|
1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words) 1.1. interesting about the article? I thought the idea of having the "end-users" or people viewing the art involved in the creation process of the art an interesting idea because it closely relates to another article we read concerning the issue of getting the "end-user" / viewer involved in the design process but in this case it's art instead of systems / software. 1.2. not interesting about the article? I just thought the writing of the article was bad and I had a very hard time reading it both because it's complexity and writing style (The white text on black gave me a terrible headache as well.) To tell you the truth, on some of the upcoming questions I might be looking at other people's answers for reference (collaboration) just because I don't think I fully understand the article. 2. what does the author mean by curatorial algorithms? These algorithms help people to determine what is "good" art. It's a sort of rule base / or criteria for what good art actually is. 3. what does the author mean by malleable aesthetics? People who reside or use a specific enviornment should be able to be a part of and change that enviornment. 4. what do you consider the main message of the article? I think the main message is that the internet is a tool that is in a sense unbounded and so we as users should be able to use this to our advantage and be an active contributor to it. Websites should not only present art and information to us but let us co-create the art and post information as well. (Isn't the class swiki an example of this?) 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 but again comes the question of motivation. Starting simple with useful and fun things is a good stepping stone in order to motivate the community to get involved and give them experience. Sooner or later it won't be too hard to motivate people to get involved in contributing to something good that lasts longer the event itself. 5.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? There are none, this may be because I don't understand what "contributing to something good that lasts longer the event itself" means. If this means contributing to something that is ongoing and will continue to be contributed to long after I've contributed to it then I believe the personal consequence that I've drawn from this statement is that I might want to start thinking about how I could motivate myself to contribute to something of this nature without being told (such as the swiki for this class). On the other hand I would like to gain social capitol and contribute to other swikis that I can find that are interesting to me and that I have knowledge about. 5.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? No. I've never even heard of things like swikis until taking this 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 to some extent. I believe that people who use a system should have a VOICE in how the system should operate / appear and should be able to present their voice but if I'm using a system that I'm happy with how would I feel if all of a sudden it changed to the likings of other people without my own consent? This is a very hard topic to deal with because I do believe that users should be able to have voices in the systems they use but...well as presented earlier whatabout the other people who "don't want a busstop or bus route coming down their street (EDC)"? 6.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement? Websites and the web are very powerful and should let the users have opinions and voices in how they operate but A LOT OF PEOPLE use the web and these sites so it's not as easy as just letting users change them when they want to. 6.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim? Again, the only thing I've seen is the swiki for this class. 7. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims? Yes, the swiki lets us do more than simply browse a website for information. It lets us be an active contributor which is fun and I like it, but it's not the same as letting me change how the system works.
|
