Anika’s Blog

1. Reference Services to Educational Objects-which facilitate access to things or processes used for formal learning. Some of these things can be reserved for this purpose, stored in libraries, rental agencies, laboratories, and showrooms like museums and theaters; others can be in daily use in factories, airports, or on farms, but made available to students as apprentices or on off hours. 2. Skill Exchanges — which permit persons to list their skills, the conditions under which they are willing to serve as models for others who want to learn these skills, and the addresses at which they can be reached. 3. Peer-Matching — a communications network which permits persons to describe the learning activity in which they wish to engage, in the hope of finding a partner for the inquiry. 4. Reference Services to Educators-at-Large — who can be listed in a directory giving the addresses and self-descriptions of professionals, paraprofessionals, and free-lancers, along with conditions of access to their services. Such educators, as we will see, could be chosen by polling or consulting their former clients. (see above) I think this a great concept but actually implementing it would be truly impossible now or in the near, maybe even distant, future. It seems extremely socialist and no where near the average American point of view. Who is going to monitor all of this? Illich seems anti-rank instruction and anti-rank. I don’t see how this system can be used on a large scale—a small village or town maybe, but not a state, let alone, a country. Also polling I do not think is the right way to judge an educator. No one can guarantee that people will be honest or not report in order to serve their own agenda. Peer matching also seems far fetched. How do you keep abusers of the system out of it? Illich seems like an extreme idealist and I couldn’t really get excited about what he was saying because I don’t think it will really ever happen. I commend him for his efforts in planning and thinking this all out, I just can’t see it being feasible.

i thought the interview was VERY cool. ive seen stuff like that at the hirschorn modern art museum in DC (which i love)  Bill V said a few things that caught my attention especially: Artists detox, transform and transmute. using artificial technology, they are able to represent invisibile things. as scientists have remapped humans as coded systems with dna, computers also function in code.  seems like the whole world is going digital one way or the other. at first i thought that there was nothing great about film art. whats so hard about holding up a video camera as opposed to creating something with your hands or spending hours and effort and skill on a painting? but a lot goes into setting up the shot, makeup, outfits, facial expressions, movements, etc. I thought it the examples on the youtube interview were very cool and im interesting to see more of this new genre of art

I found the class discussion intriguing and perplexing.  I usually do not even comment in class but rather wait to blog because I feel so bombarded by profound comments and puzzling issues.  I’m the type that needs a while to digest it all.  im not sure there is a clean cut answer for the dichotomy between work and play. its relative.  some nerdy people like me enjoy cleaning and organizing. other people find it tortuous work. it is work but i enjoy it, so is it play? i dont even think I can call it that, but its not really work for ME either. does it matter?  if you have a “playful,” fun, enjoyable work environment like those Google offices, it might help people to view their job in a more positive light. but they still HAVE to work. its funny the way the word “play” is used in our speech.  you can go see a PLAY, play a board game, play a movie, play a cd, play an instrument, play a sport, play around (like joking), play “house,” play video games etc…. Some of these things are definitely outside of reality and some are realities within the real world that are only taken for real by some and are only thus defined as such by those particular people.  All of these “play” examples are originally based in having fun/a hobby.  Anything playful is less or non stressful which thus gives it its significance. Work is essentially stressful, boring, hard, etc. But you can still be playful at work or work while having fun. I don’t see why we need to splice WORK and PLAY.

Todays discussion got me thinking about picture books and “chapter books” and finally regular old grown-up books :)  Pictures are the way to make kids interested in books. give preschoolers books with no pictures and they wont even give it a chance.  I remember in like second grade when the sophisticated kids moved onto “chapter books” that had one picture a chapter or so and then finally moved on to chapter books with no pictures. well now that was advanced!! what is it about pictures, (thinking about our comics discussion) that makes a book seem like a lighter/easier read or more entertaining? i think its fascinating to think about since they have comics for ALL ages.  apparently adult comics are more complicated then i ever cared to notice with the bolding of certain words, their size, etc.  but its most likely that adults would not read the text of comics on their own without the artwork and wouldnt appreciate the artwork without the text.  its  a package deal WITH the pictures. still there is a childlike connotation for some reason that all comics carry simply because they include pictures/artwork. IIIIiiinteresting…..

For my final project I am researching the world of online dating, in particular, Eharmony.  It is interesting because it is for heterosexual couples only unlike match.com. It is also interesting the different guarantees that these sites offer (such as if you dont find the person of your dreams in 6 months, you get another 6 months free!) It seems like commodifying people in a way because they are the product that these sites are offering. For every success story I am sure there are 20 people who were completely unsuccessful. But further research is needed in order to assess this.  One downside to doing research on these emerging elements of new media is that there has not been definitive research. A plus is that we are among the first who venture to do so.  For my project I am having a successful couple from eharmony ( I would have done any site, but I only know of one person who even tried the online route for a serious relationship) They met on eharmony and were married 3 years ago and they now have 2 children.  Instead of interviewing them as originally planned, I had them say whatever they wanted, being vague in my directions, to see what they had to say about it without my presumptions clouding what they say. I am excited to see what the culmination of all of my research on eharmony specifically (how it started, why it is successful/expanding, etc) will say.