In Barnard’s reading, he mentions about Baxandall’s:

“three respects in which the horizons of individuals are likely to differ” (43).

Is it okay to only take and use one of Baxandall’s aspects mentioned to apply it to an interaction? Is it necessary to use all three?

For example, I have been thinking about applying, specifically,

“The second set of beliefs and knowledges that a potential interpreter must possess consists in the ‘kinds of interpretative skill…that the mind brings’ to a picture or painting (ibid.: 34). Baxandall is thinking of the ‘patterns, categories, inferences [and] analogies’ that an interpreter can either see or not see in an image. If the interpreter does not possess a certain interpretative skill, then they will not be able to understand a painting in terms of that skill” (44).

to Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and computer hackers. For this example, I want to say that the hacker community have used IRC in ways of controlling “Botnets“.

From the link,

A Botnet is a collection of software agents, or robots, that run autonomously and automatically. The term is most commonly associated with malicious software, but it can also refer to a network of computers using distributed computing software.

Back to Baxandall, I want to use this theory as a lens to discuss how hackers use IRC to control Botnets where hackers have a “kind of interpretative skill” when it comes to the specific usage of controlling Botnets through IRC. IRC was not specifically created for the use of Botnets, that came later. If you are a non-hacker user using IRC you will not have the interpretative skill in order to understand how to use and control Botnets through IRC.

Is it valid to only construct this relation via one aspect of the three mentioned? Is it too narrow/focused/specific to use just one aspect? Would it be better to use all three?

NOTE: These questions are in context to the assignment not necessarily the blog.