At a time of climatic, economic, affective and relational emergencies, it is necessary to establish a new link with technology through performative making, which is irreducible to the quantification of mass production, far from the perfectionist production that characterises the industrial production system. It is necessary to recover technology as a tool for emancipation, as well as to emancipate technology from its link to the production of an unsustainable world. Once again, the question of technology as a sceptic, technology as a solution or technology as a means is at the centre of the debate.
Can we therefore continue to think of technology as that which allows us to emancipate ourselves and become more autonomous and empowered?
Bearing in mind that the particularities of modern conflict are becoming increasingly urban, liquid, post-digital and abstract, it is necessary to redirect the tools towards an open and public way of doing, which is understood as an actuator from materiality and methodology. Understanding that the way of doing is as important as what is being done.
In the face of so much acceleration, we must also demand a way of doing that is compatible with critical thinking, based not so much on negation as on possibilities. Possibilities born of the subversion of the code that constructs the architecture of contemporary making.
According to Sweigart (2013) a hacker is an individual who studies a system in order to understand it so deeply, to the point of being able to modify it in different, mostly creative, ways. On the other hand, Erickson (2008) points out that the hacker solves problems in unimaginable ways compared to those that are circumscribed to solving them by thinking in conventional methodologies.
It is from critical and contextual design that we can trigger debate and discussion, be it about the material, the result, the methodology or the processes. The resulting objects, services, and scenarios are presented as a way of making sense of the world, as a subversive practice that generates new relationships, transformations and ways of experiencing the world, thus generating new ones.
Thus, in the use of a proximity biomaterial, a fast and perfectionist production process is already being hacked. In the design of an object intended to intervene in the public sphere, we are already inciting a common, open debate that will generate new possibilities and new scenarios for the future. In the production of a collective piece, we are constructing a way of doing beyond the individuality characteristic of these last decades, of a dissolution of the artist to give way to an even more emancipated and free us.