User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes: Difference between revisions
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Graduate Prototypes== | ==Graduate Prototypes== | ||
* [[User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes/ | * [[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/ | |||
:: | * [[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