Task 14: Final reflections

On the practical side of things (technology, tools, interactive environments) I like to keep myself informed. Thus, I didn't discover anything I hadn't heard about before. On the theoretical side, I was overwhelmed with the topic of interactivity. I learned that there's no single and correct way to address the topic of interactivity. Texts from 5-10 years ago may turn out to be outdated. And if they're not outdated, they tend to be vague in order to capture the essence of interactivity as a whole.

I enjoyed learning about the activity theory and how to use it as a framework, but I still believe that it's dependent on the researcher and lacks objectivity. I also enjoyed studying a journal article by Kiousis "Interactivity: a concept explication."

Regarding this course, I would have expected to receive the course structure beforehand. Personal feelings aside, it's also required by the university. One cannot plan ahead if communication is flawed. Also, I received zero feedback about my writings during the course. Thus, I feel dissapointed. Why not give 2-3 well-planned tasks and actually provide sufficient feedback? The lack of feedback made me indifferent and I lost motivation regarding this course. How is one to know if he/she is on the right track?

If there's a greater concept behind all this, do let me know. I know it's nice to think outside the box once in a while and uni. is the place to do it, but gaining a personal understanding should work a little differently.

Task 13: Redesigning and re-instrumentalising activities

"With very few exceptions all emotions operate on the stage of interpersonal interactions." (Toda, 1999, p. 21).

Grudin statest that his focus is on the effects of placing technology in the middle of these interactions. (Grudin, 2000).

Interpersonal communication is easy nowadays. Landline phones, cellphones, payphones, SMS's, e-mails, VOIP calls, IM clients, video calls. You name it, you got it. Common, nothing new.

Grudin states that:

Novel forms of mediation alter or remove critical aspects of context associated with
natural or familiar interactions. Words may be transmitted, but not the tone of voice; or voice may be transmitted, but not facial expressions; or voice and facial expressions without hand and arm gestures; or all of it may be transmitted, but from a different perspective than is available when present in person. (Grudin, 2000).

This statement is arguable. Video calling enables to transmit words, facial expressions, tone and even body language if participants choose to express it via the camera. The only thing that may not be transmitted, is smell.

Grudin proceeds to make an interesting point:

Greater visibility can increase efficiency, but it also creates complications, raising issues of anonymity,privacy, censorship, security, reciprocity, accountability, and trust. Cognition and emotion are intertwined throughout. (Grudin, 2000).

So, being online on Facebook (status is visible to the peers) may reveal that one is slacking off rather than doing hard work. But making business calls via Skype may result in more efficient communication and/or smaller expenses.

That's communication, the most basic interpersonal activity there is. But what if we were to look at communication in a specific context. Education for example.

E-learning has been around for years now. General education schools promote E-Kool (e-school) as a platform where the teachers and parents can communicate and inform one-another. Universities even have online-degrees, online-courses and various platforms for online interaction.

The best way to redesign education is to create a "networked school." Nowadays, there's no real need for physical infrastructure (e.g. the school itself). If a professor is employed, why not record his/her lectures and share them online. Students will gain the possibility to re-view videos when needed. Assignments can be handled via forums, wikis and blogs. Online-chats (and seminars) can be hosted via Skype. Professors and students can thus be geographically independent.

There's no real reason why this system wouldn't succeed eventually. Transportation will become more expensive (given that there's no alternative to fossile fuels) and online learning (as explained before) is a very viable alternative.

References:

Grudin, J. (2000). Digitally Mediated Interaction: Technology and the Urge System.
In G. Hatano, N. Okada & H. Tanabe (Eds.), Affective Minds, 159-167, 2000.

Critical review - Chance and Generativity by Marie Pascale Corcuff

Introduction

Marie-Pascale Corcuff states that we, human beings, don't generally like to rely on chance. We like to control our life and thus, the use of randomness, seems to be an abdication of our power of decision.

The paper at hand is about the use of chance in generative processes. The author summarizes the key argument by stating that diversity may be obtained, without loosing identity.

Corcuff proves through a series of experiments that diversity in generative art processes can be obtained without loosing idetity. The meaning behind text can be somewhat hard to grasp at first sight. For example, the reader is expected to have previous knowledge about IFS (Iterated Function Systems). In mathematics IFS are a method of constructing fractals. Symbolically speaking:

The strengths and weaknesses of this paper relate to the same topic: experiments/examples. The author anticipates an audience familiar with mathematics. While the examples are sufficient (and it's always nice to have something explained to the reader in black and white), they may not be understood by all.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and illustrate the different meanings of chance relatively to probability, combinations, imprevisibility, coincidence, chaos, disorder, control, intentionality - e.g. explain the concept of generative art.

Structure wise the paper is fairly simple. Chance is discussed in relation to unpredictability, insignificance and diversity. Examples of formal research are presented as well.

Chance and unpredictability refer to a set of rules required to generate unique results (generative art). A saying by Philip Galanter is chosen to illustrate this concept: "Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a complexed work of art."

Conway's game of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life) is a good example of this connection. Also, we can sow the seeds, but it's hard to predict how the garden will look like (Corcuff uses the garden metaphor as well).

Chance and insignificance refer to different methods of obtaining randomness for the sake of generative art. It's the insignificance of the result which is the proof of the randomness of the data. Chance and diversity argue that by defining a process, randomness may be useful to provide diversity. Children are not more complex than their parents, but they are different.

Summary

The key points of Corcuff's paper state that:

• Diversity may be obtained, without loosing identity.
• Chance refers to a set of rules defined to generate randomness.

The paper lacks a concrete summary of the findings. There is a conclusion, but it's very brief (probably due to the event-dictated format).

Generative art

A quote (used earlier in this review and also by mrs. Corcuff) by Philip Galanter best describes the essence of generative art:

"Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a complexed work of art."

Generative art is not solely computer based. Corcuff uses a garden metaphor to explain how chance works in relation to generative. Regarding historical context, Corcuff lists a book by Jaques Monod titled "Chance and necessity."

Critique

The paper lacked a summary of findings. There were a lot of examples (which is always nice when a difficult subject needs to be explained), but the conclusion was very brief. Also, the terms unpredictability, randmoness, diversity, insignificance were explained (through examples), but not defined. Thus, it was hard to distinguish what they meant and how they relate to each other.

Conclusions

Corcuff's opinion was that use of chance in artistic generative processes can produce diversity without sacrificing identity. This paper is very good in terms of explaining how generative processes work (e.g. the 10x10 pictures, the Library of Babel etc). Although in requires a technical background in some parts, it's still useful for those who are new to generative art and need an introduction.

References

Corcuff, Marie-Pascale. 2008. Chance and Generativity. In GA2008, 11th Generative Art Conference, 189-199. Retrieved 21.12.2010 from http://www.generativeart.com/on/cic/papersGA2008/16.pdf

Wikipedia. (2011). Conway's Game of Life. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life. Last accessed 21.12.2011.

Wikipedia. (2011). Iterated function system. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_function_system. Last accessed 21.12.2011.