|
1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words) 1.1. interesting about the article? There is some interesting points in the article, the main one however is that end users should be involved in creating the art of a web page because it directly relates to them and should combat the wave of ads that some corporations use. 1.2. not interesting about the article? I felt like there was a lot of unclarities when the author was trying to make a point or a statement. A lot of complicated, even misplaced words were used in trying to argue against or in favor of a certain point. All of that did not facilitate the understanding of the point the author was trying to make. 2. what does the author mean by curatorial algorithms? The author basically means that programming and design decisions determine what may be produced with software. In other words the curatorial algorithms are the types of algorithms or sets of rules that determine what is a truly good art from a bad one. 3. what does the author mean by malleable aesthetics? The main idea behind malleable aesthetics is that the end users of a certain product or the people that are familiar with a certain environment should have continuous input in the product and should be involved in making the product fit their needs through improving it and changing it. 4. what do you consider the main message of the article? There are two main messages in the article. The first one is that creativity is being faced with a lot of obstacles because artists and skilled people are being continously shut down by the machine of advertising used by corporations to market their products, which leaves artists with a just a little room to expose their art. The other main message of the article is that the internet in general and the web in specific is a wide open area for creativity and people have to find the motivation to be direct contributors to it and make it fit their needs. 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 and disagree. I agree because there is a need in defining what we want people or users to be contributing on before trying to metivate people to do so. But i also disagree because people are different, and with that come difrent interests. There are people that have engaged themselves in contributing in fields that other people didn't think are "good", and that proved that contributing in fun could turn out to be useful and good. 5.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? I believe that people have different interests and have different strengths and weaknesses, so whatever might seem fun and good to a programmer might not seems fun and good to a doctor. Therefore, there is definetely a need to have a variety of courses and experiences in the individual's life to build an interest and a notion of "good" in the individual's mind about a certain area, and motivate him/her to be a direct contributor to that area. 5.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? My senior project, and the DLC class definetely address this claim, because they both encourage students to a direct contribution in a certain project, and they both have for goal making the result better through sharing ideas, learning from other people and collaborating in design and implementation. 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 with this statement, open systems could always be made better because there is a continuous feedback from users. Any product of any kind could be made better if there is a direct involvment of the end user in its design. 6.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? Open-systems would need to have people that are knowledgible of the field, so that they can understand ho to translate the ideas to the developers and how to interact with them in a way that doesn't slow their work. Secondly, it would need to have honest people, so that they can a certain degree of responsability while dealing with a source code that is made free to them. 6.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? Yes, the DLC class addresses this claim through Swiki, because we can read all of the contents of Swiki, modify them and bring as much input as we can it, and even make corrections to its content. My personal experience with that has been that, in a couple of assignments ago, i had to be an analyser, and my name was written in lower case, all i did was to edit the assignment page to make my name written in upper case. 7. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims? Yes, it sure does. Please refer to questions 5.3, and 6.3.
|
