etivity 5

I found both sites to be interesting and very useful, each having its own editorial slant, they were well presented and user friendly. I have recommended both sites to my GCSE and A’Level students and they have found them a useful way in which to reference single words for example kitsch.

Filed under: e-tivity 05, isabella

Postcolonial Studies – e-tivity 05

The site created at Emory University for its students in postcolonial literature and theory is extensive. It is a great way to gather seeds of inspiration about this and related topics. The design though is very basic and quite old fashioned in web terms, however the sprinkling of images does help to break the text up and give more space to the theme. This is a site that has grown over the last 11 years with the vision of not merely being a resource for students at Emory but to aid the investigation of the theme for anyone interested. It clearly includes reference sources and likewise establishes strong boundaries about the use of content of its own pages. Personally, I am not keen on being given a Warning! and the amount of information elements to include in a reference (if given) seem over the top, especially with regard to date of access, network and length, but then I am a reference virgin. I do understand that it’s important to credit peoples’ ideas and writing so that students can delve deeper and follow a credible and progressive avenue of thought.

I think the grouping of authors/critics/terms and issues/journals is a good structure but I get a bit bored with the list approach. Especially for Issues perhaps there is a way to present the links in a mindmap formation which would give us a bit more information about the timings and connections of various subtopics. The biographies of the authors and critics were sufficient but not necessarily very inspiring. I personally think it always adds power to quote actual text to illustrate various ideas from the authors and critics referred to. I also feel that a consistent approach is important ie. to illustrate major works and themes for all persons mentioned – at times there were major disparities in the length and quality of information presented. Having said that the referencing and links was generally of a very high quality and would serve any potential postcolonial investigation.

I welcome this genre of collaborative writing that seems to have been catalysed by academia. As tutors have sought to create a shared resource for their students they have realised that the collating and sharing of that information can be beneficial to many others in their pursuit of knowledge. With the introduction of internet technology and blogging, in effect we are able to present one another and often total strangers with our ideas (?) about other people’s ideas and our own research and experience. This new platform of self expression then enables discourse and discussion. I personally welcome any medium that supports and encourages us to write both spontaneously and methodically about ideas and values we are being asked to examine or hold in the world. Writing is a great skill and I suspect the more we do it and relax and enjoy the process, the more fluid and eloquent it can become.

Certainly as an artist it appears that to compete in the ‘art world’ on any real level, it is imperative that one find one’s voice outside the art. These days it is an integral process in making and exhibiting art, to be able to articulate your ideas about it, framing and contextualising them. Artists have to be sophisticated beings groomed to appear on a world stage, touched by the scent of celebrity. Art has also had to compete for resources nationally and through business sponsorship or patronage. From my limited knowledge it appears that whilst the whole debate about what art actually is or could be, has opened up dramatically over the past half century, it has become an ever competitive, dynamic and potentially lucrative market. There is more at stake – greater press coverage, celeb status, more prestigious art prizes, sophisticated and entrepreunarial collectors and dealers to contend with. The pressure to appear professional and authoratitive, indeed ‘a specialist’ is ever present in a bid to stand out and be noticed.

In addition in this age of postmodernism where art is seen not to be original, instead a simulacram, a copy, a representation or combination of existent elements, it becomes a higher priority to explain the work, piercing its surface and apparent superficiality. So the practice of writing and articulating ideas becomes ever more important. The gleaning of the writing talents of others through internet sites and blogs, through e-publishing and forums as well as more traditional media acting as potential catalysts, references and authorities for our own ideas, perception and interpretation of so called ‘reality’. I am really appreciative of this vision of sharing, cooperation and potential collaboration. I also like the more open academic approach to licensing as seen on www.creativecommons.org whereby you can choose to waive some of your rights over the authorship or creation of work. It could be construed that such licensing which can give people permission to use work for academic or commercial activity promotes creativity and success breeds success philosophy. Yet I do have reservations about l businesses such as photographic, design and advertising agencies using work for commercial projects without due recompense.
We live in a world where science and technology are extremely dominant and sophisticated elements of our everyday lives. As our lives grow in complexity and the business of science competes with the arts for resources, it appears that art whether it chooses to reflect the state of culture in the present day or not, must at least contribute a coherent, analytical debate.

Blessings esther

Filed under: e-tivity 05, esther, tiip

Post colonial vs keywords

A comparison of two sites is consistent with Anna and Jim’s comments, in that the Emory site is very old fashioned in construction , however that does not detract from its clarity of navigation and use. It also states very clearly that that there will be limitations in links as it does not repeat what is freely available elsewhere. My thoughts are that the construction and navigation was like our own LRC infolink and it responded quickly. what I also liked was that the linkages were external and provided further linkages rather than the internal links of the keywords site and I felt a more robust research tool. The only downside was that in some sections the linked sites were fairly repetitive and limited however that was its caveat. I also liked the simplicity of the ‘how to cite our pages’ section.

By comparison although the Keywords site was more contemporary it was fairly simplistic with the only a few external links, its main interactivity was between its own content. It was easy to use, I found irritating to read with the distraction of of the moving words across the top of the site. I think it’s intended audience it more internal than the Emory site and I also found the lack of a consistent level of research annoying. I do like the collaborative approach that both sites have however I think they should both be constantly updated and monitored for quality of content if they wish to become an authoritative resource channel. I think there is a need for sites of this type and perhaps Google could fill this market gap on its ’scholar’ site. My favourite site for a starting point is del.icio.us as it often has some good leads for research, however my preference is to use primary research sources and books for inspiration and use the web to validate.
Our own site is a challenge as we are currently only blogging in response to an e-tivity or to post a comment where we can assist someone’s research. I think the discussion sites for the topics should be utilised more and perhaps our essays published on the site after submission. I also like the use of linked http: sites.

Filed under: e-tivity 05, glenda, tiip , e-tivity05, glenda

Postcolonial Studies – e-tivity 05

On entering the  Emory University Postcolonial site I was immediately struck by its uncanny resemblance to the ‘Encarta encyclopedia’  software that seemed to be used by everyone prior to the internet’s arrival. No doubt it was the basis for the aesthetics and design of this site when it began in 1996.

However, I did not find the information; of which there is alot, to be as sparse as the general backdrop of the site itself. The site is very thorough in covering all the bases of the subject, including all recognised authors of the time etc. However, it feels much like the old Encarta format; an encyclopedia, full of dry and ‘factual’ information. This in turn led me to boredom and scan reading. True, the University of Chicago site still operates in a similar manner, filling the page with textual information. Yet it remains more discursive throughout, which engages the viewer when reading.

 I find that both sites reference texts etc. very throughly, but still favour the more modern University of Chicago approach; placed alongside the text, as they are instantly attainable at a glance. Thus the flow of reading is undisturbed. A strong point of both sites are the links on words of importance, or that are referenced elsewhere in on the site. This allows the reader to jump back and forth easily between links in theory and opinion. This is a tactic that I feel we could utilise on our site, and is something I wish to do with my own writing on the tiip site.

 As regards the collaborative nature of both sites I am still undecided of the implications upon the researcher. I feel this is mainly because I did not distinguish between 1 writer to the next, particularly on the Postcolonial site. They are overly formulaic in my opinion. To dry and factual, and with it authoritive. I do not feel this is how we should be working on our site: We are researchers, not encyclopedia writers. I feel we should set about pulling things apart, picking at them and then making connections and working them in as links between our pages.

Filed under: e-tivity 05, jim

Post-Colonial studies: Evory University Website.

The website in Postcolonial Studies from the Emory University is far more complex than the structure of the keywords glossary of media site of the University of Chicago. If this one is divided in tiles with the Media generic terms researched by the students exploring the concepts and authors related to them, the website in Postcolonial studies is much more specific, being structured like a case studies
Reference book in three main chapters/links, introduced by a preface/homepage/index, explaining the nature and purpose of the site.

Each of these “chapters” are, again, subdivided in links organised in alphabetical order. The first chapter lists a series links of writers, whose work is related to Postcolonial Studies, in which you can find a brief biography, major themes treated and bibliography. The next chapter is composed, again in alphabetical order, by a series of theorists whose academic work is related to this case study. And finally, the last link of this episodic structure is “the glossary of terms and issues” which lists the most commonly concepts, themes, and terms discussed and argued over the Postcolonial theory. Also, this episode links to external sites related to this case study.

If the look of the Glossary of Keywords of Media Theory is very minimal, the interface design, colours and fonts of Emory University’s Website is more Baroque, tinted by an overall brownish colour of an academic site rooted in History that aims to “furnish a scaffolding for more intensive explorations into a field that is rapidly becoming very important”.

In regards of the “collaborative research and writing genre” aspect, the only collaboration I can guess from this site, is the collaboration of a group of academic staff, or perhaps is just one person, whose research is reflected on the site and have linked it to other sites of interest.
On the other hand, its liasionative aspect reflects in the interaction between the researches that log into this resourceful service whose objective is “to serve primarily as a resource for students of postcolonial literature and theory at Emory University (…) and to provide a site on the Web where people from around the country and around the world can come for an introduction to major topics and issues in Postcolonial Studies”.

It seems to me that the real collaborative research and writing genre and the real discussion starts when the individuals that log in the website have the chance to leave comments, and interact with the authors of the texts. This is the nature of our TIIP blog, which is open to everybody to leave comments on the subjects we explore.

Filed under: e-tivity 05, iceberg

Site for Seeing

The Emory University page is a huge resource for Post-colonial studies. It is broadly organised as a book might be organised. It has the appearance of an early contributor to the World Wide Web. The navigation feels limited and the sheer volume of information overwhelming once the uninspiring threshold has been crossed. It’s intimidating.

 The Univeristy of Chicago site was, though flawed, more navigable and therefore more useful than this one. Both sites are very useful and of great help to the academic researcher or web-wandering curious however they could both be better suited to their medium.

Internet research is characterised by quantity in the first place. There are numerous sites that respond to, for example, a Google search on one’s chosen subject. In order to determine if a site is a good one the researcher needs to assess the value of each very quickly. Such assessments of these sites are difficult, our site should achieve this ‘hook.’ What benefit can our work be to others if it is difficult to engage with, or even appears to be difficult to engage with.

Of concern is that what we have as a group is research followed by discussion and only the research can be uploaded. The discussion is … nowhere. There is value in the discussion and surely this medium of the internet can present this better than any other meduim. Academic essays could then be presented as support to the presentations and discussions, as further reading. 

To be an engaging and valueable presentation of all our work our site could take the form of the widget of expanding headings featured on this page and the heading featured on this page,  a part of the artandculture.com website. If our entire site was constructed in this way with strong links between subjects in heavier type it could engage the researcher and facilitate connections between and within subjects. It could even set a precedent for other collaborative research projects. It does not have to be a sequence of pages between covers, it could be much more, it could be a new approach, a new opprotunity for sharing knowledge.

Filed under: anna, e-tivity 05