The Growing Gap Between RW cultures and RO cultures

In Lawrence Lessig’s work, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, he contrasts “‘Read/Only’ cultures with ‘Read/Write’ cultures” (Lessig 28). In the former, is a culture that is “less practiced in performance, or amateur creativity, and more comfortable… with simple consumption” (Lessig 28). However, in the later, “ordinary citizens ‘read’ their culture by listening to it or by reading representations… this reading, however, is not enough. Instead, they… add to the culture they read by creating and re-creating the culture around them” (Lessig 28). While the former is obviously preferable, Lessig shows appropriate caution and reminds us that nobody’s fear of losing “nonprofessional creativity” is absolute, but the concern is that “its significance and place within ordinary society would change” (Lessig 28-9).

I see a connection here between Lessig’s RO and RW cultures, and Bolter and Grusin’s terms “immediacy” and “hypermediacy,” in their work Remediation. Immediacy can be seen in transparent representations that take advantage of “linear perspective, erasure, and automaticity” (Bolter and Grusin 33). On the other hand, Hypermediacy “makes us aware of the medium or media (in sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious ways) and reminds us of our desire for immediacy” (Bolter and Grusin 35). So I think that in a RW culture, hypermediacy would be encouraged, in that, the people of this culture would want to see the inner workings of the medium, in order to learn how to create on their own. The RO culture appears to be more in line with immediacy, taking the medium at face value and not trying to understand how the medium is functioning.

A big part of understanding how a medium functions (in a RW culture practicing hypermediacy), is by remixing the representations it presents. The term remix (also the title of the piece) is an important concept: “whether text or beyond text, remix is collage; it comes from combining elements of RO culture; it succeeds by leveraging the meaning created by the reference to build something new” (Lessig 77). This concept of remix is an important part of RW cultures, because it “invites a wider community to participate; it makes participation more compelling” (Lessig 82). However, Lessig reminds us that there is, “nothing essentially new in remix” because it is just “the same sort of stuff we’ve always done with words… it is how we talk all the time” (Lessig 82). I especially like the way in which Lessig judges remixed media: they succeed when they “show others something new; they fail when they are trite or derivative” (Lessig 82). To me, revealing something new to an audience, can be used to help them become better at listening to themselves and the world around them.

As an academic writer, what I have just done in the previous paragraph is not only acceptable, but one of the main ways in which our discourse functions: through quoting others. Lessig brings up an very important point that “the freedom to quote, and to build upon, the words of others is taken for granted by everyone who writes” yet we cannot do the same for a “remixed” piece of music or video clip, used for the same purpose: “whether justified or not, the norms governing these forms of expression are far more restrictive then the norms governing text” (Lessig 54). I think this just shows the significant gap between two very different worlds in America today. Unfortunately it is making more and more sense to divide America by: those who get it and those who don’t, those who don’t make the laws and those that do, those that understand where technology and entertainment are going and those that cling to esoteric corporate structures. As much as I disagree with dividing people into groups, I think it is even more problematic to ignore the ever-widening gap in America today.

Sketching a Creative Experience

In Bill Buxton’s Sketching User Experience, his chapters, “The Anatomy of Sketching,” and “Clarity is Not Always the Path to Enlightment,” provided me with a great way to conceptualize a ‘creative user experience’. I was first introduced to the possibility of a creative user experience through Kolko’s Thoughts on Interaction Design. From Kolko’s text I realized that in order to prevent the design from reinforcing a stereotype about the user or the world they live in, there must be an element of challenge or impetus for creativity: “in order to realize the state of awareness…. an element of challenge must be present” (Kolko 110). And as I have stated before I think Kolko presents us with a very useful question: “Can our Interaction Design solutions encourage users to be creative?” (Kolko 110).

As Buxton notes, sketches, “suggest and explore rather than confirm,” they “don’t ‘tell,’ they ‘suggest’” (Buxton 113). Therefore, I think I think Buxton’s notion of sketching can serve as a possible solution, allowing an open conversation between the user, design, and designer, over time. This open conversation is allowed because the sketch does not present itself as a solution, closing off opportunities outside its orbital pull: “the physical sketch is critical to the process, but it is the vehicle, not the destination, and ironically, it is the ambiguity in the drawing that is the key mechanism that helps us find our way” (Buxton 117). In this ambiguity the designer is able to “leave big enough holes” (Buxton 115), that allow “room for improvement and refinement” (Buxton 113).

How can the finished product maintain the status of a sketch, providing a “catalyst to stimulate new and different interpretations” (Buxton 115)? I ask this question because I am not suggesting that we should abandon finished projects or that our designs should only be half-baked, but I am interested in discovering a way to transmit the create process inherent in a sketch, to the user. I think this should be an important part of the finished product because the designer cannot know everything. In the sketching stage, the realizations of one’s short comings are brought forward, as seen in this quote from Suwa and Tversky: “by examining the externalizations, designers can spot problems they may not have anticipated. More than that, they can see new features and relations among elements that they have drawn, ones not intended in the original sketch. These unintended discoveries promote new ideas and refine current ones” (Buxton 117). Therefore if this stage helps the designer “reperceive” (Buxton 117) their intentions, can it do the same for the user; help them reperceive their relationship with the medium, the designers intentions, and then their creative intentions for the design?

I think the sketch is an important moment before the design becomes a finished product, because it is at this time, “in the product pipeline when one can actually afford to play, explore, learn, and really try and gain a deep understanding of the undertaking” (Buxton 139). But again, the sketch must move towards a finished product; it must adhere to a common language that the user can understand. The design cannot remain in the obscurity of the sketch stage, because it might be completely inaccessible to the user. So through my own projects I want to attempt to discover how parts of the sketching experience can be communicated to the user, in order to encourage creativity and expose my own assumptions. I want to discover how to allow for holes and ambiguities that the user can fill-in and solve on their own, creating something better from my design, something that I myself could not see. I think all this helps lead to a better understanding of the design, because “understanding the rationale for a decision is… a wonderful remedy to being a prisoner of your own decisions” (Buxton 149).

Technology as Pharmakon

In Nancy Kaplan’s piece “Ideology, Technology and the Future of Writing Instruction” she address a reoccurring problem that I keeps coming up for me: how does one use technology (or language), and not become wrapped up in the power structures that it has been perpetuating and reinforcing for over thousands of years? How does one do anything? How is one able to move outside the limitations in order to bring in new insights? Although she states the problem clearly, I think it has far reaching implications: “Tools or technologies enable, but also disable: they expand conceptions of what exists and what is possible, but also contract the field of potentialities. Tools or technologies validate some practices as natural and right, but proscribe others as deviant, impractical, or simply unthinkable” (Kaplan 14). 

Therefore I think an interesting entry point into the implications of technology can be found in Kaplan’s discussion of print technology: “its formations and empowerments seem simply natural and right” (Kaplan 14-5). However, I think that print technology is not the only technology guilty of this, and books are not the only medium that are guilty of this. I think films and websites can be just as limiting to their viewers. I think part of the problem, at least on a very basic level of language, is that one has to believe in the language in order to use it. Therefore, it has to be naturalized and normalized. So it is not only a problem with a medium or a technology that transmits meaning, but it is also there in language itself. So this problem comes up all over the place. I think that this relates to what Shirky addresses in the problem of professionalizing information, when “professionals become gatekeepers” who enforce norms, and then “equate provisional solutions to particular problems with deep truths about the world” (Shirky 59).

Therefore, I think that these problems can occur in any communication where the artists/writer/speaker/rhetorician has attempted to close off interaction by ignoring Kolko’s concept of a dialogue over time between user, product, and designer (or in the rhetorical situation: audience, text, and author). I think this view is a way out of the narrow debate between technological determinism and social determinism that Kaplan addresses at the end of her piece. I think the problem is deeper than this debate; it has to do with how we view ourselves and how we communicate meaning of any kind. So I think this is important for me to keep in mind when dealing with creative projects in the course, such as the cyber poem and the video. How do I offer entry points for the viewer? How do I allow them the ability to see how I am constructing meaning? How am I allowing for a creative experience that doesn’t simply end with my own creation? How do I create a sustained conversation with my work?

Hypermediacy

A reoccurring motive in my writing and my art is to show how a particular medium is working. Therefore, I find Bolter and Grusin’s terms “immediacy” and “hypermediacy,” in their work Remediation, very useful. I am particularly interested in hypermediacy which, “makes us aware of the medium or media (in sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious ways) reminds us of our desire for immediacy” (Bolter and Grusin 35). An example that I found useful was that of seeing the desktop interface as hypermediacy, where, “unlike perspective painting or three-dimensional computer graphic, this windowed interface does not attempt to unify the space around any one point of view… and unlike the painting or computer graphic, the desktop interface dose not erase itself” (Bolter and Grusin 33). 

On some level I see immediacy as a necessary component in understanding the world around us: we need to be allowed entry into an image or word in order to make sense of them. So we need the oscillation between “transparency and opacity” (Bolter and Grusin 33). That said, I think that the transparency (and therefore the immediacy) in representations that take advantage of “linear perspective, erasure, and automaticity” have had a much more powerful influence on our perceptions of reality, than hypermediacy has. Therefore, in my opinion the oscillation between transparency and opacity does not occur enough. In a very obvious example, I feel like companies spend much more time and money getting audiences to watch films, as opposed to getting audiences to understand films.

Taking all of this into consideration, I hope to apply these concerns to my cyber poem. Although I am not sure exactly how or what I am going to do, I know I want to work within the realm of hypermediacy in some way. I want to bring out how the medium I am using is relating to what I am saying, in order to educate my audience not just on what I am saying, but on how I am saying it. This way the audience can apply these findings to other instances where the medium is used, even if the content of what others have to say is different. In this way I want to provide them with an entry point into, not just understanding what I want them to understand, but understanding their world in a way that I will not be able to anticipate.  In this way I will hopefully try to bring in the aspects of a good user experience as described by Kolko; being mindful that situations change over time.

As Much as I Admire What Jenkins is Trying to Do...

Is Convergence Culture a self-help book for marketing? My irritations with Jenkins’ book were really brought in this week’s readings. The main problem I have is that fact that he takes something like “advertising” as a given, as a necessary component to entertainment. It is from this foundation that he attempts to merge “cultural studies” and “the new marketing discourse” (Jenkins 62). Why do we need to merge the two? Who does this benefit more, cultural studies, or the new marketing discourse? The other authors we have read for this class, deal with Industry, yet acknowledge that business as usual is problematic. This does not come up enough in this week’s readings.

I don’t care if something is considered a “‘lovemark’” or a “traditional ‘brand’” (Jenkins 70). If I wanted to, I could come up with terms like these (probably better ones), but it wouldn’t help us understand our situation any better. This is one of the many instances where Jenkins uncritically recycles terms and drops them haphazardly in his book. Throughout the reading I felt like I was wandering around in Jenkins’ web of corporate-marketing-jargon. Yes it is important, if not essential to understand what is going on in Industry so that we (academics) can work in it, and deal with it in a critical manner. However, Jenkins is asking too much, without providing any benefits for those of us outside (at the moment) of Industry.

Jenkins’ “paradox” only provides us with a false dichotomy: “to be desired by the networks is to have your tastes commodified” (Jenkins 62). However, there is a very simple way out of this: if one views the networks as problematic, they will stop wanting to be desired by them, and therefore their tastes will not be commodified. Why do we need networks to make meaning for us? If we are going to attempt to create good user experiences, I think we shouldn’t be limited to Jenkins’ narrow constraints. If users are repeatedly telling us that their lawn mower, “Is not working,” why would we ask them if putting a bow on it would change their mind?  

Maybe the fact that people are purchasing TiVos (Jenkins 66) and changing the channel during commercials, isn’t that the commercials are poorly done (how can they be when so much time and money goes into making them?) but that PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE ADVERTISING! Why isn’t Jenkins allowing us to arrive at this conclusion? The idea of a world without advertising is NOT radical. The fact that people think it IS radical, is itself a very telling sign. As Tim Wu finds in his work The Master Switch, there is no “natural” link between advertising and entertainment.  Although advertising has been a popular practice in our RECNET past (how long have humans lived without it?), it does not mean it is inevitable. There were certain instances (corporate entities sleeping with the government) in the past that made advertising, entertainment, and new technologies come together. The fact that we now see people wanting to separate them for good, is in no way strange: there were reasons/people/new technologies that made the two come together, and there will be reasons/people/new technologies that will attempt to break the two apart.

Increasing User Literacy

There are many practical reasons for the professionalization of people and the tasks they do. An obvious example of this need: we don’t want people who aren’t trained Doctors, treating us for our illnesses. But in this weeks readings both Howard and Shirky address the problem of professionalizing information, and the negative effects it can have on creativity. I think one of the key points Shirky makes is the problem that arises when one’s “professional self-definition” turns into “self-delusion” (Shirky 57). So there is a point when this can go too far, and it stems from the fact that these “professionals become gatekeepers” who enforce norms not because of pressure from customers “but by other professionals in the same business” (Shirky 57). This of course, neglects the user experience, and the dialogue between designer and user, that is so essential to Kolko’s concept of Interaction Design. So there appears to be a crucial tipping point. Once these information technologies have positive results for certain professionals, the members of these institutions tend to, “equate provisional solutions to particular problems with deep truths about the world” (Shirky 59). So the trick is recognizing when this occurs: at what point is there more emphasis on securing professional identity, then on the implementation of innovative ways of solving problems?

That said, innovation isn’t always what it seems to be either, and these authors also provide a necessary limit to the possibilities of new information technologies. Howard warns of a possible “social network apocalypse” in “2015,” in order to make a point that we might be overinvesting in “hopeful predictions about the impact these technologies will have on the future” (Howard 207). Shirky notes that “broadcast media was between one sender and many recipients, and the recipients couldn’t talk back” but now the web allows a “many-to-many” (Shirky 87). But he also is mindful that this does not appear to have solved major communications problems.  While the Internet makes interactive technology possible, there are still limiting factors that reduce the Internet to revolving around those who are “famous” (Shirky 91). This can be seen in a very simple way: a person cannot read everybody else’s blog who connects to their blog. Howard also realizes these limitations: “the time needed to give attention to anything is a fundamental condition of reality. You can’t make more time, and we humans only have so much attention” (Howard 221). If we are all “famous” and nobody is reading what others are writing, then “scale alone will kill conversation” (Shirky 95).

Because of this, Howard finds that, “what online communities of the future have to sell is the promise that they will enhance the literacies of their membership—the promise that they’ll provide their members with the disciplining necessary to be successful” (Howard 223). It is this notion of ‘enhancing literacies’ that I will try to focus on when it comes to the Social Media Analysis Project we will be doing for the library. Thus far I have found it really difficult to see how a library’s Twitter account will be anything but clutter and white-noise for a busy student body. My previous assumption about Twitter (aside from the fact that young people aren’t using it) was that its purpose was to attract people to people, places, and things; to generate buzz. The library is already a packed house, literally, therefore there is no need to generate buzz. It would be like Tweeting to get people to come a concert they are already at: it would be a momentary distraction that would prevent them from enjoying the show.

But I can start to see the role social media might play in the library, if it is focused on trying to enhance the literacy of its users: if the social media is there to inform, if the students want it, not something that will constantly be bombarding them with updates. With this in mind, I agree with Howard that, “Communities and networks of the future will need to market themselves based on their ability to help members make more creative and better-informed decisions rather than the size of their user base” (Howard 200). The user base of the library is already very large, and I don’t think social media should try to attempt to convert all of them to that particular platform, but it should enhance the experience they are already having.

Archetypes

Online Community Agency

From this weeks reading it looks as if a lot of online communities can suffer from issues related to user agency. So while many architects of online communities have very specific purposes for creating the communities, perhaps the agency of the user should be part of the foundation of the community, not added in as something extra. Howard says that online community architects, “almost always have a clear idea of the topic around which they intend to build their community or network and how it’s supposed to function” (Howard 50). But he states that, while “functionality of a site and the business model behind the community,” are necessary for longevity, “creating opportunities for people to connect with other people” is what makes for sufficient conditions when creating an online community (Howard 51). 

I like keeping the notion of online communities within the realm user interactions, because these communities must meet the basic requirements for human interaction in everyday life. We make meaning through social interactions, wherein we “eliminate cognitive dissonance” (Howard 56-7), and are then able to see our actions having an effect on our environment. So through our social interactions we need to be able to ‘see’ the influence we have on the forces around us, in order to reaffirm our sense of self, and our ability to act from that position. Howard notes a very common occurrence, that while common, has large implications if it goes unrecognized in the creation of online communities: “when we can’t influence and change the environment, we leave and we find new environments that we can influence and change” (Howard 82). In other words, users need evidence of their participation, or they won’t believe they are really participating. As Erik Erikson says in Young Man Luther, humans at the very least need the appearance that they are in control of their actions (Erikson 111-113).

We need to see that our actions are helping to transform our worlds in a way that can benefit us.

Howard notes that historically when our agency is denied, we move on to other places, as seen in the various groups of people who have migrated to new lands because they where limited in their abilities to shape their world (Howard 82). But we can also see this in one to one relationships, wherein a person ends the relationship because they feel “trapped.” Once our agency has been compromised in those situations, and we don’t appear to have the option to change our circumstances, people have a natural tendency to try and break free. I think this is very important to note in the creation of online communities. From personal experience, most of the online comminutes I have left; I left them for that very reason.

The Dialogue of Online Communities

In this weeks readings both Howard and Shirky note that technology is only part of the process in creating an online community. Howards reminds us that, “all too often, people confuse the technology that is used to enable a community with the community itself” (Howard 23). Shirky states: “mere tools aren’t enough. The tools are simply a way of channeling existing motivation” (Shirky 17). This motivation can be seen in Howard’s example of the “Impeach Mark Sanford adhocracy” (Howard 25). Although this example falls under Howard’s category of an adhocracy (does not count as an online community because it is temporary) it does show how online groups can be motivated to do something other then guess the ending of a Survivor series, as seen in Jenkins’, Convergence Culture (Jenkins 25-58).  

Also differing from Jenkins is Shirky’s awareness of the negative aspects of institutionalized communication, where most of the time, “our strong talents and desires for group effort have been filtered through relatively rigid institutional structures because of the complexity of managing groups” (Shirky 21). It is difficult to argue against this, especially in light of Shirky’s Flickr example, where a “loosely affiliated group can accomplish something more effectively than the institution can” (Shirky 46). For more on rigid institutional structures thwarting progress see Tim Wu’s The Master Switch, which traces the history of the information industry.  

While I can see the limitations to some versions of online communities (especially those communities only motivated to guess the endings of TV shows) I am as hopeful as Shirky that we have stumbled upon a way out of this mess: “social tools provide a third alternative: action by loosely structured groups, operating without managerial direction and outside the profit motive” (Shirky 47). For me, “outside the profit motive” is a key distinction that leaves open the ability for Kolko’s sense of “humanity” to be placed within the process (Kolko 12).  

Likewise, these readings also filled a gap in Kolko’s work as well. This can be seen in Howard’s depictions of online communities that establish real relationships and ongoing dialogues. Are these communities a means to obtaining the dialogue Kolko and Laurel see necessary in the design and interface world? Howard makes the point that, more then mere advertising, with an online community, “you have an opportunity to provide a relationship with your user” (Howard 35). So this appears as an actual way to start the dialogue that Kolko and Laurel suggest, in contrast to what usually happens: “normally, a company has to expend a tremendous amount of money on conducting research studies that enable them to discover what their consumers’ needs are” (Howard 38).

A Suspension of Disbelief that Creates Creative/Critical Awareness?

In this weeks reading of Brenda Laurel’s Computers as Theater, I found many concepts that related to Jon Kolko’s Thoughts on Interaction Design. For instance Laurel borrows a notion from Brecht: “catharsis is not complete until the audience members take what they have assimilated from the representation and put it to work in their lives” (Laurel 31). In Kolko’s interpretation of Interaction Design, “the creation lies dormant until the ‘user’ honestly understands the beauty of what has been designed” (Kolko 11). In both instances Laurel and Kolko recognize the need for an audience or user, to assimilate the representation or design, in a much more meaningful way then what is usually considered.

Laurel finds that in “symbolic thinking and representation-making… imagination is a shortcut through the process of trial and error” (Laurel 29). There are also wide ranging “‘mood swings’” from “seriousness” to “fooling around” when one is making a creative decision (Laurel 25). Therefore an interface needs to accommodate these unexpected, yet very natural, occurrences by working at the level of “action”: “it is only through a person’s actions that all dimensions of representation can be manifest” (Laurel 2). It seems like Laurel and Kolko are both concerned with the audience or user’s ability to exercise creativity in their interaction. Here Laurel appears to be attempting to answer one of the questions Kolko poses: “can our Interaction Design solutions encourage users to be creative?” (Kolko 110).

Both also view the interface or design, as a place for dialogue between designer and user, or performer and audience. Kolko says: “this communication is not a monologue. It is a dialogue” (Kolko 100). Laurel has an example of how the communication can become more like a dialogue by citing the work of Brennan, which is aimed at, “designing human-computer interfaces so that they offer means for establishing common ground (“grounding”) that are similar to those that people use is human-to-human conversation—for example, interruptions, questions, utterances, and gestures that indicate whether something is being understood” (Laurel 4).

This “grounding” or meeting point must therefore be considered more carefully if it is to allow for these (again) unexpected, yet very natural, occurrences. Kolko says this by stating: “meaning is not simply projected or found but instead created and shared through engagement with the artificial” (Kolko 120). The “artificial” as interface or representation, is expanded upon by Laurel here: “a person participates in a representation that is not the same as real life but which has real world effects or consequences” (Laurel 31).  Again, action is what allows for these representations (that have real world consequences) to be assimilated: “participants learn what language to speak by noticing what is understood; they learn what objects are and what they do by playing with them” (Laurel 18).

Both of them also talk about a state of unaware/awareness, wherein the audience or user becomes so invested in what they are doing, that they forget to not be creative. Kolko refers to the necessity of “a poetic interaction,” that “should encourage a state of mindfulness” wherein “flow” becomes possible, and “people become too involved in their activities to worry about protecting their self-image or their ego” (Kolko 109). Laurel depicts a similar interaction: “in this sense, plays are like movies: When you are engrossed in one, you forget about the projector, and you may even lose awareness of your own body” (Laurel 16).

Whenever I have encountered descriptions of these kinds in the past they have always been presented in a negative light, as problematic “suspensions of disbelief.” But in the way that Kolko and Laurel describe them, it makes me consider these instances as a possible break from the constant reaffirmation of a stereotypical self-image or the ego stroking that most products, advertisements, and entertainment are trying to capitalize on. If there is someway to add a creative element into this moment of suspension then I believe it is possible for the audience or user to walk away with something more then just a reaffirmation about the world they live in, but an awareness of a multiplicity of other options outside the world they live in. In this way the momentary suspension of self is not working to reinforce their self-image, or the image they have about the world around them, but is challenging them to look elsewhere and become more creative. So in this suspension there must be (as I said in my last post) an element of challenge or impetus for creativity: “in order to realize the state of awareness…. an element of challenge must be present” (Kolko 110).

Designing for Humanity

What initially grabbed my attention when reading Kolko’s Thoughts on Interaction Design was the emphasis he placed on humanity being present within the design itself. The designers he champions are those who work “without ever losing sight of the most important facet of design: humanity” (Kolko 12).  This awareness is echoed throughout when Kolko reminds us that “the user is not like me” (Kolko 48), and that “the more one knows about a topic the more one forgets what it is like not to know” (Kolko 48). I think that a designer can place humanity within the design by following two important principles provided by Kolko: the design is a dialogue and it is important to continue this dialogue over time.

In order to create “humanity” within a design, I agree with Kolko: one must consider the end product as a means of communication. Interaction Design should be a dialogue between designer and user, as well as product and user. It’s as if the end product should be a medium (within a medium) through which dialogue can be transmitted. Kolko says this in different ways: “this communication is not a monologue. It is a dialogue” (Kolko 100), “design languages become a connector” (Kolko 101), and “meaning is not simply projected or found but instead created and shared through engagement with the artificial” (Kolko 120).

What allows for this kind of dialogue is the attention that must be given to a fourth dimension, time: “the designer speaks, and the user speaks back. Over time the communication becomes involved” (Kolko 11). I believe that in order for a designer to utilize the dimension of time in a productive manner they must see that  “there is rarely a definitive declaration of ‘beginning’ or ‘ending’” (Kolko 58) to the creative process. Therefore, the design must be open to constant revisions and adaptations, in order to accommodate the user’s needs.

This appears to be in opposition with the process that typically occurs today. According to Kolko, most companies choose to get their “internal criticism” from “public relations or external product reviews” (Kolko 58). Kolko differentiates between the all too common benchmark used by corporate America, a “quality assurance level,” and the assessment that he thinks must occur at the level of “user and project” (Kolko 58).

The Most Wanted Paintings On the Web (1995) in Sturken and Cartwright’s Practices of Looking, helps illustrate this problem of unproductive feedback. This project “posed the question about what art would look like if it were reduced by audience ratings and opinion polls” and showed, “just how shallow opinion polls can be in providing an image of the tastes of viewers” (Sturken and Cartwright 59). I think this example is getting at a very important concept, that design (and art) should not merely try to conform to what the status quo accepts, because the status quo is only informed by what is currently available. It doesn’t do much good to tell people what they want and then ask them what they want.

A better approach would be to open up a dialogue, not with the purpose of reinforcing a stereotype, but to go beyond, in order to fix the problematic aspects of the design. In the above example, what Kolko refers to as “a poetic interaction,” is missing. This interaction “should encourage a state of mindfulness” (Kolko 107). In this state of mindfulness “flow” becomes possible, wherein “people become too involved in their activities to worry about protecting their self-image or their ego” (Kolko 109). This seems to be in conflict with what most forms of entertainment and most consumer products try to do: appeal to consumers self-image or ego, either to reinforce one’s confidence or shake one’s confidence, in order to make the consumer think they need to purchase the product to complete their self-image and ego.

In Kolko’s interpretation of Interaction Design the designer doesn’t merely talk at the person because, “the creation lies dormant until the ‘user’ honestly understands the beauty of what has been designed” (Kolko 11). In order to prevent the design from reinforcing a stereotype about the user or the world they live in, there must be an element of challenge or impetus for creativity: “in order to realize the state of awareness…. an element of challenge must be present” (Kolko 110). Here, Kolko presents us, with what I think is a very useful question: “Can our Interaction Design solutions encourage users to be creative?” (Kolko 110).