|
HW11 Coyer 1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words) 1.1. interesting about the article? "While firewalls, filtration, transmission asymmetry, and security mechanisms encroach insidiously on the technical feasibility of new forms of reciprocal communication, nonetheless experimentation continues." I find it interesting that the author values user feedback and a lack of censorship over security. The current state of affairs on the internet demands at least a cursory defense system on every internet apparatus. 1.2. not interesting about the article? In all honesty, the author's proposed 'ambitious alternatives' to 'the cool curation of Silicon Valley' are neither interesting nor are they useful. Let me explain: in my experience, most people prefer being heard over listening. Therefore, the 'reciprocal communication' applications propsed by the author will devolve into an atmosphere of one-sided communication... everyone offers input but no one bothers to pay attention to others' input. Further, there exist many forms of internet communication that allow multi-directional conversations, etc. via the methods the author describes (the Virtual Whiteboard in MS NetMeeting predates this article, to say nothing of discussion boards). Maybe I'm missing the point, but from my perspective, the author offers presents very little of note... besides deploring the current state of the internet communication atmosphere. 2. what does the author mean by curatorial algorithms? "Programming and design decisions determine, broadly, what may be produced with software. Criteria for selection of "good" art can be coded. With this in mind the term "curatorial algorithm" comes to make sense." The author describes 'curatorial algorithms' in the context of monitoring contributions to a graphical-chat application. He means that he must monitor the postings of his users (for decorum and coherence) using a mechanism that he calls a 'curatorial algorithm'. 3. what does the author mean by malleable aesthetics? That users of a particular environment can change the underlying structure of that environment. 4. what do you consider the main message of the article? "The diffusion of control over public interactive systems leads to malleable aesthetics." The author wishes to see a devolution of structure on the internet, to a point where any user can change the characteristics of the tool with which he/she is communicating... all in the name of avoiding the 'cool curation of Silicon Valley'. I can appreciate the author's desire to push the limits of the current state of affairs on the internet and explore new ways of communicating... but the ideas proposed in this paper are too theoretical to be useful. 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 that it is important to involve people in meaningful events, but I'm not sure that that was what the author had in mind when he wrote this. 5.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? I'm not sure that I've ever been involved in 'something good that lasts longer the event itself'. I don't even know what that means... in fact, I'm quite sure it is meaningless. I can infer from this statement, however, that the author wants to create some sort of reciprocal communication system that stores the inputs of all its users... but I think those already exist. 5.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? I don't believe so. 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 whole-heartedly disagree. If I'm using a system by my own free will, chances are that I'm using it because I like the general appearance and structure. Why would I want to use a system that can be changed by any user? I suppose that if a system were able to be rolled-back to a previously known-good configuration, it would be tolerable. However, I still doubt the utility of such a system. 6.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? I draw no meaningful consequences from this statement. The utility of accumulating the structural changes of multiple users on a system is not immediately apparent. 6.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? I don't believe so. 7. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims? I wouldn't want to change the structure of the Swiki, nor would I want to be subjected to the structural changes implemented by other users, much less see a historical account of those changes. The statements and data uploaded by my classmates are useful and informative enough... and the general structure of the course is facilitative of collaborative learning in particular and learning in general.
|
