As I have explained during our Group Seminar on Wednesday, I am interested in modern and postmodern typography and I am trying to understand where we are right now and where we are headed.
I am reading Suzi Gablik’s book “Has Modernism Failed?” at the moment and in it she describes how too much freedom in art will ultimately result in a loss of quality and a loss of meaning. My initial intention was to try and apply this theory to typography, but after our discussion I am not exactly sure anymore.
I do believe that there should be basic typographic guidelines, not to say that they should be chiseled in stone, and even if they are established in order to be broken.
I am conducting a survey at the moment to find out what my generation of young designers think (let me know if you have not received the email).
My essay might be headed towrads the following:
-what the rules of typography are
-or what the general trend is
-or if there is a new synthesis between modernism and postmodernism.
Let me know what you think!
- Alexandra S.
COMMENTS:
I have found another article by Keedy about postmodern graphic design, published in 1998 in Emigre 47. It might be of interest to you.
- Alexandra S.
COMMENTS:
In order to introduce new aspects into our discussion, I would like to share the current focus of my design discourse research. This basically relates to the TEXT section of our reading assignment, in particular to the „Christal Goblet“ by B. Warde and „The Rules of Typography according to Crackpots Experts“ by Jeffery Keedy. I started my initial research with a broad scope on modernism and postmodernism so as to expand my knowledge of design history. During my research I was able to narrow my fields of investigation and I have identified three key areas of interest in relation to modernism and postmodernism.
TYPOGRAPHY
I am interested in typography and its relationship to modernism and postmodernism for a number of reasons. The two schools of thought seem to co-exist in contemporary graphic design, which is paralleled by a certain uncertainty of where we are right now. It seems as though there is hope that new generations of designers (such as ourselves) will shine some light onto this aspect. It is therefore very relevant for aspiring designers to understand both cultural movements that have become schools of thought and to have a clear opinion on the topic. Personally, I have always agreed with modernism, but since I also believe that established rules and accepted standards should be challenged (and in some cases broken) in order for progress to occur, I am interested in further researching the area and in formulating my position in regards to this debate.
I began my research by reading Jan Tschishold’s book The New Typography along with a review of the Swiss style as well as a review of Bauhaus methods and philosophies (essentially form follows function). I am also intrigued by the influences that socio-economic circumstances have on art and design. For example, Herbert Bayer’s Univers typeface, which is based on the idea that one style fits all, is a direct response to the industrial revolution, economies of scale and the advent of standardization.
I intend to continue my historical research on modernism and to commence research on the 1980’s: the beginning of the digital era, linked to the arrival of the Macintosh computer. I will look at the student work of Cranbrook academy, under Katherine McCoy as well as Rudy Vanderlans and Zuzana Licko’s Émigré magazine.
READABILITY/LEGIBILITY
A more specialized field of investigation that I find interesting is readability and legibility and their relationship to modern and postmodern typography. Since legibility and readability are fundamental to successful typographic design, I believe that a study of readability and legibility is a valuable one for a young designer. This is one reason why I am intruiged by this topic, but I have yet to commence my research. Although I think that the contextual investiagtion would be quite specialized I imagine the visual investigation of the topic to be rather exciting.
ART AND DESIGN
I am also quite interested in the relationship between art and design in the modernist and postmodernist eras. I have always been interested in the relation between them; especially in the blurred boundaries of the two. This interest was further kindled by Rick Poynor’s book Design without Boundaries that I have recently started to read. I believe that it is necessary for young designers to gain a basic understanding of the relationship between art and design and to develop a clear opinion about where to draw the line between the two.
In the Design without Boundaries book Poynor explains how throughout the course of the twentieth century design has “closely shadowed” fine art movements, “borrowing from Cubism, Futurism, Dadaism, Constructivism, Surrealism and so on” and how the Bauhaus has offered a paradigm of how fine art and applied art might be integrated. He further writes how “during the post-war period, with the growing professionalism of both art and design, the divergence began.” He continues by explaining the following:
Graphic Designers did still sometimes look at art for ideas and inspiration (and vice versa) but the dominant rhetoric, embodied above all in the Swiss Style, proposed a new objectivity in communication design and an end, in Joseph Müller Brockmann’s words, to the “old free subjective manner of representation”. Such totalising dreams were, as we know, shattered by the arrival of postmodernism and Weingart-propelled New Wave. Subjectivity was back with a vengeance and openly declared as an end in itself.
- Alexandra S.
COMMENTS:
Former Radio 4 Today editor Rod Liddle has become the first journalist to have an online blog censured by the press watchdog.
-Aaron
COMMENTS:
I have looked within the Google text to begin to look at a slightly more defined area, the process and how it effects the outcome of the task. Its still a broad investigation but is an area I’m finding interest in, especially with the relation to the idea that the same task can yield different results dependent upon the process undertaken. I have possible ambitions to relate this idea to how the same process or image is undertaken or viewed in alternative environments or cultures.
Are we becoming slaves to a technological ‘process’ which we have lost control over and is now developing us rather than it being us who develop it?
Lewis Mumfords book ‘Art and fechnics’ explores his particular philosophy of the two conflicting impulses in humankind, the ‘artistic’ (subjective) and the ‘technical’ (objective) Presently I have only begun to learn his philosophy but find it interesting with his view for concern and worry that our over reliance upon certain mechanics and technologies guide the process through which we may undertake certain tasks. His concerns appear to be the depersonalization the mechanical process inserts on the outcome of meaning and form.
An interesting passage from Mumford’s book refers to a passage from Roderick Seidenberg’ book “Post-Historic Man’ which states,
‘But in a recent book, which should have been more widely discussed and pondered than it actually was, Mr. Roderick Seidenberg made a canvass of the tendencies toward mechanical organization and automatism that have been displacing man from the centre of the stage, and reducing him to a mere shadow of the machine he has created, and it is very plain from his analysis that if the present forces are not controlled and redirected, the end is in sight, and a new creature, called by Mr. Seidenberg ‘’Post-Historic Man” - this the title, too, of his book - will occupy the stage, or rather, will merge himself with the props and backdrops and Iighting fixtures, indistinguishable, so to speak, from the scenery.’
Art and Technics, L. Mumford, p 5, 1952 Columbia University Press
Considering Mumford’s philosophy was devised in the 1950’s I can see some of his concerns still being debated about the depersonalisation of man through mechanical developments, such as that referred to by Nicholas Carr. I however have not made my mind up over the theory of if, at some point, we will ever loose control of the process entry to the mechanized, or, if we already have but are too far removed from the old processes that this realisation has not fully dawned on us? I can only, initially, judge by the changes I personally have been exposed to and experienced. My view is that the development of certain modern technologies and mechanical advancements do hold more cause for concern compared to those developments of past eras. The tools and technology being created within todays society has greater potential than that of the past to become a force that leads us rather than an instrument created to aid us. Each generation questions the impact of new development upon future humankind, but each generation always has its own break through’s and concerns of technological advancements. To paraphrase examples from Nicholas Carr’s text, the use of writing down information as a means of passing on and disputing it by held concerns that by storing information elsewhere other than within our brain would lead to the weakening of the minds capacity to store information. Opening the field of communication and distribution of messages and knowledge via the printing press was also condemned by some. The worry was that the message could be created by the hands of those unqualified to sufficiently convey it. Another concern stated that by producing an easier and faster form which enabled a wider audience the ability to communicate and develop a voice into print the intellectual vigor of the process and the final message would become diluted. I understand that change and uncertainty of the future is a daunting comprehension to grasp, and how easy it is to want to retain the familiar of what is already understood. I too am concerned that the developments we create to aid us have the potential to possibly develop a control and a leading force over us. When exposed to older technologies such as a printing press or simply a pen and paper I can feel a certain affinity over them, that they are an extension to my task rather than the confines of it. A question I can not answer is if there may ever come a time when there is no need for human involvement or input only that which a fully automotive system decides it should be or is this only ever to be found in the realms of fantasy?
The concerns in Nicholas Carr’s ‘Is Google making us stupid’ text seems to highlight the process the internet offers is becoming absolute and dictatorial. The development of mechanically enhanced digital and screen learning is being seen to become dominant. The process through which a task or investigation undertakes can have some relevance upon how the outcome is inevitably formed. I find an understanding of this by relating to various materials which are used in either creating or depicting a visual message. The digital and screen based process removes various materials from the construction development as well as certain human faculties or emotions. When using conventional media and materials to convey a certain message or evoke a specific emotion a wide range of choices are available to select from.
Marshall McLuhans philosophy of media and its developments are an area I also wish to study further. McLuhan’s term, “The medium is the message”, relates to the notion the form or the process through which the message takes or uses is as much a part of the signifier as the actual message itself. However do we have to compare digital techniques and uses to those they have developed from? Do they have to exist as separate entities’ with the notion that if we use one we forsake the other? I do not believe the development and advancement of one will wipe the other out. Digital advancements in technology is too readily seen as a replacement to the process and application of other means. I find it too unsettling to view certain advancements being made as a means to purely replace an existing structure. My preferred view would be not to see these elements as always being in contention to each other but rather an exertion of each other and to us, where necessary, for users to use as a means to implement and carry out the method desired. In some cases many arguments seem to state, to accept one is to forsake the other, I would disagree. Technology is only as useful or relevant to us as we would deem it to be, the dangers arise when we no longer control how we intend to apply the technology but rather allow what we do to become influenced by what we feel technology is capable of. The user becomes the used. A simple way I feel I can relate to technology is through the choices we are able to make. A car is an unnatural, man made invention intended to enable us to travel, possibly beyond our own capabilities, into new, exciting and unexplored territory. However on a clear hot Summers day I would prefer to walk through the park on my own two Feet rather than drive. As long as we maintain the ability to decide the best and appropriate uses of our processes I do not see a problem or contention between them.
These are some, more personal, views I have formulated as an initial response to the discussed text. With further reading and discussion I intend my view to become more focused. There are still areas I have not made my mind up over, particularly the advancements in technology leading to automative responses from users. I also intend to explore areas away from the Google text.
-A.Stow
COMMENTS:
Hey Alex,
That is a very interesting area to explore. In terms of process you could consider looking at typography and how the process of organizing type on a page has changed significantly after the introduction of the computer. With letterpress any decision about typographic hierarchy has to be planned carefully, which stands in very stark contrast to experimenting with type layout on the computer.
This could be a good source for visual examples to support your argument.
- Alexandra S.
Hi Alex,
Good post, the end really got my attention not sure I ll be in topic (as I once again rumble about photography) but will try to look at a couple of questions:
“However do we have to compare digital techniques and uses to those they have developed from? Do they have to exist as separate entities’ with the notion that if we use one we forsake the other?”
To compare is to understand the changes happening within the morphing of medium. What it is and it is not anymore and how our practice is influence by it in order to re-own it .
Example film photography to digital photography
- Lost of sense of originality (duplicate)
- Loss of the real (manipulation)
“I do not believe the development and advancement of one will wipe the other out. Digital advancements in technology is too readily seen as a replacement to the process and application of other means”
Sometime there is too much of a split with in the (maybe assumed) fundamental of a medium that it can be seen as its death. Liz Well write:
For some critics, development in digital imaging in the 1980s and 1990s heralded the ‘death’ of photography and new modes of vision. It was suggested that digital imaging would replace previous image-making forms, primarily through rupturimg any necessary link between image and reality.
Aaron
BBC iplayer The Genius of Design
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sc85s/b00sc85d/The_Genius_of_Design_Ghosts_in_the_Machine/
30 min in talk about Process and progress
Aaron
The Times they are a changing, Bob Dylan.
As well as being a great song and a little light relief I thought it relevant to link it to our discussions of technological advances into unpredictable realms. Bob Dylan can be referenced as a social philosopher in his own right. This songs lyrics are a reminder once again each generation have their own debates upon where the advancements, albeit social or technical, are leading the progress toward the future.
-A.Stow
Lewis Mumford on the city
To very briefly summarize, Mumford was a philosopher of technology and science. He explored the development and progression of mechanical and technological advancements as well as the relating effects it would have on mankind and our ability to interact with it. Using the research could determine a theory on the route civilization proceeds along. The linked video explores Mumfords theorized view of the city and the progression made through new technologies and a widening of community and culture. Its topics have a strong link in relation to the Google text which I found relevant. His views are something I intend to explore in greater depth.
-A.Stow
COMMENTS:
I have collected my notes and personal views upon the discussed text. I have looked at at the topic initially with a very broad scope. Within exploring this starting text I have developed further areas of interest I intend to develop and eventually narrow my field of investigation.
With new technological developments come new ways and process of thinking. New technologies alter how a certain thing is done or constructed, as the process changes so follows how we think of it. The progress of new modern media and technologies has broadened the range of material and information now readily accessible on a daily basis, information which can be accessed from one location can offer on a huge range of possibilities. Along with broadening the range and access to material also comes the increasement of speed in which sources can be found or referenced. This form of technological development has influenced and is depicted within our daily working life and communities. The pace of demand and production has increased to a rate unlike any other in human history, our Iives have now become dependant, or at least accustomed to this new speedier process. A possibility to the reason this new development may bring certain uncomfortable feelings is that although our technological advancements have been great our ability to mirror the process of the mechanical or digital way of thinking has not been developed to an effective enough level. Humans are just that, human, not machines. The confusion may occur when becoming use to the idea that certain demands within our daily life rely on mechanical processes of aid their implementation, however it is then hard for us to remove our own, inner biological way of thinking from the machines way of thinking. Its possible the conflict between the two different processes are the problems.
What are the differences, if any between mechanical thought and a more ‘natural’ thought unsupported by technologies? Is there only conflict for individuals who have experienced the change in technology and thought process compared to those of new generations now brought up with the new developments?
In many instances modern life requires speed and immediacy. Any technological progression carries with it the basic requirement that it aids the process through which a task is undertaken and that it provides a successful succession to the previous system. The development and output demand within life is constantly increasing while the time in which it is required to be achieved decreases. The new and changing scales of time, pressure and modern societies expectations of fast development and increased pace of life are all factors that effect the thought process. The developing thought process which is being implied we are now moving toward by Mr. Carr has risen to meet the needs and fulfill the tasks required of us on a daily bases. It can be argued that it is not the process which is damaging the clarity and coherency of how we gather information but rather the conditions society dictates which has led to an environment which requires such a system. The need for a system of information skimming rather than a deep, concise understanding has been formed in order to achieve the conditions required, if the conditions were altered logic may suggest the process too would alter. A higher demand reduces the time in which to achieve an outcome, obtaining and understanding knowledge is not a speedy task. When the conditions alter so too do the methods employed to obtain and understand information. The internet has not become the sole dominion of where we source information but rather another added source to a library of references. It has the ability to be used as a means to enable us to achieve knowledge under certain circumstances, all be it as a means of instant answers or as a slower more concise method. The web has the ability to produce both methods, it is simply the conditions put upon us which demand how we approach the task at hand.
We expect immediacy. Society, technology and time, all seem to appear to move at a faster rate. Our thinking process is expected to mirror that of the mechanical one, when, our brain is not wired up the same as a machines. Our biological, human, thought process is expected to adapt itself to the mechanical, autonomous process.
The mechanical process is debated to have diminished the ability of discovery through research and replaced it with a different method. We are still able to uncover new knowledge and facts, however they have the possibility to be achieved in a different manner, a less coherent and guided way as dictated by the viewer. Information searches on the internet can contain a hidden, guiding force. A search on the net can vary depending upon the question asked or the source which answers it. I feel a good way to relate to the web as a search engine for knowledge and answers is comparable to a test which requires that the correct answer box is to be ticked in order to answer the question. A certain trail of thought and knowledge is demanded in order to draw a conclusion of the answer, however, there exists already a pre-set answer to link the question to. The challenge for the viewer / reader is to correctly know what the answer is intended to be in relation to the question. The internet is still certainly a powerful tool for exploration and discovery of knowledge, however, its debated if the achievement of gaining knowledge from an internet source is as credible as that of more conventional means. The ease and speed through which an internet search occurs makes it possible to view the achievement of such knowledge as cheap, almost translucent or trivial. There is a consideration that if the process is laborious or time consuming the knowledge of information gained carries with it more weight because of the means through which it has been achieved is considered with higher regard.
The web is a collection of materials, many of which are presented by uncredited or uninformed sources. The ability for many obscure opinions or ideas to exist is unnerving considering these views have the potential to inform others unfamiliar to a subject and become translated as fact or credible. This is also one of the strengths that sourcing info from the web provides. It allows new voices towards subjects to rise, ideas can be generated towards a subject outside the opinions of pre-existing academic or trained community of specialists and authors. The restrictions of censorship or rigourous commercial or edited rules are diminished on the web, the gatekeepers that exist in the wold of book publishing do not apply as forcefully on the web. From and within the very mechanical technology of the web exists very human attributes. The internet can carry some irrational ideas and conjunction. the technology which can be used to communicate and express clear, concise and logical information across the Globe and in to a multitude of cultures and communities also carries messages of individuals opinions, conjecture, irrationality and an opposition to popular held beliefs or ideals.
The idea that the internet is creating a purely automotive way of thinking and approach to research and information sourcing can be argued that viewing uncredited material exposes us to new trails of thought. This exposure can shake up what we consider to understand upon certain subjects and enables ourselves the confidence to question the common or previously held beliefs and understandings. However sources must always be referenced in order to obtain a true understanding on the subject, the author can not be removed entirely in place of a personal theorized opinion. Certain Rules must be learnt before being broken. I consider such ‘informal’ sources such as wikipedia to enable those in search of knowledge a starting point to obtaining information. The webs unrestricted access opens it to be edited by any individual which diminishes its reliability to be a truthful conduit of knowledge. If an individual authors character or credentials can not be judged or measured the source is deemed as unreliable evidence. I consider the webs main power is its ability to enable individuals to have a voice and be exposed to a range of messages and reference material like never before. In turn this is also its main weakness, unchecked and unreliable information can far out weigh the collection of core knowledge on the web. In many ways, rather than enabling the individual access to knowledge it can disable their ability to gain a sold, truthful and coherent grasp of a subject, rather replacing it with personal and summarised viewpoints.
The ‘Is Google making us stupid?’ argument is only truthful dependant upon the particular context of what the term ‘stupid’ is understood to mean. The term stupid is generally considered to be a broad and damning statement to an individuals level of intelligence. Within the article the context of stupidity refers to the individuals diminished ability to relate to information and understand the text in a coherent and concentrated manner in order to achieve a solid and in depth understanding of the subject. Their ability to concentrate upon a single source of information has become effected due to the numerous tangents possible to side track along presented on the web.
The question would be what are the benefits of the web to our intelligence. I can understand, and agree with many of the arguments in the article, however, I disagree with the term ‘stupid’. The idea is far too broad and damns an entire diverse application and collection of information material, the main argument explores the alteration the web presents compared to conventional medias within the process of sourcing and understanding information. The other problem it seems to fail to recognise is simply the web is not a book. The application of how its used in comparison to a specific book would present numerous possibilities of how the process may be different. Each media may work towards a similar end result, however, the process through which the result is achieved is considerably different. While comparisons can be drawn between the two applications the obvious differences within the medias will effect the method through which they are used.
The summary of Nicholas Carr’s argument states the web effects our commitment to arduous processes of research and concentration which are replaced by the appeal of quick solutions which also resonate the same depth and understanding of the content achieved from concise and lengthy research. It could be asking if goggle is diminishing our ability to properly define a subject? It also makes suggestions that technology enables us to succeed but does not replace the need to learn.
-A.Stow
COMMENTS:
I have attached a link to Nicholas Carr’s own blog, I thought it relevant at the majority of the group discussion has involved the ‘Is Google making us stupid’ text.
-A.Stow
COMMENTS:
Google Goggles
I am going to read more about this, but I am interested in the ways smart phones (i.e technology) are used to short cut our layer of thinking. When semiotics/visuals are interpreted through a set of data design by Google.
- Aaron
COMMENTS:
Hey Aaron,
The Google Goggles feature is pretty amazing. It is amazing and scary at the same time. Concerns that companies such as Google make our life easier on the one hand, but raise a set of questions on the other. The question whether Google is making us stupid is thus highly justified. However, I have been wondering whether all the other parts of the brain that are used while we research on the computer (like the visual we process, the typing and the clicking involved) is actually making us smarter?
- Alexandra S.
Moving from the paper text to the digital environment of blogging, I realized that when reading through the printed pages, I started to own the text and personalized the blank space around it: annotation on the margin, highlighting and underlining words. There is distinct physical interaction that one cannot found in a mouse and keyboard. In Is Google Making Us Stupid Nicholas Carr write: “the internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV” this quote argue that the digital world will replace most of our intellectual technologies. Consequently removing our relationship to the material world. What interest me beside the political discussion around the culture produce by the web 2.0 is how it disembody us in such a way that we merge with the screen. Rather than the machine overtaking humanity (terminator scenario), we are rewiring ourselves in a more machine like way. The Screen reading is so rich of debate that I would need to come back to it in another post.
- Aaron
COMMENTS:
l would disagree that we dissociate ourselves with digital and technical media completely compared to that of its more physically malleable counter parts. It can offer alternative solutions of how we associate ourselves on personal level which we may not recognise when comparing it to other media. I understand it is not the same exactly as writing side notes within the margin but we strive to find the same individual or customized value within digital media as we would in their contemporary counter parts. I feel our desire to relate to the method still exists as it does within the more physical connection obtained from putting pen to paper. With changes in technology so comes change in the ways we can associate ourselves with it. I have attached what I feel is a relevant and interesting article from eye magazine 66, titled ‘Interaction and multimedia’ ‘Anticipating new interfaces in the age of the iPhone, an open ended conversation with design guru Bill Moggridge, by Malcom Garret’
http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature.php?id=152&fid=662
Within the article there is exploration in media format changes and individuals ability to associate and interact with them. The desire of personalized, physical attachment and ownership still exist, but the methods by which they are applied have altered. Within the article Moggridge states;
‘Just looking at my own personal experience as a designer: I studied design using the techniques that I was taught, but they went out of date extraordinarily quickly. Drawing for example, required gouache, watercolour and airbrush – along came the magic marker, and I stopped using those! And then along came the computer, and I stopped using magic markers. At least three times the simple skills I had were replaced. So although a generation will acquire the latest stuff intuitively as they grow up, they will still have to accommodate many more big changes in their lifetime.’
‘Anticipating new interfaces in the age of the iPhone: an open-ended conversation with design guru Bill Moggridge’, Bill Moggridge, by Malcolm Garrett, 2007, Eye magazine issue 66.
This is also relevant to our discussions of technological advancements and the effects they have upon the process of a task. I feel this statement is a reminder that along with the environment and technological changes within time so comes change within ourselves of how we are expected to associate with the developments at hand.
My personal view is that there is still a ‘human’ link between man and technological advancements. I do not feel entirely dissociated to information or images on screen compared to those in a book nor do I feel an entire lack of ownership. However there is an essence contained within pen and paper I do not feel within a keyboard, I think it equates to the notion I have more control and power over how I progress or lay down a mark on the page with a pen than that of a keyboard. A keyboard is a cold, hard and rigid interface which makes it hard to feel a personal connection with because of its fixed and unchangeable layout. The mouse, however, I can associate more with the pen. It feels more like an extension of my hand, I can harbour more control over its movement and direction, all be it within a confined parameter, it can respond as a part of my hand. A basic summary, I feel, is that I associate more to that which I have a form of direct control over, something I know I have the ability to alter or lead. There is more involved to the argument of if the current advancements are removing our personal connection to our practice, but I feel the article attached highlights the development into areas that allow ourselves more involvement and control over what can be regarded as an impersonalized systems.
-A.Stow
Initial thoughts on discourse is the lack appreciation for what for is essentially progress. (At what price is progress made might be worth delving into, but I dont want to get to melodramatic, Nicholas Carr does enough enough of that already.) The point is, times change, and so do peoples habits. My stand point at present is the opposite to Nicholas, for example I didn’t enjoy spending hours on end reading volumes of text during my early academic explorations. If Google had been around when I was studying for the exams earlier in my life, I think I would have found them a little less time consuming and perhaps even, dare I say it; a little more enjoyable.
The enjoyment, wouldn’t just have been down to the fact the I could have amassed all I need to know in a short period of time, which may or may not have meant that I could have spent more time smoking foul tasting cigarettes and trying (woefully) to chat up young ladies. No, the medium and the method of study would have helped me in a way which works best for be. I enjoy reading, but it has to be something I either am interested in or worth knowing more about or because the it will help me answer a specific question or has a purpose.
I suppose, for me, it’s a case of quality instead quantity and working smart instead of working hard. (Or it might just be that I am lazy.) The bottom line for me is that technology is there to help and assist, to be used and abused (within reason).
There are aspects of the text that I did agree with and it was to do with the aspect of Artificial Intelligence. As I have said, having something help me or guide me in a certain direction I find beneficial, but to have something actually tell me what to do, or to be more specific, think on my behalf is a no brainier. (Pardon the pun) I don’t need or want such a thing. Besides, nobody knows what I want better than me :-)
I am glossing over quite a bit, as well as rambling and jumping around a bit. There is so much more to be said. My train of though isn’t quite on track with this just yet and some more analyzing needs to be done for sure. But I want to get something posted to at least start the journey. Apologies for it not being concise just yet.
Anyway, to be continued … .
- Ray
COMMENTS:
The CIBER research group at UCL headed by Professor David Nicholas, together with the BBC Virtual Revolution team ran a scientific experiment with the general public, which was featured on the BBC’s program series. This test is now open to the public. I found the results very interesting and on reflection, had never stopped to objectively think about my own web habits. It was quite an insight.
I was a web elk! :)
— Elle
COMMENTS:
Very interesting Elle. I’m a web bear (grrr!)
I am not entirely sure it truly represents my Net use, but I suppose it is a reasonable gauge.
The questions they are asking a remarkably similar to those that Nicholas Carr’s piece asks both directly and indirectly. I do find it a bit of a paradox the Dr Rawlands talking about the “reliability” and “authority’ on a BBC website. Only because it is fair to say that anything published on the Beebs website is assumed to be authentic. Assumption being the key word.
- Ray
Im a hedgehog.
Slow-moving - Web Hedgehogs are careful internet users, taking their time to find the right information - just as the real-world hedgehog carefully searches out insects and berries.
Solitary - Hedgehogs lead mainly solitary lives and are happiest foraging for food of their own. In the ecology of the Internet, you also prefer to go it alone, rarely relying on information on social networks or other sites whose content is created by its users.
Specialised - The hedgehog relies for protection on its highly specialised ability to roll into a spiky ball. Similarly, your test suggests you are a specialised web user, best suited to concentrating on one thing at a time rather than attempting to multitask.
-A Stow.
Hello guys,
how very relevant for our discussion about the effect that technology has on our brain and brain development. I am wondering about age though, because the effect that technology has had on our brain must vary greatly from the effect it has on the brain of other generations such as our parents or that of younger generations. The test did not specifically ask about age, but I am assuming that this information will be taken from our account. Especially in regard to the age factor it would be very interesting to see the findings of this experiment. Hopefully these will be published soon.
When looking at the test results of our group so far, my statement that Google is making us lazy (as opposed to stupid) cannot be supported, because we all seem to be taking our time for online research to find the best answer to our research question. However, I believe that this is not true for younger generations.
I am a Web Bear:
Slow-moving - Web Bears like you browse the internet at a leisurely pace - just like real world bears who like to take their time over things.
Solitary - Like real bears, Web Bears tend to be solitary animals. Your results show that when you are looking for information, you are less likely to use social networks or other sites whose content is created by its users, preferring instead to go it alone.
Adaptable - Web Bears are highly adaptable multitaskers, able to do several things at the same time. Real-bears are also very flexible, particularly in their diet, and will eat fish, insects, salmon and even scavenge in human refuse for new sources of food.
- Alexandra S.
TECHNOLOGY & CREATIVITY:
Bill Duggen at TEDX who is a senior lecturer in Business Management at Columbia Business School
This clip illustrates a number of aspects that I am currently researching for context (as well as discourse) looking further at ideas about creative perception & learning. It also uses as examples many of the digital areas for discussion we were looking at last week. This shows interconnectivity between technology and creativity and the positive potentials for collaborative/ open approaches to learning. The challenge comes when there is a saturation of ideas and the issues of appropriation, plagiarism and intellectual property rights.
— Elle
COMMENTS:
Hello Elle,
I find your direction of exploring the connection between technology and creative development/learning very interesting and I might be able to give you some input for your research on creative development. I have taken a class in psychology of art during my undergraduate studies and I still have a few notes that might be of interest to you. I can recommend a book called Creative and Mental Growth by Viktor Lowenfeld and W. Lambert Brittain. It is aimed at an understanding of how cognitive development relates to creative and artistic expression. It includes many supporting visuals, mainly of the art of children. I have a copy at home which you are welcome to use; I could bring it to our next group meeting. It is the eighth edition which includes sections dealing with the computer and art.
-Alexandra S.
I wanted to post up the link to the full of Andrew Keen@Google talk of which we saw a small section of in the screen lecture.
— Elle
COMMENTS:
