responses

This is where I post my responses!!

1. What does Perec mean when he says,"To live is to pass from one space to another, while doing your very best not to bump yourself"? (pg.6)
2. Is there space after death? If one is living in these so called spaces that Perec lists within his book, wouldn't there be a space to be bumped to after we die or is he implying that there is nothingness beyond this life, and if so wouldn't this nothingness or void count as just another space if we name it so?
3. Does experience create different representations of "space"? In these readings, Perec begins to describe mainly spaces that exist in his own experiences. “The passage of time (my history) leaves behind a residue that accumulates: photographs, drawings,…” (Perec 24). He lists places he has slept and in some references physically touched: beds, apartments, paintings of apartment buildings, and novels he has finished- to name a few. Each object that Perec goes on listing results from experiences of which they originated, provoking the reader to think about where their own trivial collection of objects came from. He emphasizes that besides objects obtained, space occurs in what one writes down or records, for example: maps, all the while hinting that maybe space occurs because of every individual’s experiences as a whole. There are not many people, if any, living or dead who have experienced every single place existing on a map of our world. Yet a map agreed upon by the world’s population exists of collective experiences of generations of people, presumably all of those who have had some sort of personal experience within those places. It was drawn and our population, myself included, follows it. Perec dives into this subject further when he asks, "When, in a given bedroom, you change the position of the bed, can you say you are changing rooms, or else what (pg.24)?” The appearances of rooms change just as the appearances of our world changes over time. People move away and new ones move in, continents shift, and by default all spaces incur physical change. In addition to physical changes- history, media, and literature are all able to shape a person’s ideas of what represents certain spaces. But it is our own experiences which create similar representations of spaces within a population. For example, before 9/11 two people living on opposite sides of New York City could have drastically different experiences in the span of their lives, but if both shared the event in person, their ideas of the space would have now been very similar compared to a person who only sees watched the news reports on television. New York used to be known to most solely as the “big apple” and the place to go to make a break, but it is the event that now shapes an added idea of the space of “New York” for the world as a whole.

comments:

Hello, quick response --sbaldwin, Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:09:49 -0500 reply
I have a quick response.

A quick response from Genny --genrmac, Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:20:28 -0500 reply
I agree with you,that Perec is identifying space through personal experience. He begins with a small space of his own, i.e. his bed, and the space grows until what he touches is finally outside his immediate living area. It is interesting how,as you have noted, that maps, dictionaries,and even world tragedies, link our spaces or experiences.

Qestion #1: A quick response from Genny --genrmac, Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:26:28 -0500 reply
When Perec says "To live is to pass from one space to another, while doing your very best not to bump yourself," I feel that he is saying that oftentimes we hope to move from space to space with as few problems, i.e. illness or car accidents, as possible.

response to Amanda - sbaldwin --sbaldwin, Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:39:59 -0500 reply
Amanda: A good set of questions. In the first question: doesn't this imply that we have different ways of living and moving, different ways of being, in different spaces? I suppose this is true. We focus differently, act differently, know differently. I suppose he's pointing out that we need to avoid overlapping? The second question: a provocative thing to wonder, of course, though it seems to me he's not really dealing with questions of that sort, is he? OK, and question three: you seem to be answering in the affirmative, experience does create different representations of space. How much of a role is this giving to experience? or rather, couldn't the question be reversed: Do different representations of space lead to different experiences? The difference is whether there is one single experiencing self in different spaces, or perhaps a much more variable experience, depending on the space under consideration. What do you think?

Response to "Taxonomy of a Room" 01/24/06

1. What does the author mean when he states, "We can be the Linneaus of our room..."?
2. When the author talks about a psychogeographical quality being possible, does he imply that it would be possible to recreate a reaction in all people about a certain space if we know the trigger? If so, would the trigger have to be the same for all people or could it be different?
3. Why does the author compare his taxonomy to "window-dressing"?

Within his exposition, the author struggles with the idea of whether or not it is possible to recreate an experience but ultimately returns back to the idea that through mere categorization, we cannot truely begin to recreate more than what we see. We can recreate an idea of a room through the web by use of description of objects, sounds, and smells but these descriptions cannot fully be recreated without the re-creator already having some sort of experience with them before hearing said descriptions. Even then, we all have our own opinions of these objects, sounds, and smells based on our experiences with them.

He states further that "if it's possible to grasp the soul of a room and make it available online,...we don't recreate space, we recreate experience." Grasping the soul of a room would require a room to embrace its own personal qualities just as a person does which is something that it does not do.

In the end, no matter how we feel a room describes us through objects, sights, and smells, it is still merely a space and all spaces will embody seperate experiences for different people, so being able to capture a deeper understanding of a room other than these classifications of what one person sees on the outside would be illogical. The author admits this when he says that "Perhaps this taxonomy reflects the way I want you to see me" just as a window-dressing can only begin to descibe a room to an outsider that has never seen the inside. The author explains that "the artificial room has still to be built" because once you are invited in, your experience will still not become real until you experience the room the same way he has.

response to amanda - sbaldwin --sbaldwin, Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:44:20 -0500 reply
Hey Amanda, post your responses in the response box rather than going into "edit" and pasting them. This makes it easier for me to respone!

If I understand your second question correctly, it's a question of whether the same taxonomy of a particular space works the same for everyone? Do we each get our own taxonomy? etc. Good question! Most of the readings so far seem to focus on the idea of preference or choice, so that taxonomies would seem to be individualized, and yet they must occur in relation to a set of "things" or immutables. So, there is a kind of common topology. Complicated! Surely it's true that through most of history we've focused on things - houses, for example, were built with the idea of conveying the same experience for all. Architecture promised to be a single, unified science. The current movement, in multimedia writing and elsewhere, is to focus on social and crowd based decisions. So, perhaps we're moving to a more individualized world?

Response to “Anti-Mac Interface” --amiller, Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:04:01 -0500 reply
1. What would we use instead of metaphors?

1. Could some features on the internet be considered “Anti-Mac”, and if so could they be carried over to our desktop programs ? i.e. amazon.com references your choice with other people’s preferences
2. What other features do we already see being developed on computers that fit into the “Anti-Mac” guidelines?

   More expressive interfaces continue to turn up everyday. We now have a computer screen that is as big as a blackboard in the White Hall Computer Lab. It’s mainly used for teaching in the classroom but it is a huge advancement in screen size. The screen also has touch features where you can use your own hand instead of a mouse. This is an advancement in not using the metaphor of a “mouse” but still makes the same arguments against the use of see-and-point and direct manipulation. Users also give up control sometimes in Microsoft Word with the use of the paper clip helper. This is usually only when they ask to give it up unless they do not know to get rid of it as a default setting when they don’t want help from the computer. A dog appears in the windows search menu with little check boxes for specific places to find items which help the user gain control but it is also lost because we do not actual have to go through all of the drive and manually find files ourselves.

Response to “Anti-Mac Interface” --sbaldwin, Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:45:28 -0500 reply
Amanda: This is too short for a reply! Interestingly, there were touch screens predating the mouse. The mouse dominates in some ways because of the dominance of windows, but also because it does let you do certain things. Now, I agree that these features you're talking about are useful and extend the WIMP interface in useful ways. I don't think they're "anti-mac" in the sense that the authors argue. Aren't they saying we need a language-like interface to allow for the kind of complex interactions we have via language? What might such an interface look like?

Reponse to "Poetics of Augmented Space" --amiller, Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:12:31 -0500 reply
1. How could our world be more condusive to the idea of all "layers" of information being equally important?

1. Is augmented space losing its value today?
2. Are we being restricted in our own personal freedom by augmented space and "cellspace technology"?

Our society is based around competition and it is for this reason that I believe that we will never be able to achieve a method where all information in Manovich's layers of augmented space will ever be able to be equal.

As an advertising major we are often taught that we have to find new and inventive ways to get a message to stand out from the many many other pieces of information out there. Like Manovich, I often wonder whether it would be possible to construct a more reasonable way to get all pieces of information to be equal but I know that not our modern world strives on competition not just in advertising, but also in our everyday economy.

It used to be that buildings and spaces were covered with art and decoration, now all the average person sees is advertisements. While some advertisements can pass for a piece of modern day art, they all serve a purpose and are trying to get something out of anyone who will pay attention to them.

While Manovich does bring up the "brandscaping" of major high-end brands creating inventive and beautiful new ways to look at architecture and information, the everyday walk around the block for most people consists of advertisements on buildings, billboards, benches, buses, and even in some public restrooms. While "brandscaping" is opening up the possibility of new ways for the public to see information it is very expensive, giving only the highest end brands the opportunity to use it, and therefore remains a form of competition in the marketing world aimed at getting the attention of the consumer.

The only way to get rid of competition in our market would be with monopolies in business. However, this would create many problems in our economy. Prices would sky-rocket and our own personal freedoms would be limited. Our abilities to have choices in what we buy and even opportunities in entrepreneurial ventures would be gone.

Instead of trying to find ways to keep all information equally important, we should embrace the idea of information being on different levels of importance to our own personal being. Everyone's preferences are different and our world thrives on this.

Response to Ambient Findability Chapters 3-5 --amiller, Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:52:21 -0500 reply
1.What are some examples of times when we choose to ignore information? 2.How could our structure of findability on the web improve? 3.What does O'Reilly mean when he says, "In the absence of push, we lose our inspiration for pull"? Could we ever have a world without one or the other?

In chapter five O'Reilly talks about how he "would never wish for a world without push" yet holds the distinct opinion that advertising is bothersome and unruly. A world without advertising sounds like a great idea to most. While no door-to-door salesmen, no spam emails, no more solicitation calls O'Reilly brings up the fact that it would be hard for most of us to function without them. We are so surrounded by these methods of unsolicited information in our day to day routine that we begin to take them for granted.

Pulling inspires us to push more. Once a piece of information that has been pushed on us catches our eye, the will to pull information from somewhere else is innate. We as human beings yearn for more information on the topics that interest us. Our need for pushing and pulling is cyclic so O'Reilly probably has nothing to worry about when he talks about a world without "push".

A world without unsolicited information from the web or advertising would leave us to information provided by ourselves and by our surrounding circle of people. These people could also serve as unsolicited sources of information when needed to "push" a message about something. Pushing and pulling come hand and hand in human nature and so until we as a people get rid of communication and human interaction all together.

The more information we have pushed at us, the more we have to pull from. Which is good news for everyone. Many products and services would not have been able to be sold without push and many people would have a hard time finding the things they need without them being pushed at them. We have the ability to pull but without information being pushed at us we have a much harder time of finding them and lose interest in finding other things we need. This will continue until we can find the ideal universal method to categorize all things.

Reponse to "Poetics of Augmented Space" --sbaldwin, Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:15:33 -0500 reply
Amanda: I'm a bit uncertain which question you're responding to? Question 2 seems odd, given Manovich's claim that augmented space is what is coming about - hard to believe it would be losing it's value. OK, so then you start with "our society is based around competition." Is this true? That's certainly one view of our society, but there are others, right? "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" - and so on. But, even so, I'm not sure where you're going with your response. The notion that buildings are covered with advertisements certainly fits aspects of Manovich's argument. But I suppose the question is the final aspect of his argument, where he's talking about poetics and the possibility of a critical attitude to augmented space. I can see your argument here - I think your last paragraph is probably something that Manovich might agree with as well...

Response to Ambient Findability Chapters 3-5 --sbaldwin, Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:49:24 -0500 reply
Amanda: good response about push and pull. I think it's true that they're hard to separate, beyond a few extreme instances. In most cases, one necessitates teh other. Perhaps, in understanding information, we need to conceive push and pull together? Perhaps information always involves some of both, at least if we consider information as social and contextual?

Response to Privacy Issues --amiller, Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:45:02 -0500 reply
1. What are some possible solutions to protecting the privacy of the everyday internet user? 2. Are privacy laws doing their job to protect us in everyday life? 3. What are some of the problems we face when we forfeit our privacy for protection?

response to #1

Yes, there are programs that can protect internet users from viruses and limit what information they let others see. But how exactly would a regular person be able to know if these programs were working? The everyday computer user has no way to monitor who or what information others can see on the internet.

If computer programs exist where bits and pieces of anybody's personal information that they put out there- whether it be through e-mail, web logs, registering for certain things, or through cookies- can be found, organized, and used for reasons other than the original intent of the source, there must be a way to program something that will let the source see who is using there information and for what.

In law, information can be seperated into four torts. But since the internet is a hard medium to control information-wise, trying to manage any control privacy-wise has been quite a challenge for most. For this reason, if this hypothetical program were to be developed, it would have to generalize all information we share as one kind because all of the information we post is able to be seen. This program would offer no protection but I think that it would make the public a lot more aware of what they are doing.

It is my impression that when many are asked to post personal information they are unknowledgeable of who can see it and if they were warned ahead of time, they would be liable to look out for themselves. I think that for now,until there are solid laws made controlling what information web sites are allowed to ask for, we have to take responsibility for whatever information we put out in cyberspace. With so many wierd people out there, I believe that looking out for ourselves is the best thing we can do and this would give a little power back to the people.

Response to Privacy Issues --sbaldwin, Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:57:55 -0500 reply
Amanda: It may be that the internet is inherently open and there is no final way to protect privacy. What do you think? And, if this were so, would it mean we stop using it or we adapt? How would we adapt? There is a lot of interesting debate on the legal issues (Lawrence Lessig is the best on this), but the internet presents serious challenges to our definitions of privacy, expresssion, and so on. So, yes we need responsibility and awareness of what we're getting into (which might mean greater knowledge of how the computer/internet works). But perhaps we need to re-examine our laws and what we mean by privacy in the first place?

Response to "Old and New Dreams for Tactical Media" --amiller, Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:35:21 -0500 reply
1. What does the author mean when he says, "Capital is not threatened by chaos it thrives on it"?

1. How was the price for business.com calculated?
2. Is the name of a website a means of tactical media or strategic?

The author states, "The perpetual cycle of destruction and renewal which characterizes tactical media, is itself an embodiment of the forces unleashed by capitalism." But what does this mean in real life terms and how exactly does capitalism relate to tactical media?

By trying to apply the example of the Punk movement to this metaphor, I am confused further- but I am starting to see the point. Punk was started as a rebellion against Capitalism and the idea of the "masses" and stirred up political controversy. But once punk started to appeal to the "masses", Capitalists started investing in bands that would "sell out" to be able to play to these larger audiences. Which has ultimately contributed to the destruction of what the ideals of Punk used to be.

Capitalism thrived on this so-called "chaos", by taking it and making a tamer version of it. By doing so they turned the old audience away from the exploited capitalist bands that sound "punk" but no longer represent the ideals of the original Punk movement but also appeal to new audience of mainly young people who are unknowledgable about the ideals behind it or simply do not care. Some might say that the industry has "destroyed" the music but others see it as a doorway opened for more radical movements. But even tactical media being used by the "underground scene" such as Itunes, and other mp3 downloading mechanisms have allowed a way for the big businesses to see who is listening to what. Major publications such as "Rolling Stone Magazine" access this information to write about what they think their readers want to hear. MTV releases videos periodically of certain artists that are big in the underground scene to seem up-to-date and also appeal to these underground fans.

The punk ideals were not originally built around a tactic. Those who believe in them were strategizing a way to change music all together. Capitalism took that strategy and turned it into a tactic as a trend to appeal to whoever would listen to the music now. Those who are true to the ideals stick to them to this day, but as long as the masses are contributing to the capitalist dollar the industry will continue to thrive off of chaos through tactical media.

Response to Debord's "Theory of Derive" --amiller, Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:57:36 -0400 reply
1. What does Debord mean when he states, "The objective passional terrain of the dérive must be defined in accordance both with its own logic and with its relations with social morphology"?

1. What is Debord suggesting when he says, "Progress means breaking through fields where chance holds sway by creating new conditions more favorable to our purposes"?
2. Why does Debord say "the last hours of the night are generally unsuitable for derives"?

If a derive is just "drifting" like the essay explains then why would time make any effect on the appropriateness of a derive? Debord does not go far into detail on this statement, but it was something that I found to be very peculiar. As for the general population, it is true that we don't normally go wandering around in the wee hours of the night, but there are a select few that do. If one were to compare someones daytime derive versus a night owl's nighttime derive you would have consider personal factors such as their biological clock and how much sleep they have received.

Also Debord's comments seems to suggest that derives can be judged on quality. I disagree with this idea. To do so one would have to look at what happens to that person and compare the events to anothers. Who is to say that one person's experiences were more by chance than another persons? And there is no way to conclude that a person in the day would have more things happen to them in the day than at night.

If one was drifting at night there will be things in the environment that effect what happens to that person, the same way it would happen to someone in the daytime. There may not be as much going on people-wise at night, but there are still other environmental factors that would effect the two different people in different ways, such as the weather, architecture, animals, sights, sounds, etc.

Response to "Murmur" --amiller, Tue, 02 May 2006 18:18:33 -0400 reply
1. How do the creators of the project filter and handpick the stories for each spot? 2. Does the project ever encounter really off-the-wall tales? 3. How might this project effect the public and evolve in the future?

Murmur has added a little excitement to the Toronto area. The public seems to have gotten involved in the project from what the site explains and it has taken off and made significant progress in the world of psychogeographic research and exploration.

An area that I could see it making a huge impact in is in a historical context. If the project is still in tact years and years from now the public will have this valuable resources as archives to the surrounding area. The archives could also carry over to the field of law if evidence is needed for the reopening of a case. It would be very important if the project was used for this area that the stories are accurate, unbiased, and fact-checked. The archives would be a huge asset for journalism in this sense as well. Any research needed for a story would be readily available for anyone that needed to find personal information about an ancestor or the past architecture of the area. The project could also be an asset for the area as a tourist attraction, helping to boost Toronto's economy and maybe even expand to other areas creating new job opportunities and pulling in a bigger population.

This project will undoubtingly create positive things for the area in the future and I don't really see any negative aspects coming from it. The Murmur team should be proud!