responses

Hello

From jgriffi9 Sun Jan 15 19:32:01 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:32:01 -0500 Subject: Perec, Pages 1-45 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000>

Questions: 1. Perec begins his essay with a microscope, and ends it by looking distantly into all space with a telescope. What does Perec's positioning of "the page" as the first item suggest? Can his argument be qualified?

1. Perec tries but fails to imagine a physical space that is purposefully purposeless. Is it also impossible or just as difficult to imagine an electronic space or web address that serves absolutely no fundamental purpose?

1. Perec explains that we use walls to forget about the spaces behind them, and we place pictures on the walls to hide the fact that the wall exists. Are there other spaces in the physical world that we intentionally or unitentionally forget or hide?

Response to question 1: Perec organizes his essay in such a way as to examine the closest, most personal spaces first, zooming out until he discusses all of space. Therefore, his position of "the page" as the first discussed item suggests that the page is a more intimate space than even the bed an individual sleeps in. To qualify this argument, we need to determine what intimacy consists of, or try to meaure it some way. Intimacy, in relation to space, could be determined by: 1. physical knowledge 2. emotional knowledge 3. Knowledge of one's conscious thoughts 4. knowledge of unconscious thoughts (dreams) 5. time spent with the space/object 6. A record, memory, or impression left on the space A bed knows your unconscious dreams, but the journal page (the larger of its two dimensions, as Perec explains) gets to know and help you remember the bits of a dream that you do consciously remember when you wake up. A bed also know you physically--the curve of your neck and head, the space between your vertebrae, and where you have gained weight. But the page knows you emotionally, whether you are reading one or writing it. Your connection with a page (hopefully) is intensely emotional: journaling is incredibly self-revealing, and so is the way a reader responds while reading a text. Okay, so both the bed and the page are intimate spaces: but which is more intimate of the two? One could suggest that because Perec is a writer, the very amount of time Perec spends with the page makes it more intimate than the bed (writers are notoriously bad and non-habitual sleepers, and Perec mentioned earlier that he rarely works in bed). But what about everyone else? When we consider all of the time spent viewing pages, especially when a computer monitor, billboards, and even possibly, at times, the television or theater screen are considered as, or at least are related to pages, then the average person probably also spends more time in the space of the page than the average eight he or she spends in his or her bed. Finally, perhaps one aspect of intimacy could be a record or impression that a space leaves about you. In this view, the page wins as the more personal of the two spaces, hands down. The history would once again need to be split into the physical and emotional. The indentation in your mattress shows your sleeping position and estimates your size. Your bed also is probably a good indication of your cleanliness (have you ever taken off the pillowcase of a friend's, or your own, pillow? Sometimes surprises exist there). But the page can record all these physical facts more easily, and without a detective or sociologist-- five foot three, female, on my back, with my head turned to the left--I just recorded my sleeping preferences and general physical dimensions. But I can also record my emotional state, both of the present and the past, which I don't have the space for here. After examination, it is easy to see why Perec chose to list "the page" as the most intimate space. But I would think that most people, when rating spaces based on their level of intimacy, would choose some other space, like a shower or a toothbrush. But Perec's unique perspective allows the reader to reexamine any such rating system he or she may have, and to see the truth in Perec's perspective. From

BoWVU123? Tue Jan 17 15:17:27 -0500 2006 From: BoWVU123? Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:17:27 -0500 Subject: Hi, My name is Bo Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Both, the bed and a journal entry, can be intimate spaces. I prefer to write to relieve stress or to get things off my chest because I consider myself not shy but quiet.On the other hand, my bed is an intimate place for me. Not only for the one I share it with but for me individualy because it is where I feel most comfortable. I collect my thoughts in bed. I am at peace in bed.

From jgriffi9 Tue Jan 17 15:21:26 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:21:26 -0500 Subject: Response to Bo Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> In-Reply-To: <20060117151727-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> I agree that both spaces are intimate. It's interesting that the bed and the page can serve such similiar purposes--relaxation, stress relief, and quiet reflection.

From sbaldwin Sun Jan 22 22:12:48 -0500 2006 From: sbaldwin Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:12:48 -0500 Subject: Perec, Pages 1-45 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> In-Reply-To: <20060115193201-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Jamie: You initially seem to suggest that the page remembers more - i.e. the bed is a place of dream and may retain some trace, e.g. the shape of a body, but it cannot name and describe the dream as the page can do. Certainly this suggests why the page is more important significant than the bed, but why does he start first with it? Isn't there the suggestion that all spaces are "read" like a page? So, a page is the model or paradigm for all the subsequent spaces. First off, in the relation between blankness and marking, secondly, in the way we read and receive. So, the order is important for establishing this basic notion. Also, I find your third question fascinating. It seems to me there must be many other structures like this, that hide or conceal, that fade into the background but remain there. Can you think of any?

From jgriffi9 Tue Jan 24 11:21:32 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:21:32 -0500 Subject: Response for 1/24/2006 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Questions:

1. Do you agree that creativity and other emotions are as linked to one's room or space as "Roomology" suggests?
2. After reading "Roomology," comment on our newfound devotion to interior design, with home-improvement televsion shows and aspects of feng-shui coming into our culture.
3. Perec suggests that reading is an act that rarely stands alone: reading is usually performed with some other intention, like waiting or studying. Discuss how surroundings might change the reader's perception of the words he or she reads.

Response to Question 3: The author of "Roomology" suggests that creativity and mental actions are linked directly to one's space, with each affecting the other. The two are intertwined: "Every change in the room indicates/creates/reinforces in many different ways, impossible to untangle, some mental change." At first I was resistent to this argument. Surely some individuals are more sensitive to their environements than others, but within any space, some or all of our five senses are being used, and we perceive the world through our senses: therefore, a perceived change in an environment may lead to a new thought, idea, or emotion. Although at times we seem to arbitrarily change the placement of a hanging picture or rearrange where the sofa sits, we always have a thought process that leads to this action. And once the change in our space is made, we become affected in a new way--although probably small and innoticable--than the previous arrangement affected us. The fact that feng-shui and interior designer shows like "Trading Spaces" and "While You Were Out" have become more popular suggests that we are beginning to understand that our surroundings affect how we feel, and how we feel can affect how we act. However, I would suggest that in most individuals, the link between one's thoughts and the spaces that they inhabit are not as strongly linked as the author suggests. He uses the extreme example of Van Gough's painting, "The Yellow Room," to show the "fact that artists and rooms are an unbreakable psychological tandem." He singles out artists here, but even this does not strengthen his argument. If a mentally-stable artist were placed in Van Gough's yellow room and asked to draw it, he or she would not be influenced in the same way. Likewise, if a mentally-stable person were placed in a creepy yellow room that looks just like Van Gough's painting, he would not go crazy. It seems that the author's argument uses circular logic: crazy people interpret their world in crazy ways: the world must be acting on them to make them crazy. A link between one's environment and one's thoughts definitely exists, but how strong the link is depends both on the uniqueness of the space and the qualities of the individual in the space. From sbaldwin Wed Jan 25 14:18:25 -0500 2006 From: sbaldwin Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:18:25 -0500 Subject: Response for 1/24/2006 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> In-Reply-To: <20060124112132-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Jamie: I see what you mean - some people may be more aware of the link than others. But can the link be there one way or another? I mean, people might be aware that space and mentality are related; or they might not; but the awareness would not necessarily reduce the fact of the relation? What do you think? Now, I suppose the logic is circular, but isn't it intended to displace the idea that craziness comes from within (its a person's fault) or from without (it's the environments fault). Instead there's a kind of circular feedback....?

From jgriffi9 Tue Jan 31 11:21:56 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:21:56 -0500 Subject:

Response 4 for 1/31/2006: "As We May Think" Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000>

Questions: 1. Examine the accuracy of Bush's predictions from 1945 of how information could be organized with special attention on the internet's purpose in today's world. Analyze the differences between the two as well. 2. Bush sees extreme potential in a system that would allow the organization he imagines, and the internet, arguably, does an even more efficient job that his dream organizer. But do you believe that the internet lives up to the potential Bush imagines? Pay close attention to the areas of specialization in society and science. 3. After reading this article, examine the relationship between knowledge and accessibility.

Response to question 1: When I read "As We May Think," I was amazed at how closely the organizational system Bush imagines relates to the internet, and the technology he imagines with regard to photography. However, after I thought about it for a while, the small differences btween the two become apparent. The organizational system he imagines exists in the physical world. Even though it is on a smaller scale because the information is projected, the information would still have to be present on the inquirer's desk, although in mini-form. In addition, as Bush suggests, the information would have to be duplicated to be organized in such a way that it wold connect with different topics. But with the internet, of course, if a person types in a search phrase, all relevant items will come up, and the duplication of the pages they find is endless and infinite. His organizational system was a good guess and a surprisingly accurate prediction of how information would eventually be organized. However, because his perspective is from 1945, he is unable to imagine this information being stored digitally. Perhaps he comes close to a similair process in the end of his essay, when he discusses photons of light beaming from our televisions, but in the same way that the Egyptians did not have the individual nuts and bolts that could potentially create a car, Bush was without the technology that would let him predict an electronic storage system. A similiar problem emerges when Bush imagines photographic technology of the future. He can imagine dry developing processes and tiny cameras, but the photographer would need to pull on a cord to snap a picture. He cannot imagine wireless technology. It is similar to when a science fiction movie about the future from the 1950s shows a 21st century family on Mars watching television and getting up to change the channel--the director of the movie could not imagine a television remote. The informational and organizational world Bush imagines is incredibly insightful, despite the minor differences that his predictions had with the technology that has actually developed.

From sbaldwin Mon Feb 6 09:40:52 -0500 2006 From: sbaldwin Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:40:52 -0500 Subject: response by sandy Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Jamie: (Hey, try posting your responses in the comment box rather than via the edit function. It's easier for me to respond that way.) Great question and response! Certainly the idea of a systems of information linked to facilitate retrieval seems much like the internet. But, as you note, his system is local not distributed. It's all in the desk; perhaps it's closer to the model of CD-ROMs?? He had no way of foreseeing the distributed networks of the internet. At the same time, this means that the information received over the internet is of varying quality and "depth." I mean, it's true that I can search for information on the web, but do I really get what I need? Or do I get a mix of partially useful stuff that I need to sort through? It may be that the notion of memex-like links is both the most similar and the most unsimilar aspect of the net.

From jgriffi9 Tue Feb 7 13:29:37 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:29:37 -0500 Subject: Response 5: 2/7/2006 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000>

Questions: 1. What would be a better metaphor for the computer work space than "desktop"? 2. "The Desktop Environment" suggests that computer programs designed with keyboard commands may be more efficient than ones designed based on use with a mouse. How would programs designed with keyboard commands change accessibility to the computer? How could new technology make computer abilities more accessible? 3. Examine the aspects of computer usability that are similar or identical between Macs and PCs?, concentrating on the features discussed in "The Anti-Mac Interface."

Response to Question 2: I'm a heavy mouse user, and I just discovered the keyboard command keys last semester. I literally had no idea that they existed, and other than the control-alt-delete function, or the key marked "print screen," I used my keyboard only for typing in Word. I had to learn the keyboard functions for both a Mac and a PC for my editing internship, but now that it is over, I have reverted back to using a mouse. The transition period from my native language, the mouse, to a foreign language, the keyboard, was difficult and frustrating. This is why I shudder when an article questions the mouse, and suggests that we take it away. The mouse is probably not the most efficient tool for many programs, as "Anti-Mac" suggests. But what it lacks in efficiency, it makes up for in accessibility. "Anti-Mac" compares using a mouse to pointing and grunting at food in a restaurant, but unless you are a native computer user who is comfortable using keyboard and other computer functions--and who is willing to learn the many program-specific and Mac vs. PC specific keyboard languages-- you're probably going to be happier pointing and grunting and getting the meal than accidentally ordering 14 pounds of raw chicken. The article also discussed how a pidgin language could be incorporated to bridge the gap between newer computer users and future users who will grow up using and learning all that computers offer. This is a good idea, and I have no arguments or reservations with it. Accessibility is the main issue heating any keyboard/mouse debate, and using the keyboard functions, or at least giving the user the option to do so, can only increase the accessibility to all that the computer can do. And the transition period would allow new users to enjoy the best of both worlds. New technology that uses pidgin languages, and the newer technology, or creoles, which will result from the pidgins, will build on each other to create better computer accessibility, while not leaving the new users behind, lost in a foreign speaking world. It's interesting that computer technology is so new, but it is so hard to imagine computer technology radically different from what we currently use everyday. I liked this article because it challenged the ways we use computers and the ways computers are used. Just let me keep my mouse.

From sbaldwin Tue Feb 14 12:56:35 -0500 2006 From: sbaldwin Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:56:35 -0500 Subject: Response 5: 2/7/2006 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> In-Reply-To: <20060207132937-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Jamie: Good question and response. It interesting to think of the points where you must shift from mouse to keyboard, or the other way around. For instance, in editing images it's often easy to use the mouse, but at a certain level of precision you often need the keyboard. Perhaps we can say that the mouse is good for certain things, i.e. large movements? We still don't use if for text, right - we type into MS Word, precisely a use of the keyboard. Can we imagine a mouse interface for typing? Possibly, but it would be pretty awkward, wouldn't it?

From jgriffi9 Tue Feb 21 12:13:18 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:13:18 -0500 Subject: Whoops: I responded to the Wrong Writing but will keep it here on the site anyway: 2/21/06 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Questions: 1. Morville explains that the information on maps was once protected and valuable. How could this have hindered society? How are current costs and charges for information affecting us today? How is the internet changing that, or is it? 2. Morville suggests that wayfinding in difficult areas, when people get lost, can cause even death. Does poor wayfinding on the internet (either from a structural cause or a person's finding abilities) ever have sure dire consequences? 3. How do wayfinding and an individual's path differ in reality and in cyberspace? How are they similar? Response to Question 1: When I read that the information on maps used to be protected and valuable, I was amazed. It makes sense that the new and excited information about a person's (and country's) location and the size of his earth would be valuable, but the thought of a map being hidden from public because the information was valuable seems incredibly backward thinking. It's hard to imagine not knowing where the basic continents lie, or how many there are, in an age of instant real satellite images in Google earth and maps in every classroom. And it's hard to imagine shelling out the big bucks for such basic information. Information wants to be free, and the internet makes it more possible than ever. The fact that maps were once priviledged information makes me wonder if we are taking backward steps by patenting certain information. Most infamously are the patented human genome codes: some companies own the mapping of human genomes. In some ways, this information is even more basic than a physical map, concerning not what lies around us, but whay lies inside us, and what creates us. But even today, information is lost on a more individual basis because of cost. Direct costs (download this book for $19.95) and indirect costs (the cost of the internet, tax money for libraries, university tuition for library fees) can put strong limits on the amount of information that is accessible. Morville talks about how a person has to be savy to find information or a destination in physical space or cyberspace. But money is also needed to find your way around space, and to get there in the first place. Wayfinding may make information more difficult and time-consuming to access, but unnecessary or excessive restrictions on who can view information can challenge society even more.

From jgriffi9 Tue Feb 21 14:57:40 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:57:40 -0500 Subject: Whoops--I responded to the wrong piece. Sorry for any confusion. :) Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> From primowvu Tue Feb 21 15:00:02 -0500 2006 From: primowvu Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:00:02 -0500 Subject: response Message-ID: <20060221150002-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> I liked the response. There shouldn't be a cost for such information like maps, which provide valuable rsources for people. This was a good question and you responded well to it. From genrmac Tue Feb 21 15:04:37 -0500 2006 From: genrmac Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:04:37 -0500 Subject:

Response from Genny Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> I agree that placing a charge on maps seems like backward thinking! I don't know what I would do without MapQuest?--it gets me everywhere, and I'm sure it saves AAA a lot of time. As for companies owning human genomes--it seems to me that putting a price or ownership on something so important to science and human medicine would hamper those technologies, eventually slowing the progress of breakthroughs in human medicine. Maybe we are currently living in a world suffering from decline in these areas due to economics--we just are not aware of what we are missing. But you make an excellent point about the growing financial cost of accessing technology, and I am surprised we haven't been charged for emails to date.

From jgriffi9 Tue Feb 28 10:54:21 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:54:21 -0500 Subject: Response 6: 2/28/06 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000>

Questions: 1. Gather an official definition of information from a dictionary. How does this definition fit in with Morville's discussion and examples on information from "Information Interaction?" Can you find "holes" in the dictionary's definition based on Morville's discussion? 2. Where do you stand on the issue of new technology (like GPS and surveillance) and privacy? In what situations is it good (about safety) and in what situations is it unacceptable (b/c of lack of privacy)? Do they increase trust or inhibit trust in relationships? 3. How will "push and pull" change as a result of new technologies? How have they already changed?

Response to Question 1: According to Merium-Webster's online dictionary, information is " the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence." I like this definition--it's inclusive of many types of information, and it defines informaiton as an act, rather than a concrete piece of evidence. But, the definition does have holes. To fully understand this definition, we would have to know the dictionary's definion of "knowledge" and "intelligence," and Morville suggests that the difference can challenge the most philosophical of minds. Information includes, of course, wisdom, data, and knowledge and intelligence, but the differences between one catergorization and another are murky. Also, the "or"s in this definition are interesting. Can information be both the communication and reception of knowledge and intelligence? Of course it can. And does this definition include some of the non-traditional informative types that Morville discusses, like a zebra? Maybe a zebra's actions and location can tell someone about the weather or the season or the proximity of lions. But is it still information if the reader can't read, understand, or isn't aware that information is being sent? According to the definition, it might qualify under the "Communication" of knowledge. But we would need to know their definition of communication: can someone communicate without being his message being effectively received? Does it still count if the listener isn't paying attention? I liked this discussion on information. I've never forced myself to categorize it or to judge a definition of information, and doing so, as Morville suggests, tells me a lot about its nature.

From sbaldwin Sat Mar 4 16:30:04 -0500 2006 From: sbaldwin Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 16:30:04 -0500 Subject: Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> >

From jgriffi9 Tue Feb 28 10:54:21 -0500 2006 From: jgriffi9 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:54:21 -0500 Subject: Response 6: 2/28/06 Message-ID: <�-0500@www.as.wvu.edu:8000> Questions: 1. Gather an official definition of information from a dictionary. How does this definition fit in with Morville's discussion and examples on information from "Information Interaction?" Can you find "holes" in the dictionary's definition based on Morville's discussion? 2. Where do you stand on the issue of new technology (like GPS and surveillance) and privacy? In what situations is it good (about safety) and in what situations is it unacceptable (b/c of lack of privacy)? Do they increase trust or inhibit trust in relationships? 3. How will "push and pull" change as a result of new technologies? How have they already changed? Response to Question 1: According to Merium-Webster's online dictionary, information is " the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence." I like this definition--it's inclusive of many types of information, and it defines informaiton as an act, rather than a concrete piece of evidence. But, the definition does have holes. To fully understand this definition, we would have to know the dictionary's definion of "knowledge" and "intelligence," and Morville suggests that the difference can challenge the most philosophical of minds. Information includes, of course, wisdom, data, and knowledge and intelligence, but the differences between one catergorization and another are murky. Also, the "or"s in this definition are interesting. Can information be both the communication and reception of knowledge and intelligence? Of course it can. And does this definition include some of the non-traditional informative types that Morville discusses, like a zebra? Maybe a zebra's actions and location can tell someone about the weather or the season or the proximity of lions. But is it still information if the reader can't read, understand, or isn't aware that information is being sent? According to the definition, it might qualify under the "Communication" of knowledge. But we would need to know their definition of communication: can someone communicate without being his message being effectively received? Does it still count if the listener isn't paying attention? I liked this discussion on information. I've never forced myself to categorize it or to judge a definition of information, and doing so, as Morville suggests, tells me a lot about its nature.

comments:

... --sbaldwin, Sat, 04 Mar 2006 16:31:43 -0500 reply

From jgriffi9 Tue Feb 28 10:54:21 -0500 2006

Questions:

1. Gather an official definition of information from a dictionary. How does this definition fit in with Morville's discussion and examples on information from "Information Interaction?" Can you find "holes" in the dictionary's definition based on Morville's discussion? 2. Where do you stand on the issue of new technology (like GPS and surveillance) and privacy? In what situations is it good (about safety) and in what situations is it unacceptable (b/c of lack of privacy)? Do they increase trust or inhibit trust in relationships? 3. How will "push and pull" change as a result of new technologies? How have they already changed?

Response to Question 1:

According to Merium-Webster's online dictionary, information is " the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence." I like this definition--it's inclusive of many types of information, and it defines informaiton as an act, rather than a concrete piece of evidence. But, the definition does have holes. To fully understand this definition, we would have to know the dictionary's definion of "knowledge" and "intelligence," and Morville suggests that the difference can challenge the most philosophical of minds. Information includes, of course, wisdom, data, and knowledge and intelligence, but the differences between one catergorization and another are murky. Also, the "or"s in this definition are interesting. Can information be both the communication and reception of knowledge and intelligence? Of course it can. And does this definition include some of the non-traditional informative types that Morville discusses, like a zebra? Maybe a zebra's actions and location can tell someone about the weather or the season or the proximity of lions. But is it still information if the reader can't read, understand, or isn't aware that information is being sent? According to the definition, it might qualify under the "Communication" of knowledge. But we would need to know their definition of communication: can someone communicate without being his message being effectively received? Does it still count if the listener isn't paying attention? I liked this discussion on information. I've never forced myself to categorize it or to judge a definition of information, and doing so, as Morville suggests, tells me a lot about its nature.

response from Sandy --sbaldwin, Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:30:47 -0500 reply
Jamie: Some thinkers separate information and communication, arguing that the latter assumes a sender and receiver and typically assumes thought, whereas information is a larger concept and could include inanimate/non-living things, and so on. If we insist on communication, this means insisting on considerations of at least two individuals - sender and receiver - and therefore consideration of audience, author, intention, context, and so on. Information may not require these considerations.

Response 7 --jgriffi9, Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:19:11 -0500 reply
3/28/06

1. How does psychogeography differ from the emotions a person experiences through viewing art or listening to or watching media? How does this change it's importance compared to other types of emotional stimulation?
2. Is psychography just a newly coined term to explain human emotional response to stimuli? Does it leave room for individual's internal thoughts separate from his environment (mood-based memories, for example)?
3. How are city planners, or on a smaller scale, home designers using psychogeography? Why isn't more attention paid to its effects? Why wouldn't every city want to utilize psychogeography to its advantage, making its space ideal for the majority of people?

Response to Question 2: After reading Debort's "Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography," I'm still a skeptic about pyychogeography's effects on an individual, and I think it is probably less effective than Debort argues. However, it has so much importance for us because its effects are what we experience everyday, without intentionally seeking out inspiration or a feeling. People go to a tear-jerker movie to cry and for emotional release; but what does the route they take and the theater setup suggest to them, and how does this influence them? I dislike pyschogeography in part because the theory makes me uncomfortable. It's as if the world were a giant advertisement, forcing its power of emotional persuasion on the person sensing it. It's hard for me to give pyschogeography more power than the "average person" Debort talks about, describing generally sad or happy neighborhoods. I like to imagine that I am in control of, at the very least, my emotions. In the end, however,the difference between the emotions felt through media and those felt because of pyschogeography may be only in intention and awareness. During a movie or when reading a novel, people also are trying not necessarily to escape, but to travel in some way outside of their current environment. When a person is just out in the world of reality, they are probably doing so with an attitude of intensional interaction: they want to sense what is around them and connect to it. Media is cleaned up, produced, and edited with the goal of creating a specific emotion, but real life is constantly edited as people change it, so the emotions created by one's environment have the potential to be incredibly more complex--but the sensor may not be aware of these complex effects.

Response 9 --jgriffi9, Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:24:35 -0400 reply
Response 9: 4/4/06

1. What can be accomplished with experimental narrative archeology like "Annotate Space" that can't be accomplished with traditional media? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
2. Can new media forms be invented, or are we at the point in our technology where the only thing left to do is to combine existing medias? What creative outlets could this restriction create?
3. In Glowlab's "One Block Radius," the art museum isn't the focus: the street-block is. People generally go to the museum to see the museum, and ignore the environment around the museum. What does this project say about "real" space and pyschogeography?

Response to Question 3: Out of all of today's reading, I'm most fond of Glowlab. The idea of concentrating not on documenting the museum, but on what surrounds the museum, has a nice tie-in with pyschogeopgraphy: when people take a trip to the museum, they are so focused on getting there to see the art that they ignore the streets leading to their goal. Glowlab creates a derive out of the museum's surrounding block: hey, look at this poster on the ground and this garbage bag. You didn't see them. I remember coming out of New York's MET and feeling just so overwhelmed sensationally. It was too much beauty crammed into one building, and I couldn't comprehend it all in such a short period of a couple hours. The street in comparison looked dowdy and useless. "One Block Radius" turns this its head and lets us see what is surrounding the perfectly planned and arranged and tidied museum just for the sake of looking at it to see what's there, the very definition of a derive. I didn't completely understand the point of a derive until I browsed this project, and now I have even more questions about how and why we interact with space according to our goal destinations. Maybe the street isn't as important as what's in the museum, historically speaking. But the underlying statement is that we often pay more attention to media or unreality than we do to our actual surroundings. To me, this project and the derive are about living in the present: don't be too focused on getting to that museum. Instead, enjoy the birds eating french frys in the parking lot on the way there. You'll get to that musuem in time.