In watching the
Jesse Schell video, I definitely thought about how realistic and unrealistic
that these sensors and points factor into a person’s life. In finding plausible
things with highly advanced technology of the sensors, it is possible for it to
happen. I also think it is able to pick up those points. It reminds me of how
they have some phones today that can share an image just be having them touch together.
That simple interaction has distinguishable power and control, which is not a
far off concept of using sensors to gain points. However, I find more
implausible things about these sensors and points. My main issue is how the
sensors are designed and programmed. In order for the points to be successfully
earned and credited, there must be a reasonable human interaction. For
instance, in drinking a coke can, a person could get points such as Schell
describes. However, if the coke can is open and drops, does the person still
get the points once the coke is out of the can or does it actually have to have
the interaction between the can and the lips of a person? This is unreasonable
because if the sensors and the design of the program is not designed well a
person could intentionally get points even if they didn’t make a direct
interaction with the object or used it for its purpose.
Jesse Schell video, I definitely thought about how realistic and unrealistic
that these sensors and points factor into a person’s life. In finding plausible
things with highly advanced technology of the sensors, it is possible for it to
happen. I also think it is able to pick up those points. It reminds me of how
they have some phones today that can share an image just be having them touch together.
That simple interaction has distinguishable power and control, which is not a
far off concept of using sensors to gain points. However, I find more
implausible things about these sensors and points. My main issue is how the
sensors are designed and programmed. In order for the points to be successfully
earned and credited, there must be a reasonable human interaction. For
instance, in drinking a coke can, a person could get points such as Schell
describes. However, if the coke can is open and drops, does the person still
get the points once the coke is out of the can or does it actually have to have
the interaction between the can and the lips of a person? This is unreasonable
because if the sensors and the design of the program is not designed well a
person could intentionally get points even if they didn’t make a direct
interaction with the object or used it for its purpose.
Jesse
Schell presents an interesting case for gaining all these points that could
essentially help us shape our behavior and make us better people. At the same
time, his case still remains a bit unrealistic. In today’s world, it is hard to
grasp the actual concept of how these sensors would actually be able to detect
human interaction with the object and acquire those points. His case still
remains unreal and it is unclear as to how it actually will detect the points.
However, I do not doubt that this is a strong possibility for the future, and
it is a mind blowing thought to think that generations from now they will be
able to see and recognize what people did at a certain point and time. It also
presents another interesting idea of creating a better world of proactive
people in which they are much more conscious of their everyday decisions that
could help the environment and the world.
Schell presents an interesting case for gaining all these points that could
essentially help us shape our behavior and make us better people. At the same
time, his case still remains a bit unrealistic. In today’s world, it is hard to
grasp the actual concept of how these sensors would actually be able to detect
human interaction with the object and acquire those points. His case still
remains unreal and it is unclear as to how it actually will detect the points.
However, I do not doubt that this is a strong possibility for the future, and
it is a mind blowing thought to think that generations from now they will be
able to see and recognize what people did at a certain point and time. It also
presents another interesting idea of creating a better world of proactive
people in which they are much more conscious of their everyday decisions that
could help the environment and the world.
In
reading the Living Skins article, I realize that animated billboards and the
ones described in the article, have the ability to inspire a certain reaction. Animated
billboards have the ability to amaze but at the same time their intention is to
influence the person towards a product and purchase. It can connect to a person
on a personal level, but it is also impersonal in that it does not really care
about a person but whether they can make a purchase. In animated billboards, I
see it as decommodifying people because it makes the value of the product go
down. I say this because it doesn’t just present something as is rather it is
just to make a sale, which distorts and takes the value out of the object. In
the animated lights in the article for noncommercial purposes, it brings people
together by allowing us to communicate about it with other people such as the
living skin membrane structure for the art museum of Graz. It commodifies us to
appreciate the living and orangic structures of organisms, and it also gives
people the chance to become inspired to think more creatively about their
world. In the mapping time video, one artwork was tiny images of screenshots of
a video game from beginning to end. In seeing that visualization, it educates people
on the beginning, the middle, and end of the game. It makes people aware of the
obstacles they had to overcome in the game to get to the next level much like
their own lives. It makes that data presented to us understand more personally
our own lives and whether we are going to create this grand visualization of
carrying on in the game or not. In the State of the Union interface, it
presents the data impersonally by calculating the frequency and importance of
words in State of the Union addresses as being larger. It educates people on
the fact of the larger words, which was the most used words, and it shows its
importance. It makes people much more aware of the central and crucial topics
in the country through the different presidents as well as the time periods. The
speech is entirely broken up by only displaying words but it gives a strong
sense of the values and issues of the speech.
reading the Living Skins article, I realize that animated billboards and the
ones described in the article, have the ability to inspire a certain reaction. Animated
billboards have the ability to amaze but at the same time their intention is to
influence the person towards a product and purchase. It can connect to a person
on a personal level, but it is also impersonal in that it does not really care
about a person but whether they can make a purchase. In animated billboards, I
see it as decommodifying people because it makes the value of the product go
down. I say this because it doesn’t just present something as is rather it is
just to make a sale, which distorts and takes the value out of the object. In
the animated lights in the article for noncommercial purposes, it brings people
together by allowing us to communicate about it with other people such as the
living skin membrane structure for the art museum of Graz. It commodifies us to
appreciate the living and orangic structures of organisms, and it also gives
people the chance to become inspired to think more creatively about their
world. In the mapping time video, one artwork was tiny images of screenshots of
a video game from beginning to end. In seeing that visualization, it educates people
on the beginning, the middle, and end of the game. It makes people aware of the
obstacles they had to overcome in the game to get to the next level much like
their own lives. It makes that data presented to us understand more personally
our own lives and whether we are going to create this grand visualization of
carrying on in the game or not. In the State of the Union interface, it
presents the data impersonally by calculating the frequency and importance of
words in State of the Union addresses as being larger. It educates people on
the fact of the larger words, which was the most used words, and it shows its
importance. It makes people much more aware of the central and crucial topics
in the country through the different presidents as well as the time periods. The
speech is entirely broken up by only displaying words but it gives a strong
sense of the values and issues of the speech.
In the gaming
factor, the Blinkenlights for example allows the public to interact by using
email or phone to put in basic animations. So, it definitely gives people a
chance to belong and be a part of something so huge that ends up on a building
in lights. It brings people into control, and it fills them with a purpose. It
commodifies their life and makes them appreciate their value by incorporating
their own data into this system. Another example is from Jane McGonigal video
on how gaming can make a better world. I do believe in one way it commodifies
and decommifidies our lives. In the video she mentions how World of Warcraft is
this way to connect with other people and reach these goals together even
though you physically do not interact with them. It helps and brings people
together to share ideas and become better connected. For a person that is an
avid gamer, these concepts of working together and achieving common goals can
carry on into their lives. Though they are in that fantasy world, it is not far
off from reality. However, games still have the power to alienate a person from
the real world. They need to know when to distance themselves in order to understand
that it does not truly exist, and often times they can not see the relationship
between the game and real life. Also, it might even remain just a pastime
hobby. I also believe the older generation does not understand that gaming does
have some influence to create a better world. I think for them they see it as a
waste of time or spending too much time with gaming and that it does not
develop skills or knowledge much like an educational institution. So, it still
remains a new concept that all this time spent gaming has the power to change
the world despite what some people may believe.
factor, the Blinkenlights for example allows the public to interact by using
email or phone to put in basic animations. So, it definitely gives people a
chance to belong and be a part of something so huge that ends up on a building
in lights. It brings people into control, and it fills them with a purpose. It
commodifies their life and makes them appreciate their value by incorporating
their own data into this system. Another example is from Jane McGonigal video
on how gaming can make a better world. I do believe in one way it commodifies
and decommifidies our lives. In the video she mentions how World of Warcraft is
this way to connect with other people and reach these goals together even
though you physically do not interact with them. It helps and brings people
together to share ideas and become better connected. For a person that is an
avid gamer, these concepts of working together and achieving common goals can
carry on into their lives. Though they are in that fantasy world, it is not far
off from reality. However, games still have the power to alienate a person from
the real world. They need to know when to distance themselves in order to understand
that it does not truly exist, and often times they can not see the relationship
between the game and real life. Also, it might even remain just a pastime
hobby. I also believe the older generation does not understand that gaming does
have some influence to create a better world. I think for them they see it as a
waste of time or spending too much time with gaming and that it does not
develop skills or knowledge much like an educational institution. So, it still
remains a new concept that all this time spent gaming has the power to change
the world despite what some people may believe.
-Angela Zarek
Intro to Responsive Arts