Ready, Set, Blog.
Friday, March 05, 2004
I suppose that being that this post is technically the last "required" blog entry for our E-Rhetorics class, it would be appropriate for me to reflect on my experiences with the course itself.
At the first class of this quarter for Christine's E-Rhetorics course, I honestly did not know what to expect. In choosing this course from the list of available PWR2 courses last fall, all I knew was that since there was no way out of the PWR2 requirement, I might as well take a course on what interested me the most. With the design of museum exhibits coming in at a close second, I opted for a class that promised to teach how to write persuasively in a digital age. Voila! This was the class for me. As an avid Internet user and technophile, I had high hopes for the class. I am glad to say that my hopes were met and even transcended.
I have a strange luck of finding great PWR professors. Perhaps that is the saving grace of my PWR experience here at Stanford. Although Christine is definitely different in style from Wendy, I feel that Christine's exuberance was a much-needed breather in light of other, more traditional professors. I must say that helping to shape the course as it unfolded was definitely an eye-opening and engaging experience, and I felt proud in being able to influence how future students will learn in Christine's successive PWR2 courses.
In terms of the course itself, I feel that there are three main aspects that require attention. First, the readings. As the class constantly complained, the Cyberreader will be no more. Nevertheless, some of the readings in there were quite informative, particularly as certain essays were written from the viewpoint of one living a couple of decades ago and envisioining the future. The weblinks to online articles provided some more current articles of interest and we delved into a variety of controversial issues, such as gender-swapping and identity online.
Next, the Panfora forum definitely deserves some thought. Consistent with what I said in the "Save Panfora" post, I feel that my first Panfora experience was definitely helpful in exploring the themes of the course, especially so since the forum represented yet another portal of online communication: the messageboard. The highlight of the Panfora experience was definitely the MUD recreation in which students assumed various roles separate from their real-life identity. I was the anti-HoHo and Homer. There were some edgy moments, such as when some posts revealed racial stereotypes and crude behavior. Even so, they were informative insofar as they reflected (to a mild degree) what actually happens in actual online environments.
Finally, the research hypertext. The research hypertext was a project unlike anything else that I have done before. For my proposal, I decided to explore the status of computer graphics as an art form. I needed to overcome two huge obstacles: on the one hand, I needed to address my inexperience with web design, since this would be my first try at creating a website. On the other hand, since the debate about computer graphics is still lively, information regarding the controversy is very limited. I needed to incorporate a variety of sources, ranging from personal interviews and surveys to original analysis of computer graphic examples. I feel that although I spend a greater amount of time creating my research hypertext, I had more fun since I was personally interested in this topic. I hope to pursue further research and maybe even get my site published.
Before I end, I'd like to reflect on the the two oral presentations that I gave in class. I felt strangely at home talking in front of this particular class. This allowed me to deliver confident presentations that definitely contributed to their effectiveness in conveying my ideas. At the same time, I was excited to incorporate several of my ideas for invention (for the first presentation, I did art juxtapositions with audience participation and for my second presentation, I displayed examples of computer graphics in a mock museum "exhibit". The presentations received lots of great feedback and I had a lot of fun.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Presentations are upon us! Oh, the possibilities! I used a very informal format for the last 5 minute presentation that seemed to run fairly well with my peer audience. I juxtaposed various images and polled the audience on which images they thought were computer graphic representations (CGR), photographic images, or traditional art (i.e. painting, drawing). I would like include at least some sort of comparison motif in my new presentation, but so far I came up with the following approaches:
-Use MSPaint to do a quick less-than-a-minute sketch, flip over to a comparable CGR, then merge into a related traditional art piece to demonstrate physical/creative process of creating computer art. I could even dress up as "an artist". Perhaps a beret and a brush will do?
-Dress up either in semi-formal attire or "futuristic" clothes to lead the class on a museum exhibit from the future. Comment on background , analysis of art pieces, and similar information to promote a museum-esque experience.
-Similarly, I could act as an art professor with actual slide (i.e. projector) and do an art criticism of various pieces.
Anyways, what I do know is that this will take alot of preparation. I hope that my wrist will hold up in the process. Being able to type with mostly my left hand or both hands with right hand in brace (for about 15 minutes) is not fun. I hope this will not compromise my ethos as a speaker?
I have my site running as well, but I am still working on it as we speak. My batch of surveys and interviews are coming in so I will have fresh primary sources to utilize. I am playing around with the design to either follow one of the suggestions I noted above for my presentation or develop the existing format. Mostly, I am looking to incorporate some Photoshop/Fireworks images and clarify text.
That's all for now.
Friday, February 20, 2004
1. The winter quarter is going by way too fast! This leads to many undesirable realizations:
a. My freshmen year is slowly dwindling away. Freshmen year is supposed to be the best year at Stanford. Why can't we be Stanford freshmen indefinitely??? Wait, but that would mean continuous enrollment in IHUM! Oh, the dilemma! =( I cannot believe that nearly a year has passed since I came here as a prospective freshman (ProFro) to visit the campus. Soon I will be the RoHo with a ProFro in my room!
b. The second round of midterms and eventually finals will be coming up. In addition to that, our PWR2 project is due. There is so much that I want to do with my topic...I really want this to come through. Because my research hypertext examines a relatively recent development in terms of cultural response, the interviews and surverys that I get back will be crucial to providing the crux of my thesis support. I must admit, I did not think I would be collaborating with art theory and art history professors during my years at Stanford. One frustrating aspect of building the research hypertext resides in the fact that I have no previous experience constructing websites. I spent the past weekend trying to pick up Microsoft Frontpage. The result I suppose is decent ( www.stanford.edu/~ejung), but I definitely want to work on it more. What I have in my mind is so hard to translate into coding! Although it is somewhat discouraging when viewing the pages of web design-saavy peers, it's ok. I'll try my best. Even so, this is a big concern for me because I feel that on the web, presentation is THE key to establishing ethos.
c. I do not know if I will heal in time for the grind of finals and competition. Only yesterday, I resprained my right ankle. Thankfully it is not as severe as my initial ankle sprain during high school. In addition, I have a variety of scrapes, cuts, and bruises to supplement the tendinitis in my right wrist. Way to go for fencing and working on the computer so long! I'm hoping for the best.
2. I got the chance to review Sophia's hypertext on filesharing. I have alot of ideas on this that I will elaborate on later today.
Friday, February 13, 2004
I was walking to class inside Wallenberg Hall when I noticed an electronic "dog" outside of our PWR-2 classroom. I walked over to find that the machine was actually capable of "reading" text. In addition, I spotted two comfortable-looking chairs at the far end of the area. When I sat down in one of the chairs, I was greeted by a low, uninviting growl. Next to the chairs, a book was placed on a stand. As I flipped through the pages of the book, I was greeted by accompanying audios for each scene. Since the book was a humorous story about a monster intended for kids, and thus the sounds for the different scenes often had a comical slant to them. All in all, I found the impromptu exhibit to be very amusing. What is more important though was that "interacting" with the exhibit demonstrated a real benefit of digital technology. The plus side of incorporating technology into common tasks like reading a children's book is that interaction, and therefore stimulus for the child, is enhanced. Each and every experience may be more realistic or profound by accompanying sounds, sights, and even smells. At the same time, I wonder if this is a good thing. Part of the reading experience is IMAGINING what sights, sounds, and smells would be like based on the text. If technology already imagines for the child, would that leave the child impaired in this respect? I wonder.
On a radically different note, computer virii....are not cool. The common warning is that one should not open links or accept files from parties one does not trust. A rational person would take this to mean that links or files from friends and families SHOULD be ok to trust. Not so, indicates a new form of virus spreading across Stanford computer users. The popular AOL Instant Messaging program is the vehicle of choice for spreading the virus. Links are sent to the buddies of infected users, which lead to a site with a small flash game. However, this causes subsequent buddies of the contacted buddy of the initial culprit to be infected. The cycle goes on and on. The unique feature of this virus is that it is a virus insofar as it creates an annoyance for those caught by it. Rather, it almost seems like an invasive advertising scheme to get more and more people aware of the site to which the link sent is connected to.
Tomorrow is Valentine's Day. I wonder how many people will be sending e-greetings or e-mails to that special someone. I can only imagine a future where roses and hand-written cards are replaced by impersonal and artificial virtual flowers and e-messages. Even so, the idealist and romantic in me feels that this Luddite take on the Valentine's Day of the future will not be. There is something genuine about a real flower or an actual card that was physically written that is lost in a simple e-message. I guess the times really are a changin', but some things will never change.
Friday, February 06, 2004
I visited the Cantor Arts Center for the first time. I always wanted to visit ever since I was rolled out of bed by dorm staff at 6 a.m. during my first week at Stanford. We jogged to the Rodin Sculpture Garden, with its imposing "The Gates of Hell." The famed "The Thinker" is my favorite of Rodin's pieces and I couldn't wait to see what other pieces hid behind Cantor's walls. Yesterday, I got my chance.
The Cantor Arts Center is simply stunning. It has a very grandiose interior with marble columns and ceiling windows to let in natural light. The prevalence of Greco-Roman architectural styles perhaps contributes to the museum's splendor. In any case, I passed by the statue of the Greek goddess Athena and toured the ground floor's display of Rodin sculptures. To my joy, the largest and center-piece of a room filled with Rodin sculptures was "The Thinker." The sheer sizes of the piece fills me with awe and instilled a newfound respect for Rodin's transcending skills as a sculptor.
After troubling a strolling security guard for the location of the exhibit on computer gaming, I fled upstairs to encounter a spot on contemporary art. Contemporary art- with its unorthodox treatment of traditional art forms, made me rethink what constitutes "art." This will be a major issue that I will be tackling for my PWR 2 hypertext research on the viability of Computer Graphics images to be considered as art. This side of Cantor included your usually perplexing color fields, abstract paintings, found art, sculptures, and environmental art. Perhaps the most famous of the artists exhibited were Roy Lichtenstein (comic-based, Benday dots) and Andy Warhol (although the Brillo piece was a replica). The highlight of this area was a VERY realistic statue/sculpture of a cement-worker, who was placed in a very relaxed pose against a wall. I was fooled, as was my roommate, who tagged along. Were it not for the setting, the piece would definitely fool anyone. Passing by works portraying the Stanford Family, I quickly perused a section on caricatures and political art to the sounds of....Star Wars? Yes, I walked into a side room to find a screen showing the latest Star Wars game simulation. I had finally found my target exhibit.
The exhibit is titled: "Fictional Worlds, Virtual Experiences: Storytelling & Computer Games". According to its description online, the exhibit "lays out the history and cultural importance of interactive simulations, computer games, and video games, proposing that they represent the dominant narrative form and communication medium emerging in the 21st century." As a child of the 1980s and 1990s, I am no stranger to the world of video games. Despite what Republicans, Religious Right, or authority figures claim, gamers have known all along that games- be it on the classic Atari, Nintendo, or computer- served many roles in addition to mindless entertainment. Many role-playing games (RPGs) introduced a layer of narrative to the gaming experience, such that the player became a part of the unfolding story. First-person shooters (FPSs) allowed a unique perspective through which users could encounter the fictional gaming world. Taken to a multiplayer stage, gaming now connected millions of players across the globe as another form of communication.
What was scary was to see relics of my childhood displayed in a museum format. I must be getting old. Kids born today will probably remark "16-bit Nintendo? What's that? You played THAT? I only play the Uber-Expensive-Highly-Rendered-Holier-than-Thou Nintendo 200000Supertron-x. Wow you're old!" I guess it had to hit sooner or later. In any case, the exhibit also struck me of my unique position as one who could directly relate to and was familiar with the exhibit at hand. I wonder if Greeks, Romans, French, British, etc. of the past had this same background when they were criticizing the Greats. Just a thought. I still can't get over the emotions I felt when I viewed the exhibit since it felt like a jump back into my childhood years. WOW.
Friday, January 30, 2004
Just as everyone of us acts differently in a home, work, school, or social setting, our online behavior contributes yet another aspect to defining an individual. Gender swapping is a common phenomenon when it comes to online interactions, especially in chatrooms, on messageboards, and through instant messaging progams like AIM or MSN Messenger. Such gender swapping is much more common online than in reality (cross dressers, transgender) perhaps due to the remarkable prevalence of anonymity on the Web. The greater degree of freedom afforded by this newfound anonymity, the argument goes, allows users to express their true feelings and behaviors.
A question that comes to mind is whether or not all "gender-bending" is equal: does society view male-female swapping in a different light with respect to female-male swapping? Either way, the media portrays gender-bending mostly in a negative light, hyping stories about sexual predators hiding behind fake avatars or personas to lure unsuspecting children. There exists a heightened sense of paranoia on the part of the users regarding interaction between netizens and developing a sense of personal identity online in relation to the greater Web community.
In Sherry Turkle's "Identity Crisis", the author explains that one's Net identity reveals much about one's "actual" or physical identity. For instance, most users tend to mold their online behavior or images to fit their true selves. Turkle asserts that those who take on a different character are simply displaying a different facet of their existing identities. Thus, for Turkle, role-playing is natural and should not be viewed in an extraordinary light. This is particularly so as she indicates that this multi-faceted aspect of one's personality is true for everyone.
As one who does not approach the Net with gender-swapping in mind (rather, I try to be as brutally efficient as possible with my web usage), this topic is both perplexing and interesting to me. A positive consequence of gender-swapping may be that users may be able to experiment and come to terms with their own identities in real life- be it in the social, political, professional, or personal spheres. It may facilitate the resolution of those suffering from traumatic experiences by allowing them to anonymously redeem their issues or even aid bi-curious or homosexual people to come to terms with their sexuality. In allowing greater freedom through the absence of social conventions, perhaps the phenomenon of gender swapping reveals more to us than "real life" does.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Just as everyone of us acts differently in a home, work, school, or social setting, our online behavior contributes yet another aspect to defining an individual. Gender swapping is a common phenomenon when it comes to online interactions, especially in chatrooms, on messageboards, and through instant messaging progams like AIM or MSN Messenger. Such gender swapping is much more common online than in reality (cross dressers, transgender) perhaps due to the remarkable prevalence of anonymity on the Web. The greater degree of freedom afforded by this newfound anonymity, the argument goes, allows users to express their true feelings and behaviors.
A question that comes to mind is whether or not all "gender-bending" is equal: does society view male-female swapping in a different light with respect to female-male swapping? Either way, the media portrays gender-bending mostly in a negative light, hyping stories about sexual predators hiding behind fake avatars or personas to lure unsuspecting children. There exists a heightened sense of paranoia on the part of the users regarding interaction between netizens and developing a sense of personal identity online in relation to the greater Web community.
In Sherry Turkle's "Identity Crisis", the author explains that one's Net identity reveals much about one's "actual" or physical identity. For instance, most users tend to mold their online behavior or images to fit their true selves. Turkle asserts that those who take on a different character are simply displaying a different facet of their existing identities. Thus, for Turkle, role-playing is natural and should not be viewed in an extraordinary light. This is particularly so as she indicates that this multi-faceted aspect of one's personality is true for everyone.
As one who does not approach the Net with gender-swapping in mind (rather, I try to be as brutally efficient as possible with my web usage), this topic is both perplexing and interesting to me. A positive consequence of gender-swapping may be that users may be able to experiment and come to terms with their own identities in real life- be it in the social, political, professional, or personal spheres. It may facilitate the resolution of those suffering from traumatic experiences by allowing them to anonymously redeem their issues or even aid bi-curious or homosexual people to come to terms with their sexuality. In allowing greater freedom through the absence of social conventions, perhaps the phenomenon of gender swapping reveals more to us than "real life" does.
