ON THE ORIGIN OF PRINTERS
ADAM CHAU
2013
Abstract
With the inevitable obsolescence of 2d printing technology in the domestic setting, the next
evolution for the survival of this technology is the 3d printer. Like an organism trying to survive in
a changing environment the design and use of the printer is desperately mutating; trying to find
footing during the next transition in domestic living.
OR
What would I gather if I went to a party with Darwin, ELIZA, a Whale, and the Makerbot?
TECHNOLOGY AS ORGANISM
Printing, as a generic and vast word to describe anything from the development
of paper layered with light-sensitive silver salts to the deposition of concrete from
a computer-controlled extruder, can be defined as a method for repetition – a
procedural and systematic approach to create a physical artifact. The birth of the
printer has no distinct origin. In tracing the heredity of the domestic 2d printer we
can see multiple strands of lineage – a wide variety of other technologies,
methods of communication, and systems can be evidenced in the culminating
forces that produced this machine. Can we solely link the delivery of a machine
like the Epson Color Ink-jet as the child of xerography1i? Or what about the
computer, which is integral for the performance of the printer? We could
speculate that the ancestor of the printer was the letterpress, or cyanotypes, or
even the wax tablet [Figure 1]. Nevertheless the 2d digital printer is an evolution
from its many predecessors – an organism that had been selected as the
successor to technologies that had thrived and eventually obsolesced.
Perhaps a parallel technology can demonstrate the process of evolution and
selection in a concise manner. Lens-based technology has a far more
1 Epson describes the first digital printer, the EP-101, as the “son” of electrophotography.
concentrated history than the printer and has rapidly manifested itself into a
variety of applications. The arrival of the lens is also much more clear –
beginning with magnifying glasses and fire-starters in Egypt, to eyeglasses
(spectacles) in Italy, and telescopes in Hollandii. From there an easy route is
taken in the objects created after these inventions; telescopes became more
advanced, pinhole cameras became SLR cameras, and spectacles made way for
contact lenses. The progression of a lens has made a diverse set of objects
much like how the evolution of many sets of species stem from one primitive
entity. And like the animals that have vestige parts integrated with its genetics
from its ancestor, so do these objects that evolved from the lens. The whale,
dolphin, and goat all link back to a common species; traces of its background still
remain in their current form (whales having hip-bones that do not have any
utilitarian use)iii. The digital camera, telescope, and contact lens also hold traits
that carry on from its predecessor - a viewing port is common in all of these
objects. In the case of the digital camera, however, a viewing port is a vestige
trait left over from its past generations. There is no need for a physical opening
for the human eye to see through the lens as all of the information is received via
light sensors and converted into numerical codeiv.
“Students of natural evolution have done much to enlighten us about the nature and the dynamics
of natural structures. Historians, however, have as yet only scratched the surface of the highly
organized and evolving man-made world. They have not explained the evolution of such
omnipresent systems as streets and highways, telephones and television…A Newton or Darwin
for the man-made is wanting” – Hughes, The Order of the Technical World.
In a case of reverse theorizing Descartes’ anthropocentric ideas of the Bêtemachinev, how can we think of reconceptualizing the way we see technology? As
machines are comprised of physical parts, meticulously arranged in order to
function, a strong parallel can be made with the function of organs; a battery is as
integral to keeping a computer alive as a heart is to a human. If animals are a
part of a mechanized system, Descartes himself must conclude that there is no
difference in the system between living tissue and metal gears. The
categorization of things, functions, and systems is far too arbitrary for separation;
that is to say that we rely on and are biased to outdated notions of organization.
Perhaps it is all too novel to hybridize two existing definitions, however the
implication of a unitary system would streamline how we predict the future of
technological advancement.
Integrating the definitions of how organic and inorganic systems work can be
exemplified with both Turing’s test on ELIZAvi as well as the sub-argument where
Rogerian psychologists allude to the human brain being a computational
machine. ELIZA – based on the systematic rules of human communication –
reacts to an audience by following an algorithm; this is the most primitive way to
engage in conversation2. Her parsed down responses uncannily mirror the
results you would get from a person-to-person dialogue [ENDNOTE]. This is to
also bring into question the responses we ourselves give back to ELIZA – is it not
also part of a larger complex algorithm that we play into? If our human-human
communication is based on a system of rules, then the same merge of
Descartes’ animal-machine theory applies.
2
This is not to say that there must be direct human interaction with a technology in order for it to be
interpreted as an organism.
“A human therapist can be viewed as an information processor and decision maker with a set of
decision rules which are closely linked to short-range and long-range goals” – A Computer
Method of Psychotherapy: Preliminary Communication.vii
Rogerian theory also attests to the congruent nature of dialogue between two
bodies. As the psychiatrist acts as the platform or program for the client to
interact with, it is the counselor’s job to become only an algorithmviii. There is no
difference between conscious rule-based interaction and pre-programed script3.
OBJECT SURVIVAL
“…there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of
structure or instinct.” – Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species.
Why does technology evolve? If an innovation is made to better a process, then
how and why does it change its design and eventually its function over time?
Fine-tuning and improving efficiency is a logical path for these objects to wander,
but eventually a mutation takes hold and the use of such an object can rapidly
change. Surely the telescope – made for looking up at the heavens – had reason
to transform into binoculars used for Earthly functions4ix.
In an abstraction of the proverbial mark that necessity is the mother of invention
– and much like the theory of natural selection – objects continue to evolve
3 ELIZA had different scripts – one being DOCTOR - to play the roll of a doctor, and another to be
completely neutral and just mimic the user’s input.
4 Jan Lippershey was asked to change the original telescope to have two eye-ports after submitting it
to be patented.
based on new obstacles that are presented to them. As in the transition of a
woodworker’s microplane that seeped into the culinary markets5x, new
environments present new gateways for these objects to thrive. Like an invasive
species finding a new habitat, misuse of technology poses an important
perspective on the lifespan of these objects. These things will perform under very
different circumstances, but they will remain as manifestations that are
distinguished from their surrounding environments.
The use of a small blade as a clothing pin in Ancient Greece is an instance of a
device that has an ambiguous transition in its technology and use. The Herodotus
account of Athens banning iron clothing pins after the murder of an Athenian soldier
by housewives via these pins makes for a blurry lineage for this objectxi. Had it been
a technology developed from a weapon or visa versa? How ironic it is to see these
pins displayed in museums along with daggers of the same era [Figure 2]xii. The
interplay of use in this object is sublime; unfortunately the opportunity to cross the
boundaries of utility in order to survive led to its demise, being outlawed thereafter.
Printers, similarly, have the special gift of transcending use depending on
environment. The case of the letterpress used first to print the Bible and academic
articles (Gutenberg)xiii to being exploited for other information-based opportunities
like newspapersxiv. The transition from printing technology into the domestic setting
required restructuring of Western infrastructure, allowing it to live in a new setting.
The technologies surrounding this shift of professional activity fused into domesticity
5
Grace Manufacturing reported their Microplane tools account for 65% of their annual income.
- printers, computers, typewriters, etc. - had anticipated this move. The typewriter,
designed to have familiar components similar to both a piano and sewing machinexv
[Figure 3], give hints to its use based on previous domestic objects (perhaps even its
lineal ancestor) and eases its acceptance into the Western household. Early
strategies of incorporating the television into intimate and private settings was a
parallel effort to this; being large and bulky, these machines were either encased in
cabinets, table-like stands, or made to resemble radios - making it relate to furniture
as much as possible in order to be adopted into living quarters6xvi [Figure 4].
Anything too alien to the vocabulary of what was already established would probably
have had a negative impact on the commercial success of this technology and
system.
An important aspect to note about object survival is popularity of an object in its
given environment during a critical time in culture. For the case of the television,
acceptance increased after World War 2 when nuclear-age optimism gave a sense
of prosperity and the economy grew to allow the middle-class to develop a consumer
culturexvii.
ENTER THE HOME-PRINTER
At the time of development, laser printing - invented in the Seventies - was best
suited for professional practices; the machines were large, clunky, and by the
Eighties averaged around $17,000xviii. The common household printer began in
1990, when Hewlett-Packard’s LaserJet IIP dipped below $1000, and shortly after
introduced the commercially successful LaserJet 4 in 1992xix. Looking at trends in
6 52.9% of homes had television sets in 1952. 1953 RETMA Statistic.
camera technology we can see how the market shifted once the digital camera went
under $10007. Sales exponentially went up each year, while analog cameras had
been steadily declining from 2000-2003 [Figure 5]. Then number of high-income
households that bought digital cameras skyrocketed from 20% to 50% after 2001xx.
Consumers in durable goods markets make strategic purchase decisions by comparing the utility from a
purchase in the current period with that from a purchase in the future when prices are lower. Heterogeneous
consumers with differing price elasticities and intrinsic valuations will choose diverse adoption patterns,
which leads to the varying consumer mix in residual demand over time. Since price-inelastic and highvaluation consumers drop out of the market after their adoptions, the consumer mix each period contains a
larger proportion of price-elastic and low-valuation consumers. Firms thus have an incentive to cut prices
in order to attract remaining consumers. – Ying Zhao, Why are Prices Falling Fast? An Empirical Study of
the US Digital Camera Market.
Although both the computer and printer had been in existence for several
decades, it needed the time to develop in order to manifest into a household
item. The majority of public schools owned computers by 19758xxi; the typical
student handed in printed assignments during this time, however it was not until
the new millennium that it was a standard. The US Census shows that the
majority of households did not own a computer until 2000 (compared to 8.2 in
1984)xxii.
Not much after the rising popularity of the one-function computer printer, multifunctional domestic printers started to enter into the market. All-in-ones added
scanning, fax, and telephone capabilities. The office was now compacted into a
device that took up a little more than a cubic foot. This ultimate super-tool
7
This is for the standard 6-megapixel camera in 2001. All cameras featuring lower megapixels were
under this price-point, however not widely accepted into the public due to minimal quality needs (56mp or over).
8 The National Science Foundation helped develop computer networks for higher education and
public schools. 55% of secondary schools had computers.
seemed to be the modernist approach to grappling with the Twenty-first Century
[Figure 6]. Both standard printers as well as all-in-ones had rising sales until
2010, where the luxuries of the internet superseded the need for physical
strategies of communication.
Activities surrounding the home printer are now competing against those of the
internet. E-mail, facebook, or any other systems of storage over a network cuts
out the demand of physical artifacts. Once the public accepts the use of this
network then new paradigms on communication are made. Devices like
smartphones only sped up this shift into the virtual realm. The printer seems to
be doomed for extinction.
THE GREAT LEAP
It’s not too often that a technology develops much iteration of itself within a short
timeframe. The 3d printer has proved to be able to expand into an eclectic set of
markets. This could be that this new branch of printing has not had a firm
understanding of its environment and is trying to find the best possible domain to
thrive. 3d printing, although categorized by specific processes to print, is not
chained down to material standards just yet; giving autonomy to who, what, and
why things are being printed. The progression in the use of 3d objects through
digital means is a venture for professionals and amateurs alike. They are also
equally important to the development of this technology as it takes both
innovation and knowledge from a wide variety of genres to find new applications
for this process.
Breakthroughs expand from craft institutions to Google. The EKWC in Holland
has dedicated a ZCorp SLS printer to run experimental claybody tests to find new
ways to customize 3d printed ceramics. The center, renowned for being at the
leading edge of ceramic technology, invented the first wireless-integrated Blaauw
kilns where temperature; reduction atmosphere; and gas consumption is
regulated via separate computer. Their philosophy is set up so that
experimentation is integral to their process. Similarly, the University of
Washington’s 3d Printing Department currently publishes recipes of their 3d
printing tests, which include bone and cookie-doughxxiii.
“Technology is radical – Someone seized the need and had the knowhow.” – Xavier Toubes,
founder of EKWC and head of Ceramics at SAIC9.
Google has created its 3d warehouse to accommodate a storage space for 3d
models. This does not directly interact with printing technologies (much of the
architecture is used for Google Maps), it does provide possible infrastructure.
Again, new technology does not know where it is going. It is alive, but still naïve
to know what it needs and must span across multiple disciplines to find an
accommodating place. Markets will definitely be found and changed for the
better.
“…consider specific product groups, such as (custom) hearing aids. This whole industry switched
to a fully digital workflow within just a few years. Now nearly all hearing aids are printed, without
the consumer even knowing it. This could be considered as quite a big impact, but in the end, the
consumer doesn’t really care how it’s made. He just wants a good custom product, quick and
cheap. Digital fabrication allows just that.” – Zjenja Doubrovski, MIT Media Lab10. [Figure 7]
9
Personal interview. 2012.
Personal interview. 2013.
10
Michael Pollan’s radical theory of plants having control over humans to
propagate is just as seductive as Descartes’ tyrannical views on animals. Could
technology be using us to grow? Perhaps our willingness to expand, makeefficient, invent, increase, or to “just see” is the result from control of machines.
These things need our innovation to help them evolve and stay alive in a culture
that is developing with other objects that need just as much attention from us as
the next.
WHY 3D IS 2D
A 2d home printer is designed to have 2-axis control (X and Y). One axis
deposits material, as the other will move the bed down a track. A 3d printer adds
a Z axis where the material control will be delegated to the X and Y with a static
bed that moves up and down11. This evolution is the natural progression since
the single axis printing press. Although 2d printers are not overt in their
objecthood to the general public, they are still physical manifestations of
communication; their main purpose as content-holders has also de-emphasized
their ability to translate themselves as things12.
4d printing involves multiple parts that are assembled while printing; a bit of a
misnomer, it would allow a complex object to be ‘built’ with no assembly required.
The notorious 3d printed gun is a perfect example of a proposed 4d object where
11
This is the process for extrusion deposition
It is almost as if they mimic the screen in which they came from where the object is the computer,
where the information is a non-object.
12
someone could print a one-time use objectxxiv. MIT had announced the first 4d
printed object, a flexible strand that was capable of bending inward to create a
continuous loop [Figure 8].
THE DOMESICATION OF 3D PRINTERS – OBJECTS VS PROTOTYPES
What would it take to have the 3d printer live in the domestic setting? Although
new ways of printing and new markets emerge, the public has not adopted the
printer thus far. Manufactures like Makerbot and RepRap have been the
forerunners of selling cheap 3d printers [Figure 9], however the makeshift
designs13 mainly appeal to hobbyists and professionals that cannot access a high
fidelity machine. The Up! Mini 3d printer is a promising design for at-home users.
The small desktop machine conforms to many strategies used in twentieth
Century designs whereby the technology is completely closed off to the user.
Ironically a black box itself, this machine performs as a contemporary electronic;
it becomes withdrawn due to its sleek design [Figure 10].
Services offer a different scenario to the future of 3d printing. Like an internet
café in the 90’s, fablabs like InnovationFactory or The 3d Printing Experience in
Chicago offer services exclusive to printing, however traction has only been
received with professionals within the field as well as students. These physical
places might also be overshadowed by an even more efficient system – the
13
Some of which made on a lasercutter or 3d printed themselves.
internet. Shapeways and Ponoko are two leading services for online printing.
With a free membership, users can upload models, select a variety of materials,
and have their print shipped to their door. The Shapeways model of selling is an
innovative structure used to kickstart the economy within 3d printing services.
Members are allowed to sell their designs online, without a selling fee and
without material markups. This strategy allows use of the business as a platform,
making Shapeways itself withdrawn from a prospective buyer’s eye [Figure 11].
Other service-type models in speculation are of established corporations using
printers at their retail location to produce designed objects. This would allow for
customization of a design as well as control of stock and/or backstock. Masscustomization is a red herring; statistically mass-customized objects do not
produce revenue comparable to highly designed objects. Nike’s NikeID14 is one
of the only instances where a (large) market has accepted mass-customization
as an experience worth having15xxv. Compared with its other projects like the
Flyknit, a shoe woven from a single fiber strand - which had the highest sellout
rate for a shoe releasexxvi - the effort in customization does not seem to be worth
a high investment.
Another problem with the accessibility of using 3d printers is the software.
Requiring a 3d program like Solidworks or Rhino, users will have to buy software
in order to create their own objects. The Xbox 360 has attempted to integrate
14
15
Customizable sneakers
20% of Nike’s revenue comes NikeID.
technologies to accommodate this issue, but the requirements of printing a
physical object is too advanced for the current possibilities of this system.
Infrastructure is needed in order to build a possible environment for this
technology to live; the climate has shifted too far for the 2d printer, but is not
ready for the next step.
Copyright is a major obstacle in the future of printing. 3d scanning complicates
things further. New laws governing and protecting copyright need to be set in
place in order for the legitimate scan, sale, duplication, and print of an object. It’s
like the case of the remix or a mash-up within music. How can one gauge the
authenticity or the creative input when listening to music where the artist
rearranges pre-existing content, or curates the blend of two or more songs?
What will happen if someone wants to tweak a design to fit their needs better?
Customization is one thing, but the unconsensual hacking of an object will prove
to be a test of what designers are willing to submit to the public.
Seriality versus the one-off might be the deciding factor of home 3d printers. The
ability to prototype or have a custom fit has the incentive to buy a machine, but
this would also be regulated to hobbyists and craftspeople. The potential for this
machine to become the lazy housewife’s DIY craft outlet is far too nightmarish to
delve into; and a simple nod by Martha Stewart would start a revolution. The
lines of whether this device makes multiples or prototype is ambiguous, and that
is exactly why it is hard to pinpoint the most accepting market for it. Could chefs
use it to print out chocolate desserts? Do bike shops 3d scan broken parts to
make quick one-time repairs? Does IKEA print and sell hardware based on
need? Printing technology is too versatile in its design and potential to predict
where it will first land or stay.
The introduction of printers into the educational system may be a story that may
also be an indicator to how 3d printing technology will be mixed with the public
sphere. Instruction to how to use this machine at an early age might prepare a
new generation to be accepting to this into the domestic space. The use of the
computers and the internet (KidsNet) in elementary school systems in the 90’s
showed an increased interest in science when children were tasked to gather
data and analyze trendsxxvii. This program undoubtedly led to interest in
computers within the household as well as the comfort level of using a computer
from an early age. We can also compare the shift of classes taught from physical
making to digital making in schools as a testament to the need for change and
the acceptance of technology as in integral part of as a 3d printing courses within
the public school system. Website and software classes are replacing drivers ed
and woodshopxxviii. Foundation classes at art schools are shifting their classes to
the digital as well, substituting the long-standing 3d fabrication studio with Adobe
Creative Suite classesxxix.
With the future extinction of 2d printers, this organism is striving to compete with
a shifting environment by trying to evolve into another species. The 3d printer
has been a potential solution to the survival of this technology, however the
domestication of such a machine requires infrastructure as well as adjustments in
market value. We can look at parallel technology to assess the probability of
domestication compared to a service-based system - however without taking
other technology; culture climate; and further innovations into account, we cannot
accurately predict its future.
i
"A History of Printing Innovation." Seiko Epson Corp., n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2013.
Glick, Thomas F., Steven John Livesey, and Faith Wallis. "Eyeglasses." Medieval Science, Technology,
and Medicine: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge, 2005. N. pag. Print.
iii Theobald, Douglas. "Atavisms." 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution. N.p.: n.p., 1999. N. pag. Print.
iv Curtin, Dennis P. "How a Digital Camera Works." ShortCourses. ShortCourses, 2011. Web. 06 May
2013.
v Hatfield, Gary. "René Descartes." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 2008. Web. 2013.
vi "The Turing Test." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003. Web. 2013.
vii Colby, Kenneth Mark, James B. Watt, and John P. Gilbert. "A Computer Method of Psychotherapy:
Preliminary Communication." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 142 (1966): 148-52. Print.
viii Dewy, Russ, Dr. "How Rogerian Therapy Works." Intropsych.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 2013.
ix Abrahams, Peter. "The Early History of the Binocular." About. About.com, n.d. Web. 2013.
x Edge, John T. "How the Microplane Grater Escaped the Garage." NYtimes.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 2013.
xi Figueira, Thomas J. "Herodotus on the Early Hostilities between Aigina and Athens." Excursions in
epichoric history: Aiginetan essays. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1993. N. pag. Print.
xii Dorieo. Grave Goods of a Ancient Greek Warrior Craftsman. Digital image. Wikipedia, the Free
Encyclopedia. N.p., 2007. Web. 2013.
xiii Howard, Nicole. "Gutenberg's Bible." The Book: The Life Story of a Technology. Westport, CT:
Greenwood, 2005. N. pag. Print.
xiv "Letterpress Printing." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. N.p., 2013. Web. 2013.
xv Smith, Nick. "Classic Projects: Manual Typewriter." E&T Magazine. N.p., 2013. Web. 2013.
xvi "Postwar American Television." Earlytelevision.org. Early Television Museum, n.d. Web. 2013.
xvii Clifton, Jacob. "How Did World War II Affect Television?" About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 2013.
xviii "History of the Laser Printer." History of the Laser Printer. MIT, n.d. Web. 2013.
xix Bellis, Mary. "History of Computer Printers." History of Computer Printers. About.com, n.d. Web.
2013.
xx Zhao, Ying. Why Prices Are Falling Fast? An Empirical Study of the US Digital Camera Market. Diss.
Yale University - Department of Economics, 2006. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Econ.yale.edu. Web.
xxi Molner, Andrew. "Computers in Education: A Brief History." THE Journal (1997): n. pag.
Thejournal.com. Web. 2013.
ii
xxii
Newburger, Eric C. "Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States." US Census. N.p., 2001.
Web. 2013.
xxiii Open3DP. University of Washington, n.d. Web. 2013.
xxiv “3d Printed Gun”. Google web search. May 7, 2013.
xxv Dencker, David. "NIKE ID - The First Example of Mass Customization Driving Profit?" Crossroad
Innovation. N.p., 2010. Web. 2013.
xxvi "Nike Flyknit Racer and Trainer." Nike. N.p., 2012. Web. 2013.
xxvii Xxii.
xxviii Brown, Tara Tiger. "The Death Of Shop Class And America's Skilled Workforce." Forbes. Forbes
Magazine, 30 May 2012. Web. 2013.
xxix Maine College of Art. Comparison of programs from 2006 to 2013.
IMAGES
Figure 1- A chain of four desktop printers from 1880-1976 used to create a four-color printed book. Antin,
Xavier. Just in Time. Digital image. Xavier Antin. Xavier Antin, 2010. Web. 2013.
Figure 2 - Ancient Greek objects made out of iron. #4 – Clothing Pin, #9-10 Daggers
Figure 3 - Sholes & Glidden Typewriter. Digital image. Officemuseum, 2012. Web. 2013.
Figure 4 - "1951 Andrea C-VL16" Earlytelevision.org. Early Television Museum, Digital image. 2013.
Figure 5 - "Worldwide Still Camera Sales." PMA Datawatch. Digital Photography Review, 2004. Web.
2013.
Figure 6 -Brother MFC-685CW. Digital image. CNET. N.p., n.d. Web. 2013.
Figure 7 - 3d Printed Hearing aid. Digital image. 3d Printers Canada. N.p., n.d. Web. 2013.
Figure 8 – 4d printed object. MIT. Google image searched on May 8th, 2013.
Figure 9 – Makerbot-Replicator. Digital image. Makerbot.com. n.p.,n.d., Web. 2013.
Figure 10 – Up! Mini 3d printer. Digital image. Rea.org, n.p., n.d., Web. 2013.
Figure 11 – Shapeways Model. Digital image. Shapeways.com. n.p., n.d., Web. 2013.