This is long but I really wanted to share it all any way…these are my thoughts from many different readings piled into one…this helped me iron out some thoughts for my final writing…

This article by Flitterman talked about the “transformation” (268) of image. It captured its essence in the central question which had dual meanings: “how do I look?” (269). In this text it describes the transition from an “image constructed from the looks of men”…to an image based on “subjective vision” (269).

The self-image construction in this “story of femininity and its social representations…reveals as much about the character as about ourselves and the culture in which we live” (283). From this, what I saw in the “women-as-a-spectacle to women-as-a-social being” (273) is the transition out of a mirror representation to a lifeworlds representation. This was made more apparent in this statement: …”her subjective vision is rendered by an alternation of past, present, and imagined images, an alternation that intercuts people on the street” (275). This looked/sounds a lot like a hermeneutics circle and internal lifeword map made visible through film. She is meaning making through the life/objects/lives she has encountered.

Our social context, as I allude to above, is not only impacting our lifeworlds but our lifeworlds are possibly structuring our self-image… “How we look”.  Bardzell, in her six qualities of Feminist HCI, mentioned the concept of ecology which I think is very fitting in this case.  She “invites interaction designers to attend to the ways that design artifacts in-the-world reflexively design us (1307). Cleo’s montage of thoughts and images of the past and present and images is in my mind one level of self imaging.

I was curious in considering if we were able to extrapolate those internal thoughts made apparent by the film? What would that look like? I concluded that the what I am asking is similar to the self-disclosure use quality of Feminist HCI (1307).  So if we followed the film in applying “intercuts” of self disclosure, if we participated in the externalizing of the internal (Active theory in a Nutshell, 69), I thought about how the ecology around that artifact would respond. That response in my mind would be an artistic encounter (161) as expressed by Bourriauds in Rational Aesthetics.  

Taking this into a practical application, such as my personalized prosthetic interaction topic. I have found so many interesting applications and quite frankly a need for individuals to be able to construct a self-image. However, just as important there is a need to be able to articulate it—(i.e. have self-disclosure) in that participatory design process. There is a potential to have all personalized designs but I am leery of how many people are simply seeing how they look by the industrialization of culture and ideology—which would decrease the amount of personalization even though it is made possible—my rant (Kellner, 202).

Bespoke Innovations does what Feminist HCI advocates. In closing I would like to highlight it’s participatory design process. But a question that I feel this life world mapping challenges me to consider juxtapose this text of Cleo is the issue found in Active Theory. This issue of Self-Disclosure as mentioned by Bardzell.  This brings even more clarity to Nelson and Stolterman argument for a key element to the design process being communication (165). It is this issue of communicating effectively which can hinder the participatory design process.

I whole heartedly agree with the mandatory need for personalized design. I also see an equal need and requirement for designers to be very sensitive in those participatory design settings to be able to capture the essence of what is being conveyed verbally and nonverbally (by their co-partner of design) as that co-partner communicates/exposes their subjective vision—their self image, their lifeworld.