Akwaaba :-)

The author seems to uphold the art of poetry, and this might be due to my lack of understanding but there are few things that, although extremely valid, seem a bit contradictory to me. Although poems and novels are distinct genres--differences that the author clearly points out--space and punctuations are two things that I think a novel can employ to be just as interesting, if not more, as a poem or a book of poems. Also, stating that poetry has lost nothing due to it being written and printed instead of spoken or sang suggests some fault in spoken word/poetry(as in, something is lost through spoken word/poetry, which isn't always true as change to the structure and meaning could also be a good thing).

The concept of Mail Art is described in a very interesting manner. Personally, I haven't given much thought to the idea of mail art so the production, or characteristics in entails (like the creation of harmony) isn't something I considered. The author seems to be very rigid regarding who a mail artist is/what mail art is, which speaks to their expertise, but also to something I noticed throughout the reading: that the author is very particular, and doesn't really care for assimilation/change.

I initially didn't know what "The Warez Scene" or "the Scene" was so even though I was able to grasp a few concepts regarding the progress of the architecture, I had a better understanding after reading more on what "The Scene" actually is. It is definitely an interesting concept, especially with IRC and the Bulletin Board System that existed before FTC. It is interesting to see how even though the internet didn't exist, there were creative ways to still interact, or share information, and eventually inspire the internet.

One thing that I also noticed was how even though the skills weren't taught, there existed a population that were invested and dedicated enough to learn through observation. Aside inspiring the infrastructure of the internet, there are also a few things I noticed that are reflected in the internet today, including the idea of "unfunny humour". The concept of using specific humour to identify people who are able to relate is something that is widely used today, not necessarily for the same purposes/dangers back then, but to find community on the web

I think this might be my favorite so far for multiple reasons. I really appreciate how Schwulst breaks down the components of a website, and the importance of the existing relationship between art and the internet. The metaphors she used to describe what a website could be were very insightful and actually made a lot of sense because I tried to create a website sometime ago even though I didn't have the skills to do so and it ended up being more of a archive or an exhibition.

However, the concept that you can create as many website as you can, and that a website is supposed to be interactive, or only have the current books (the shelves) sort of lift some weight and also cause an artist to constantly improve by creating more works to update the website. Schwulst also brings up an interesting point in emphasizing the need for the internet to be an actual web rather than a cloud. Aside from speaking to the current state of the economy where a micro-body is controls it, it also brings to attention the need for funding of art education, and the affordability of the internet today.

This is just something I was curious about: Is there a particular reason for the bird with a black and white filter being the voice of the speech balloon?

I'm a little confused about the DIY print publishing ethic. I understand that such publishers combine digital and analog printing, however, what would be an example? (This is also from the rest of the conclusion) Even though we were given examples of ways we can combine print and digital (the example of the qr code in a book), doesn't it eventually end up being digital?

Also, this might be due to my little knowledge of publishing but in the appendix, are the things on the left (paper) supposed to represent mediums(or characteristics of such mediums) through which physical papers are published?

I really like Ben Duvall's take on graphic design and elements that played and/or continue to play a role in making it universal. Breaking down graphic design first into eras, and further into its elements like the surface and signs is a very interesting concept to me. I've never given much thought to the role texts and the internet as a whole play, but reading this made me realize, using myself as an example, the variety of ways or "surfaces" I am able to express emotions/thoughts/words, etc. I also noticed (and this might be related to Lauren's text) the difference in texts used in memes, tweets, or "quick reads". Not necessarily the content but the way and style in which they are written.

One other thing that stood out to me was the difference between modernism, post-modernism, and hypermodernism. I, at least I think I do, understand the concept of modernism, and post-modernism and how they are potential opposites in a sense. However, I'm a little confused by the concept of hypermodernism. Is the difference in the accessibility of hypermodern graphic works?

Viewing alt-text through the lens of poetry is an interesting take, and from doing a few of the exercises, I think it definitely causes you to be more intentional about your diction and even grammar. This reading seems like an extension of a reading I had in another design class where we discussed the inclusivity of interfaces around us, and the importance of often creating a one-for-one model rather than a one-for-all (along with the concept of design justice).

This speaks to the idea of not just accommodating people, and in this case, through alt texts, but making the web an inclusive and enticing space for all.
Question: At what point does it become too descriptive and inconvenient (perhaps for people who use screen readers)? Because as I was doing writing exercise 2 I noticed that I had a lot of details that may seem cumbersome and even unnecessary

(Also (and this might be because of the pdf format), I find it a little ironic that given the subject of the text, using text-to-speech software on this pdf is pretty inconvenient as it reads all the sub-headings on each page before the actual text. In this case, is there a specific way to avoid reading subheadings on the right of every page? Or do I have this opinion because using screen readers is not critical to my daily life and this is me speaking from a place of privilege? Or is it a matter of preference?)

I like this take on surfaces, especially the stock market metaphor. It attaches much more meaning to surfaces than I initially thought. Specifically, this quote: "Surfaces extend everywhere, recuperating the potentiality for conflicts by offering more space for the uncontested expansion of self-referential opinion. The actual confrontation between adversaries is prevented from taking place, thus suspending the political."

I was a little confused with the adversaries that surfaces produce but (please correct me if I'm wrong) I think it refers to the diversity in opinions that we all have based on a surface, and like every space that includes factions, there is bound to be a political conflict. I was just wondering what prevents such adversaries.

I really enjoyed this reading for multiple reasons, specifically because of the discussion of perspective. Examples like the running man and illusions help us understand perspective better but also allow the reader to now question things within their daily lives. I think this also relates a little to last week's reading in the sense that rather than a random person attaching value to an object, we as the audience or viewers are the ones who are subjects of illusion (false or not)

I enjoyed this reading for multiple reasons but the main reason would be how the subject was approached. First, the idea of technology being a cultural practice rather than a universal experience makes a lot of sense. We all have different cultural backgrounds that influence our thinking and beliefs, so if we were presented with a problem, it would be highly influenced by said background. However, usually, solutions that aren't westernized are typically considered not modern and either get criticized or unrecognized as technology.

This can be expanded to how different concepts are represented in each culture, and how westernized ideas are the ones commonly recognized as legitimate. Second, I appreciated the fact that in order to describe the colonial control of western science and technology, as well as showcase examples of science and technology as a cultural practice, stories and narratives of Australian Aboriginal peoples were given. Rather than mainly focusing on the western side, the cultural perspective provides more context and a different level of understanding.

I didn't know about the master-slave relationship in the context of technology and it does make me uncomfortable, especially since it's being used so often that is accepted as the norm. The explanation of how this came to be speaks to a lot of things: as hinted in last week's reading, this speaks to how silenced minority voices are science and technology, so much so that people are now desensitized to such terms.

Unrelated as well, but it also got me thinking of how ubiquitous gun and violence-related terms are in the English language: make a shot, take a shot, guns in the context of muscular gains, shoot your shot, etc

I was a little confused yet intrigued by this reading for multiple reasons. I think comparing life and constructed ideals to a game and distancing us from reality achieves the goal of helping readers better understand how ironically digitized we've become. It is easier to judge and assess something when we are viewers or audiences, rather than when we're participants.

Aside digitized humans, the reading--at least my interpretation of it--speaks to socially constructed aspects. Following our friends and what they do in order to avoid being a sore thumb, or drifting towards something based our, or society's perception of beauty could either support or contradict the fact that we're so digitized. Support in the sense that as a computer follows and communicates with other computers, so are we when we follow guidelines or notions defined by society. Contradict in the sense that unlike computers, we are the ones who create such guidelines and decide whether to stick with it or not

I found both reading pretty interesting, mainly based on the titles initially. For the CIPC, the entire concept was really intriguing and reminds me of the red lines/movement you see when you close your eye, especially after looking directly at the sun. I wonder if that inspired the project in any way.

I looked up the Three Graces project by Ken Cos simply because the image in the text wasn't clear. I don't know if the placements of the other two are key but the placement of Amor in the middle seems to speak to how fundamental love specifically is as the bridge between human emotions. This is also amplified by the double-helix structure which is popularly known as the structure of DNA.

I really enjoyed the Computing in Crip Time article. It is interesting to see how changes in our bodies cause us to interact differently with our environment and vice versa. I also believe that while there may be similarities, no two people go through the world exactly the same, which speaks to the importance of designs reflecting lived/learned experiences of multiple people. Although as seen in the article, there are ways to compromise, like recording meetings, and being able to join with an "audio only" option, not everyone with similar inabilities can afford to do so (this can be due to their job, the hierarchy at work, their boss's lack of understanding, etc).

Therefore, it is important that designs are created in the first place to accommodate different experiences, and it is impossible for one person or a group of people who share extremely similar experiences to cover all circumstances.

It was quite interesting to see the role that technology plays or can play. In "A Repair Manual for Spaceship Earth from Logic Issue 9 Nature", I like the idea that seeks to solve the general problem of global warming/climate change because there isn't enough time for lifestyle changes to be made to make resources last longer for the entire population. It is interesting to see that using technology might cost less than finding a completely new substitution because it goes along with the current state of the market: "naturally-produced" goods tend to cost more than genetically-modified products due to mass consumption.

I think this might also end up being a problem for using technology as an answer: the effects might not last long due to the constant increase in demand(general population). I don't know what the solution for this might be because reducing the average individual to pick up recycling/healthier environmental habits simultaneously, doesn't cancel out the amount of air pollution by companies/such technology will be causing.

I think the goal of the reading was to show the different paths and possibilities open to us. We all don't have to, and probably will not go on the same path but we each have significant roles to play.