|
1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words) 1.1. interesting about the article? The main idea of this article was pretty interesting: that the web/web sites should be used as an opportunity to allow for open participation rather than just "an elaborate yellow pages catalog". Given the flexibility of this new media, we should be taking advantage of its powerful attributes rather than regressing and just molding it into something already familiar to us. I also found the concept of "curatorial algorithms" very interesting. I'd be curious how this algorithm would be defined. 1.2. not interesting about the article? I feel that this article was a little too theoretical and overly complex. When describing the advantages of open participation and visitor involvement, I don't see a need to over-analyze. I think showing more examples (like the reference to "Quake" or online museums) would have been very interesting and useful. 2. what does the author mean by curatorial algorithms? He means a coded criteria for selecting "good" art. This algorithm would be the technical "judge" of art. As stated earlier, how this criteria is determined would be very interesting to know about. 3. what does the author mean by malleable aesthetics? "...the ability to accumulate not only statements, or data, but also the structural changes brought by users of the system." I also found following passage particularly interesting and relevent: "Whereas the beauty of most existing hypertext and hypermedia art is supposed to reside in the masterful interplay of prospective narratives, wired in by the author; the allure of malleable aesthetics is the potential digression toward and development of almost any direction." 4. what do you consider the main message of the article? The main message is that since the Internet provides such a flexible media to work with - something not present with tangible media (i.e. newspapers, physical art, etc.) - we should take advantage of these attributes and push uncharted boundaries. Let's see where artistic freedom combined with an ultra-collaborative environment can take us rather than just repackaging the Internet to fit into less powerful current media forms. 5. Please comment on the following claim: “As an artist using the Internet, the question of how to involve people in meaningful events is paramount. Inspiring participation in something useful or fun, or enlightening is okay. But better still is orchestrating contributions to something good that lasts longer the event itself…”. 5.1. agree / disagree? I agree with this. I would add, however, that one cannot exist without the other. In order to "orchestrate" contribution to some higher, long-lasting good, we need to first inspire those little projects that are fun and useful. Since this is being explored now (growth in popularity of wikis, blogs, chats, forums, online message boards, etc), I feel we are already making progress in this concept. 5.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? I would say that I should spend more time looking at the bigger picture of technology, in this case, Internet technology. The article brings up an interesting point in that oftentimes, we tend to go with the flow. Most websites are used as glorified pamphlets, thus we as computer scientists and designers are exposed to this and it affects our creativity with regards to web design. I think after reading this article, I've realized I need to be more open to the potential of the Internet (and all technology in general) and try to use it to its maximum capacity. 5.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? I haven't had many classes that really address this directly, though the use of wikis in this course and my wireless-sensor networks course last semester have exposed me to this idea. 6. Please comment on the following claim: “Due to the manipulative capacity of interactive systems, designs should be open to revision and debate… The term “malleable aesthetics” as I mean it refers to the ability to accumulate not only statements, or data, but also the structural changes brought by users of the system. Incompatible with forced enclosure, the purest forms of this category of production are licensed to assure that programming code remains in the public domain”. 6.1. agree / disagree? I agree. The Internet has the great advantage of having "manipulative capacity", thus its a perfect environment to allow unrestricted creativity. 6.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? Same response as 5.2. Often we see websites as high-tech billboards, forgetting that they have so much more potential to catalyze collaboration, creativity, innovation, etc. 6.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? Same as response for 5.3. Swiki's allow for a more open-ended. unrestricted contributions. 7. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims? Yes. As stated in the above questions, the swiki used in this course is a great example of using the Internet's "manipulative capacity" attribute.
|
