The Artist is Present

Recently I have seen a documentary on a retrospective in MoMA re/presenting Abramovics 50 performance art pieces. There was one new piece included in this exhibition: She performed in MoMA for 3 months, sitting on a chair for 7,5 hours a day, looking at one audience at a time, face to face, without any expression on her face. Her gaze lasted as long as the audience wished for and her connection and the engagement she created was very powerful. As the weeks passed by, her performance became so popular that it almost turned into a show, lasting in long queues at the entrance of the museum everyday.

Trailer

Watching specially this new performance was very striking for me. There needs to be an explanation for this: Two strangers’ gaze in the middle of a crowded white cube turning into a bond, a meaningful and even a “wanted” experience.

What did people find in her gaze? And what do people find in glance culture? I believe what is missing in glance culture might be hidden within the answer to the first question.

Art as Experience / Possible Quotes

John Dewey’s book Art for Experience fits to my article regarding his views on aesthetic of artworks’ experience. I’m planning to quote 3rd chapter: Having an Experience (35-58).

“An experience has a unity that gives it its name, that meal, that storm, that rupture of friendship. The existence of this unity is constituted by a single quality that pervades the entire experience in spite of the variation of its constituent parts.” p.37

“The non-esthetic lies within two limits. At one pole is the loose succession that does not begin at any particular place and that ends -in the sense of ceasing- at no particular place.” p.40

“No experience of whatever sort is a unity unless it has esthetic quality.” p.40

“The enemies of the esthetic are neither the practical nor the intellectual. They are the humdrum; slackness of loose ends; submission to convention in practice and intellectual procedure. Rigid abstinence, coerced submission, tightness on one side and dissipation, incoherence and aimless indulgence on the other, are deviations in opposite directions from the unity of an experience.” p.40

(I have spoken of the esthetic quality that rounds out an experience into completeness and unity as emotional.)

“An experience has pattern and structure, because it is not just doing and undergoing in alternation, but consists of them in relationship. To put one’s hand in the fire that consumes it is not necessarily to have an experience. The action and its consequence must be joined in perception. This relationship is what gives meaning.” p.44

“Experience is limited by all the causes which interfere with perception of the relations between undergoing and doing. There may be interference because of excess on the side of doing or of excess on the side of receptivity, of undergoing.” p.44

“An individual comes to seek, unconsciously even more than by deliberate choice, situations in which he can do the most things in the shortest time. Experiences are also cut short from maturing by excess receptivity.” p.45

“The conception of conscious experience as a perceived relation between doing and undoing enables us to understand the connection that art as production and perception and appreciation as enjoyment sustain to each other.” p.47

“Art, in its form, unites the very same relation of doing and underdoing, outgoing and incoming energy, that makes an experience to be an experience.” p.48

“The artist embodies in himself the attitude of the perceiver while he works.” p.48

“What is done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally, cumulatively, and continuously instrumental to each other.” p.50

“The real work of an artist is to build up an experience that is coherent in perception while moving with constant change in its development.” p.51

“Every work of art follows the plan of, and pattern of a complete experience, rendering it more intensely and concentratedly felt.” p.52

“Recognition is perception arrested before it has a chance to develop freely.” p.52

“In recognition we fall back, as upon a stereotype, upon some previously formed scheme. Some detail or arrangement of details serves as cue for bare identification.” p.52

take in-recognition-tag/label-receptive-responsive-take in

“The lack of continuous interaction between the total organism and the objects, they are not perceived, certainly not esthetically.” p.54

“For to perceive, a beholder must create his own experience. And this creation must include relations comparable to those which the original producer underwent.” p.54

“Without an act of recreation the object is not perceived as a work of art. The artist selected, simplified, clarified, abridged and condensed according to his interest.” p.54

“The series of doings in the rhythm of experience give variety and movement; they save the work from monotony and useless repetitions. The undergoings are corresponding elements in the rhythm, and they supply unity; they save the work from the aimlessness of a mere succession of excitations. An object is peculiarly and dominantly esthetic, yielding the enjoyment characteristic of esthetic perception, when the factors that determine anything which can be called an experience are lifted high above threshold of perception and are made manifest for their own sake.” p.56-57

Body in Word Format

Link

Introduction+Body+Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

With the introduction, and than popularization of mobile digital products such as smartphones, laptops, tablets, the routes through which cultural products are accessed and consumed are altered immensely. All these devices have the technological potential for changing the practices of everyday lives. From the beginning of the day till the end, our experiences in reality are enriched, extended, cut, interfered by these digital technologies. As a direct result of these mobile computing devices, media multitasking has become the regular way of viewing and interacting with several media forms. This behavior, involving simultaneous or sequential engagement with media products, is a distinct mode of usage that needs special consideration in understanding the perception, evaluation and recreation of cultural goods.

This article argues that media multitasking, a behavior significantly has risen parallel with mobile device usage, has become a factor in changing todays cultural scene, furthermore creating a culture on its own by promoting the consumption and production of condensed media forms. For explaining this impact of multitasking on culture industry; briefly media multitasking behavior is going to be analyzed, examples of condensed media forms are going to be examined within multitasking framework, lastly the “glance culture” an outcome of this behavior is going to be introduced and discussed.

BODY

Media multitasking is sequential or simultaneous interactions with several media contents within one device or among separate digital products. Technological capabilities, mobility and connectivity of mobile computing devices are the key concepts behind increasing media multitasking behavior as well as the cultural changes brought by it. Users are presented a vast variety of technological applications from which they can choose suitable software for themselves, run multiple programs simultaneously, switch from one application to another smoothly. Their capabilities are extended as their channels are multiplied. For instance leisure and work applications can run together within all these versatile computing devices. Listening to music or watching videos can be accompanied with preparing documents for work or sending e-mails to a colleague. Portability of personal mobile devices supports spontaneous actions of the users as well. Taking pictures, shooting videos, sharing thoughts by phone or teleconference calls, taking notes on specific occasions, writing reminders, searching information related to the a context, getting assistance on problems such as navigation are among the functions that now have become a part of our daily routines. Especially online access introduces all these uses a different level by introducing instant connection and expanded sharing options. Users are wired to a digital reality 24/7 and they are present in a virtual world in which they are part of social networks, and can reach unlimited sources of information anytime anywhere. With the availability of mobile computing devices, increased hypermedia consumption became an inevitable consequence. Switching between different contents is triggered, promoted, became a necessity and lastly habit for users.

There are mainly two modes for media multitasking. The situations in which contents of all media sources are supporting one another can be considered to be a complementary use. For instance, making online search for relevant information while studying is an example for this mode. However, more frequently what is involved in media multitasking is consuming completely different sources of media one at the same time. An everyday scenario for passing from one media to another might be exemplified as follow: You begin to watch a movie on TV, your phone rings, you answer the call or leave a text message, than you resume watching the movie, you get bored and begin playing a game on your phone, than a question pops in your mind raised by any content in the movie, you search for an answer to it on your phone or laptop, continue browsing, check out your Facebook page meanwhile and in the end forget about what you are watching in the end. This scenario gives a number of hints regarding the dilemmas emerge by media multitasking. Firstly, the user seems to be in control when s/he is simultaneously consuming diverse media products. However, spontaneous actions occurring within a continuous period of time turns out to fragment this control and even convert it into a chaotic process. Secondly, doing different tasks concurrently mathematically results in saved time, yet these concurrent tasks usually do not complement each other and result in interfering one another. This even causes a lost time instead of creating extra minutes. Also, with these devices are on, users are filling little moments by micro actions, however the sum of these actions never results in a memorable quality time. Most of these moments turn to out be temporary. It is notable that within a cultural environment of audio-visual bombardment, users are creating their personal spaces that adds-on to this effect. The end result is an intense consumption pattern with extra cognitive load to users. Concentrating on a single task is becoming harder, with intentional self-distractions. It is problematic to limit oneself, set boundaries within the unlimited world of Internet. Interfaces and mobile products are becoming more user friendly, enhancing users capabilities. However usability is not the only criteria for cultural improvement. It is possible that multitasking is one of the causes for diminishing the aesthetic qualities of cultural products.

The core of media multitasking is interference, causing users volunteer distraction from the content of media. As a reaction to this behavior, cultural industry is struggling to hook the audience. Producing “catchy” goods is the main goal for cultural industry. The new currency for media products is catching the attention of the viewers. This article suggests that there are two strategies cultural industries have developed within multitasking environment in order to grab the attention of customers: Creating short forms of media products that can be adjusted to simultaneous media usage and complex products that prevents multitasking by requiring full attention of users. In other words, a number of new media products aim to engage the viewers either by offering contents that are simple and compressed, or they intend to keep the attention still by building intense, powerful, deep relations. Condensed media forms correspond to both of these two distinct qualities.

As introduced above, first strategy of cultural industries is adapting to the distracting nature of multitasking. Viral videos, twitter and mini games are becoming popular formats of media. In these formats, content is as simple as it can get. Fast-forwarding, stopping, resuming, missing certain parts of these media products does not matter in means of evaluating the content. The flying birds hitting the pigs, the images flow on Facebook walls, the almost pornographic music videos with only hips and lips, the redundant make up and eclectic costumes of Lady Gaga, the continuously flashing ads running on billboards, TVs and Internet sites… All of these examples are weak in content, do not require high levels of attention and do not have aesthetic concerns such as creating Gestalt or harmony. Their visual language is that of pluralism. It is arguable that these media products do not create quality time. Instead they fill in the micro-moments. However, these micro-moments turn out to be creating habits to relax minds. These almost null experiences occupy big portions of lives by becoming a part of daily routines. Their popularity makes them easily accepted by members of society and set them as a cultural norm. All of these media forms share the same concern: Pulling the glance over them. The problem is that this glance, this flirt with the potential customer, is evolving to result in a life long empty a gaze. After hooked by an image or sound without a deep content, viewers might become the hunters for more of those hooks to keep them busy, just for killing time. Cultural industry is supporting popularization of this category by creating screen-based compact forms of media: Creating audio-visual snacks for the viewers has become a valid approach for commercial success.

There is another cultural strategy related to multitasking, which aims to create unique experiences for users in order to support the engagement with certain products. This type of condensed media does not adapt multitasking conditions, but stand as a reaction against it. Creating immerse, deep, meaningful, rich, strong relationships with the viewers is the main goal. For instance, with interactive media forms, the caught attention of viewers can be kept still. Viewers become participants, the content-based interaction turns into unforgettable media experiences. Interactive engagement with an art object brings a higher possibility that intended messages will reach the audiences. This situation can be exemplified by the internet-based interactive short movie “The Carp and The Seagull” directed by Evan Boehm. This movie has a continuous structure composed of 4 chapters and runs on its own. What makes it distinctive is being open to interventions of users. The actions of the user create unique experiences by enriching the narration of the movie. Such interactive products build lasting memories by setting powerful relations with the content. They do not fade away as soon as the attachment lasts. Other than interactive media forms, there are examples captivating audiences by their unique aesthetic qualities. Feature length movie Cloud Atlas is an outstanding example that integrates several genres, stories, time periods and characters around a central theme. The complex, layered structure of this movie combined with the aesthetics of montage is giving a distinct sense of fulfillment to its viewers -as if they have watched a number of movies one at a time. In that sense, it is a novel approach reminiscent of multitasking behavior.

Transmedia products constitute a separate category that merges all qualities of condensed media forms. They are packages of media or products in connection to same synopsis that aim to create an engagement. The way they differ from other condensed media forms is by which bringing together a group of people, or fans around them. Emotional attachment with the characters is the key issue in transmedia products. Harry Potter is a popular and commercially successful example that began its journey as a novel, adapted into movie series, interactive and board games. The admirers of this character desire to own the whole collection of these items. This desire turns out to be an addictive consumption experience. Whether you are a fanatic of this character or not, you are a potential customer surrounded with the images of this popular character. This strategy fits the multi screen visual environment in that sense.

So far, this paper has linked mobile devices with multitasking behavior and analyzed specific media products within this framework. Now, all these findings will be discussed within a broader perspective, as they are argued to be creating a “glance culture”. What is glance? And what does a glance culture refers to? To begin with glance, it is the rapid movement of the eye towards an object in order to evaluate the general aspects of it. Thus, it is a form of quick reading, a look in a hurry for deciding on whether to spend more time on an item or not. What is crucial for a glance is that it is triggered by a signal that attracts the attention over and lasts only for a moment or few seconds. After a brief judgment, the eye and the mind of the viewer move over to another item or stay for further investigation. It is fast in nature and involves stages of attraction, connection, evaluation, and most probably separation, all lasting in seconds. This behavior fits with media multitasking phenomena. The split focus passing from one screen to another, from one window to another, from one media form to another is only possible through glance. As Bolter and Grusin argue, “the viewer experiences hypermedia not through an extended and unified gaze, but through directing attention here and there in brief moments. The experience is one of the glance rather than the gaze.”[1] Here, it will be argued that glance does not only refer to a specific behavior of the eye. Rather, it means a specific attitude towards an object and this results in a glance culture.

Within time constraints and constant media exposure, users are freely choosing among diverse options of media forms, saving their energies by directing their attentions briefly only to haunting media objects.  This momentary notice to appealing media forms causes the viewers miss distinct qualities of media products, prevent engagement with their contents, consume them in a hurry, without assigning any value. This attitude presents a one sided consumption pattern, users being the only authority in choosing, evaluating and allocating value to certain media products. The circumstances in which cultural products are consumed might be completely different from that of expected patterns. For instance feature length movies are forms of narration that are supposed to be watched continuously from beginning until the end. They are shot and edited meticulously for this purpose, yet the concerns of the director might never reach the audience regarding the conditions in which they are watched. Missing one minute of a shot may evaporate the whole effort put in a movie. So, significant features of an art object planned during production might disappear during its consumption. Multitasking tends to cause such ruptures and create a gap between intended concerns and obtained outcomes.

Another aspect of glance culture is that short, condensed media forms are popularized for commercial purposes. This transforms the aesthetic taste of societies accordingly. Just as creating an obese generation by supporting fast food chains, industrial approach generates societies that consume audio-visual snacks and get hungrier in return. The aesthetic qualities are only considered to create a haunting effect. The aesthetic pleasure users get from media products is replaced with pleasures arising from the amount of consumption.  In other words media multitasking is a form of fast consuming that guarantees the increased need for consuming more. Users are unsatisfied with the current media products cognitively and emotionally, however this leads to increased need for searching satisfaction with alike products. There is an ongoing rise in seeking for more different, interesting, dazzling, striking media forms.

Within the glance culture the number of clicks, shares and “like”s determines the value of media products since they are read as signs indicating if a particular media item is worth a glance or not. If the content is more direct and obvious, its chance of being perceived and being expanded across Internet increases regardless of its aesthetic qualities.

.

.

CONCLUSION

Media multitasking is a behavior leading to a glance culture in which users split their attentions between several eye-catching condensed media forms. Time is limited; media sources are infinite, yet users are the starving to consume more. The users are authority figures central to this culture. They can choose among diverse media options, can fragment the produced content by intervening the media object and assign value to media products by simply paying attention or not.

Within this multitasking culture, two types of condensed media forms stand out. Firstly, simple and short forms such as tweets, viral videos or mini games are becoming more popular among users of mobile computing devices. Secondly, concentrated, dense media forms creating unique aesthetic experiences are rising due to preventing users’ simultaneous media use. Lastly, transmedia products merge both qualities of condensed media and create emotionally attached customers. The common characteristic of all these media products is absorbing the distracted attention of multitaskers.

As discussed above, media multitasking is becoming a common consumption behavior in the digital age that has begun transforming cultural industries and the aesthetic aspects of cultural products. Media multitasking can be considered both as an obstacle and an opportunity for motivating the creation of innovative media products. The question is which condensed media forms are going to be supported by cultural industries in the future? The reasons behind current choice of specific media products during media multitasking need further investigation. Future studies might be useful concerning the fact that this behavior is likely to rise in the future.

The Carp and The Seagull

Here is the link to an interactive short movie:

http://thecarpandtheseagull.thecreatorsproject.com/video.html

Here is the interview with the director:

http://thecreatorsproject.com/creators/ithe-carp-and-the-seagulli-by-evan-boehm

Body of My Article

In literature review, I reached more sources on multitasking than its effects on culture. My aim is to investigate the cultural impacts of this behavior. I am going to analyze condensed media forms in relation to media multitasking in order to understand the cultural perspective of this issue. Here is a schematic view of my organization:

Literature Review

Below, is the link to my submitted literature review (for VIS 510):
Submitted file

Taxonomy for Literature Review

Literature Review Outline

Why Am I Doing This Study?

If your question is “why are you writing a paper on ‘multitasking with mobile devices'”, the reason for my study is that this consumption behavior is something that comes with lots of dilemmas:

It seems like its increasing my life quality: I can reach information anytime I want, I am connected to everyone with one click, boredom is not an issue anymore, my media channels are multiplied, my capabilities are multiplied, I am saving time by doing many tasks at the same time, I am in control. It is as though I am in the center and everything else is revolving around me.
On the other hand I feel like I am not spending any “quality time” with these devices on, they might be a loss of time, even an addiction, they make me build a chaos of my own, get lost on internet for hours haunting information, I am voluntarily distracting myself, changing the contents frequently, most of what I consume become garbage in the end -leaving no trace at all, I am visually bombarded by media institutions and getting frusted, still I am adding more visual load to myself -by myself, I can not engage deeply or concentrate on one task, I begin wondering a topic and then find myself virtually wandering around -I get lost. It is problematic to limit yourself, set your boundaries in an unlimited world.

They say interfaces are getting more user “friendly”. I don’t believe anything related to technology can be a good company in the end. Phones are getting smarter. But I might be getting dumber in return.

We build tools, develop technologies, but what is happening to the users and cultures in the end? We are standing at a point where there is no clear separation between technologies and people. McLuhan defined technology as an extension of human body&mind. I want to zoom into that connection point.

Why Am I Here?

I have an education on industrial design and I’ve been working in an interdisciplinary manner since my undergraduate years. I can not see design disciplines disconnected from each other or from other sciences. Similarly, I can not think of a product as an isolated artifact. The lifespan of a product/service is built on interactions that constitute the  user experience. This phenomenon needs different perspectives in order to be studied and this is why I specifically want to focus on it.

In addition, the user scenario of every product is a complex, unpredictable one. Rather than being an equation, it is more like a black box with some pre-defined inputs, and an uncertain outcome. “Human” is the key factor here, altering all plans of the professionals. I want to understand this human ingredient.

Another issue that grabs my attention is that  when we are talking about (specially digital) products, we are situating them right in the middle of material culture and digital culture. This dichotomy might be based on the transformation from industrial age to information age. This transformation applies to me on a personal level. I need a  paradigm shift as well. I am trying to direct my focus from Bauhaus to …? The question mark is the other reason why I am here.

On Aesthetics (from the Book “Product Experience”)

 

Here is how Schifferstein and Hekkert classified the aesthetic experience of the user. This may help me on writing the second and third sections of my literature review: Interaction layer of the user experience and new aesthetic aspects of media products)

Another Classification

I’m having trouble with organizing and connecting data in my literature review, so I’m stepping back a little to see what’s happening.

Below is the how Schifferstein and Hekkert organized their book index. So far, all sources I’ve collected is mostly explaining the human perspective (1A&1B) of media multitasking. But I need to stay closer to the interaction& product perspective since my main focus is the aesthetic experience (2A) with digital products (3A).

Edit. With minor changes, the structure of the paper improved a lot. Here is the latest version.

(How to Fail in) Bisociation

I am trapped.

Currently I am so digged in my literature review that I can not even think about thinking on a creative diagram that can extend the boundaries of my work. Probably the most notable experience nowadays was watching Cloud Atlas this friday. The movie was “layered” in one word. It was as if I was watching several movies one at a time. It was a long, yet compressed movie of various genres, characters, time periods, ethical standpoints etc. The connection of ideas were seamless. I loved it. And naturally, I am seeing this movie in connection with media multitasking right now. It would be a good new (but old) generation media product example reflecting the aesthetic values derived from multitasking behavior. See? I am beginning with Cloud Atlas and it leads me to multitasking eventually.

Literature Review First Draft

I need to complete a 4-5 pages literature review of my paper due 5th of november. I am trying to reach, scan, highlight, quote papers as well as dealing with format issues. So, my work is such a mass right now. Here is the first draft.

What I am trying to do in this paper is bringing together informtion from various fields (my keywords) and trying to build a hypothesis on the relationship between these fields. The arrangement of the ideas will represent this sentence: “Media multitasking” (with) “mobile computing” (devices, leading to) “user experiences” (through which) “aesthetic values” (are changed and resulted in new generation) “media products”.

So, the first thing I have done so far is collecting information on the first section: Media multitasking. I have found definitions, facts, related concepts, user profiles, user behaviors etc. Some information is standing at the crossroad of two or more keywords, some are irrelevant to an extent. I’m trying to organize them.

Edit. Word document / 27.10.2012

I guess my title is too broad. I am already lost is 50-60 references  and I’m still covering the first phase of my topic.

Think with Google / The New Multi-Screen World

Here is a study conducted in 2012 directly related to my research topic: “The New Multi Screen World” on Think with Google. (Q: Is this research academically valid?)

Mind Mapping

I’m using XMind as a mind mapping software. It is more user friendly for macs or just for me.

Here is the output of today’s work:

Experience Design Diagram by Nathan Shedroff

I am putting this diagram as a note for my future work. In this diagram, Shedroff clearly shematises the dimensions and the interdisciplinary nature of experience. (All these six dimensions will be connected to my research. Specially particular disciplines within “Breadth” category are close to the scope of fields I wish to work on: Product, service, brand design.)

Sente: A Reference Management Software

All the sources I have collected so far seem to create a chaos on my computer and mind. For keeping a good track of what I am doing, I searched for a software/tool to create a neat academic workspace and library on my computer. After some search I came across “Sente” which enabled me to bring together all sources I have collected so far. Its interface is just like iTunes, so it is familiar and user friendly in many aspects. One of the best features of it is that you can download all the reference data of an article through sites like google scholar and convert that reference data in any academic style you prefer if you are going to cite an article. Highlighting and quoting in a few color options are possible. Tagging, giving rating, searching new articles with its built-in browser are the other actions you can proceed. Very effective academic tool.  It has a 30 day trial version. Highly recommended.

Here is a snap shot:

 

Creative Practice Diagram

Quotes from Sullivan: About Positioning Your Creative Practice

Here are some quotes from Sullivan:

“I identify as Making in Systems, Making in Communities, and Making in Cultures. Practices that might be defined within the area of Making in Systems are complex and exploratory in nature as artists open up new visual forms and structures that are both grounded
within discipline knowledge and skills, but also transcend these boundaries to intersect with other domains of inquiry. Making in Communities is “reinterpretive” in character and mobilizes the communicative capacity of visual arts to make new connections among individual ideas, public issues, and broader histories. Artists working within the domain of Making in Cultures capitalize on the immediacy of a critical art practice and investigate ways of challenging perceptions through visual encounters.”

(On Making in Systems / Dynamic Systems)

“Static or closed systems, and there are dynamic or open systems. The difference is in the relationship with the environment where static systems are independent of external influence, while dynamic systems are constantly changed by interactions with the surroundings. Static systems are somewhat mechanical, have useful heuristic value, and may be used to describe what something is (e.g., a system for printing photograms); they may be prescriptive structures that designate causes and effects (e.g., making clay pots and firing them in a kiln); or they may be predictive systems that are explanations and theories about how and why something is likely to work (e.g., using the conventions of perspective to show the illusion of space). Dynamic systems, on the other hand, are transformative. By this I mean that as a consequence of continual interactions among the elements in a system and among features of the environment, things change. And in this exchange, the feedback from both the surrounding influences, and the features of the system, produce effects that are new and different.”

“This is known as “emergence” and describes how new features emerge from an interaction that is independent of any of the parts themselves. This also highlights the nonlinear character of dynamic systems. By nonlinear I refer to the way that simple cause-and-effect relationships are not involved because there is no direct connection between the input and the outcome.”

“Dynamic systems and emergence are components of complex adaptive systems (CAS) that are in a continual state of interactive change. And CAS are found at all levels of our natural and human worlds. In a way, a CAS can be seen to provide a braided frame within which artists create ordered forms from chaotic schemata in a transcognitive encounter with their surroundings.”

“This new form of representation created in the digital setting is a simulation that exists as a codified program of numbers that in many circumstances can be re-created in any version or form desired. In addition, the digital image often may include sound and text, thereby increasing the capacity to embody experience, carry information, and offer up new understanding in a dynamic, interactive way. This is somewhat different from an art object produced within the tradition of studio-practice, which can be “surrounded” by relevant
contextual details such as biographical data, evidence of production, related research, and the like, for this is static testament that supports the artwork. Therefore artist-researchers working within the digital domain are opening up more varied opportunities to explore the capacity of visual images to be created and critiqued as sources of new knowledge and understanding.”

(On Making in Communities)

“If those artists whose practice is mostly circumscribed by making in systems are involved in reconfiguring artistic representation from visual forms to other coded forms, those whose practice entails making in communities accept that forms of representation exist in what Fred Myers calls “intercultural space”

(On Making in Cultures)

“address the need to be critical in assessing how researchers themselves make meanings”

“This critical imperative implies that the visual image is more than a product that can be isolated or contextualized. Rather, a different set of theoretical parameters is needed to fully understand the way images reveal insights and understandings. This principle is accepted by art historians and cultural theorists who understand the dynamic, interpretive relationships among the object, creator, viewer, and related cultural, political, and institutional regimes that influence how knowledge is both constructed and made problematic (Bal, 1996; Heywood & Sandywell, 1999; Hooper-Greenhill, 2000). Furthermore, the status and meaning of the “visual” undergoes continual change as various means and ends are invoked within the workings of the interpretive communities that surround the visual arts.”

“it is in relationships rather than images or objects where value is located. It is within the ensemble of art making, interpretive scope, critical perspective, institutional constraints, and cultural influences that meanings are both made manifest and made problematic”

“The status of the art image or object is therefore best appreciated if seen to be a cultural practice whose genesis is generative of personal and public meaning when opened up to critical discourse by the art writer.”

“Making in cultures, when seen from the perspective of identity politics and the cultural diaspora, reveals the hybrid practice of artists working within and across geographies.”

Title + Abstract (Draft)

The Age of Glance:
Impacts of Media Multitasking with Mobile Devices on the (which!) Outputs of (what!) Cultural Industries in the 21st Century

In the last decade pervasive mobile computing devices have become key determiners in transforming cultural industries by increasing the number of cross-media experiences users are engaged in.
-info source-
This paper aims to investigate these multitasking experiences as hypermedia consumption behaviors // through analyzing the end products of media industries in 21st century.
-info source- examples
The intention lying in this research is finding correlations between the fast food culture and the fast forward culture.

Outline (Draft)

Keyword 1: “Media Multitasking”

The term for the situation in which users are involved in multiple media devices & media content is called:

“MEDIA MULTITASKING”.

And this article is right in the core of this issue:
(Media Multitasking Behavior: Concurrent Television and Computer Usage)
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/cyber.2010.0350

Jakob Nielsen

Nielsen Norman Group is the most popular usability research company I’ve come across so far. Jakob Nielsen’s last book is entitles “Mobile Usability” and it’s coming out on 25th of October. Might be useful.

http://risc01.sabanciuniv.edu/search/Y?SEARCH=Jakob+Nielsen

References of References

Since I am going to work on user experience and it’s relation to media, I am trying to find some key resources to my keywords. “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience” may help me with this. As well as the book itself, its bibliography is rich in providing keywords revelevant to this issue:

Visual-aesthetic perception, behavior in extreme situations, evolution of human consciousness, changing contexts of flow in 21st century (work and leisure), immediate experience, energy consumption in leisure and perceived happiness, meaning in creative industries, time-experience-perception, attention-behavior-eye movements-effort, quality of life are some concepts mentioned in this book. I may concentrate on few of them as developing my literature review.

Subject Wandering No.2

I have more and more questions on my mind. I’m wondering, how does consumption of media technologies leads to recreation of visual media aesthetics. My observation is that multitasking (similar to the “hypermedia” in the book Remediation) is highly involved in cultural consumption. As a result users are more distracted than ever, bombarded with visual material, specially when they are using mobile devices that are connected to internet, interacting with hyperlinked interfaces. As they are faced with a spatial environment of infinitive depth and variety, they jump from one information to another, from one application to another, from one activity to another, from one device to another. The interesting notion is that users are not only the “viewer” of the media we are engaged in, but the “controller”, participater, contributer, writer as well. But there is a question about it: What are the capabilities of human cognition in experiencing such overloaded task flows? How the data represented is perceived as the user is multitasking, using different medias once at a time? As Bryson differentiates a “glance” to an art object from a “gaze” and I believe today’s visual culture is perceived through instantaneous moments rather than longer periods of time. The intervention of real time events are inevitable as screen interacted products are used. The surrounding environment is another factor determining the access to the information involved in a screen.

Subject Wandering No.1

New media is new for me. So, in order to have an adequate proposal I am trying to read some sources discussing the core issues of new media. “Language of New Media”, “New Media: A Critical Introduction” and “Remediation” are currently giving me a hand on this. I am noting down the key concepts and principles in new media as well as the concepts that grabs my attention.

Digitality, interactivity, hypertextuality, dispersal (in relation to wide spreading of the knowledge economy), virtuality are stated as the key concepts in the book “New Media: A Critical Introduction”. Similarly “Language of New Media” discusses numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability as five principles that are layered within the idea of new media. It is notable that each of these principles become the reason of one another. Once analogue became digital, the datas were programmed into seperable, modular units that could mimic human thought. The user’s interaction with these units or sources of information created a unique path and innumerable variations of the media he/she was engaged in. Finally the interface, being a language between the user and the data, became a factor in determining the communication culture by itself.

As I’m reading these sources I’m noting down the areas I want to dig in. New forms of visual culture, everyday life& new media, interactivity with digital products, (cultural?) consumption in post industrial information age, semiotics of hyperlink, new ways of media consumption, new representational experiences, user/consumer relationships with media technologies, how virtual identities creates new time-space perceptions and experiences are the ones that I noted so far. Specially the keywords “cultural consumption”, “post-industrial”, “media technologies”, “user experience”, “identity” have been the ones that triggered me the most so far.

Apart from these readings I always have questions on my mind regarding the relationship between new technologies and local cultures. How do we interiorise these technologies and how our visual culture changed within the era of digital products? We reach information through imported goods, imported interfaces, imported technologies. How do we customize and experience them within our local cultures?