“In “thinking through making” we can no longer regard making as a projection, as the projection of a ready made thought or concept on to raw material, or a projection of thought on matter as the traditional hylomorphic model of making proposes. Rather, making is an ongoing binding together of material flows and sensory awareness. This is to think of making as a kind of weaving and to think of every artifact as a knot, something bound together out of lots of materials that all get scrunched up together or come together and all get tied up. That incidentally, is why I don’t use power point. There is a rational for this: I don’t believe in PowerPoint. When we use PowerPoint we project images on the screen; PowerPoint is the epitome of the logic of projection which I am arguing against. The reason why I like black boards is that the black board is the epitome of the process of creativity that I am arguing for. You stand at the black board and you scrape a line. Then your movement, your awareness, the trace of the materials are all bound up in that one performance and what you see is the outcome of that performance. That’s why I like blackboards” (Ingold, T)
In thinking through making Ingold suggests that the artifact cannot be understood as an idea simply projected on to a material.
Does this support our thinking that the learning resource cannot be a tool for projecting knowledge onto an artwork?
 Hylomorphism from the greek hyle (matter) and morphe (form). Whenever we read that in the making of artifacts, practitioners impose forms internal to the mind upon a material world ‘out there’ hylomorphism is at work.