You are currently browsing cmbuggs’s articles.
This is a quesition about ideology (acknowledgement/push back) and possibly film trolling…
In film scripts, we take the opportunity to expose the social normalcy with which we abide by, fight, etc. Lines such as: “I thought the guy is supposed to rescue the girl” , “isn’t the guy suppose to propose to the girl”, or “he’s not the average jock” (made these up but still relatively common). These lines project out of the screens immediate scenario and attempt to respond to our beliefs in that moment–which might agree or conflict with what we are immediately seeing. These lines may be highlighting the influences of industrialized culture or our hermeneutics of suspision…But I still have this question:
How would you define lines such as these and are they similar to trolling? Granted, my only knowledge of trolling is from our class discussion.
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.
In Jareds lost post on ‘a question about feminism’ (which I too can’t access) he asked why, when you go to the highest level it reverts back to being controlled by men? I like this as a theological question but I will attempt to employ interactive concepts as well.
So in response to your question, I would like to highlight the dominate thought and behavior that I think is being portrayed through this male ‘leadership’ observation. I would call your question a context clue (pun intended) of our “patriarchal culture” (Flitterman,283), from our reading for Thursday.
What I am seeing is that we are situated within a context—a patriarchal stage. And the male recognition that you mention is a shadow of our overarching ideology. Dunn said design is a “link between two worlds [our imagination and the external world]” (xvii). Kellner then highlighted that “technology produce[s] mass culture that habituate[s] individuals to conform to the dominant patterns of thought and behavior” (203).
If we and our social society are a product of “industrialization of mass produced culture” (Kellner, 202) than inadvertently we are ‘telling on ourselves’ through our social patriarchal structure of leadership, which you alluded to. What we are ‘telling’ and therefore projecting our ideologies (Keller), we are revealing our “hidden social and psychological mechanisms” (Dunn, xvi).
in the end this works out quite nicely for me that there was error 404 being that i needed to make a post lol
So I am a bit perplexed by this reading that I am not done with for class…
This reading by Lopate highlights: “the antipsystematic, subjective, nonmethodic method of the essay” (pg282)
He portrays the essay as being a “confession of pathology, prejudice or limitation and then in the best cases rises to a level of general wisdom that might be generously called philosophy” (282).
The last quote that I wish to highlight is that “an essay will have little enduring interest unless it also exhibits a certain sparkle or stylistic flourish”. (282)
So, granted, I have not completed the reading but as I am reading the question that lurks in my head is: ‘is the point of this reading to show us what not to do?’
Excited about class to get the answer only unless someone is checking this out now!!!!
So I fell in love with Bespoke Innovations as I mentioned last week. I believe there are multiple angles to approach this from:
- I thought this approach could lend itself to discussing the significance of Aesthetic Coherency of the artifact. I thought this approach while critically looking at within the Ideological and genera lenses would afford the opportunity to discuss: the designer, the designed for, and community response based on our Tyson Reading page 182. Lars-Erik Janlert and ERIK Stolterman in the Character of things on pg 300 said: “In ascribing a certain character to an artifact we make a very simple, but powerful description that frequently will be accurate enough to help us to manage the task of handling the artifact and to appreciate the consequences of our interaction with it.”
- Subjectivity that impacts the Objective.
- Sculpting your life world.
the last two arent too flushed out…but I just wanted to give you something…
Mixing function and individuality.
I love this Scott Summit guy please check this 11min talk out. I would love to hear your thoughts–if mine are too long skip my thoughts, listen, and share!!! But I haven’t been on here in a minute and I have much to say!
It was like he took the words right out of my mouth…
I have tried and tried to challenge myself to think outside the proverbial box (i.e. what I have already worked on) when considering my final writing. And I went online today looking eagerly for some interactive technology that resonated with me. The search was seemingly futile until I happened upon this Ted Talk (hopefully I can embed it properly). And then I fell in love with an interaction that went beyond the interaction to the objectively subjective.
In class yesterday we discussed the difference between the subjective and the objective and how both are important. I agreed with Vince’s definition of both of the above terms. To articulate here what I thought there, I would define subjective as that interpersonal felt experience where what one is experiencing, in the experience based on another’s expression, is allowing for the experiencer to draw upon their past experiences–their life world. It’s definitely personal as well as impressed upon/affected by the world around it. This does leave me to question what are the similarities and differences between ‘an experience’ based on Turner, Victor. Dewey, Dilthey, and Drama: An Essay in the Anthropology of Experience and G. definition of life worlds?
“Formative experiences are highly personal (pg35)
“Meaning arises when we try to put what culture and language have crystallized from the past together with what we feel, wish, and thinking about our present point in life.” (pg33)
“Experience urges toward expression” (pg37)
Maybe it’s that lifeworld is more static like a noun where as An Experience is more a verb (based on quote 37). Would love your thoughts on this as well.
As you all know I am big on experience particularly subjective experience and meaning making. I loved this Ted Talk because he has accomplished my ultimate particular. He and his team have created an opportunity to do meaning making via design—with and for the ‘receiver’ so to speak.
Objectivity in my expert opinion :) is the ability to articulate not just the quality of the text based on how one felt but draw parallels, contrast, and make inferences on interpretation that can be supported by credible sources. This is definitely a much more outward reaching agenda to validate and persuade. Whereas the other is to reflectively express. I’d take any criticism on this topic.
In closing, when we were concluding our discussion on both these terms we talked about how you can’t really have objective without subjective—moreover, everything is subjective. We concluded that it is not just one or the other but how we merge and appropriate both together. It is in the quality of the harmony that we pinpoint rigor. What I love about the prosthetic interaction in the Ted Talk is that they are bringing that personal into the general. And I completely concur that this is capturing the spirit of the designer as well as the designed for. This is me to the utmost!
So I wanted to share with you all my writing topic and get your feedback. It is rough around the edges; and I have two directions I have been thinking of. Luckily this is a writing assignment that will never be written :).
I began with Collingwoods article on Craft vs Art. When I first read it my mind jumped to Six Sense and I attempted to situate the interaction (and I am using this film as an interaction) within this article.
So I have been thinking of tying these two thoughts:
1. How the Director of the film is Directing the audience (110) through a myriad of stimulus “to produce desired reaction” (111) and
2. How the film is a craft but embedded within it is a work of art–‘expressed emotion’ (111).
However while I was thinking about this Art within a Craft I began to think about Video Diaries–as a separate interaction/paper idea. For this interaction I have been considering the direction of Crafted Expression: Emergent emotion within a structured medium. The mixing of manipulation and emotional discovery. I don’t even know if this is clear or just rambling so I will also include rant in my categories.
I was thinking about signs yesterday in our discussion and as soon as the signifier was “Dog” my mind jumped to the signified as the idea of a “homie” (lol). As I sat there my mind began to question how does Ebonics fit into this discussion of signs? In the words of Jeff I thought this could be a “Juicy” topic for discussion. In questioning if this is applicable to the class I thought this is definitely within the realm of culture and then I thought about how Ebonics puts a complex twist on ‘visual’ culture.
I thought of movies where white guys, black nerds even, would attempt to use “Ebonics” and they were the wrong sign to use the sign language. So then the rules are broken. So this concept of Ebonics and people as a sign within the sign language made me see that within that language Everything is a sign.
Do you all think that this is true in all languages? What do you all think about the process of becoming an acceptable sign (a movie that depicts that in the context of Ebonics would be Bulworth http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118798/ )?
I am still mid reading but I so thankful for page four because it caused me to click in and I wanted to share a question that rose up in my head and how I addressed it and hear your thoughts. Collingwood stated:
“A person arousing emotion sets out to affect his audience in a way in which he himself is not necessarily affected…A person expressing emotion, on the contrary, is treating himself and his audience in the same kind of way; he is makign his his emotions clear to his audience, and that is what he is doing to himself”.
The arousing of emotion I deamed craft where as the expressing I termed artist. So as I thought of this I began to think of a group called Soul for Real http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0xzO73Amo they sang: Candy Rain. They where a One Hit Wonder–One great song and then never heard from. I began to contemplate is it the case that One Hit Wonders arent flukes? Are they simply artists only able to expess emotion effectively once. I thought about Adele and I questioned if she was simply an Artist because she was expressing her experiences/emotions. And then I research a bit and realized she also sings songs that that she has not wrote and arent related to her experiences and that made me think she has transitioned into a craft…. In closing a few questions: Do you think having a craft is better than being an artist? What do you think about One Hit Wonders and this idea of transitioning from artist to craft?