Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Idea for final project
For my final project, I like the idea of writing about human rights crises in the world. I seem to be magnetically drawn to writing about global crises and human rights issues. I have written about workers' rights in Dubai, womens' rights in Saudi Arabia, the current violence and grass roots peace efforts in Colombia, the current humanitarian crisis in Burma, reconciliation efforts in Rwanda, and the current crisis in Darfur.
I think it will be interesting, given the focus of this class, to (as Dr. T suggested) examine the ways in which increased accessibility and use of the internet, and wider modes of media over the internet has affected global awareness of particular global humanitarian disasters. Instead of looking at just one region or country, I would like to look at a number of different cases, including Darfur (because it is an excellent example of how the internet has been used en masse to reach a global audience and garner solidarity and support for the victims as well as working to influence change) as well as Tibet, and Burma.
I think it will be interesting, given the focus of this class, to (as Dr. T suggested) examine the ways in which increased accessibility and use of the internet, and wider modes of media over the internet has affected global awareness of particular global humanitarian disasters. Instead of looking at just one region or country, I would like to look at a number of different cases, including Darfur (because it is an excellent example of how the internet has been used en masse to reach a global audience and garner solidarity and support for the victims as well as working to influence change) as well as Tibet, and Burma.
Online Academics
I wasn't sure whether we were supposed to write about the online academics links posted or to merely read them and discuss them in class.
In general I think I would have to say that I support MIT's open course initiative. This seems to be a step in the right direction in terms of breaking down the long-established wall that has held University curriculum up on an elitist pedestal. What I mean is that by making everything that MIT teaches completely open and accessible to the public--a public consisting in part of those individuals who may never have the chance to attend an ivy league school--there are no secrets and MIT suddenly becomes relevant to everyone, less untouchable. In the long run, I don't know whether this will prove to be good or bad for MIT. One the one hand, MIT is significantly acknowledging that knowledge is meant to be free, whether it is in the form of a lecture developed by a teacher or not. Yet they are making a subtle distinction between knowledge and academic accomplishment. The information is free; the degree and the MIT name still cost money. In addition, this means that MIT becomes almost more elitist because this distinction--the fact that people will still want to go to MIT and get a degree there because it's respected, because it's established as being upper-crust--almost negates the academic element involved in MIT's respectability and places an emphasis on MIT as a name more than anything.
That aside, the fact that inevitably, someone somewhere is going to put university materials online makes MIT's decision preemptive and wise. They are branding themselves as technologically ahead of the game.
But what about the teachers? By MIT giving away its curriculum, it seems to be disregarding the authorship of the professors and claiming that all work produced or developed at MIT whether it is a class or lecture or an invention or some sort of software, belongs to MIT in the end and thus they can do what they want with this information.
This doesn't necessarily tie into the controversy involving the professor suing for the note to his lecture being sold, but still, there's the issue of whether knowledge can be owned and whether a professor owns the information he gives as a part of a university course. I mean, if the professor gets to sue, does the university get to sue as well? At the same time, I can appreciate the fact that a professor would see his lecture as his own intellectual property and thus lecture notes from that as being part of that property. I don't think it's wrong to share lecture notes, but definitely to profit from them when the professor doesn't share in that profit is wrong.
In general I think I would have to say that I support MIT's open course initiative. This seems to be a step in the right direction in terms of breaking down the long-established wall that has held University curriculum up on an elitist pedestal. What I mean is that by making everything that MIT teaches completely open and accessible to the public--a public consisting in part of those individuals who may never have the chance to attend an ivy league school--there are no secrets and MIT suddenly becomes relevant to everyone, less untouchable. In the long run, I don't know whether this will prove to be good or bad for MIT. One the one hand, MIT is significantly acknowledging that knowledge is meant to be free, whether it is in the form of a lecture developed by a teacher or not. Yet they are making a subtle distinction between knowledge and academic accomplishment. The information is free; the degree and the MIT name still cost money. In addition, this means that MIT becomes almost more elitist because this distinction--the fact that people will still want to go to MIT and get a degree there because it's respected, because it's established as being upper-crust--almost negates the academic element involved in MIT's respectability and places an emphasis on MIT as a name more than anything.
That aside, the fact that inevitably, someone somewhere is going to put university materials online makes MIT's decision preemptive and wise. They are branding themselves as technologically ahead of the game.
But what about the teachers? By MIT giving away its curriculum, it seems to be disregarding the authorship of the professors and claiming that all work produced or developed at MIT whether it is a class or lecture or an invention or some sort of software, belongs to MIT in the end and thus they can do what they want with this information.
This doesn't necessarily tie into the controversy involving the professor suing for the note to his lecture being sold, but still, there's the issue of whether knowledge can be owned and whether a professor owns the information he gives as a part of a university course. I mean, if the professor gets to sue, does the university get to sue as well? At the same time, I can appreciate the fact that a professor would see his lecture as his own intellectual property and thus lecture notes from that as being part of that property. I don't think it's wrong to share lecture notes, but definitely to profit from them when the professor doesn't share in that profit is wrong.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Response to group projects
There were about three projects that really caught my attention during our group project show last Thursday. Tammy and Alyse's project was one of these three, and since they both volunteered for Camile and my interviews and were subsequent inspirations for two of our fairy tale characters, it seemed fitting to review their project. Somehow this seems to let things come full circle.
One of the things I really liked about Tammy and Alyse's project, "What is Love," was that each of their voices was distinctly present within the work as a whole. While this aspect is inherent to the particular structure of their project, it still bears mention since being able to clearly identify two distinct trains of thought within the work added, I think, to the personality of the piece, adding extra layers to it. By adding extra layers, I mean that not only was their a flash fictional work, which did indeed create imagery and evoke emotion that lingered long after the story itself was over, but there was also a completely separate--yet relevant and connected--dialog occurring in which I as the reader was able to hear both Tammy and Alyse's voices and to understand each of their understandings of the text. In this context, I like that way that Tammy apparently had not been briefed by Alyse on the work she was writing ahead of time, as this would have spoiled the very realistic process of reader reaction and author answer that is documented within their "conversation." Moreover, I liked the way that the stucture lent itself fluidly to a natural explanation of the text. Having an explanation from Alyse, the author was useful, and yet they allowed this explanation to necessarily be displayed in a non -self aggrandizing, non-self righteous way. The author is not setting out a forced interpretation on the reader.
I also like the way that the text can be read in several different ways, which all will influence the way the reader will initially understand the work as a whole. This means that some readers will not go through the reading experience that Tammy went through, as she had only one choice in reading. I chose to read through the flash fiction first, then proceeded to clicking on each of the hyperlinked lines in the text to read Tammy's comments, along with Alyse's responses to them. I usually went back to the text to read the next hyperliked line, but in some cases I would link over to Tammy's full commentary. I never found the jumping back and forth impeding or inconvenient. Rather, I enjoyed the span and webbing of the work and the chance to get a glimpse into the minds of each of the writers.
In addition, I liked the way that
One of the things I really liked about Tammy and Alyse's project, "What is Love," was that each of their voices was distinctly present within the work as a whole. While this aspect is inherent to the particular structure of their project, it still bears mention since being able to clearly identify two distinct trains of thought within the work added, I think, to the personality of the piece, adding extra layers to it. By adding extra layers, I mean that not only was their a flash fictional work, which did indeed create imagery and evoke emotion that lingered long after the story itself was over, but there was also a completely separate--yet relevant and connected--dialog occurring in which I as the reader was able to hear both Tammy and Alyse's voices and to understand each of their understandings of the text. In this context, I like that way that Tammy apparently had not been briefed by Alyse on the work she was writing ahead of time, as this would have spoiled the very realistic process of reader reaction and author answer that is documented within their "conversation." Moreover, I liked the way that the stucture lent itself fluidly to a natural explanation of the text. Having an explanation from Alyse, the author was useful, and yet they allowed this explanation to necessarily be displayed in a non -self aggrandizing, non-self righteous way. The author is not setting out a forced interpretation on the reader.
I also like the way that the text can be read in several different ways, which all will influence the way the reader will initially understand the work as a whole. This means that some readers will not go through the reading experience that Tammy went through, as she had only one choice in reading. I chose to read through the flash fiction first, then proceeded to clicking on each of the hyperlinked lines in the text to read Tammy's comments, along with Alyse's responses to them. I usually went back to the text to read the next hyperliked line, but in some cases I would link over to Tammy's full commentary. I never found the jumping back and forth impeding or inconvenient. Rather, I enjoyed the span and webbing of the work and the chance to get a glimpse into the minds of each of the writers.
In addition, I liked the way that
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
