Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Hong Kong Finish
Today I had my midterm project due for my off-loom class. We had to make something using plaiting, twining or coiling. I chose to use pliating and bad a belt out of ostridge leather and paper yarn. It's pretty cool. I also have a project due tomorrow in my structural class. We had to pick something in the room to cover. I chose to cover one of the lights in the room. Hopefully it will work. I leave for spring break tomorrow and I am really excited to have a week off. I also have an interview with Kenneth Cole ON April 10th in New York. The interview is for a sumer internship. Wish me luck.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Pinked
This week we discussed our concerns about our dependence on technology. It was a really interesting discussion because everyone has different opinions about it. Some people think that our dependence on technology isn’t harming anyone while others think it is. I’m stuck in the middle but leaning more towards the dependence as a bad thing.
One of the concerns that we discussed was a person’s loss of control/sense of self. We rely on technology so much, for example, we can’t do simple math problems without using a calculator. People also create faux people on the internet through MUDs. Some would argue that if creating this person on the internet helps them than why look down at them, why think it’s this horrible thing. I’m torn but if the person does not become dependent on this faux person then it isn’t troublesome.
We also discussed the difference between regulated technology and unregulated technology. Regulated technology is hearing aids or contacts, good technology. Unregulated technology is the internet, bad technology. I think that people rely on the internet so much that it has become a drug, bad technology. For example, when dating online people say they do this because they don’t have the nerve to talk to someone at a bar. If people continue to date online because they feel insecure or don’t think they can talk to someone in public these people will never change, they will never evolve. They find that dating online works so they will always use it. It’s like if you think you can’t fall asleep without a sleeping pill, even if eventually you can, your mind will always think this, and you will become dependent on the sleeping pill. It is the same for the internet (dating online).
The same is true about anything we use the internet for. I always hear people say that they are addicted to facebook or myspace or u tube. The internet has changed the way we live, some good and some bad. The good would be we are able to find information faster; the bad would be we have become so dependent on it that we are addicted. I wonder if anyone can go one day without checking there e-mail (if checking it just to check it) or going on facebook. It would be interesting to see how many people can go one day without using the internet for enjoyment.
One of the concerns that we discussed was a person’s loss of control/sense of self. We rely on technology so much, for example, we can’t do simple math problems without using a calculator. People also create faux people on the internet through MUDs. Some would argue that if creating this person on the internet helps them than why look down at them, why think it’s this horrible thing. I’m torn but if the person does not become dependent on this faux person then it isn’t troublesome.
We also discussed the difference between regulated technology and unregulated technology. Regulated technology is hearing aids or contacts, good technology. Unregulated technology is the internet, bad technology. I think that people rely on the internet so much that it has become a drug, bad technology. For example, when dating online people say they do this because they don’t have the nerve to talk to someone at a bar. If people continue to date online because they feel insecure or don’t think they can talk to someone in public these people will never change, they will never evolve. They find that dating online works so they will always use it. It’s like if you think you can’t fall asleep without a sleeping pill, even if eventually you can, your mind will always think this, and you will become dependent on the sleeping pill. It is the same for the internet (dating online).
The same is true about anything we use the internet for. I always hear people say that they are addicted to facebook or myspace or u tube. The internet has changed the way we live, some good and some bad. The good would be we are able to find information faster; the bad would be we have become so dependent on it that we are addicted. I wonder if anyone can go one day without checking there e-mail (if checking it just to check it) or going on facebook. It would be interesting to see how many people can go one day without using the internet for enjoyment.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Slot Seam
This Tuesday we read Connected, or What it Means to Live in the Network Society by Steven Shaviro. The reading discusses sampling and if it is considered plagiarism when used in music, but in a different way. We need to first understand what sampling is before trying to make an opinion about plagiarism in music.
Sampling is taking many different things and putting them together. For example, in writing when one writes a research paper or papers in general, one samples other people’s ideas. When you write a paper you combine other texts and ideas to find new meaning behind it. You can also put a direct quote in the paper as long as you site it, which is authorship. Authorship is if you take anything from anyone, you need to credit the original. So, in a paper if you put a “quote” in and you don’t site it, then it is considered plagiarism. A certain amount of what you write has to come from you. Blogs are another example of sampling. In a blog you have links to websites to give examples. You are pulling material from another context to better understand your idea.
In music people take multiple songs and combine them to make their own song. This could be considered plagiarism if the artist did not get the right to use the other artists’ songs. I am starting to understand that if you take something, sample it, but didn’t change the meaning of it and didn’t site the original author then it is stealing, plagiarism. However, if something new comes out of the sampling then maybe it isn’t plagiarism because you formed your own idea about it. Jetter, from the reading, says that “bit by bit every writer has constructed the world inside his head from previously existing texts by others.” So actually any idea that someone constructs is actually in some way taken from someone else, everything we do is plagiarized or stolen in some way.
Sampling is taking many different things and putting them together. For example, in writing when one writes a research paper or papers in general, one samples other people’s ideas. When you write a paper you combine other texts and ideas to find new meaning behind it. You can also put a direct quote in the paper as long as you site it, which is authorship. Authorship is if you take anything from anyone, you need to credit the original. So, in a paper if you put a “quote” in and you don’t site it, then it is considered plagiarism. A certain amount of what you write has to come from you. Blogs are another example of sampling. In a blog you have links to websites to give examples. You are pulling material from another context to better understand your idea.
In music people take multiple songs and combine them to make their own song. This could be considered plagiarism if the artist did not get the right to use the other artists’ songs. I am starting to understand that if you take something, sample it, but didn’t change the meaning of it and didn’t site the original author then it is stealing, plagiarism. However, if something new comes out of the sampling then maybe it isn’t plagiarism because you formed your own idea about it. Jetter, from the reading, says that “bit by bit every writer has constructed the world inside his head from previously existing texts by others.” So actually any idea that someone constructs is actually in some way taken from someone else, everything we do is plagiarized or stolen in some way.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Bias Binding
This week we read “The Coolhunt” by Malcolm Galdwell from The New Yorker. I found the article very interesting because it mainly discussed finding the “cool” in fashion. I actually don’t agree with the “coolhunt” and don’t find the act of coolhunting to be a great role in society’s fashion. It’s hard to believe that people get paid to be “coolhunters.” My definition of “coolhunting” is people going around and trying to find the one different person that’s wearing the one different thing and then they call it cool and make it a trend. I guess I don’t see the point of “coolhunting” because I think that designers should make their own cool and not take it from someone else.
What I have been taught in all of my design classes is when inventing something take inspiration not from fashion but from other things. For example, in one of my classes we had to make an inspiration board, but the images could not be about fashion (we couldn’t put images from fashion magazines on our boards.) We were forced to look outside of the box, my topic was architecture in Italy. I have actually made some new intriguing things that could be considered cool and I didn’t get my inspiration from something that someone was wearing.
Malcolm Galdwell says that “you can’t convince the late majority that Hush Puppies are cool, because the late majority makes its coolness decisions on the basis of what the early majority is doing, and you can’t convince the early majority, because the early majority is looking at the early adopters, and you can’t convince the early adopters, because they take their cues from the innovators.” I think that the innovators should be the designers themselves. The designers shouldn’t take “cues” from people on the street because the designers are getting paid to be the innovators. I think that as long as a designer is original and creates their own “cool” then these designers can go with the trend of fashion, but make the trend their own.
I also had a discussion with my mom about this topic because she is in the fashion industry. What I started to understand is that designers can use the “coolhunters” to gather information but it shouldn’t be the only source that they use. Designers need to go out on their own and find their own inspiration but the “coolhunter” findings are useful because then one will be able to know what will sell and what won’t.
What I have been taught in all of my design classes is when inventing something take inspiration not from fashion but from other things. For example, in one of my classes we had to make an inspiration board, but the images could not be about fashion (we couldn’t put images from fashion magazines on our boards.) We were forced to look outside of the box, my topic was architecture in Italy. I have actually made some new intriguing things that could be considered cool and I didn’t get my inspiration from something that someone was wearing.
Malcolm Galdwell says that “you can’t convince the late majority that Hush Puppies are cool, because the late majority makes its coolness decisions on the basis of what the early majority is doing, and you can’t convince the early majority, because the early majority is looking at the early adopters, and you can’t convince the early adopters, because they take their cues from the innovators.” I think that the innovators should be the designers themselves. The designers shouldn’t take “cues” from people on the street because the designers are getting paid to be the innovators. I think that as long as a designer is original and creates their own “cool” then these designers can go with the trend of fashion, but make the trend their own.
I also had a discussion with my mom about this topic because she is in the fashion industry. What I started to understand is that designers can use the “coolhunters” to gather information but it shouldn’t be the only source that they use. Designers need to go out on their own and find their own inspiration but the “coolhunter” findings are useful because then one will be able to know what will sell and what won’t.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Stay Stitching
The public place that I chose was Starbucks. What I noticed as being cool were ugg boots (or any kind of winteresk boot), studying at starbucks, dressing comfy and drinking hot coffee with a straw. Everyone dresses the same so I guess what everyone is wearing (boots, long jacket, sweatpants/leggings) is more of a fad “cool.” I think that people might think it’s cool to where this clothing because everyone is wearing it, but I think it has become more of a fad because everyone is wearing it. I also think that dressing comfy for class is a fad and dressing up for class is “cool” because everyone dresses comfy for class.
I think that studying at a coffee shop is “cool,” it’s a place to study that’s “cooler” than the library. People get more excited when they study at a coffee shop than when they study at the library. I think this happens because a coffee shop is a more interesting place to study and you also see more interesting people than when one is at the library. You see people other than students so I think this makes the coffee shop more intriguing. When you find something “cool” it is “cool” because you are intrigued by it.
Almost everyone was drinking their coffee with a straw. People do this because their teeth are whitened and when you get your teeth whitened you are not supposed to drink coffee or any other colored beverages. People drink coffee any way but do so with a straw so they don’t stain their teeth. However, I saw a warning at a coffee shop once about how drinking coffee with a straw makes you more susceptible to burning your mouth, so you are actually not supposed to drink hot liquids with a straw. In a way this could be considered “cool” because it is something that you are not supposed to do, it is dangerous, but since everyone does it I don’t considered it cool.
To sum up, I think cool is more defined as something that not a lot of people do that people find interesting and then once the “cool” thing becomes “public” it is a trend/fad. It was difficult to find “cool” things because I went to a place where everyone was a little similar and the place was on campus. If I went off campus, away from college students I think that I would find more “cool” things because it would be a more eclectic group of people.
I think that studying at a coffee shop is “cool,” it’s a place to study that’s “cooler” than the library. People get more excited when they study at a coffee shop than when they study at the library. I think this happens because a coffee shop is a more interesting place to study and you also see more interesting people than when one is at the library. You see people other than students so I think this makes the coffee shop more intriguing. When you find something “cool” it is “cool” because you are intrigued by it.
Almost everyone was drinking their coffee with a straw. People do this because their teeth are whitened and when you get your teeth whitened you are not supposed to drink coffee or any other colored beverages. People drink coffee any way but do so with a straw so they don’t stain their teeth. However, I saw a warning at a coffee shop once about how drinking coffee with a straw makes you more susceptible to burning your mouth, so you are actually not supposed to drink hot liquids with a straw. In a way this could be considered “cool” because it is something that you are not supposed to do, it is dangerous, but since everyone does it I don’t considered it cool.
To sum up, I think cool is more defined as something that not a lot of people do that people find interesting and then once the “cool” thing becomes “public” it is a trend/fad. It was difficult to find “cool” things because I went to a place where everyone was a little similar and the place was on campus. If I went off campus, away from college students I think that I would find more “cool” things because it would be a more eclectic group of people.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Overlock Stitch
On Thursday we read Six Degrees, Ch. 6 Epidemics and Failures by Duncan Watts. The chapter explains that by understanding how epidemics like Ebola or HIV spreads we will be able to understand how computer viruses spread. First we must look at the spread of epidemics and then the spread of computer viruses.
Ebola has mainly stayed in small remote cities while HIV has spread all over the world. The reason for this is that Ebola “exhibits all the subtlety of a train wreck, revealing its true nature in a matter of days and killing shortly thereafter.” Once the victims exhibit the symptoms of the virus they become overwhelmingly ill that they are not able to move, making themselves quarantined without purposefully isolating them, so the virus has no way of spreading to new hosts. HIV on the other hand kills their victims slowly and doesn’t show signs of infection right away, so the victim is able to pass the virus on before realizing that they are infected. A good way to compare Ebola and HIV is to look at their efficiency. “The more contagious a virus is, and the longer it can keep the host in an infectious state, the more efficient it is at searching. Ebola, therefore, is more efficient than HIV in that it is significantly more infectious (HIV-infected patients don’t vomit blood in the emergency room), but is less efficient in that it kills so quickly.”
Computer viruses, “in terms of efficiency,” are more “contagious” than human viruses. “The function of computers is to execute instructions as efficiently as possible, regardless of where the instructions came from. So they are considerably more vulnerable to malicious bits of code than are people.” Since computers do not need to replicate a virus to the tee, they can take parts of the virus to pass it on; the virus is more capable of reproducing and infecting computers worldwide, which makes computer viruses more efficient. Computer viruses are more infectious than human viruses and continue to spread. Also, computers don’t have immune systems. Usually viruses (human) can be fought off but since computers don’t have immune systems they can not be fought off unless there is an antibody made for the virus.
Ebola has mainly stayed in small remote cities while HIV has spread all over the world. The reason for this is that Ebola “exhibits all the subtlety of a train wreck, revealing its true nature in a matter of days and killing shortly thereafter.” Once the victims exhibit the symptoms of the virus they become overwhelmingly ill that they are not able to move, making themselves quarantined without purposefully isolating them, so the virus has no way of spreading to new hosts. HIV on the other hand kills their victims slowly and doesn’t show signs of infection right away, so the victim is able to pass the virus on before realizing that they are infected. A good way to compare Ebola and HIV is to look at their efficiency. “The more contagious a virus is, and the longer it can keep the host in an infectious state, the more efficient it is at searching. Ebola, therefore, is more efficient than HIV in that it is significantly more infectious (HIV-infected patients don’t vomit blood in the emergency room), but is less efficient in that it kills so quickly.”
Computer viruses, “in terms of efficiency,” are more “contagious” than human viruses. “The function of computers is to execute instructions as efficiently as possible, regardless of where the instructions came from. So they are considerably more vulnerable to malicious bits of code than are people.” Since computers do not need to replicate a virus to the tee, they can take parts of the virus to pass it on; the virus is more capable of reproducing and infecting computers worldwide, which makes computer viruses more efficient. Computer viruses are more infectious than human viruses and continue to spread. Also, computers don’t have immune systems. Usually viruses (human) can be fought off but since computers don’t have immune systems they can not be fought off unless there is an antibody made for the virus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)