You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘WTF’ tag.

First, I will say that I have a rather sad infatuation with Lady Gaga. I’m not sure if it’s because I use to call my grandmother “gaga” when I was younger, her music is catchy, she dresses in … well I’m really not sure how to describe her fashion, or that she is just a badass. I think all the above. I also have my phone set up to play one of her songs when I receive a text message and a different Lady Gaga song plays when I receive a BBM (Blackberry Messenger Message). I definitely love her music and of course, I don’t know why.

For the life of me I have no freaking clue what the hell her music videos are supposed to represent in conjunction with her music – if anything, because seriously they could be just nonsense, right? From Collingwood and “proper art” can we call this “art” (assuming it is an expression of her emotions – at least in character) even if we have no clue how to understand it?

Side note: To be fair, I really have been itching to post something involving Lady Gaga. I may try again at a later date.


I now feel a lot better about “this stuff” after reading Jeff’s article. I feel like it helped explain a lot better what this class is supposed to be about (I’m looking at you Nina).

So now, after reading this, I’m thinking to myself… why the hell is criticism NOT presented like this and here at IU? Yes, we talk about critique and how good/useful/blah blah etc it is, but we don’t go anywhere near this kind of heavy thought process about criticism, art, understanding, and so on. It seems that interaction criticism is … well more than a tool at our disposal.

If the HCI community really started to engage in criticism, can we see a major shift within HCI? From reading this paper it certainly sounds that way. It just sounds way too important to not create some sort of black whole in the universe. I’m really curious as to how much influence it’s going to have in the future and what direction (if any) it leads or has an impact on HCI.

I have a question about “society” and how it plays a role in visual culture and understanding. In class Jeff gave an example that if he were in class wearing leather pants that we would all laugh because of how not “normal” it would be for him to wear leather pants while teaching. Granted, I think that it would have been normal (as probably a lot of you) considering how we know Jeff. But! Society would have said, “No that is not normal.”

What is the role of society in all this? We have talked and read a lot about the individual, but I’m curious about the community as a whole and would it be possible for a group of individuals to jointly decide on what is or is not art and the effects that might have on understanding. In class we talked about how hermeneutics emphasizes on the individual and his/her activity (i think?) and that structuralism is that an understanding is an effect that is caused, but from class seemed also focused on the individual…. what about community, society, groups of people, etc?

I feel more confused now than I was before writing all of this down so I will add more questions..

Society and time seem to play some sort of role here. We are born and raised within society and therefore there are “societal norms” that are around us and in our environment. If understanding is based on interpretation, configuration of thoughts and feelings, and the other two meanings, then can our “understanding” actually be genuine or has it been “brainwashed” by how we are raised? How much of our own thoughts and interpretation can we really call “ours”? Therefore, can we actually have an understanding based on our own free will or is our understanding “given” to us based on how we were brought up?

Rather, how much of our interpretation is influenced by society and is that a bad thing? (I think it is.)