User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
Line 2: Line 2:


==Graduate Prototypes==
==Graduate Prototypes==
* [[User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes/transcription | Transcribers]]
* [[User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes/photocopied editions | Photocopied editions]]
:: > Aim: See how ppl respond to the chance to deviate when asked to make a copy
:: > Aim: See how ppl respond to the chance to deviate when asked to make a copy of a document
:: > Outcome: ppl made harmless remixes, heavily influenced by the tool suggested  
:: > Outcome: ppl made harmless remixes, heavily influenced by the tool suggested  
:: > Assessment:  
:: > Assessment:  
::::Need to introduce some motivation to preserve original vs motivation to change it - controversy/conflict.
::::Need to introduce some motivation to preserve original vs motivation to change it - controversy/conflict.
:::: Not so interested in resulting proliferation of 'remixes' - avoids the difficulty of forming consensus.
:::: Not so interested in resulting proliferation of 'remixes' - avoids the difficulty of forming consensus.
* [[User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes/photocopied editions | Photocopied editions]]
 
::
* [[User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes/transcription | Transcribers]]
:: > Aim: See how ppl respond to the chance to deviate when asked explicitly to transcribe verbatim, as a favor
:: > Outcome: Some did as asked, some made minor alterations, some used as a formal experiment with the medium
:: > Assessment:
::::More interesting result as each member of group asked to contribute to a greater whole, before seeing it and w/out being held accountable
::::Introduction of potentially controversial content provoked more engagement with content - e.g., specific words were changed
::::Participants limited to reacting against content chosen by me, rather than by each other.
 
* (residency): Mic-check writing
:: > Aim: See if 'mic check' technique could be used to produce texts (transcription), and how it might affect/reveal group dynamics
:: > Outcome: 15 mostly identical hand-written texts and drawings, with minor variations based on individual hearing/judgement
::> Assessment:
::::Interesting confusion created as group doubted what to write down; highlighted how more dominant personalities dictated content of the text
::::Some used it as a space to make announcements, others poetic gestures/summaries, in absence of a formal group meeting or process
::::Would be interesting to treat it like a Bohm dialogue and carry on for longer, challenging group to confront silences/boredom/deeper sharing


==Other projects==
==Other projects==
* [[User:Eleanorg/1.3/Dissolute_Image/Code2 | Dissolute Image]]
* [[User:Eleanorg/1.3/Dissolute_Image/Code2 | Dissolute Image]]

Revision as of 14:27, 11 October 2012

Making things. Small things.

Graduate Prototypes

> Aim: See how ppl respond to the chance to deviate when asked to make a copy of a document
> Outcome: ppl made harmless remixes, heavily influenced by the tool suggested
> Assessment:
Need to introduce some motivation to preserve original vs motivation to change it - controversy/conflict.
Not so interested in resulting proliferation of 'remixes' - avoids the difficulty of forming consensus.
> Aim: See how ppl respond to the chance to deviate when asked explicitly to transcribe verbatim, as a favor
> Outcome: Some did as asked, some made minor alterations, some used as a formal experiment with the medium
> Assessment:
More interesting result as each member of group asked to contribute to a greater whole, before seeing it and w/out being held accountable
Introduction of potentially controversial content provoked more engagement with content - e.g., specific words were changed
Participants limited to reacting against content chosen by me, rather than by each other.
  • (residency): Mic-check writing
> Aim: See if 'mic check' technique could be used to produce texts (transcription), and how it might affect/reveal group dynamics
> Outcome: 15 mostly identical hand-written texts and drawings, with minor variations based on individual hearing/judgement
> Assessment:
Interesting confusion created as group doubted what to write down; highlighted how more dominant personalities dictated content of the text
Some used it as a space to make announcements, others poetic gestures/summaries, in absence of a formal group meeting or process
Would be interesting to treat it like a Bohm dialogue and carry on for longer, challenging group to confront silences/boredom/deeper sharing

Other projects