I would like to suggest a free link exchange with ams130.tumblr.com or any other sites you own.
You will be pleased to know that now I am having a handful of quality projects for free link exchange
that I am sure could be beneficial and productive for both of us.
Please let me know if you interested in more details, or have any other thoughts on the matter.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Christopher Jew wrote: > Lipitz critics neo-conservatives in their view of history by noting a bias > towards a “certain kind of experience - white male upper - class experience” > but is it even possible to have a history without a bias towards a culture? > Even if the history does not have a bias towards a specific cultural or > ethnic group, would the history still be influenced by one of the other > cultures, i.e. high culture or popular culture? Can history exist without > culture as a framework through which to interpret it? >
The essays in Turkle’s book emphasize an individual’s relationship to an object in order to talk about a broader popular culture phenomenon. If popular culture is tied in this way to an individual’s experience, where does one draw the line between meaning for an individual and meaning to the masses?
In Stefan Helmreich’s piece on his grandfather’s polaroid, instant film invention, he offers insight into the mind of his grandfather. After inventing such a popular and useful molecule, which made for the invention of the polaroid, his grandfather mused that he “felt intoxicated but more “all there” than usual — almost as if I were giant.” What does this mean? Why did the inventor of the polaroid feel so special and powerful even though he only created a recreational photo-capturing device?
Turkle spends a lot time talking about objects and how individuals can give them great meaning based on the time and emotion they represent. Do people use objects because it’s easier than trying to use words, or because the objects truly are more powerful than any words?
With the proliferation of the internet in this age, has this post-modern proliferation of objects able to be accessed through the web caused an increase in the meaningfulness that people attaches to objects because there are more things to attach to? Does it decrease because of the fact that there are too many things to observe that not as many will take hold as before? Does it stay the same?
Turkle states that “in the cyborg world, the natural and the and the artificial no longer find themselves in opposition” (325). Consider the resonance of this statement in connection to the popularity of the Second Life Virtual World.
In “Apples” essay, Susannah says “the apple is a good talisman because it can stand both as a symbol for nature’s careless sprawl, and as a focal point for the intense emotion, or contemplation, we sometime need these symbols to evoke”. How can the apple stand as a focal point for the intense emotion? The apple is her favorite fruit? Do you have any favorite fruit that has an expression to your childhood?
1) Why does Henry Jenkins use the tension between fiction and non-fiction? 2) Why does Rob Crease feel so confused about the pendulum? You cannot see the earth move at first, however by continuing to look at it, the pendulum can make you see the movement of the earth.
It is part of her strategy in a world of displacements to make every effort to restore and preserve, keep things together for their value as remembering objects, a way of fastening herself to a life. -Don DeLillo, White Noise Amidst the post-modern flood of information, are the only ideas that remain significant those that are groundable in the physical world?
Jenkins discusses the super hero and his distancing himself away from death. How they once faced emotional trauma, but are more separated from it in their life of fighting crime/avenging. He then states how this is meant to introduce children to the reality of mortality. Do you agree that childhood exposure to these ideas ready them in the future for facing the deaths of loved ones, or is there no way of easing such a harsh inevitable truth? Are comics a good way of introducing such facts?
In his essay, Jenkins discusses the role of the superhero comic in his everyday life. Why is it that he chooses comics above all other things that could remind him of his mother? What is the deeper meaning of the comics?
In Turkle’s selection “Mourning and Memory” Why do you think little things such as a comic book, a rolling pin and a suitcase hold such intense memories? Do you think its possible for any object to be just as meaningful to a certain individual? or did time and place play a major role in each of these stories?
Do these ideas we keep reading about need someone to conciously be attached to such ideas in order for them to form or are these things becoming ideas because it is something that is a unconciously a curiousity about further life existence?
Turkle’s essays revolve around objects and their meanings as well as how over time their meaning can diminish. Take a song for example. A song you once loved can either remain cherished or lose its luster. What causes one evocative object to stay valued while others can pass fleetingly. Does the actual object have any say in this, or is it merely the memories or attributes the individual assigns to it.
Do objects create memories or are they simply barnacles of those memories? Would it be possible to hold memories without any evocative objects? If so, how would those memories be remembered without evocative objects to cement the image?
Does an object’s uniqueness make it more meaningful and/or evocative? Is it all in the eye of the beholder? For example, Mandel wrote about apples (not one single apple but the thousands she’s encountered her whole life) while others wrote about a single object like a stuffed rabbit. Is it possible for these two objects to evoke the same emotions and nostalgia, even if one of them is extremely common and used everyday while the other is unique?
Why are transitional objects very important to childhood eventhough children can not leave them at any time? Do you think that a transitional object can be goo for children if they always stick with it? Do you believe that a transitional object can damage to children’s mind because children usually imagine and talk to it?
“It is part of her strategy in a world of displacements to make every effort to restore and preserve, keep things together for their value as remembering objects, a way of fastening herself to a life.”—(Don DeLillo, *White Noise*) Amidst the post-modern flood of information, are the only ideas that remain significant those that are groundable in the physical world?
Looking at this quote from Judith Donath’s essay (below) in Sherry Turkle’s “Evocative Objects” makes me wonder if it is when objects malfunction and assume more personality (rather becoming more subjective, as opposed to being purely objective) does that make the object more evocative? For Donath it seemed that the quirks of the Ford Falcon, which may be perceived as flaws, are what constitute the object’s value for her, which was greater than its use value. “When a car works perfectly, doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, we experience it as pure machine. But when it acts imperfectly, choosing to do some things and not others, it becomes an almost autonomous agent, a seemingly sentient creature with emotions, desires and intentions of its own.”
Not sure if I was supposed to send in a question last Thursday. Concerning the first readings of the Turkle book. How do these objects interact with popular culture? Is it merely that these objects associate with sentimental memories and are a part of popular culture and link the owner with popular culture by a sort of transitive effect? Where is the line for popular culture drawn? Is a person’s memories of the laptop itself popular culture?
People often feel they have the ability to communicate with their evocative objects such as Shayna and Murray or even Howard Gardner and his keyboard. Is this a result of consumerism that they want to feel their object was worth paying for or a way to connect to the past?
In the essay “1964 Ford Falcon” Donath describes driving as being “expressive” and that when we drive ” our car changes our sense of personal space.” Do you think that the type of car people drive dictates their driving style, for example how fast or slow they drive? Have you ever experienced this difference in feeling when driving a different car other than your own?
Most of the objects that Sherry Turkle’s contributors discuss are evocative of some aspect of the past - a car that represents a past style of life, drawings that are to be only digital shadows of their former selves, a lost datebook of events past and a future lost. This editorial definition of evocative objects as links to the past may not be the only way to perceive them. Can evocative objects serve to conjure up a future and what might be such an object?
Do people’s evocative objects tend to fall into a subset of the categories (Design and play, Discipline and desire, History and exchance, etc), or do we have objects in all these categories? Whatever the answer, why is it the case?