Review of edcMooc – Sol Le Witt Line Installation
This is the statistics of the digital response of edcMooc week 1 and 2 from Thinglink after a week.
Below are some of the feedback received which provide some engagement, though I failed to create an artefact which removes the reader as a passive spectator, as discussed by Rose. If I had been brave enough to allow people to add links to it, the effect might have been different. I need to consider how thinglink might satisfy the ‘design culture’ criteria.
“This is more meaningful and accessible to me than other types of expression that are pure image. You show how I have been moving through the course myself, using bookmarks and diigo to collect the bits that are more important to me. What I like about your artefact is you have added a layer that shows the pathway of movement outward, connecting and hopping in ways that are both organized and random, leading to unexpected points. This is a quick way to see the overview and to trace forward and backward. Kudos!” Martell Linsdell
“I really liked the use of lines and intersections–rather rhizome-ish! It struck me as a very good example of curatorship–obviously much more than being a ‘digital librarian’.” Candance Nolan Grant
“This image really begins highlight the possibilities of DATA mapping – what is hiding in learner activity? What knowledge will be uncovered when data is visualised big scale?” Phil Devine
On the whole, I think this is too much of an exhibit. If I were to do it again, some of the following questions I would like to ask myself:
a) how would my audience see this? Would they be able to interact with the material, change it, own it? Can this image be de-territorialised (Deleuze, 1972)?
b) can this image change the relationship of a spectator to something else? Does it flatten the hierarchies of class, ‘race’, gender, sexuality, able-bodiedness and so on? (Haraway, 1991)
c) Which would be the most appropriate technology for the particular purpose?
d) What would be the compositionality for the purpose of the image creation? (Rose, 2007:13)
e) Does the artefact act as a frame for cultural thought?
I am quite overwhelmed by the statistics. It is of course one of the drivers of the economic motives behind this platform, but these numbers are amazing as after all, that is just for a few days.
I don’t think the ‘passiveness’ is an issue. The engagement is a thought process and brings the viewer onto the next step.
I feel I have learned more about the artist and the way you have situated the artwork into a very specific context. I rather imagine Lewitt’s installation as a large infinite composition which could potentially hold all the MOOC’s comments. Your illustration is like a snapshot of what I can comprehend at a given moment. I don’t feel I am a spectator, rather a participant. So indeed, very much a ‘frame for cultural thought’.
I am glad to hear that you feel you are a participant rather than a spectator. I guess looking at it in context and what it is set out to do, it has achieved its aims. So Lewitt’s work is really perfect for the task. It is encouraging that you see this as a ‘frame for cultural thought’, I have been thinking about this concept over the last few days and seeing how an image or multimodal presentation can indeed be considered as such.