The article made interesting distinctions between moralization in videogame contexts versus real life. It began by setting up basic understandings of moral theory developments and assigning the view to which the article was attached. The article seemed to take the position that morality should be taken in terms of context, cultural or personal, etc. As such, the context of a videogame is different than the context of say the classroom. Certain things are appropriate, morally one, and not in the other. The article presents the importance of role playing in RPG videogames, and how it can apply to building an understanding of diverse moralities, and stronger senses of morality, in class settings. In relation to RPG's, the role often switches between different types of characters, each with their own moral sets based on what would be appropriate action for that character. Many games provide choices for what kind of character the player would like to be. As the character changes, so does the morality. If I play a rogue, given my alignment, it may be moral for me to steal rather than not to. On the other hand, if I am a cleric, it would be immoral for me to not kill those who are evil and to kill those who are not. Explaining the differences in morality in role-play situations not only enhances an understanding of how morality shifts in different contexts, but provides an understanding of how valuable role-playing can be for building sensitive morals that can understand another's perspective.
It seemed undefined whether or not the article took the opinion that game morality could have an adverse affect on real-life morality for students. It also debated but didn't quite answer what was special about RPG video-games. Is it the technology and interface, or the story? The article explored both sides of the argument.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Gill, The Usefulness of Videogames
While the article did heavily focus on the way students incorporated videogames into their projects and draw from them as resources, there was also information on how computer graphics can be used in curriculum. The ways students were using the graphics visually could easily be used in an arts classroom, and the relevancy of drawing from videogames is not lost. The class that was used in the article showed students using videogames for visual and functional reference. Many students manipulated the CG system to mimic the visualizations of videogames they were familiar with. Being familiar with videogames gave student's an area of knowledge from outside the class to build their skills off of, offering not only their interest and gaming to motivate them but also a source of pre-existing acquaintance with a similar technology to build their skills from. It provided a starting point. As a result, most of the student projects ended up having the appearance of videogame interfaces.
The teacher in the article used student interest in videogames to inspire what could be done with the CG software. The results were impressive, and the students seemed more interested in their projects because they were linked to something they enjoyed doing in their free time. Students also used each other as resources for the projects, novices using those more familiar with the program to learn and a number of students also using what they knew of and from videogames to inform their software use.
Game play was an interesting pursuit of investigation for learning mentioned int he classroom, and have we have discussed in class it is a useful one, a way to engage and motivate students.
The teacher in the article used student interest in videogames to inspire what could be done with the CG software. The results were impressive, and the students seemed more interested in their projects because they were linked to something they enjoyed doing in their free time. Students also used each other as resources for the projects, novices using those more familiar with the program to learn and a number of students also using what they knew of and from videogames to inform their software use.
Game play was an interesting pursuit of investigation for learning mentioned int he classroom, and have we have discussed in class it is a useful one, a way to engage and motivate students.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Tim Lefens Lecture (extra credit)
The Tim Lefen's lecture last night was really enjoyable, refreshing, and not exactly what I had anticipated. He's a very personable speaker, charismatic and humorously energetic.His views on what constitutes authentic art were also...unexpected? In some ways, his beliefs were expressly in contrast to what our own SUNY art education department hold as doctrine. In other ways though, the two spectra of thought are not incompatible.
Lefens' opinions of authentic art making seems to lie in the immediate and intuitive response to a work of art as well as in the genuine art making process itself. For him, real art is elevated, not on some leveled plateau where everyone is equal. Real art strives to ascend, to make that leap beyond the physical, which is not to say that real art does not manifestly contain the visceral. One may know real art upon sight instantaneously, for it will pounce upon them with the extreme profundity that throws the experiencer into a space of limitlessness, of pure sensory and the other-worldlyness of that elevated plateau where real art resides. In other words, real art hits you hard, is life changing.
For Lefens, the thinking, cognitive, or intellectual aspect of a work of art is secondary. These pieces that rely on humor, on the novel, or intellectual are not real art. If it has to be explained, if it doesn't have that hard visual affect on the viewer, then as smart as it may be it doesn't make that jump to the higher level. He does allow for socio-political context or activism to enter real art, but it shouldn't only be about "saying something." This is a kind of superficiality of what real art is and does, which again is the genuine movement of being and emotion felt upon witnessing.
Real art-making, likewise, is not a purely cognitive experience, if one at all. In the act of making itself, the artist needs to let go and loose one's self in the creating in order to go to that higher place. If the artist thinks through his whole making process, he remains entangled with what is too earth-laden.
This seems at odds, at first, with what our curriculum aims to instill within us. We are indoctrinated into the school of "the big idea" where art is nothing without concept, without being something more than simply visual or expressive. Often, art-making in our lesson plans may start with cognition, with an idea to be visually interpreted. The artist-student necessarily is always conscious of their end goal, of "saying something." This type of making might seem more aligned with thought or idea rather than the type of genuine self-loosing (as in to loose, not lose or loss) art that Lefens advocates.
I do not think the two views are wholly exclusive of each other though. Lefens does allow for socio-political or "big idea" aspects to enter into real art, as long as they are not the main focus. In our program, having that conceptual tie is important, but so is having a genuine personal experience with art-making. I think the personal tie, the self-loosing strain of authentic art, can be found in both Lefens' ideals and New Paltz's ideals. I think that at times the focus seems only to be on the conceptual, but this is perhaps because that it is controversial in how much attention is put upon it, and so is used to motivated students to investigate their own opinions of it. At the same time, the conceptual is very much an opinionated part of what we are taught to teach, but the emphasis, if seeming more one sided or heavy handed than it should be, is so only because the conceptual is what tends to be neglected.
I think the attention that is gets makes it seem like the traditional and technical is forgotten, which seems to be bringing about a resurgence of these more traditional concerns.
Because of how art-making is framed in the context of the school, I do wonder if it is problematic though, in terms of genuine art-making from a Lefens' perspective. We prompt student, they start with the idea and must carry this concern throughout the project. Does this stifle their ability to "let go" and fully create? I don't think that art should be only expressive either, but that perhaps meaning is found through the creative process and only really cognicized at the end of making when the artist can step back. Is it possible to balance between the two in an education setting at all in order to achieve this breed of real art?
The lecture also made me wonder how much Lefens himself is influenced by phenomenology, from a Heideggerian perspective specifically. Heidegger's phenomenology shares some overlap with a lot of what Lefens' what speaking about. Lefens' spoke about this kind of reduction of the artist, of the self that happens in the art making process, in which the self is loosed and temporarily lost into the being of creating. Cognition doesn't play a role in this authentic act, but is put aside while the self is fully taken by the being-in-making. This is similar to what Heidegger and Husserl talk about in the reduction of self, in the step back, where the self becomes fully involved in what is being done. If you are painting, you are wholly painting. The being of that action acts a place into which being is fully thrown. If this reduction and beingness does not occur, the act is inauthentic.
Lefens' opinions of authentic art making seems to lie in the immediate and intuitive response to a work of art as well as in the genuine art making process itself. For him, real art is elevated, not on some leveled plateau where everyone is equal. Real art strives to ascend, to make that leap beyond the physical, which is not to say that real art does not manifestly contain the visceral. One may know real art upon sight instantaneously, for it will pounce upon them with the extreme profundity that throws the experiencer into a space of limitlessness, of pure sensory and the other-worldlyness of that elevated plateau where real art resides. In other words, real art hits you hard, is life changing.
For Lefens, the thinking, cognitive, or intellectual aspect of a work of art is secondary. These pieces that rely on humor, on the novel, or intellectual are not real art. If it has to be explained, if it doesn't have that hard visual affect on the viewer, then as smart as it may be it doesn't make that jump to the higher level. He does allow for socio-political context or activism to enter real art, but it shouldn't only be about "saying something." This is a kind of superficiality of what real art is and does, which again is the genuine movement of being and emotion felt upon witnessing.
Real art-making, likewise, is not a purely cognitive experience, if one at all. In the act of making itself, the artist needs to let go and loose one's self in the creating in order to go to that higher place. If the artist thinks through his whole making process, he remains entangled with what is too earth-laden.
This seems at odds, at first, with what our curriculum aims to instill within us. We are indoctrinated into the school of "the big idea" where art is nothing without concept, without being something more than simply visual or expressive. Often, art-making in our lesson plans may start with cognition, with an idea to be visually interpreted. The artist-student necessarily is always conscious of their end goal, of "saying something." This type of making might seem more aligned with thought or idea rather than the type of genuine self-loosing (as in to loose, not lose or loss) art that Lefens advocates.
I do not think the two views are wholly exclusive of each other though. Lefens does allow for socio-political or "big idea" aspects to enter into real art, as long as they are not the main focus. In our program, having that conceptual tie is important, but so is having a genuine personal experience with art-making. I think the personal tie, the self-loosing strain of authentic art, can be found in both Lefens' ideals and New Paltz's ideals. I think that at times the focus seems only to be on the conceptual, but this is perhaps because that it is controversial in how much attention is put upon it, and so is used to motivated students to investigate their own opinions of it. At the same time, the conceptual is very much an opinionated part of what we are taught to teach, but the emphasis, if seeming more one sided or heavy handed than it should be, is so only because the conceptual is what tends to be neglected.
I think the attention that is gets makes it seem like the traditional and technical is forgotten, which seems to be bringing about a resurgence of these more traditional concerns.
Because of how art-making is framed in the context of the school, I do wonder if it is problematic though, in terms of genuine art-making from a Lefens' perspective. We prompt student, they start with the idea and must carry this concern throughout the project. Does this stifle their ability to "let go" and fully create? I don't think that art should be only expressive either, but that perhaps meaning is found through the creative process and only really cognicized at the end of making when the artist can step back. Is it possible to balance between the two in an education setting at all in order to achieve this breed of real art?
The lecture also made me wonder how much Lefens himself is influenced by phenomenology, from a Heideggerian perspective specifically. Heidegger's phenomenology shares some overlap with a lot of what Lefens' what speaking about. Lefens' spoke about this kind of reduction of the artist, of the self that happens in the art making process, in which the self is loosed and temporarily lost into the being of creating. Cognition doesn't play a role in this authentic act, but is put aside while the self is fully taken by the being-in-making. This is similar to what Heidegger and Husserl talk about in the reduction of self, in the step back, where the self becomes fully involved in what is being done. If you are painting, you are wholly painting. The being of that action acts a place into which being is fully thrown. If this reduction and beingness does not occur, the act is inauthentic.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Why youth heart technology: networked publics
Boyd discusses the differences between mediated and none-mediated publics, specifically networked publics in terms of mediated. Mediated publics are facilitated by various media, including news, television, radio, and other forms of mass media communication. The public is mediated through these forms, bringing information to a broader audience that cannot be defined in terms of the physical. Networked publics in specific are mediated through technology networks, including mobile phones, blogs, internet based group sites, etc. These forms of mediation in particular are explored, in terms of how their spread and audience differed from an unmediated public.
The networked public is specifically relevant when looking at youth. As a group, a public or an audience, these networked publics are the main publics within which youth interact or act as audience. This is the space where students exchange, experience and witness. Being aware of their interactions in this space, exploring the inner workings of the mechanism of networked publics can provide insight into the lives and interests of students. As educators, it is also a responsibility of ours to examine the communities where our students engage and how they go about doing so. The article mentions that engaging in networks can lead to expressions being misinterpreted, especially for new comers. In these spaces where youth play audience and actor, they put versions and views of themselves into that public, knowingly or not. Connections and impressions are made, and these impacts have an effect, varyingly, on the lives and development of students as people and as members of society. Doesn't it make sense then that educators should help students learn how to make informed interpretations and decisions about what they witness and express within these publics? It relates back to the other article on new media literacies. This is where students are, where they will need to use certain skills and will absorb and be susceptible to impressions, information. This is where learning should also take place, where student involvement and interaction should be addressed, where the new skills for the future of society will be birthed.
In relation to this idea of networking publics and how audience, witnessing and potentially learning can be spread is this video from T.E.D.
the video doesn't seem to want to embed, so here's the link
http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_anderson_how_web_video_powers_global_innovation.html
The networked public is specifically relevant when looking at youth. As a group, a public or an audience, these networked publics are the main publics within which youth interact or act as audience. This is the space where students exchange, experience and witness. Being aware of their interactions in this space, exploring the inner workings of the mechanism of networked publics can provide insight into the lives and interests of students. As educators, it is also a responsibility of ours to examine the communities where our students engage and how they go about doing so. The article mentions that engaging in networks can lead to expressions being misinterpreted, especially for new comers. In these spaces where youth play audience and actor, they put versions and views of themselves into that public, knowingly or not. Connections and impressions are made, and these impacts have an effect, varyingly, on the lives and development of students as people and as members of society. Doesn't it make sense then that educators should help students learn how to make informed interpretations and decisions about what they witness and express within these publics? It relates back to the other article on new media literacies. This is where students are, where they will need to use certain skills and will absorb and be susceptible to impressions, information. This is where learning should also take place, where student involvement and interaction should be addressed, where the new skills for the future of society will be birthed.
In relation to this idea of networking publics and how audience, witnessing and potentially learning can be spread is this video from T.E.D.
the video doesn't seem to want to embed, so here's the link
http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_anderson_how_web_video_powers_global_innovation.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)