Journal #3
Are.na:
I found this platform oddly comforting. Are.na feels like a blank canvas that encourages random thoughts and the documentation of them. I liked how it encourages randomness and the ability to think in a non-linear way. Instead of forcing links and connections between things, are.na allows you to store these thoughts and no longer leaves the connection between these thoughts up to chance. I really enjoyed being able to free my mind of the distracting thoughts and dump them all in one place for later reference. For instance, when I was talking to my friend about a podcast I was starting and then later that day talking to my friend about the geese near the boathouse, it made me think a lot about learning patterns and the best types of conversations. I wondered how geese were able to learn how to fly in certain patterns or how they know how to migrate to a certain location. I also thought about common sayings like “silly geese” and how colloquial speech is often tied to nature. I thought about how colloquial language makes you feel close to someone. I wondered how I could alter my speech patterns to make a more intimate connection with my audience through a podcast. I thought it was really interesting how are.na helped me to remember different passing thoughts and gave me a space to connect them.
All you need is links:
A question I had after reading this article is why did we diverge from making links the core of everything that we do? Links are the backbone of the internet yet so often we don’t focus on them. The article points out how there are so many features that we can replace with links. I wonder why we felt the need to create these replacements for links if we did not need to. I wonder whether even though links could replace many of the features we have, whether we want to return to a world of links. I think, similar to the conclusion of the article, we should focus on how understanding the basics of links we can better understand how to innovate in the new spaces we are creating.
Kameelah Janan Rasheed on research and archiving
“I think about my work as an open circuit, where whenever I create work it’s iterative, and whenever I create work there’s always a possibility of me not necessarily knowing it connects to everything else that I’ve made.”
This quote particularly stood out to me because it made me think about whether or not there are ever dead ends in finished works or if we simply get bored of iterating and adding nodes. That is, what are the limiting factors and what determines whether a piece of art is finished in the digital world?
When creating in the digital space, it does feel like there are no limits to the materials or tools that one can use to create. Unlike painting or crocheting, you are not limited by the amount of paint or yarn you have access to. So the question boils down to what stops someone from iterating their work and whether the work is ever finished?
I think that the end of the road for a piece of work is not the work itself ending but the interest an individual has in that particular rabbit hole or piece ending. I think it’s a beautiful thing for nothing to be finished because that node can be picked up by another person down the road to continue and iterate.
Octavia
I found the section on misinformation particularly fascinating. Both Delaney and Burstein seem to agree that this is the age of misinformation and not the age of information. I argue that this is the age of information overload. Now more than ever, it is so easy for anyone to create and engage in information exchange. Despite this our ways of linking together information hasn’t drastically changed. I wonder if instead of focusing on the creation of completely new nodes of information we should focus on what is happening in between different existing ideas. I also wonder whether a world with no misinformation is better than the status quo. Is misinformation necessary in the pool of information?
Back