1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words)

1.1. interesting about the article?


I did not find this article interesting at all.


1.2. not interesting about the article?


The writing was really bad, whenever I was about to comprehend the meaning of a sentence or two , the author suddenly would talk about something that din't make sense what so ever with the previous sentence. I kept losing concentration since the reading was not making sense to me.


2. what does the author mean by curatorial algorithms?


Curatorial algorithm is criteria for selection of good art. Curatorial algorithms allow the curator to design public interactive systems for art.


3. what does the author mean by malleable aesthetics?


Malleable aesthetics according to the author refers not only to the ability to accumulate data or statements but also the structural changes brought by users of the system.


4. what do you consider the main message of the article?


I am not sure of the main message of the article, I had a hard time understanding the article but I think it is how internet can be used to create interactive systems for artists to get together and create art. Also to create open interactive systems which can evolve with user made changes.


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 the statement above.


5.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement?


I am not sure whether I have been involved in something good that lasts longer than the event itself. Probably yes, since I have been tutoring underprivilaged kids in Family Learning Center in Boulder, If the kids retain what they learnt with my help then it would be similar to the above statement. And also, the software we are implementing for a company is going to last longer than the event itself.


5.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim?


Yes, Senior project, where we are to implement software which is stable,long lasting, and manageable.
So in a way the above claim is addressed in our senior project course.

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 disagree, why would I use a system which is going to be changed often. If I am using a system then I like the way the system has been designed and structured, so frequent structural changes to a system already in use is not a good idea. At the same time open source project where users fix bugs, add new features is a good idea.


6.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement?


I am currently running a postgresql database server and it has some features which I hate, like the admin of a system can not be the admin of the postgre server(for safety reasons). And the tomcat webapplication server is not tested for postgresql(according to tomcats documentation) but now that we are using it we (my team)would like to write a report on this to the webmaster/administrators of Tomcat. Both of these servers are open source projects.


6.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim?


We talked about open source projects in our DLC course so this claim is being addressed.


7. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims?


yes, see 6.3