Note:
For the mid-term report, I choose a community of the scrap exchange. I have got superficial information from the website. I have exchanged e-mails with Ann, a director of the organization, started to know the group under the surface level. And I have visited the place in Durham, talked with Ann, and impressed by how the organization runs. I took some note based on Doni’s five attributes of community; life goals, historical consciousness, relationships, agency, and organizational structure.
creative
LIFE GOALS:
How can a life model of creative interaction be build?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification
looking for spark, work for imagination
rise awareness of distinction between recycling and reuse. recycling is inefficient
having people change perspective
HISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS:
envision how people consume their creation?
receptive 18 years of reuse of changing people behaviors, embrace it
NYC department of cultural affair, dep. of sanitation
RELATIONSHIPS:
partners community system
senior goal
falling people values
engage in process
third place between home and work place
AGENCY:
as a workshop, open studio
open 7 days a week, accessible
provide chance of material repurpose
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE:
governed by core staff
member of board/ volunteer as boards
educator, dean of natural...
artist, mixed medium...
database work person,
museum director,
Duke consulting,
after school teacher
Showing posts with label Seminar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seminar. Show all posts
Saturday
Friday
W8, Essay, Hayles_500w
Hyper-Remediation
From the Web Supplement and book of Writing Machines, N. Katherine Hayles explores the ways mutating her narrative with media-specific literature. Hayles speculates how can literary texts be represented and reproduced through multi-media. In particular, Hayles claims that the materiality of literary text should be inhabited within the materiality of artifact. Hayles emphasizes the importance of interdynamic play that is woven into fictional world through remediation processes.
In Embodiments of Material Metaphors, Hayles claims new ways to read texts with theory. Hayles suggests a new possibility of texts that delivers both “the generalities of theory and the particularities of personal experience” in conflicting voices. Gradually, two different voices merge into each other than becoming an unified entity. The two voices of personal experience and theoretical argument alter another reading experience and guide readers through the theoretical ideas at the state of the Writing Machine. Even if the transparency of text and its meaning is clear, readers progressively build own meaning through the imaginative world of the text. Materiality deeply affects subjective meaning creation. Literary texts require its bodies where materiality and meaning are represented. Hayles emphasis a critical practice of materiality and engagement unfolds the possibilities of uncertain things that interact with the physical inhabitant.
Hayles brings Mark Z. Danielewski’s a contemporary novel “House of leaves” in order to theorize two key structures in the novel. Two key concepts are the materiality of inscription; intricate and multi-layered narratives, and a material understanding of the signifier; typographical variation and inconsistent page layouts. House of leaves introduces an appropriate model for subjectivity can communicate through own material metaphors. Aiming materiality approves us to see the dynamic interactives through complicated growing narratives. In House of leaves, a literary text prompts its physical embodiment in connection with its verbal signifiers to build meanings and hint the meaning of meanings.
Hayles points out two distinguish factors in House of leaves are “the claim of the print book by showing what print can be in a digital age” and “the vitality of the novel as a genre by recovering, through the processes of remediation themselves, subjectivities coherent enough to become the foci of the sustained narration that remains the hallmark of the print novel.” The novel alters mediums of inscriptions and incorporates processes of remediations along with layered stories. With four-folded layers, for instance, “moving from Navison and Karen at the time of filming, through Navison as he edits the film, to Zampano’s initial viewing of the film, to his re-creation of the scene for us,” the layering adds a fifth layer of mediation of “the putative viewers.” The layering is further complicated accoding to ““Samuel T. Glade,” a critic who points out the ambiguity of Navidson’s “No,” it could refer to “either “watch,”“bald,” or “sorry” or all three.”” Hayles supports the layers in novel with “theses complexities of the multiple remediations of the moment violates the fundamental laws of physics.” Subjects alter objects of representation but reconstruct the manifold layers of remediation. The house in the House of leaves represents a district near a boarder between “the metaphoric and the literal, the imaginary and the real” through the remediation of recorded film in the novel.
Like Mark Johnson states “metaphors we live by,” we can not continuously recognized metaphors in our world. Because we can not identify inside and outside, container and contained being of meaning. What we assume is the inside must be smaller than the outside, the contained must be smaller than the container. Once we disregard our assumption, the house, for instance, itself distorts our presumption and remains unrepresentable. Halyes recalls the visualization of M. C. Escher’s ascending/descending staircases. The staircases does not make a sense in the physical world is make a sense in the imaginary world through visualization. No one can perceive/apprehend ascending and descending simultaneously in the cognitive perspective. However, one who trusts/explores the realm of ambiguity/unconsciousness can imagine/walk ascending and descending staircases. In this context, the existence of new borderland beyond objectivity compels the speculation of hyper-remediation through subjectivity.
The Hayles’ Writing Machines reestablishes what it implies to read/see/interact text connecting readers through “interactions with materialities.”
From the Web Supplement and book of Writing Machines, N. Katherine Hayles explores the ways mutating her narrative with media-specific literature. Hayles speculates how can literary texts be represented and reproduced through multi-media. In particular, Hayles claims that the materiality of literary text should be inhabited within the materiality of artifact. Hayles emphasizes the importance of interdynamic play that is woven into fictional world through remediation processes.
In Embodiments of Material Metaphors, Hayles claims new ways to read texts with theory. Hayles suggests a new possibility of texts that delivers both “the generalities of theory and the particularities of personal experience” in conflicting voices. Gradually, two different voices merge into each other than becoming an unified entity. The two voices of personal experience and theoretical argument alter another reading experience and guide readers through the theoretical ideas at the state of the Writing Machine. Even if the transparency of text and its meaning is clear, readers progressively build own meaning through the imaginative world of the text. Materiality deeply affects subjective meaning creation. Literary texts require its bodies where materiality and meaning are represented. Hayles emphasis a critical practice of materiality and engagement unfolds the possibilities of uncertain things that interact with the physical inhabitant.
Hayles brings Mark Z. Danielewski’s a contemporary novel “House of leaves” in order to theorize two key structures in the novel. Two key concepts are the materiality of inscription; intricate and multi-layered narratives, and a material understanding of the signifier; typographical variation and inconsistent page layouts. House of leaves introduces an appropriate model for subjectivity can communicate through own material metaphors. Aiming materiality approves us to see the dynamic interactives through complicated growing narratives. In House of leaves, a literary text prompts its physical embodiment in connection with its verbal signifiers to build meanings and hint the meaning of meanings.
Hayles points out two distinguish factors in House of leaves are “the claim of the print book by showing what print can be in a digital age” and “the vitality of the novel as a genre by recovering, through the processes of remediation themselves, subjectivities coherent enough to become the foci of the sustained narration that remains the hallmark of the print novel.” The novel alters mediums of inscriptions and incorporates processes of remediations along with layered stories. With four-folded layers, for instance, “moving from Navison and Karen at the time of filming, through Navison as he edits the film, to Zampano’s initial viewing of the film, to his re-creation of the scene for us,” the layering adds a fifth layer of mediation of “the putative viewers.” The layering is further complicated accoding to ““Samuel T. Glade,” a critic who points out the ambiguity of Navidson’s “No,” it could refer to “either “watch,”“bald,” or “sorry” or all three.”” Hayles supports the layers in novel with “theses complexities of the multiple remediations of the moment violates the fundamental laws of physics.” Subjects alter objects of representation but reconstruct the manifold layers of remediation. The house in the House of leaves represents a district near a boarder between “the metaphoric and the literal, the imaginary and the real” through the remediation of recorded film in the novel.
Like Mark Johnson states “metaphors we live by,” we can not continuously recognized metaphors in our world. Because we can not identify inside and outside, container and contained being of meaning. What we assume is the inside must be smaller than the outside, the contained must be smaller than the container. Once we disregard our assumption, the house, for instance, itself distorts our presumption and remains unrepresentable. Halyes recalls the visualization of M. C. Escher’s ascending/descending staircases. The staircases does not make a sense in the physical world is make a sense in the imaginary world through visualization. No one can perceive/apprehend ascending and descending simultaneously in the cognitive perspective. However, one who trusts/explores the realm of ambiguity/unconsciousness can imagine/walk ascending and descending staircases. In this context, the existence of new borderland beyond objectivity compels the speculation of hyper-remediation through subjectivity.
The Hayles’ Writing Machines reestablishes what it implies to read/see/interact text connecting readers through “interactions with materialities.”
Class:
Seminar
Saturday
W7, Essay, Authenticity in New Media
Authenticity in New Media
From Peter Lunenfeld’s unpublished manuscript and his virtual lecture and class discussion, The Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading, Lunenfeld argues contemporary issues in the computer, which he refers to as a “culture machine,” and raises questions about the role of designers in this silent combat. Lunenfeld argues that uncritical downloading (consuming) information causes meaningless uploading (producing) of knowledge in the explosion of new media culture. In a case from Twitter, Lunenfeld coins the term “continuous partial production” from Linda Stone’s phrase “continuous partial attention” in order to explain inverting conditions in new/multiple media culture.
Lunenfeld resonates a notion of “unfinish: continuous partial production” in the emerging network society. Lunenfeld piques my curiosity to ask questions; where does authenticity come from, what is authenticity, and how can I see authenticity correctly in these uncompleted conditions?
In a perspective of mindless consumerism, Lunenfeld labels the unbalanced portions between uploading and downloading behavior as a “cultural diabetes.” Lunenfeld concerns himself with the fact that “sticky culture is more sticky than a fan-based Teflon production, no matter how participatory.” Although we are in a swirl of “open sources”, we need to be aware of where the root of sources is, in order to appreciate a being of origin and situate ourselves in “disrupting the flow of media that surrounds us.”
Where does authenticity come from?
Humans reproduce things effortlessly. Lunenfeld mentions “togging” behavior—we compromise ourselves to be anonymous in the cultural flow and let something else control ourselves. Technology has made precision in multiplication the domain of the machine, forcing the essence of human creativity to retreat slowly from the hand to the head. The benefits of this retreat are fruitful sources, but they release functionality from human control. The most important issue of freedom of control is letting technology overrule the human mind and creativity. This smug, unexamined assumption is blinding us to a more fundamental shift. In a contemporary environment, the transforming agents are nano-technology, the global-network, and the virtual-information explosion.
In Design Culture, Paul Saffo, a future forecaster, claims “human culture has been shaped by a dance of two opposing forces: memory and forgetfulness. Memory gives us context, while forgetfulness provides an opening for invention and originality. Successful creativity occurs when the two are balanced and originality is set within the larger context of tradition.” In the Phaedrus, Plato expressed the fear that writing would make human memory lazy. In fact, “memory” became the central tool after the invention of the printing press and “movable type,” the interactivity between human and memory though printed material. The appearance of printing as a medium provoked a shift from use of the mind as storage to the mind as processor. Every information innovation enhances human creativity through communication, processing and memory.
What is authenticity?
Authenticity requires human-oriented endeavors. Now we are on the border of an information revolution that is a very different kind—movable information along with an emergence of audience. “Infinite” audience interaction triggers a hyper-dynamic universe of connections, relationships, and abstracting tools. Already, we are in “infinite” remembrance of information. All can be stored and nothing can be forgotten. With digital technology, duplication comes from effortless clicks and a boost electronic junk mail through the global network. Digital reproduction and replication extends rather than extinguishes the root. The emergence of incomplete recall and interaction may be more likely to extend and redefine authenticity.
The history of the “culture machine” became a pattern of multiple points of authenticity with patterns of copying and pasting spreading out from them. Saffo persists “I think we will rediscover a preindustrial fact: origin is not a point but a continuum, and the process of originality is much more linked than we imagine.” This phrase makes us consider that an agent of unlimited memory is an agent of unlimited unity of deeply interconnected relationships. For the greater notion of authenticity, we would be better to examine open-boundary for multi-individual to multi-unity. A designer can be intertwined with an enthusiast group, an unexpected event, or a meta-thoughts visual archive.
How can I see authenticity correctly?
Lunenfeld states “What an author produces is open to revision and those who used to be readers or listeners or viewers can become users, through appropriations remixes and creative reuse. The idea that everything is essentially an iteration can be terrifying because it encourages an endless tweaking rather than a commitment to the discrete project with a beginning and an ending.” Reconsidering a notion of authenticity in the new media culture supports Lunenfeld’s perspective and raises questions about how designers can facilitate a notion of authenticity in this new culture with technological aids.
Oded Ezer, a graphic designer, declares his position “I do not see myself as a scientist or an artist, just as a typographer who wants to break barriers.” For future practice, Ezer will experiment with the concept Biotypography, through which he aims to produce new “transgenic creatures” by fusing typographic elements with, say, ants or human sperm. With another concept, Typoplastic surgery, he envisions letters being grafted onto the human body, like decorative limbs.
Saffo’s phrase, “origin is a continuum” needs to be shifted to “authenticity is a multiplying multiple continuum” in 2009.
Nothing is new. The new agency of wasteful reproduction alters the notion of authenticity. We need to be aware of this new tendency and situate ourselves in the new flow as active providers rather than passive onlookers. The quality control of authenticity is a critical concept that designers diligently review in order to promote a new notion of reliability. The designer’s quest for attribute control in these shifting conditions has already started the understanding of an exploding continuum of new cultures. New roles of designers may facilitate the human context of sense and control in infinite reproduction with the assistance of new agency. That, I think, would be the most authentic role of the designer in this contemporary digital era.
References:
Lunenfeld, Peter. The Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading. Unpublished Electronic manuscript. January 2009
Lunenfeld, Peter. The Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading. Virtual Lecture from Los Angeles, CA and Discussion in Raleigh, NC. January 29, 2009
Saffo, Paul. The Place of Originality in the Information Age. Design Culture. 1997
Ezer, Oded. Work and Interview in The International Design Magazine. January/February 2009
From Peter Lunenfeld’s unpublished manuscript and his virtual lecture and class discussion, The Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading, Lunenfeld argues contemporary issues in the computer, which he refers to as a “culture machine,” and raises questions about the role of designers in this silent combat. Lunenfeld argues that uncritical downloading (consuming) information causes meaningless uploading (producing) of knowledge in the explosion of new media culture. In a case from Twitter, Lunenfeld coins the term “continuous partial production” from Linda Stone’s phrase “continuous partial attention” in order to explain inverting conditions in new/multiple media culture.
Lunenfeld resonates a notion of “unfinish: continuous partial production” in the emerging network society. Lunenfeld piques my curiosity to ask questions; where does authenticity come from, what is authenticity, and how can I see authenticity correctly in these uncompleted conditions?
In a perspective of mindless consumerism, Lunenfeld labels the unbalanced portions between uploading and downloading behavior as a “cultural diabetes.” Lunenfeld concerns himself with the fact that “sticky culture is more sticky than a fan-based Teflon production, no matter how participatory.” Although we are in a swirl of “open sources”, we need to be aware of where the root of sources is, in order to appreciate a being of origin and situate ourselves in “disrupting the flow of media that surrounds us.”
Where does authenticity come from?
Humans reproduce things effortlessly. Lunenfeld mentions “togging” behavior—we compromise ourselves to be anonymous in the cultural flow and let something else control ourselves. Technology has made precision in multiplication the domain of the machine, forcing the essence of human creativity to retreat slowly from the hand to the head. The benefits of this retreat are fruitful sources, but they release functionality from human control. The most important issue of freedom of control is letting technology overrule the human mind and creativity. This smug, unexamined assumption is blinding us to a more fundamental shift. In a contemporary environment, the transforming agents are nano-technology, the global-network, and the virtual-information explosion.
In Design Culture, Paul Saffo, a future forecaster, claims “human culture has been shaped by a dance of two opposing forces: memory and forgetfulness. Memory gives us context, while forgetfulness provides an opening for invention and originality. Successful creativity occurs when the two are balanced and originality is set within the larger context of tradition.” In the Phaedrus, Plato expressed the fear that writing would make human memory lazy. In fact, “memory” became the central tool after the invention of the printing press and “movable type,” the interactivity between human and memory though printed material. The appearance of printing as a medium provoked a shift from use of the mind as storage to the mind as processor. Every information innovation enhances human creativity through communication, processing and memory.
What is authenticity?
Authenticity requires human-oriented endeavors. Now we are on the border of an information revolution that is a very different kind—movable information along with an emergence of audience. “Infinite” audience interaction triggers a hyper-dynamic universe of connections, relationships, and abstracting tools. Already, we are in “infinite” remembrance of information. All can be stored and nothing can be forgotten. With digital technology, duplication comes from effortless clicks and a boost electronic junk mail through the global network. Digital reproduction and replication extends rather than extinguishes the root. The emergence of incomplete recall and interaction may be more likely to extend and redefine authenticity.
The history of the “culture machine” became a pattern of multiple points of authenticity with patterns of copying and pasting spreading out from them. Saffo persists “I think we will rediscover a preindustrial fact: origin is not a point but a continuum, and the process of originality is much more linked than we imagine.” This phrase makes us consider that an agent of unlimited memory is an agent of unlimited unity of deeply interconnected relationships. For the greater notion of authenticity, we would be better to examine open-boundary for multi-individual to multi-unity. A designer can be intertwined with an enthusiast group, an unexpected event, or a meta-thoughts visual archive.
How can I see authenticity correctly?
Lunenfeld states “What an author produces is open to revision and those who used to be readers or listeners or viewers can become users, through appropriations remixes and creative reuse. The idea that everything is essentially an iteration can be terrifying because it encourages an endless tweaking rather than a commitment to the discrete project with a beginning and an ending.” Reconsidering a notion of authenticity in the new media culture supports Lunenfeld’s perspective and raises questions about how designers can facilitate a notion of authenticity in this new culture with technological aids.
Oded Ezer, a graphic designer, declares his position “I do not see myself as a scientist or an artist, just as a typographer who wants to break barriers.” For future practice, Ezer will experiment with the concept Biotypography, through which he aims to produce new “transgenic creatures” by fusing typographic elements with, say, ants or human sperm. With another concept, Typoplastic surgery, he envisions letters being grafted onto the human body, like decorative limbs.
Saffo’s phrase, “origin is a continuum” needs to be shifted to “authenticity is a multiplying multiple continuum” in 2009.
Nothing is new. The new agency of wasteful reproduction alters the notion of authenticity. We need to be aware of this new tendency and situate ourselves in the new flow as active providers rather than passive onlookers. The quality control of authenticity is a critical concept that designers diligently review in order to promote a new notion of reliability. The designer’s quest for attribute control in these shifting conditions has already started the understanding of an exploding continuum of new cultures. New roles of designers may facilitate the human context of sense and control in infinite reproduction with the assistance of new agency. That, I think, would be the most authentic role of the designer in this contemporary digital era.
References:
Lunenfeld, Peter. The Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading. Unpublished Electronic manuscript. January 2009
Lunenfeld, Peter. The Secret War Between Downloading and Uploading. Virtual Lecture from Los Angeles, CA and Discussion in Raleigh, NC. January 29, 2009
Saffo, Paul. The Place of Originality in the Information Age. Design Culture. 1997
Ezer, Oded. Work and Interview in The International Design Magazine. January/February 2009
Class:
Seminar
Friday
W5, Class Note, Peter Lunenfeld
Main Claim:
uploading should be meaningful with new technology.
uncritically consuming downloading more information.
(need strategies to manage complexity)
Reason:
feasible
implementable
consequences
alternative argument
1. collective/social responsibility to build/construct/discover culture/knowledge.
2. human nature to make and share “a sickness of receiving too much.”
3. decontextualizing of content inhibits us from finding meaning.
4. trainded by previous technology with downloading behaviors.
Evidence:
1-1. individuals able to add
1-2. “sharing” structures
1-3. medium facilitates network
1-4. already deep content, cannot find it
2-1. biological “diabetic” connect to cognitive
2-2. need to belong, keep updated
2-3. “I am here” proving exist
2-4. make tools to make stuff of culture
3-1. duchamp: notion of “contextual”
3-2. reducing content to nodes–twitter
3-3. cable news, multi–channels at once
4-1. bomb, tv, networked computer
4-2. modernism
4-3. passive sit coms “I love lucy”
4-4. fake nostaligia
Next:
base on my opinion of 500 word version, I will generate my argument with my point of interest in 1000 word version. I may argue about “loss of craft” and “generosity” in meaningful uploading through problem statement. With a question in my main claim, I will bring historical and contemporary background and conditions. And I will support sub claims through my interest and motivation in design.
uploading should be meaningful with new technology.
uncritically consuming downloading more information.
(need strategies to manage complexity)
Reason:
feasible
implementable
consequences
alternative argument
1. collective/social responsibility to build/construct/discover culture/knowledge.
2. human nature to make and share “a sickness of receiving too much.”
3. decontextualizing of content inhibits us from finding meaning.
4. trainded by previous technology with downloading behaviors.
Evidence:
1-1. individuals able to add
1-2. “sharing” structures
1-3. medium facilitates network
1-4. already deep content, cannot find it
2-1. biological “diabetic” connect to cognitive
2-2. need to belong, keep updated
2-3. “I am here” proving exist
2-4. make tools to make stuff of culture
3-1. duchamp: notion of “contextual”
3-2. reducing content to nodes–twitter
3-3. cable news, multi–channels at once
4-1. bomb, tv, networked computer
4-2. modernism
4-3. passive sit coms “I love lucy”
4-4. fake nostaligia
Next:
base on my opinion of 500 word version, I will generate my argument with my point of interest in 1000 word version. I may argue about “loss of craft” and “generosity” in meaningful uploading through problem statement. With a question in my main claim, I will bring historical and contemporary background and conditions. And I will support sub claims through my interest and motivation in design.
Class:
Seminar
Saturday
W4, Field Trip
Friday Forum in Duke U.
Golan Levin works passionately, communicates clearly, and inspires greatly. Levin is one of the best visual/verbal communicators among media artists.
Lesson:
what I think, how I understand is a truth. I would like to represent the truth what I believe in my own way.
computation is not only way to collect data. I would like to reconsider the data in a way I can think.
Learning new media viewpoints, I would like to communicate with people in different fields, classes, and cultures through own work with versions in graphic design.
Golan Levin works passionately, communicates clearly, and inspires greatly. Levin is one of the best visual/verbal communicators among media artists.
Lesson:
what I think, how I understand is a truth. I would like to represent the truth what I believe in my own way.
computation is not only way to collect data. I would like to reconsider the data in a way I can think.
Learning new media viewpoints, I would like to communicate with people in different fields, classes, and cultures through own work with versions in graphic design.
Friday
P2, W3, Thoughts
Terms:
thinking; contemplation; speculation; meditation
effect; sake; result; upshot
What it looked like tools is lost in thought (sake, function, control, place, order...)?
What if tools manufactured (burn bread, charcoal, re-size clothes, measure dimensions...)?
what if manufacturing sound like (bell, runny nose, cow, snoring, lullaby)?
What it tools (acted like dominos, hide)?
thinking; contemplation; speculation; meditation
effect; sake; result; upshot
What it looked like tools is lost in thought (sake, function, control, place, order...)?
What if tools manufactured (burn bread, charcoal, re-size clothes, measure dimensions...)?
what if manufacturing sound like (bell, runny nose, cow, snoring, lullaby)?
What it tools (acted like dominos, hide)?
W1, Co-authoring
We will co-author a threaded opinion on ideas, notion and potential new trends suggested by Jonathan Harris in his TED Talk.
Process is recap his presentation, search relevant works, write provisional agree/disagree on his opinion, have pair opinion, and write-up with 850 words.
Process is recap his presentation, search relevant works, write provisional agree/disagree on his opinion, have pair opinion, and write-up with 850 words.
Class:
Seminar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)