Week four summary

This week’s posts have been in preparation for the response for the edcMooc.

Julier highlights the distinction of Visual Culture and Design Culture. It was interesting to read how the visual culture has developed and changed over time, and what it means to interpret an image.

I found the following interesting:

“Culture is no longer one of pure representation or narrative, where visual culture conveys messages. Instead, culture formulates, formats, channels, circulates, contains, and retrieves information. Design, therefore, is more than just the creation of visual artifacts to be used or “read” It is also about the structuring of systems of encounter within the visual and material world.”
I wondered how my digital artefact will fit into the description above or rather how can I create something which reflects all these?  At the same time I want to try to stay away from my readers being the “passive” spectator, or using John Urry’s conception of the “tourist gaze”.  What would be the embodied engagement for a digital artefact? Would my readers ‘step into the object and make it their own’?

I also reviewed Spalter and Vandam (2008) Digital Visual Literacy.  It highlights the existence of this type of literacy which is something that need to be taught.

Evidently, to do a summary of the edcMooc, it would involve immersing myself into the discussion forums, blogs and twitters.  Like a miner, I went digging for hidden gems.  My encounter with Amy Buvall’s blog was a turning point. Her practical but creative examples led me to try out the thinglink tool.

Reference:

Julier, G (2006) From visual culture to design culture, Design issues, 22 (1), 64-76.

Kress, G (2005) Gains and losses: new forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition. 22(1), 5-22.

Thomas, S et al (2007) Transliteracy: crossing divides. First Monday. 12(12). [web site]

Spalter, A M and van Dam, A (2008) Digital visual literacy, Theory into practice, 47, 93-101.