Categories
exam readings knowledge work politics tech design

Exam reading: “Laws of cool”

Again, another book that went in a direction I didn’t expect. Alan Liu’s “Laws of Cool” raises some important questions about the relationship between corporatism and knowledge work:

Summary: In this book, Liu takes a somewhat pessimistic view of knowledge work and the information economy. He contends that knowledge work, and the culture of “free information,” is the continuation of a developmental trajectory that minimizes history and subordinates individuals (and the humanities, as a field) to corporatist, profit- and efficiency-motivated thinking. In the new corporatist economy, personal identity and social class are subsumed into the team; workers are expected to constantly improve productivity, be lifelong learners, and effectively become “nomads” across the employment landscape. The producer culture dominates life and work to the extent that counterculture is an alternative “workstyle;” “cool” is the “shadow ethos” of knowledge work- the only way to resist while not being able to escape the system. “Cool” is characterized by a fusion of ironic snark, mockery, design that delivers unimportant or information-poor content in typically information-dense formats, and a politics (or non-politics) of the “bad attitude.” Liu especially criticizes “cyberlibertarianism,” which presses for some individual freedoms (e.g., access to Internet, free speech) while ignoring others (worker health, workplace privacy), and completely ignores class issues like social justice. According to Liu, students mistakenly associate school with the dominant culture and turn to (corporate-sponsored) pop culture; in order for educators to break this association, they must help students become grounded in historically-informed critical thinking.

Comments: Some of his description of the online aesthetic was dated (the book came out in 2005). Liu’s conclusion is that the fusion of avant-garde & electronic arts with the historical perspective afforded by the humanities is the most likely site of resistance to the new corporatism (though he also discusses historical critical thinking). I think there are two reasons why this isn’t necessarily an effective approach: 1) (shallow) not everyone can relate to this sort of art; and, 2) (deeper) perhaps the social justice and labor movements, which he does discuss, are more effective approaches to resistance (as well as appealing to a wider audience). Though, in the latter case, perhaps an argument can be made that we need conditions of scarcity for people to empathize with these materially- and collectively-oriented movements; Liu’s book was written from an affluent American perspective during fairly flush times, and maybe these movements could be more effective nowadays…

Overall, this book was more thought-provoking than I expected it to be. It got me thinking about social/environmental justice issues and how these interact with new media in a very different way than the dominant culture that Liu describes. His suggestion that what the humanities should offer “cool” culture is a historical grounding was also a useful thought, and is something that has added to my thinking about dissertation projects in the last few days.

Re: libertarianism and knowledge work, this book articulates some things that I’ve thought about but not from an employment-based perspective. For example, the lack of individual responsibility for the common good and the environmental consequences of non-regulation espoused by libertarianism are things I’ve really disagreed with before. The historical lack of attention to worker rights among libertarians (when they often define themselves as knowledge workers who you’d think would need these protections) was a new thing to think about for me.

Links to: Brown & Duguid (corporatism, knowledge work, changing education culture); Feenberg (philosophy of technological development); Lessig (“free” information); Norman (user-friendly design)

Categories
geekery random

How common?

Some days, you need goofy musical fun.

Not into the Kirk/Spock myself, but this song always cheers me up.

Categories
bunny

Friday bunnyblogging

As an older rabbit- she just turned 8- Noe spends a lot of time sleeping. She has a few favorite spots: under the tables, in front of the kitchen, on the bathroom floor next to her feeding station, etc. Being under the table probably helps her feel secure, and by being in the kitchen she can keep an eye on the refrigerator- very important.

bunny in bathroom
This is apparently comfortable.

Another spot has been more of a problem. Since rabbits are territorial, we’ve had conflicts in the past over the bed. Clearly, the bed is the humans’ space, so she has to assert herself by sprawling on it. Sometimes when we’re in bed, she’ll jump up and scratch at us to get us to move over, or even nip if she’s feeling ornery. It was actually much worse before she was fixed- she would pee on the bed to mark her territory- every day! Truly a dark and stinky period in the human-bunny relationship…

Nowadays, she has her “own” bed, in the guest room/office, so this is less of an issue:

Bun napping on bed.
If you look at the Robin pillow, you'll see tiny teethmarks. Apparently, he is quite tasty...

Unfortunately, it disturbs her now when we have overnight guests. Her usual method of torment is just to wake people up at the crack of dawn by shredding newspaper or climbing on them, so at least she’s matured from her wild adolescent days. Eventually, she gets bored and hops off to bother us, because we’re the ones who feed her. All we have to worry about for the most part is shed fur, the occasional stray poo (pretty odorless and about the size of a Kix cereal), and the rare savaging of a pillow.

Categories
exam readings tech design visuals

Exam reading: “Language of new media”

Well, class started this week- I have no idea what the historical basis is for starting school in Florida in the middle of August when it’s 95 degrees out and there’s 90% humidity. It’s bizarre: it makes our “Spring Break” a winter vacation. Maybe it’s because August is one of the only months without a national holiday (Florida is stingy about state holidays– I miss Hawaii, where we got at least one day off a month.)

Anyway, to business: in this exam reading, I tackle Lev Manovich’s “Language of New Media.” The rest of my books came in this week, so I have a big stack of them staring at me. Moving on quickly…

Summary: In this book, Manovich discusses new media in the context of visual media (especially cinema) and computer cultures. “New media” are computer-based, but more specifically: data are numerically represented, objects are composed of modular parts, functions are automated, both data and structures are variable (e.g., updatable, scalable, customizable), and viewable in multiple formats (transcoded). It is not enough for a medium to be computer-based, digital, interactive; it has to have the former properties to be “new media.” Manovich discusses four key aspects of new media in detail: interfaces, operations, illusions, and architectural elements. “Interfaces” are important because the mediate the human interaction with the database; constraints on interface design include print and cinema conventions, as well as general computer-interface conventions (e.g., tensions between icons vs. work surfaces). There are three “operations” that characterize new media: selection of ready-made parts from a database, which are then composited into an object; and teleaction, realtime action at a distance. The “illusions” he discusses are primarily the move toward photorealism in computer animation; the important characteristics of such images that differentiate them from photography are that they are moving, and non-iconic. Finally, the “architectural elements” (my term) he discusses are databases and virtual spaces. These are important because they are cultural forms newly characteristic of new media.

Comments: Manovich’s background is in cinema, and much of his theoretical discussion is centered on theories of visuality. He also discusses how cinema has both influenced and been changed by new media. Since that’s not my main focus, I’m skipping this material here, but one could certainly read this book while paying more attention to the visual material. A comment on databases: M. states that the virtual world is composed of data structures and algorithms, but does not infer a rhetorical or political motivation for such things (unlike Brooke). For M., politics seems to enter into the process at a later level, during selection, compositing, and teleaction.

Links to: Brooke (M’s “death of rhetoric”); Benjamin (visual media, concepts of aura & flaneur); Gee (gaming; G. discusses learning with games, while M. focuses on the overall forms)

Categories
exam readings hypertext rhetoric

Exam reading: “Lingua Fracta”

Another exam reading: Collin Brooke’s “Lingua Fracta,” which tries to apply the canons of rhetoric to new media. My approach to rhetoric tends to be fairly informal, because I don’t come from a composition background with a heavy investment in using it in a strict way. Brooke’s approach seems reasonable, but I’m planning to re-read several of the texts he mentions, so we shall see what that turns up…

Summary: In this book, Brooke reinterprets the canons of rhetoric for new media. He begins by discussing three units of analysis: individual texts, interfaces, and broad theoretical constructs; he focuses on the interface level. He breaks down media studies into three levels of scale: code, practice (which he focuses on), and culture. He describes the canons as “ecologies of practice”: dynamic, interlocking, socially constructed and medium-dependent systems of sites, practices, and objects (rather than fixed, prescriptive stages in composition). Invention becomes proairesis: generation of open-ended texts that function as sets of possibilities, rather than as hermeneutic investigations to a conclusion (e.g., social bookmarking sites). Arrangement becomes pattern: usually database-driven, pattern emerges from repeated searches (e.g., tagclouds). Style becomes perspective: the viewer, interface, and objects operate together to create a viewing experience (different from traditional external perspective of rhetorical analysis; e.g., gaming interfaces). Memory becomes persistence: not just storage, memory is a matter of building patterns (“persistence of cognition”- particularly appropriate to Web) and more thorough traditional synthesis (e.g., RSS feeds, tagclouds). Delivery becomes performance: not a simple transaction, it includes both the content and the medium as they interact in a particular social setting (e.g., Wikipedia and credibility).

Comments: Many connections to (non-core) new media, composition, and critical theorists: Barthes (readerly/writerly texts), Derrida (perspective for critique), Hayles (pattern/randomness, embodied memory), Landow (hyperext), Lantham (looking at/looking through). Seems reasonable to look at expression of canons as medium-dependent. Logically organized and understandable (after reading Burnett), making it a hermeneutic text, I suppose…

Links to: Bolter (hypertext studies, Lantham cited); McLuhan (medium); Manovich (B. disagrees with M’s assertion that narrative & database are mutually exclusive forms)

Categories
exam readings visuals

Exam reading: “How images think”

“How Images Think,” by Ron Burnett, explores whether/how images help us think. Nope, they don’t actually think on their own- in fact, they have no meaning outside of what we interpret them to be.

Summary: Burnett argues that images are central to how humans conceptualize the world. In modern society, our (physical) experience is so mediated by human-created technologies that the distinction between nature and artifice is blurred; we also make sense of the world through “image-worlds” (psychological image-based constructs that mediate our experience with reality). These image-worlds make images intertextual- interpretation is dependent on our experience with other images. Our vantage point with respect to images is crucial for how we interpret them, and vantage point is largely culturally determined. Although images mediate our relationships with the world (including those with machines and other people), our interpretation of the images is more important to the images themselves. With respect to virtual worlds and simulation, Burnett believes that they are useful for overcoming distances between observer and subject, or tangible experience and the event (or object) being pictured. Simulations are “enhanced” reality, rather than illusions. Burnett also discusses the interactions between humans and machines, and how these affect our definitions of consciousness, humanity, etc. He argues that modeling communication as a sender-receiver model (or the brain as an input-output device) is too reductive, omitting context (materiality) while focusing on content.

Comments: While Burnett’s main focus seems to be on how images mediate our experience, in several chapters, the link between images and his subject is fairly tenuous. He seems to be trying to throw a little bit of everything into his book, e.g., embodiment, consciousness, online networked communities, gaming culture, models of communication. While these examples fit into his thesis that we live in intensively technologically-mediated communities, his emphasis on the overarching importance of images in each of these examples is not clear. One useful point for me is his contention that images of “unseeable” scientific concepts, while “virtual,” are what make these ideas “real” to people (i.e., “virtual” here =/= “fake”).

Links to: Haraway (cyborgs, embodiment); Hayles (HCI, consciousness); Tufte (images for communication); McLuhan (importance of medium); Baudrillard (Bur. disagrees with Bau.’s equation of virtual with fake/illusory)

Categories
exam readings learning theory networks

Exam reading” “What video games have to teach us…”

This exam reading, “What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy,” by James Gee, was not what I expected (after an admittedly quick look at the book synopsis). Rather than making the case for incorporating educational video games into the classroom, Gee uses their structural features to highlight techniques for teaching “critical” learning to students:

Summary: In this book, Gee tries to make a case for incorporating inherent teaching principles of video games into educational settings by drawing connectiong between v.g.’s and current learning theories (primarily situated cognition, “New Literacy Studies,” and “connectionism”). Learning occurs within semiotic domains: sets of practices that utilize different media to communicate meanings. These domains have two aspects: content and a social group (“affinity group”) with a specific set of social practices. According to Gee, current educational practices teach content outside of these social contexts, which makes learning shallow (drill and test-based) and difficult to apply to real-world contexts or transfer to new domains. “Critical” learning arises from experience in a domain, affiliation with the affinity group (at least at some level), preparation/practice for future problem solving in the domain, and understanding the “meta” structures of the domain (content and the affinity group). Another important aspect of learning is identity: learners have a core (everyday) identity, a “virtual” identity within the learning situation (e.g., student, elf), and a “projected” identity that involves the desires/motivations for developing your virtual identity in a certain way (e.g., not wanting to let your character down). This projected identity is crucial for critical learning, but can be challenging to achieve. Gee also views learning as situated within in specific contexts, associational and embodied (in the sense of embodying the learner’s choices and actions), rather than abstracted from general principles. Embodied learning occurs in a “probe, hypothesize, reprobe, rethink” cycle; what divides novice learners from experts (“critical learners”) is the added ability to critically evaluate the results within the context of the specific domain they are working in, rather than just from “real life.” Learning should also be scaffolded appropriately to pace students’ learning, and it should be recognized that learning in these contexts is social: different members of a group have different skills, and knowledge will be situated in various tools, symbols, and learners.

Comments: Gee’s work incorporates some concepts I’m familiar with from other contexts: communities of practice, social learning theory, and the associational/mental models theory of memory. His motivation seems to be less about incorporating video games into school settings than using v.g.’s as models of how “critical” learning should operate. Some of these concepts are things I’m looking into in my subject reading lists.

Links to: Spinuzzi (network-based learning); some of my subject reading list authors

Categories
bunny

Bunnyblogging, redux…

Apparently this Friday is the day we talk about bunny poo, as well…

Categories
bunny

Friday bunnyblogging

In the grand blogging tradition, I’d like to inaugurate my (hopefully) weekly pet blogging. Meet our pet rabbit, Terpsinoe- Noe for short (also known as She-who-will-not-be-named; The lidless eye, unblinking; Demon beast):

Noe with blue ice.

Rabbits do not deal with heat well, and in the summer we run our a/c to keep the apartment at about 82-85 degrees, which is a bit warm for her. So she gets her friend, the blue ice, to snuggle up against.

Categories
exam readings visuals

Exam reading: “The Work of Art…”

As fascism was creeping through Europe, Walter Benjamin wrote “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility.” In it, he lays out a politically-driven, positive view of the effects of new representational technologies on the relationship of society to art. While Benjamin’s view of the effects of this  new relationship was positive, his essay also warns of the forces of fascism trying to subvert this process and marry art to politics. A German Jew, he committed suicide in 1940 when detained in fascist Spain while trying to escape Germany for the U.S. A depressing ending, considering some of the optimistic(?) ideas in this piece.

Summary: Benjamin discusses the ways in which, he contends, the ready availability of photographs and film have changed the relationship between spectators and artistic works. For example, the original context of artistic works was that they were one of a kind (“authentic”), and viewed in ritualized ways (e.g., as religious icons, or contemplated during a museum visit). Mechanical reproducibility lets one take these works out of context and view them anywhere- particularly in distracted settings. He contends that this demystification of art is positive; art now becomes political (i.e., can be used for political ends in the education of the masses), not cultish. (One place in which cult value is hanging on is in portraiture.) With film, spectators are now “quasi-experts,” because they can also be on camera themselves- there is less reverence for the actors. The relationship of the masses to art is changed; critical appraisal and simple enjoyment are unified in works with high social impact (in works with low social impact, the converse is true). We now internalize art while in a state of distraction (e.g., in a movie theater), rather than placing ourselves into the artwork in traditional art appreciation; he likens this state of distraction to that of experiencing architecture while taking part in day-to-day activities.

Comments: As a Marxist, Benjamin frequently links the demystification of art with the advance of the proletariat, and the attempt to re-mystify art (and aestheticize politics) with fascism. I’m not sure how well his predictions have borne out re: the easy accessibility of art and raised political consciousness in the masses (I think that advertising research, for example, suggests something different). On another note, there are links here to some authors on scientific visuals. For example, Benjamin states that, with photography and cinema, artistic and scientific (informational) content of art is identical- I think the situation is more complex than that: there are multiple levels of meaning that can be experienced in such representations.

Links to: Ong (representational practices); Headrick (technologies of representation)