[Cultural Policy Bulletin Vol.6] The 6th GyeongGi Cultural Policy Forum

2018.05.10 / Maker Culture, Smart Citizens

The 6th GyeongGi Cultural Policy Forum

Maker Culture, Smart Citizens


Facilitator_

KIM Sunghwan(General Manager, Office of Cultural Policy, GyeongGi Cultural Foundation)


Participants_    

YU Mansun(Researcher of Gwacheon National Science Museum)

SONG Sooyon(Artist of Unmake Lab)

JUNG Hee(Make: Korea Team Manager)

CHOI Yoonsik (Director of Cluster Management, Gyeonggi Content Agency)

KANG Tae-wook(Senior Researcher of Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology)

LEE Meewha(Art Director of EJ Domoso)

SUL Won Gi (President of GyeongGi Cultural Foundation)

HWANG Soon-ju (Local Intermedia Team Leader of GyeongGi Cultural Foundation)


Date : 10 May 2018, 3:30pm.

Venue : ‘GAP’ at GyeongGi Cultural Foundation Building




In line with the 5th GyeongGi Cultural Policy Forum “The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Culture,” the 6th Forum “Maker Culture Smart Citizens” was held to serve as an occasion to share cases of invigorating the maker culture which vitalizes daily life thanks to the participation of smart citizens who lead their society’s growth and culture.



KIM Sunghwan     Today, we listened to three presenters under the theme of “Maker Culture, Smart Citizens.” First, Mr. YU Mansun, researcher at Gwacheon National Science Museum, elaborated on the “Spread of the Maker Culture Focused on the Case of Korea’s Unlimited Imagination Room.” Second, Ms. SONG Sooyon, artist at Unmake Lab, explained “A Specific Current Penetrating this Era: A View of the Maker Culture.” Finally, Ms. JUNG Hee, editor of Make: Korea and planner of Maker Faire Seoul, gave us an overview of the Maker Movement. The three presenters gave us a better understanding of the Maker Movement and makers and widened our view with numerous cases. Today’s discussion doesn’t have any special structure. So let us listen to what the participants think of the presentations. Mr. Hwang, could you please start?


HWANG Soon-ju    Whenever I implement a cultural policy at a public institution, I face a dilemma: whether to implement it before the market takes action or produce policy results on the basis of what goes on in the market. As for the maker culture, I should confess that I’m only a beginner. In fact, I have been concerned about how to make policy projects out of cultural regeneration and living culture regarding local cultures. So I have been thinking mostly about spaces, contents, people and networks. As for living culture, here is the flow of my ideas: “OK, living culture is great. The term combines culture and living. How would then I make a policy on living culture? The answer is a club.” But I recently came to realize that such a thinking process had omitted what is essential in the current market: advent of the era of individual creators. As mentioned in the presentations, we put an end to the era characterized by the monopoly of technology and enjoyment, passed through that of cultural democratization and reached the era of individuals’ creation and making.

In my personal view, the ‘civic culture‘ would refer to individuals or groups in a local area that share the same mindset and taste, exchange information, make something and enjoy it together. Here, what causes a dilemma concerns scientific technology we have tried to ignore. It also concerns media. These elements are mixed to appear at the same time. In this context, we are thinking about how to blur the boundaries of handicraft, technology and future techniques.

The Sangsang Campus, which is run by GyeongGi Cultural Foundation, currently accommodates five handicraft workshops based on living culture and about 27 teams of ‘young’ makers. It also has seven labs. Listening to the presentations today, I thought that the market is already boiling. Under these circumstances, we need to choose our strategy. First, we could closely observe and summarize what goes on in the market to produce results. Second, we could naturally intervene in the current market with a policy. Third, leaving the market as it is, we could experiment with what will be coming in two to three years, make a space and run a platform. Cultural spaces should not exist just as spaces. They should serve as outposts and pools of creative production. In this way, they should find roles that are not played by the market and that can be played by the public sector. Afterward, they should intervene naturally or they should carry out preliminary projects.


KIM Sunghwan    Mr. Hwang explained what is related to makers from the cultural perspective, particularly connecting it to the future direction of the Sangsang Campus. Today, people have actively discussed the maker culture in relation to technology, particularly in relation to digital technology. Regarding this, I would like to ask Mr. Kang to speak.


KANG Tae-wook    I have been an active maker for six to seven years. When I was a maker at Gwacheon National Science Museum, I participated in Maker Faire. When makers talk to each other, they should keep in mind that the maker culture is not necessarily digital culture. If you cook, you are a maker. If you knit, you are a maker. In some cases, if you engage in artistic activities, you are a maker. The website of international makers called Instructables provides works by makers of different genres through open source. In Korea, the maker movement is partially led by the government so people tend to misunderstand such a situation. If the government invests tax, there should be a clear, quantitative effect. After that, the government can gain logic to persuade taxpayers. The government’s logic tends to flow in this way. From the industrial perspective, since Korea is an IT powerhouse, the country ends up highlighting digital technology and physical computing. In some cases, the media also takes the same approach. But to makers, it is just a small part of the maker movement. Makers say that if someone can make and share anything based on his or her aptitude and talent, such an act is meaningful in the maker culture.

I have two daughters who are engaging in makers‘ activities with me. Seeing them grow up, I realize that they have very different talents. From the educational point of view, people have different strengths, weaknesses and talents. Under these circumstances, if we force them to become makers in a fixed way regardless of their talent, they may not realize and make use of it, thus feeling weak. So I try not to force my kids to specify a certain way of becoming makers.

Doing maker activities mostly in Korea, I came to wonder what positive aspects Korean makers could have socially. So I studied international documents. What I found is this. Developed countries don’t say that makers should found startups and export their products. Instead, the countries’ government naturally participates in the maker movement. They then conduct policy-based analysis of the movement’s results that are somewhat unexpected socially. The book I discovered at that time is Maker City. I translated the book with another translator. The book explains that at first, a very accidental occasion stimulates a given environment from the public perspective. A case in point is a makerspace. Korea doesn’t have a garage culture so the country lacks space. But other countries not only have such physical space but also well-made, stimulating policies. A few years later, such policies blossom naturally. The government neither stimulates the maker movement excessively nor requires quantitative indices. Instead, it follows a process of natural blossoming and at the time of blossoming, it selects good cases to make quantitative indices out of them. Of course, developed countries could have different platforms. But several years later, they actually ask themselves a policy’s quantitative effects. They also analyze how industry developed and to which degree, how startups developed and what effect they brought to employment. They also observe the results from the educational point of view. For example, they study how children came to view the world and how they invented their own products and what achievements they gained. All of this information is published in a report immediately. Considering this, I believe that any statistical element could be empowered by policy. We must not be hasty when it comes to putting this into practice. We should rather make a road map step by step to make it sustainable. In this way, developed countries’ case could be very helpful for Korea as well.


KIM Sunghwan    Thank you very much. Mr. Kang has a doctor’s degree in engineering and works at Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology so I thought that he would mention technical elements.




Maker Culture, Smart Citizen, The 6th GGCF Cultural Policy Forum



KANG Tae-Wook    Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology is a semi-public institution. We develop all of Korea’s technology related to infrastructure. We also provide policy support for hot issues such as smart city and urban regeneration. We make and offer a portal on how to develop technology and how to form a road map. Although we are a semi-public institution and institute with government investment in particular, it is difficult for us to cover the entire maker movement. The movement is characterized by great freedom. For example, Canada organized the DIY City. On that occasion, citizens just gather together, present a performance of LED Throwie just as in Ms. Jung’s presentation and distribute kits of things like IOT sensor everywhere. They also organize events like a hackathon for citizens. Such a hackathon could be about how to apply such makers’ products publicly for children and raise their quality of life. In this way, they beautify the city and play together. They also select the results of the events and share them through sourcebooks and the media to inspire people. But it is difficult for our institute to do this. If an institute says that it is planning such activities, people would say, “Why would you do such things with taxpayers’ money?,” “You need to conduct a preliminary feasibility study of a policy project of the smart city.” “You need to make a road map.” “You need to carry out urban regeneration immediately.” In short, we don’t have a proper platform that enables us to prepare these activities freely. In the case of the maker culture, we need a platform and fill the existing blank.


KIM Sunghwan    In relation to the maker movement, GyeongGi Cultural Foundation is taking its first step, focusing on its cultural aspect. On the other hand, in my understanding, Gyeonggi Content Agency is approaching the movement from a technological point of view. Mr. Choi, could you please explain the agency’s technological support for the maker culture?


CHOI Yoonsik    I have been a maker for about 40 years. When I was a child in the late 70‘s and early 80‘s, I used to go to the Cheonggyecheon area in Seoul to buy construction sets and assemble them with friends. Nowadays, there is no such thing. Instead, children play computer games or use their smartphones. That may be why the maker movement has become a notable concept.

As you pointed it out, Gyeonggi Content Agency is approaching the maker movement from a technological perspective, not from a cultural one. In addition, we focus on supporting businesses to achieve concrete results because the agency is a public institution. We also started using the term ‘makerspaces' last year. In this regard, we have conducted projects like the ’Furnace of Ideas’ and ‘Wiki-facturing’ since 2014. We also conducted ‘Make-A-Thon’ earlier this year. Finding out that the maker movement also encompasses sectors regarding software production, we have recently run programs combining and fostering such sectors.

As Mr. Kang said, the maker movement isn’t necessarily linked to technology. One of the businesses nurtured by our agency has grown into a very big company. A father was teaching his children how to use chopsticks. As they found it difficult to use them, the father attached a finger ring to the chopsticks and cast them in a mold. He liked his invention and started his business. This company is now producing the Edison chopsticks. Our agency accommodated the business and last year, its annual revenue exceeded 10 billion won. So they built their own building and left our agency. Another example is a researcher at S electronics company. When the 3D printer began to be used widely, the researcher’s friend lost his arm. Thanks to his technology, he used equipment including the 3D printer to make a sample electronic prosthetic arm and gave it to his friend. It normally costs about 40 million won to make an electronic prosthetic arm but he spent only about one million won. He wanted to be supported for the supply of these prosthetic arms so he came to me. Our agency then submitted our proposal to the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning and won a project of 150 million won and supported him. He is now running a business of supplying electronic prosthetic arms in Jordan. Such cases show that not only being creative but also becoming a maker out of necessity is very important. Whenever we see such cases, we feel pride and respect for these entrepreneurs. Although we run a program of nurturing businesses by combining technology and software, a maker isn’t necessarily connected to these elements. Instead, a person becomes a maker with his or her creativity and needs.


KIM Sunghwan    Now, let me ask Ms. Lee to speak. Could you elaborate on Maker Faire‘s roles from the perspective of the spread of open source?


LEE Meewha    Currently, I’m in charge of planning and producing very traditional and classical handmade products. So it would be difficult for me to explain open source. But if you refer to the concept of 'open copyright,' I will explain it again a little later.

I’m an artist and I have run a small space since 2016 in an attempt to share creativity with local residents in a variety of ways by promoting the maker culture in five neighborhoods in GyeongGi-do Province. Since 2009, I have been interested in Korea’s traditional markets and elderly culture. For example, I participated in the urban regeneration project in Anjeong-ri, Pyeongtaek, which was preparing for the upcoming formation of an integrated U.S. military base. Since then, I have run projects of making cultural goods with Anjeong-ri’s local artisans through the maker culture. Unlike other participants attending this forum, I work on a site that is highly dependent on outside financial support. Listening to all of you today, I totally agree with Mr. Kang who said that we must not be hasty in doing quantitative evaluation. Usually, once the government provides a project with financial support, it requires the project to achieve concrete results in three years after the preliminary research. For onsite artists, such a requirement is very burdensome. In this matter, I think that what we need is qualitative evaluation rather than the quantitative one and a long-term perspective. I focus on the classical field of handmaking so I thought that my area would be different from that of other makers. But today, I found out that the maker movement isn’t confined to technology and that it refers to a wide spectrum of new tools and new civilizations. So it was a great occasion for me.

Based on what I experienced on the site, it is true that sensitivity is important because it enables us to transform a certain object or property. But content, software programs and planning are much more important because they motivate artists to make something out of their sensitivity. In other words, if there is no reason “why we make something,” we don’t need to use given tools. So it is crucial to focus a little more on fundamental and basic motivation rather than considering a production space equipped with cutting-edge technology and equipment. Today, Korea’s makerspaces mostly have a separate section for classical production means and handmaking and another section for technology. If you want to cast something in a mold, you visit the Mullae-dong and Euljiro areas in Seoul rather than using the time-consuming 3D printer. The wisdom and knowhow of makers who have manufacturing and industrial techniques don’t seem to be connected to makerspaces focused on technology. If the Sangsang Campus has a space where handmaking techniques and cutting-edge technology coexist, the space could motivate artists to create in more diverse ways.


KIM Sunghwan    Thank you for your comments. Next, let us listen to Mr. Yu, researcher at Gwacheon National Science Museum, who already has experience regarding how a public institution could support individual makers.


YU Mansun    I agree that the public sector needs projects supporting makers. But there are problems to solve. I believe that the maker culture is very important in that it could bring changes to the current culture dominated by consumption; even cities are consumed and government policies are consumed. Meanwhile, the maker culture can encourage ordinary citizens to change their city themselves. It seems that I ended up not bringing these citizens to the makerspace at our science museum. So I think that I still haven’t succeeded in motivating them. Such a challenge of motivation should be met first. I have constantly felt that the projects supported by the science museum are actually far from the great majority of ordinary citizens who don’t even know that there are such projects. Foundations and public institutions need to go further. Instead of building a trendy makerspace to attract visitors, they should spend more time on considering and analyzing the issues that haven’t been dealt with. First, as I mentioned in my presentation, there are those sewing in the Changsin-dong area or those doing research and development at a large company. Why can’t they come to a makerspace? Why would they find it difficult to go from consumption to production? Such analysis should result in concrete policies to support those promoting the maker movement in the private sector as they take action. That would be a much more desirable direction for us.


KIM Sunghwan    Thank you. Now, let us listen to the floor.


Participant 1     Ms. Jung defined makers as “those using new production tools.” You also said that “makers make the best use of new things and techniques.” I have made children’s clothes and pillows so I have thought that I’m a maker. But listening to your presentation, I felt confused, asking myself “Am I really a maker?” In addition, GyeongGi-do Province's Small and Medium Business Administration and Small and Medium Business Center have engineers and equipment (e.g. 3D printer for drawings and designs) so that small businesses can use it. It’s also confusing because I don’t know the exact differences between these centers and makerspaces. I think that it is necessary to clarify the concept of makerspaces. Moreover, Gyeonggi Content Agency launched a center for makerspaces that will serve as these spaces’ strategic point. If we regard makers’ activities as industry and jobs, Gyeonggi Content Agency should take charge of the maker movement. But we see them as cultural activities, GyeongGi Cultural Foundation should take the lead. Meanwhile, I hear different terms mixed together and used everywhere: 'maker,' 'living culture' and 'lifelong education.' I would like to ask you to tell us what you think of this. (CHA Jeong-suk, director of the cultural policy division of GyeongGi-do Province)


JUNG Hee     First of all, as for the term ‘maker,’ we have tried to find a Korean word that would be equivalent to it since its early stage. We also made a public announcement to find the right word. As a result, we came up with several Korean words but we concluded that they weren’t good enough to express today’s definition of ‘makers’: those making things in a new way. So we still use the term. Here, “new production tools” mean applying new tools to old techniques. For example, in the past, people used to sew with hands but later on, they began to use sewing machines to make outfits. In other words, such “new tools” increase each individual’s capacity of expression. The maker culture has spread around the world with the wide use of 3D printers. In fact, 3D printing technology already existed in the 80’s and 90’s. But large companies had patents on it so individuals came to use 3D printers only recently. Now, it is open-source technology that can be used by individuals who can now make something with it, thus leading to new possibilities. Those who have seen such possibilities can make things in a new way and produce goods. That is why we call them ‘makers.’ As ‘maker’ has become a hot keyword these days, the government has increased its policy support in the context of the maker movement. But the existing support for artists or cultural activities encompasses the movement. From now on, we need to be culturally aware of the term ‘maker’ because it is used all around the globe. For example, when two people were talking to each other, a person said, ‘I’m a maker“ and it became much easier for them to continue their conversation and they were able to talk about what they were doing easily and fast.

As we saw it in Ms. Song’s presentation photos a moment ago, most of the world’s makerspaces are also equipped with sewing machines and other handicraft tools. Some people might narrow down the term ‘maker’ and they would find it difficult to familiarize themselves with it. But in fact, you can make anything in makerspaces and those who agree are already doing their activities freely there. In addition, spaces that are literally called ‘makerspaces’ tend to be used only by those who actually use such a term so their scope of support becomes narrow. So makerspaces that were launched in 2010 and 2011 are called workshops, studios and communities.

The maker culture isn’t something to be promoted with policy. Instead, when a maker tries to find other makers who make goods together, he or she finds certain routes to find more people and richer content. This is an ongoing process and we are now going through a paradigm shift in the maker movement.


SUL Won Gi      GyeongGi Cultural Foundation is interested in a paradigm shift in daily life. I believe that the maker movement shows the potential of such a paradigm shift. Korea has been known for its Miracle on the Han River. Today, potential is found not in large businesses but in individuals. If such a change isn’t made, Korea’s happiness index will continue to hit bottom. Korea can make use of this cultural turning point to show its potential and to form a basis for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Cultural Foundation should take interest in this matter because our goal is to "improve happiness and quality of life through culture." If there is such a movement and thirst for a promising society, we are willing to support it and invigorate the maker culture.

Let me share my personal experience of making. Back in the 1970’s, I was living in New York. A Russian friend made an interesting toy which had two circular axes to move freely. Another friend saw it and thought, “It is really innovative! I could make it useful to obtain a patent on it.” He brought me in when he was making it useful and doing modeling. We made several models and went to those specializing in relevant fields such as robotics. We finally signed a contract with this product to make hundreds of millions of dollars. We also commercialized the product which was sold by New Work’s tripod producing company. We didn’t start this project to make money. The Russian friend just made the toy for fun and we thought that it would have potential as a product. The two friends and me then collaborated to have this result. At today’s forum, you talked about things to make, technology and the commercial aspect of goods. I believe that the maker movement includes all of this. There is potential at every stage of making so we believe that maker projects are projects about potential. In my view, we need to expand cultural roles so that everyone can see his or her potential.


Participant 2     As Ms. Cha mentioned, I have also been confused about what differentiates several spaces that look similar: space of creating professions planned by GyeongGi-do Province's Economic Office, cultural creation hub by the province's Content Division and GyeongGi Cultural Foundation’s Sangsang Campus by the province's Cultural Policy Division. But now, these spaces’ characteristics are clearer. The Sangsang Campus is a creative space and makerspace where adults and children can enjoy themselves together. Here, people have fun as they regard culture as an integral part of their life. Meanwhile, office workers could also come to this campus at night or on weekends to give shape to their ideas. As for the cultural creation hub run by the Content Agency, young people or those who lost their jobs could come with a clear goal. Here, they could have their own space and spend all their time to "make something new and start a new business."

I have some questions for the presenters and panelists. The first question is for Ms. Jung. You visited many makerspaces. Can I ask you what you think of the possibility of using museums and art museums as makerspaces? For Mr. Yu, have you been to the Sangsang Campus? Do you have any idea about how a public institution could run such a makerspace? Ms. Song, I actually don't know if taylors and sewers would come to makerspaces and become makers even if there are special makerspaces for them. In other words, makers could be limited to those having spare time or those who want to start a new business, rather than those who strive to earn a living. What do you think of this? If you believe that anyone can be a maker if there is a space, please tell us about it. Lastly for Mr. Choi, does the Content Agency have any program that supports those who only have ideas so that they can start their own business? If it does, it could be helpful for the Sangsang Campus. I would like to ask you to briefly answer my questions. (OH Hu-seok, director at the Bureau of Culture, Sports and Tourism of GyeongGi-do Province)




Prosthesis by Furrion Robotics, Maker Fair Bay Area 2018



JUNG Hee     Art museums and museums have actively tried to run makerspaces. In Korea, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art has an 'art fab lab.' At this fab lab, an architectural firm designs an artwork and a maker knowing relevant technology makes it. The artwork is then exhibited at the art museum. Such collaboration has already become active in Korea. Throughout the world, libraries have more makerspaces than museums do. Libraries cover everyone's sphere of life. In that sense, many cities and districts in the world have libraries equipped with a small makerspace. This is to help more people enjoy the maker culture naturally just as they read books. We also have a similar marketing approach and we sell a book and making kit together.


CHOI Yoonsik     We also have a program supporting makers with ideas. But the program is somewhat confined to providing consulting on starting a business or nurturing startups. Ms. Cha and Mr. Sul differentiated GyeongGi Cultural Foundation from Gyeonggi Content Agency. Our agency's event Make-A-Thon attracted a variety of people including animators, game developers, artists and technicians, contributing to a very interesting output. We would like to collaborate with the Cultural Foundation to make diverse attempts.


HWANG Soon-ju     Before someone else takes the microphone, I would like to summarize the Cultural Foundation's point of view. The arts and culture are there for us to make, transmit and spread life technology for people's happier life. In other words, the arts and culture don't have any regular direction. As someone mentioned before, we couldn't exactly follow the policy process of incubating, accelerating and doing business. Instead, we could promote the spread of makerspaces as spaces dealing with techniques for life and happiness.


YU Mansun     A person who joined Gwacheon National Science Museum with me in the same year visited the Sangsang Campus with his children. He liked the campus very much, saying that he had many chances to do making and workshop activities. I haven't been to the campus but it seems to be functioning well already so there may not be anything to add. But if I have to leave a comment, I would like to talk about one case. In Boston, there is a makerspace called Artisan's Asylum with an area of over 3,000 m2. Its annual budget is same as that of Gwacheon National Science Museum's makerspace of 1,653 m2. I wondered how they could run a space twice as large as the one at the Science Museum. It is possible because they are running a residency program for artists who also serve as the makerspace's lecturers and managers. This result in a virtuous cycle of human resources. Consequently, they spend their money just on basic things like electricity and materials and they minimize their labor cost because they have a minimum number of staff members managing the space. In this regard, to ensure the sustainability of the Sangsang Campus, makers who are even a little good at something could provide students and ordinary citizens with services. In return, the government could offer these makers some benefits. Such a structure could also be feasible on the Sangsang Campus.


SONG Sooyon     I believe that makers have existed for a long time. As I mentioned in my presentation, makers are given more specific names and values amid today's social changes. To answer your question, I'm also a maker but I can't earn a living by making. Despite such a financial challenge, I continue to be a maker because I learn from making and enjoy it. In this context, I believe that makers can have better values when they highlight enjoyment rather than labor, even if there are makers who make something to start a business. That is why those making something for a living may not feel familiar with makerspaces.

I believe that these makers could become good teachers for collaboration. Let me share my experience. A knitting machine was launched in the 1980's but it later became obsolete. I managed to buy it and wanted to learn how to use it. So I tried to find someone who could teach me the technique but I was unable to find anyone. At that time, there was an elderly person in her seventies who had earned a living with the machine. She was living in the Dongdaemun area in Seoul. I went to the neighborhood and learned from her how to use the machine. As she provided me with her knowhow and stories, I became full of imagination, thinking about how to make use of it. While I was still learning, she passed away and I wasn't able to learn anymore. This experience taught me that such relationships with makers lead to great collaboration. These makers are neighbors and teachers who can give us their knowhow, experience and tacit knowledge. But it takes time to form such relationships.


KIN Sunghwan    Thank you for your comments. Moderating this forum and listening to the participants, I reflected on the definition of the maker movement. While Ms. Song defined the movement as a "particular trend penetrating today's era," I would define it as a "movement where people, who become gradually individualized and isolated in today's technological and industrial society, restore their humanity." In that sense, the maker movement could be divided into cultural and industrial parts. I hope that this forum contributes to taking interest in the maker movement and to refining it to conduct concrete projects at GyeongGi Cultural Foundation and GyeongGi-do Province. That's it for today's forum. Thank you.







SPECIAL INTERVIEW

Maker Culture:Growing and Helping Together

Sarah LEE, Research and Advisory Associate, 

Center for Childhood Creativity at the Bay Area Discovery Museum

Edward Choudhry, Executive Director of the Hacker Dojo

CULTURAL POLICY PLATFORM

Maker Movement

Jung Hee, Make: Team Manager of Make: Korea Team, Bloter & Media

Editor of Make: and Director pf Maker Faire Seoul


Topography Surrounding the Maker Culture

Sooyon Song, Unmake Lab/Artist


Maker Culture Promoted by Public Institutions Focused on the Case of Korea’s Idea Factory

YU Mansun, Researcher of Gwacheon National Science Museum

TREND REPORT

Maker Movement and Makerspaces Usheringin the Era of Creation Ledby Ciizens

Hwang Soon-ju, Team Leader of Local Intermedia Team,

GyeonGi Cultural Foundation


The 6th GGCF Cultural Policy Forum

Maker Culture, Smart Citizen





#Bulletin #Bulletin Vol.6 #Cultural Policy #Fourth Industrial Revolution #Maker Culture #Citizens

@KIM Sunghwan @YU Mansun @JUNG Hee @CHOI Yoonsik @KANG Tae-wook @LEE Meewha @SUL Won Gi @HWANG Soon-ju

    • Cultural Policy Bulletin Vol.6

      Publisher/ Sul Won Gi, President of GyeongGi Cultural Foundation

      Editorial Planning/ Office of Cultural Policy GyeongGi Cultural Foundation

      Editors/ Kim Hyun Tae, Kim Sunghwan, Ahn Kyunghwa, Yoon Kahye, Cho Eunsol

      Translation/ Chang Yu Kyung

      Design/ hongdesign

      Printing/ CANA C&P

      Published by/ GyeongGi Cultural Foundation

      Published on July 2018

      ⓒ2018 GyeongGi Cultural Foundation and authors. All right reserved.

  • ggc

    Writer/ GyeongGi Cultural Foundation

    About/ Everything about the GyeongGi arts and culture, GGCF

  • ggc

You might like

Location around