I found this week's readings to be an appropriate follow-up to our A/V projects--due to their discussion of data visualization, but primarily because of their emphasis on perception. I think back to my project, starting way back at the idea stage all the way through the editing process. I had a clear idea of what I was presenting, but it was inevitable that some if not much of this clarity was lost as viewers attempted to understand its deeper meaning. Outside of the plain text within the piece, some might not understand the connection to the visuals as I had hoped. According to Mishra and Wolf, this understanding is shaped by one's perception, of which are abundant. There is a lot to be said about whether people are more perceptive to images or actual text, but I think the combination of the two can be particularly overwhelming. That was the challenge I faced with the A/V project because I didn't want my connections to be misunderstood, but I suppose that's the beauty of perception. People will never have an exact understanding of something, no matter how plain and simple it appears to be. Our contexts from which we base our individual ideas of a topic are as diverse as our understandings. That's just a reality we need to adapt to if we haven't already.
I really enjoyed reading about the analogy in Mishra's article with the physician, mechanic, and physiologist looking at their respective subjects (144). The author starts in on the idea that experience shapes perception, and that even those of the same intellectual realm will have a different idea of something that seems so absolute. The parts of a car or the organs in a human body are all laid out similarly, but their relationship can be perceived in any number of ways. It is interesting to me that if A has to connect to B in order for C to function, where is the ambiguity or space for varied perception? It seems to find its place.
Wolf's article was a little more difficult for me to wrap my head around because I have no mind for science and the technology of computers. However, the talk of simulators got me thinking. The author states "no simulated world can be free of a world view" (429). That is an interesting thought because so often, simulators are free from the moral and political constraints of our society. That's not to say they can't have some sort of agenda, just that they are typically used for instructional or informational purposes. When I was reading this, I couldn't stop thinking about Sim City and the Sims that I grew up playing. Players are given the option of a few different base landscapes in which to craft their settlement or house and essentially build day-to-day operations and/or a lifestyle from the ground up. I liked the games because I was playing God with these powerless citizens, but I never thought about the constructs already installed in the software. Really, our choices had already been made for us based on what aspects the game creators considered appropriate for a modern city or modern family of people. Though the game seemed so expansive (often times I'd lose hours, days perfecting my creations), it is really quite limited to the perceptions of only a few people behind the pixels. Granted, Sim City is built based on the goal of entertainment value, but it has a lot to say about what is socially acceptable. When I played the Sims, I did all I could to kill off the people in the family so I could build a graveyard outside and let ghosts haunt future tenants. The sims were quite resilient, but eventually died off. Are my morbid inclinations being controlled by a few people's idea that this may not be okay, unless the poor sims are given a chance to plead for their lives? I suppose its a good thing the game didn't have a God feature at the time where I could strike them down with a lightning bolt. I haven't played in years, but wouldn't be surprised if this was recently added. I guess my point of this rant about video games is that my entertainment was being shaped by the perceptions of a few and I'm not sure I know how I feel about that.
Here's an article on the practical application of Sim City in the real world. (Yikes!)
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/03/simcity_2013_what_the_urban_planning_game_tells_us_about_future_cities.2.html
No comments:
Post a Comment