Course News
A Brief Philosophical Statement (or a love letter to a class)
In case anyone looks at this over the weekend, or before we meet for class on Monday, I wanted to make a couple of general philosophical remarks reiterating what this class is about. Not for any reason other than to make sure that I'm communicating the intentions and expectations clearly and consistently. It's all in the syllabus, but I know how that document gets left in the dust of our memories pretty quickly.
So, hopefully it's clear that this class is about "interactivity" in a broad and inclusive sense related to art (or maybe it's safer to say "related to symbolic representation and action" since "art" is more than a little vague). In trying to do so, we will be covering a small sample of processes (including software) that have been used to produce "interactive" art, sorry "interactive symbolic representations." We will not, certainly, cover them all... that would be impossible as the options are practically innumerable, and not limited or bounded by software applications.
In this class, we will think of software not as a tool that can simply be applied to solve a problem, but as a set of constraints and opportunities - as part of the problem to be solved. As the Johnson reading was meant to help show (perhaps unsuccessfully), software (or any technology) isn't a neutral platform or tool, but a mediator for a set of values (sometimes competing ones). Flash, for example, isn't something that can be simply employed without first accepting certain limitations as acceptable, convenient or useful. In other words, choosing Flash as a platform makes Flash part of the problem being solved, not just a means to solve the problem. Of course, all solutions to problems are mediated, and one of the goals of this class is to interrogate the relationship between interactivity and its mediation as a problem, and to understand (or at least try) what is lost and gained in solving that problem.
This is why we are going to spend as much time on process and methodology as on actually using software. So that we can try to look at the problems through different forms of mediation and maybe see what happens when that problem gets translated across media.
Hopefully this will be interesting and engaging for everyone and we can all learn something. This class is an experiment in interactivity in itself, and we are all both subjects and scientists simultaneously. Because of this, it is extremely necessary that we all have patience (with the tech and each other) and show some consideration and respect for everyone in the class. I don't expect this to be a problem, but I want to emphasize that there are different sets of experiences and skills within the body of the class. Not everyone is a new media major or has studied various techno-histories, for example, so don't assume that "we all know this" when it comes to something discussed in the class. Those with more technical abilities and familiarity with some aspects of the class, help others in the class and push your own ideas and abilities rather than coasting. No one likes a coaster.
I also want to stress that the readings, discussions and examples, even when historical, are rarely designed to educate you on the "facts." I'm not a historian, and this isn't a history class. Historical readings/screenings in this class generally serve two purposes: one is to illustrate how something was viewed at a certain point in time and had an influence on artists. The second is to introduce some poetic/metaphoric/analytic perspective on something related to what we're doing in class at that time. If you're reading something and only responding, "Gee, I know how the desktop works, and besides, 1996 was 12 years ago, I'm using Leopard." I would encourage looking beyond the "fact" value of what's being said. It's not necessarily important if the facts being presented are new or not, but how they're being interpreted or used to make a case for something. Sometimes, this requires reading between the lines a bit. You can find the point dumb, banal or unsubstantiated, of course. I don't expect that everyone will be interested in every aspect of everything, but I do expect a basic level of respect for the work of others and especially for your peers.
For those of you reading this and thinking, "Um... OK, but how will I be evaluated?"
That's a good and valid question. You'll be evaluated based mostly on visible effort. Sure, there are some expectations for actual, technical output, but the expectations are weighted on method and process (remember, that's the focus). If you already know Flash, for example, you are only at a very minor advantage.
For those of you reading this and thinking, "Um... OK, but am I going to learn Flash?"
That's an understandable question, though the syllabus explains that fairly well. The answer is yes for some, not-so-much for others. As said above, we will learn Flash as part of the problem-solution combination, and everyone will use it to some degree. But learning Flash, as an expert platform, is beyond the scope, goals and philosophy of the course. That said, I am there to help those willing and able to move beyond their current abilities in realizing something with it.
For those of you who made it this far and are reading this and thinking, "Um... OK, when is this post going to end?"
Right now. Well, one more thing. I recently came across a debate about the use of technology in education for Generation TXT (in case you didn't know, that's what us old people are calling you). It was the result of a video produced by an anthropology professor in Kansas.
Here's the original video. Here's a response in the form of a video. And here's a discussion about them.
See you on Monday.
posted by ryan griffis at 6:56 PM Friday, February 8, 2008
2 Comments:
<< Home
Previous Posts
| Reading and Project 2
| This page has most of the skills you need for proj...
| Mid-term Presentation Project
| Where you should be now...
| Oh - and send me a link to your blog.
| First week and beyond
| Welcome to Interactivity 1
i liked both the videos. (from the first video) yes its great to teach students but apathy is hard to deal with esp. when a student is doing something else when they ought to be participating.
To me, Flash learning is not that bad, as there is always room for creation.