|
Schram Analysis 1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words. 1.1. interesting about the article? There seems to be a group of people that did not find the article interesting. Those that did find it interesting found the idea of open participation on a website interesting. 1.2. not interesting about the article? Many people felt that this article was overly complex and not useful. Ryan states "In all honesty, the author's proposed 'ambitious alternatives' to 'the cool curation of Silicon Valley' are neither interesting nor are they useful". There were a lot of opinions that followed this train of thought. 2. what does the author mean by curatorial algorithms? Most people seem to be of the opinion that curatorial algorithms help select 'good' art. Where good is defined by the museum's opinion. 3. what does the author mean by malleable aesthetics? Phong provides a very good definition: "Artifacts, and process, that change via interaction with those who view, or interact with them, apart from those who originally created them." 4. what do you consider the main message of the article? Most people consider the main message of the articel to be that a user of the internet should be able to willing change the things he/she interact with on the internet. 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? Everyone seems to agree. 5.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? Katy had a good answer to this question: "I used to say to my students, just because learning is fun, doesn't make it useful or meangingful". I agree completely with her. 5.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? The majority feels that the current educational programs outside of this class(the swiki) are not addressing this issue. 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? The class is split on this subject. Ryan believes that if he is using a system he is doing so because he already likes the way it was built. Where others that agree with the statement feel that the internet would be enhanced by having the ability to manipulate it. 6.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? If you agree it would allow for a highly collaborative environment that is always present and changing. If you disagree it might be frustrating to have the places you depend on for information changing. 6.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? Again the swiki was listed. 7. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims? Most people feel that this class does attempt to address these claims.
|
