라인 아카이브 플랫폼입니다.
② ‘회원’이란 소정의 가입 승인 절차를 거쳐 지지씨 글쓰기 계정(ID)을 부여받고, 지지씨에 자료 등록 권한을 부여받은 경기도 소재 문화예술기관 및 유관기관을 의미합니다.
‘생산자료(=콘텐츠)’란 ‘회원’이 지지씨 플랫폼 상에 게재한 부호, 문자, 음성, 음향, 그림, 사진, 동영상, 링크 등으로 구성된 각종 콘텐츠 자체 또는 파일을 말합니다.
제3조(가이드의 게시와 개정)
① 경기문화재단은 본 가이드의 내용을 ‘회원’이 쉽게 알 수 있도록 지지씨 플랫폼의 기관회원 등록 안내 페이지에 게시하여, 자유롭게 내려받아 내용을 확인할 수 있도록 합니다.
② 본 가이드는 경기문화재단의 온라인 플랫폼 운영 정책 및 저작권 등 관련 법규에 따라 개정될 수 있으며, 가이드를 개정, 적용하고자 할 때는 30일 이전에 약관 개정 내용, 사유 등을 '회원'에 전자우편으로 발송, 공지합니다. 단, 법령의 개정 등으로 긴급하게 가이드를 변경할 경우, 효력 발생일 직전에 동일한 방법으로 알려 드립니다.
1. 본 가이드의 개정과 관련하여 이의가 있는 ‘회원’은 탈퇴할 수 있습니다.
2. 경기문화재단의 고지가 있고 난 뒤 효력 발생일까지 어떠한 이의도 제기하지 않았을 경우, 개정된 가이드를 승인한 것으로 간주합니다.
제4조(회원자격 및 가입)
① ‘지지씨’의 ‘회원’은 경기도 소재 문화예술기관과 유관기관으로 합니다. ‘회원’은 글쓰기 계정을 부여받은 후 지지씨에 생산자료를 등록하거나, 게시를 요청할 수 있습니다.
② ‘지지씨’의 가입 신청은 지지씨 누리집에서 가능합니다. 회원가입을 원하는 기관은 계정 신청서를 작성, 가입 신청을 할 수 있습니다.
1. 회원가입을 원하는 기관은 지지씨에서 내려받기 한 ‘온라인 콘텐츠 플랫폼 지지씨 계정 신청서’를 지지씨 공식 전자메일(ggc@ggcf.kr)로 제출, 승인 요청을 합니다.
2. 한 기관에 발급되는 계정은 부서별/사업별로 복수 발급이 가능합니다. 단, 사용자 편의 등을위해 기관 계정 관리자 1인이 복수 계정의 발급을 신청한 경우, 승인 불가합니다.
3. ‘회원’ 계정은 신청인이 속한 기관명/부서명/사업명 등의 한글로 부여됩니다.
4. ‘회원’은 계정 발급 후 최초 로그인 시 비밀번호를 변경합니다.
5. 계정의 비밀번호는 가입 승인된 계정과 일치되는 ‘회원’임을 확인하고, 비밀 보호 등을 위해 ‘회원’이 정한 문자 또는 숫자의 조합을 의미합니다.
③ ‘지지씨’ 가입 신청 방법은 내부 방침에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 가입 신청에 관한 구체적인 내용은 지지씨 누리집에서 확인할 수 있습니다.
④ 경기문화재단은 다음 각호에 해당하는 신청에 대하여 승인 불허 혹은 사후에 계정을 해지할 수 있습니다.
1. 과거 회원자격 상실 회원. 단, 경기문화재단과 회원 재가입 사전 협의, 승인받은 경우는 예외로 함
2. 정보의 허위 기재, 저작권 등 관련 법률을 위반한 저작물 게시 등 제반 규정을 위반한 경우
⑤ ‘회원’은 회원자격 및 지지씨에서 제공하는 혜택 등을 타인에게 양도하거나 대여할 수 없습니다.
⑥ ‘지지씨’는 계정과 생산자료의 효율적인 관리를 위해 〔별표〕에 따라 ‘회원’을 구분합니다. 회원 구분에 따른 이용상의 차이는 없습니다.
제5조(회원 정보의 변경)
① ‘회원’은 언제든지 가입정보의 수정을 요청할 수 있습니다. 기관명, 부서명 등의 변경에 따른 계정 변경도 가능합니다. 단, 계정 변경시에는 계정(신청/변경)신청서를 다시 작성, 제출해야 합니다.
② ‘회원’은 계정 신청 시 기재한 사항이 변경되었을 경우 전자우편 등 기타 방법으로 재단에 대하여 그 변경사항을 알려야 합니다.
③ 제2항의 변경사항을 알리지 않아 발생한 불이익에 대하여 재단은 책임지지 않습니다.
제6조(회원 탈퇴 및 정지‧상실)
① ‘회원’은 지지씨 공식 전자메일, 전화 및 경기문화재단이 정하는 방법으로 탈퇴를 요청할 수 있으며 경기문화재단은 ‘회원’의 요청에 따라 조속히 탈퇴에 필요한 제반 절차를 수행합니다.
② ‘회원’이 탈퇴할 경우, 해당 ‘회원’의 계정 및 가입 시 작성, 제출한 개인정보는 삭제되지만, 탈퇴 이후에도 등록자료는 ‘지지씨’에서 검색, 서비스됩니다.
③ ‘회원’ 탈퇴 후에도 재가입이 가능하며, 탈퇴 전과 동일한 아이디를 부여합니다.
제7조(생산자료의 게시와 활용)
① ‘회원’은 글쓰기페이지(www,ggc.ggcf.kr/ggcplay/login)를 통해 계정의 아이디와 비밀번호를 입력, ‘지지씨’에 접속합니다.
② ‘회원’은 ‘지지씨’ 에디터 프로그램을 활용하여 해당 기관의 문화예술 관련 자료를 게시 및 수정, 삭제할 수 있습니다. 단, 사업의 일몰, 기간의 종료, 추진부서의 변경 등의 사유로 삭제는 불가합니다.
③ ‘회원’은 ‘지지씨’에 게시한 해당기관의 자료를 뉴스레터, SNS 등 온라인 매체로 확산, 활용할 수 있습니다. 단, 타기관의 자료를 사용하는 경우 사전 사용 협의 및 출처를 밝혀야 합니다.
④ ‘회원’의 게시물은 도민 문화향수 확산을 위해 출처를 밝히고 뉴스레터나 SNS 등의 채널에 가공 없이 활용될 수 있습니다.
제8조(회원의 아이디 및 비밀번호의 관리에 대한 의무)
① ‘회원’의 아이디와 비밀번호에 관한 관리책임은 ‘회원’에게 있으며, 이를 제3자에게 제공할 수 없습니다.
② ‘회원’은 아이디 및 비밀번호가 도용되거나 제3자가 사용하고 있음을 인지한 경우, 이를 즉시 경기문화재단에 알리고 재단의 안내를 따라야 합니다.
③ 본조 제2항의 상황에 해당하는 ‘회원’이 경기문화재단에 그 사실을 알리지 않거나, 알린 경우라도 경기문화재단의 안내에 따르지 않아 발생한 불이익에 대하여 경기문화재단은 책임지지 않습니다.
제9조(회원의 개인정보 보호에 대한 의무)
① 경기문화재단은 지지씨 계정 신청시 수집하는 개인정보는 다음과 같습니다.
1. 계정 관리자 이름 2. 사무실 연락처 3. 담당자 전자메일
② ‘회원’의 개인정보는 「개인정보보호법」 및 경기문화재단 개인정보처리방침에 따라 보호됩니다.
③ 경기문화재단 개인정보처리방침은 ‘지지씨’ 누리집 하단에 공개하며, 개정시 그 내용을 ‘회원’의 전자메일로 알립니다.
제10조(사용자 권리 보호)
① ‘회원’의 게시물이 저작권 등에 위배될 경우 경기문화재단은 사전 협의나 통보 없이 바로 삭제조치합니다. 이와 관련한 분쟁은 「저작권법」 및 「공공기록물 관리에 관한 법률」 등을 따릅니다.
② 경기문화재단은 ‘회원’의 게시물이 타인의 권리를 침해하는 내용이거나, 관련 법령을 위배하는 등지지씨의 운영 정책에 부합되지 않는 경우, ‘회원’과 협의 없이 삭제할 수 있습니다.
‘지지씨’의 게시물로 기관의 명예훼손 등 권리침해를 당하셨다면, 경기문화재단 지지씨멤버스의 고객상담(VOC)을 통해 민원을 제기할 수 있습니다. 이는 (사)한국인터넷자율정책기구(KISO)의 정책 규정을 따라 처리될 것입니다.
본 약관은 경기문화재단 대표이사의 승인을 얻은 날부터 시행됩니다.
대분류 | 외부기관 | 경기문화재단 |
---|---|---|
중분류 | 뮤지엄(박물관,미술관)/협회/문화예술공공기관/시군청 담당부서 등 | 본부/기관 |
아이디 | 사업부서명/사업명 | 사업부서명/사업명 |
글쓴이 노출 | 아이디와 동일(한글) | 아이디와 동일(한글) |
콘텐츠 등록/수정 요청
01. 콘텐츠 등록 및 수정 요청서 양식 다운로드
콘텐츠 직접 등록 및 수정이 어려우실 경우, 해당 요청서 양식을 다운로드 하신 후 작성하여
지지씨 관리자에게 등록·수정을 요청해주세요.
02. 콘텐츠 등록 및 수정 요청 안내
상단에서 다운로드하신 해당 요청서 양식 파일을 지지씨 관리자 이메일로 제출해 주세요.
경기문화재단
Topography Surrounding the Maker Culture
Sooyon Song, Unmake Lab/Artist
Maker: Open, Global Identity
It is very interesting to see terms such as ‘production,’ ‘DIY,’ ‘self-production’ and ‘making’ find their meanings in diverse contexts. Makers have existed anytime, anywhere. Why would then ‘making,’ which is almost an instinctive act, is drawing special attention today? A maker could be defined in many ways: someone who makes something as a hobby, someone asking critical questions about today's society of mass production and consumption and pursuing the spirit of self-sufficiency, amateur creators, craftspeople, artisans belonging to the cluster of traditional industries, metacreators who are expected to make a new mashup, someone from the group of creators who are called leaders of the new economy of 'desktop digital manufacturing' in this era of limited employment and even an innovator who could 'solve social problems' and make a better society. Looking at these numerous interpretations of a maker's identity, it is difficult to prioritize any of these multiple values for many reasons.
Some of such identities of makers may have existed for a long time while others may have been made recently through connection to the culture of network technology. Among them, those who could define themselves as a new type of producers called ‘makers’ would probably have a capacity for up-to-date circuits, codes and the technological culture or have a good understanding of such a technological context. In this way, the gap between a ‘producer’ and ‘maker’ is quite big (at least in the context of the maker culture). Behind such wide use of the term ‘maker’ as a global term or brand lies the success of Make: Magazine, [Make: Magazine’s slogan is “Technology on Your Time.” This could be interpreted as the following: ‘technology we can play with right now,’ ’our era’s technology,‘ ’us living in the era of grassroots technology’, etc.] which was founded by O'Reilly Media in 2005, and Maker Faire, [Maker Faire’s slogan is ”Celebrate arts, crafts, engineering, science projects and the do-it-yourself mindset.“ As seen in the slogans of Make: Magazine and Make Faire, their starting point was imagination regarding multidisciplinary, grassroots technology. Currently, Make Faire’s resolution differs depending on the characteristics of different regions and organizers. Make Faire was also launched in Korea in 2012.] a cultural platform which was launched the following year and has taken place in cities around the world as big and small events.
Meanwhile, what is notable is the fact that concrete spaces of the maker culture also appeared around this period. An example of such spaces is the Fab Lab network, which was derived from Neil Gershenfeld’s lecture that had started at MIT called “How to Make Almost Everything.” Another example is TechShop where trial goods were made. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that a magazine, cultural fairs and particular spaces gained popularity and led to today’s trend of self-production. Instead, it would be more reasonable to say that the magazine, spaces and fairs adequately embraced activities needed by this era.
It is true that such a culture of self-production has already existed for a long time. Consequently, many people also wonder what differentiates today’s maker culture. In a sense, they are right. However, there is a difference. Unlike in the past, ICT-based open source interacts with the maker culture in a visible way. Under these circumstances, it would be more pertinent to interpret this global identity of ‘makers’ as a metaconcept encompassing this era’s requirements and changes behind the trend, rather than just seeing it as a fad. For example, the open source movement reflects the impact of and reaction to the free software movement led by Richard Stallman. [Richard Stallman is the leader of the free software movement and the founder of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. In an attempt to support the movement, he came up with a concept of ‘copyleft.’ Later on, the free software movement had a wide impact on open-source software, creative commons and open-source hardware.] Adopting efficient technological improvement (rather than resistance) as its basic attitude, this movement has also been welcomed by businesses, thus succeeding to be recognized by the public. The movement is now going beyond the context of software (bit) to reach hardware (atom); it is expanding to the attitudes of ‘contribution’ and ‘participation’ to share technology openly.
As specified in the “maker menifesto,” it is very interesting to see the existential declaration by makers who bring changes through sharing, contribution, learning, tools, games, participation and sponsorship. It even seems to describe a maker as a human type that embodies the new philosophy of digitalism in the most ideal way. Makers are also those who are willing to contribute to society by “bringing revolutions to industry, teaching arithmetical thinking and encouraging people to live a more sustainable life.” At the same time, makers have a technological capacity to fully utilize the mashup of the networked information economy in order to blur the boundaries between the network’s hierarchy and autonomy.
Makerspace: A Space for Making, Sharing, (Making Money) and Contributing
Makers Wanting to Make Something and Be Connected - At this workshop-type space, makers can have their creative products recognized by others, enjoy collaborative work and learn from this collaboration. Such a space realizes makers’ romantic imagination regarding a making community. A makerspace is also a concrete place for numerous approaches in today’s technological society. Such approaches concern hardware startups, new education, social innovation, civil technology and lifestyles. These approaches are transformed into different models. A makerspace, where all of this takes place, is a unique venue in modern society. It even seems that makerspaces serve as a buffer zone for today’s social system that fails to catch up with technological society’s diverse economic, cultural and political changes.
Makers' Base: A makerspace in Tokyo. This could be called a Japanese-style Techschop (American makerspace where people made trial hardware goods). This space is for woodworking, pottery, 3D printing, silk-screen printing, sewing and laser cutting. It also provides a collaborative zone which looks like a machikouba(a Japanese word combining ‘village’ and ‘workshop.’ It also means a small factory in town) and includes a shared kitchen. Beta Haus: Berlin’s collaborative space focused on hardware manufacturing. The space organizes a hardware manufacturing contest called ‘Beta pitch glober.’ It also connects makers to Chinese manufacturers directly. C-Base: A hackerspace in Berlin. It is close to a traditional hackerspace rather than to a makerspace. It has not only a long history but also an interesting space. Its goal is to leave the earth by repairing a spaceship that fell 450 million years ago. Indeed, every part of the space is focused on this goal to look like the inside of a spaceship. It is also a rare space with politicality. Amsterdam’s Waag Society: This Fab Lab Amsterdam shows diverse approaches of civil technology. In particular, it runs the Web Lab focused on DIY biotechnology. |
Amsterdam's Waag Society
Making Is an Act of Looking into the Existing One Before Making Something New – Making is based on an act of creating something new by disassembling, reassembling and changing. In that sense, the act of making or a makerspace inherits, to a certain degree, subcultures such as geeks’ hacker culture [In the maker culture, ‘hacking’ is interpreted as an ‘act of disassembling a machine (technology), understanding its structure and principle of functioning and finally making something new out of it,’ not as a negative act of ‘digital vandalism.’ In fact, the word ‘hack’ is a jargon that has been used at MIT since the 1950’s and it means ‘purposeless and pure joy coming from the work process itself, which includes constructed goals, and results that follow.’ This definition also applies to how a makerspace works.] , garage culture (origin of the IT culture), otaku and punk. Meanwhile, depending on their nature, makerspaces are esthetically different from each other, stretching from the spaces based on today’s culture of digital collaboration to those in the style of traditional manufacturing industry. Calling themselves “open community labs,” makerspaces share and use diverse resources, knowledge and equipment, which are based on science, computer technology and art, through workshops, collaborative projects and lectures. Depending on who manages them, the spaces also define themselves in a detailed way and have different names: not only ‘hackerspace’ [It is a well-known fact that hackerspaces, which sound very resistant, aren’t very sensitive actually. On a regular basis, hackerspaces continue to send to those on their mailing list emails mentioning their non-political nature. It requires further research to find out if such non-political nature of hackerspaces is related to the sponsorship of DARPA (called by some “Dark side of DIY”) which caused controversy a few years ago. It would take some time to see if this nature implies change in the highly American maker culture or another issue of political and economic winning over.] and ‘makerspace’ but also ‘Hacklab,’ ‘Bricolab’ and ‘civic lab.’ The spaces are also located in diverse places: lifelong education center, cultural center, public school and university campus. Such spatial forms become diversified around the globe, going through transformation into DIY camps, making schools, mobile workshops and temporary labs.
Beta Haus
Moreover, this creative factory called a makerspace intuitively shows current changes we face in manufacturing industry, labor and education. Nevertheless, today’s makerspace seems to be close to an ‘innovative space’ rather than a ‘space of difference’ or ‘alternative space’ of a traditional concept. Motivated by hackers’ ethics (enthusiasm, freedom, social wealth, openness, activeness, care and creativity), the maker culture may end up destroying the old system by means of ‘democratization of innovation’ [Hun-min Ko, 3D Printer: Genie's Lamp or Microwave Oven? Mr. Ko redefined today’s technology-based self-production culture with the expression “democratization of innovation” rather than “democratization of technology” on the occasion of the Unmake Lab 2014 3D Printer Workshop & Seminar.] accelerating changes, rather than by means of clear critical thinking. For me, such a scenario could be both positive and negative. Consequently, it is necessary to observe the maker movement or makerspaces in a more detailed way; rather than vaguely expecting ’new possibilities’ from the movement, it is important to see what contrasting changes such democratization of openness and innovation will bring.
Strategies Made Visible during Society’s Implementation Period
Maker Faire Detroit in the early 2010’s, which is quite different today, was interesting in that it enabled us to understand an aspect of the maker culture. Indeed, Maker Faire Detroit’s sponsors included traditional businesses such as Ford and PepsiCo, IT giants like Microsoft and self-production communities and markets such as Boeing-Boeing and Etsy. Inferred from such diverse sponsors of Maker Faire Detroit, it is not a coincidence that TechShop, where digital manufacturers’ employees were able to make trial goods, was opened for the first time in this city. [After starting as a membership-based, open/franchise space, TechShop went bankrupt in late 2017. Such rapid changes lead us to feel concerned that the maker culture is exaggerated due to hasty expectations, naming and controled support generated by political and economic power, regardless of the culture’s autonomous layers.] Some argue that the maker culture started in Detroit in order to regenerate the city which was undergoing depression after the collapse of its automobile industry. This argument is not something new any more. In fact, Detroit’s slogan for urban regeneration is “Fix the City.” Here, the verb “fix,” which is a keyword of self-production, is used in a bigger context in an interesting way. Korea is also utilizing unused spaces as social capital to form such makerspaces. In this way, the maker culture [Nevertheless, they don’t seem to have potential to revitalize traditional manufacturing industry. Indeed, individual production tools such as CNC and 3D printers aren’t production tools for workers of the industrial era.]
is also seen as spearheading ’innovative production’ that will empower declining clusters of traditional industry or unused spaces.
Such policymaking based on the maker movement reached its peak at Maker Faire that was held at the White House in 2014. On June 18 of that year, a robotic giraffe was walking around the front yard of the White House while a violinist was performing with a 3D printed violin. Their photos immediately filled social media. President Obama called that day a national “Day of Making,” thus expressing his expectations that this festival of makers’ products could become a platform leading a renaissance of America’s manufacturing industry.
Maker Faire Shenzhen has also clarified a similar vision and strategies in a sustainable way. Its slogan of 2014 was “Innovation with China.” This implies China’s ambition that it won’t be Silicon Valley’s counterpart any more. It also shows Shenzhen’s strategy to grow into a production site of global IT hardware. The city’s Huaqiangbei area, which has an electronics market dozens of times larger than the one in Yongsan, Seoul, Korea, is welcoming global makers, saying, “We can produce anything for you.” Meanwhile, China’s unique culture of copying the existing products rapidly (shānzhài culture) [The word shānzhài seems to be derived from the expression “bandits’ den” from the Chinese novel Water Margin. In China, this word usually referred to the counterfeit culture of copying the existing products such as home appliances. Today, the word is reinterpreted in the context of hackers’ culture to mean “autonomously adding copying and creation to the mainstream culture.”] used to be understood as making counterfeit goods. Now, this culture meets the maker culture and is reinterpreted as an agile “spirit of open source.”[We can find everywhere such a trend of strategically interpreting a country’s particular culture in the context of the maker culture. For example, Indonesia’s Yogyakarta organizes the annual Transformaking Festival led by local innovators, media artists and engineering colleges. While coming up with strategies for an innovative city, the Festival designates the local area’s large Buddhist temples as makerspaces. The Korean government also announced its urban regeneration policy and as part of this policy, it designated the Seun Sangga shopping area as a strategic point of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, calling the area the “Maker City Seun.”]
In this way, the maker culture has gone beyond communities, festivals and spaces for makers’ products to serve as a framework of governmental and administrative strategies so that the culture can be used actively as a driving force behind urban regeneration, the new economy and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Such a phenomenon is expected to continue at least for several additional years. A similar trend is also seen in the policy of numerous countries that are willing to utilize digital manufacturing industry again as their core economic capacity.
(Unchanged) Questions We Need
The Korean government is maintaining its policy of “promoting the maker movement,” slightly changing the name of the policy every year. Moving from the context of the creative economy to that of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the government is announcing projects to invigorate the movement. In Korea, the maker movement has been supported by numerous policy grounds to be implemented as a medium of solutions and as a top-down policy. The policy is gradually taking a direction of supporting grassroots activities as well. In the era of rapid economic transition and amid intense competition, such a policy direction may be inevitable. This scenario isn’t something unexpected. Instead of criticizing the top-down policy, it would be necessary to closely observe what results such a framework is generating.
Regardless of its different frameworks, the maker culture ends up leading us to have the same expectations for innovation, new economy, social problem solving, new community models and artistic commons. Approaches of making that look different are actually very similar to each other in that they all share the same idea of solving problems. Therefore, it could be difficult for the maker movement to go beyond conservative, controlling hegemony in the context of changes in the society of information technology. What the act of making needs to achieve won’t be achieved by planting a flag of social values and publicness on such a preliminary language setting.
In order to transform the maker movement into a seedbed generating commons that would meet the aforementioned expectations, it is important to observe the status of the soil where such commons will take roots. It is then necessary to make long-term efforts to manage the seedbed in order to make the commons grow. As for policy support, it is essential to check and utilize cultural resources, which can be accumulated and expanded for an extended period of time, rather than carrying out fund-oriented projects and verifying their results.
<ggc의 모든 콘텐츠는 저작권법의 보호를 받습니다.>
Maker Culture/ The maker culture is a particular trend penetrating today’s era. As the culture goes from autonomous activities to government-led maker movement invigoration plans, it complicates our thinking. However, we haven’t had sufficient time to make any judgment regarding the movement. Considering a series of current phenomena, this paper starts by asking the following questions: on which basis Korea is beginning the maker movement? What motivates the movement? What basic lifestyle could the movement produce? I would thus like to make clear that the paper may focus only on some aspects of the maker culture.