Sunday, February 10, 2008

The only interesting software

Two sentences of an article titled "Mashups are Breaking the Mold at Microsoft" in today's New York Times business section troubled me. Both quote Microsoft's John Montgomery:
Popfly, he said, is for “the 21- to 27-year-old crowd who grew up on the Web.” “They have never known a world without eBay, Amazon, or Google,” he added. “They assume that when you create a piece of software it will be Internet-connected and it will have an innate sense of who your friends are.”

“His message was that the only interesting software is going to be software that is connected to the Web and we have to work on that,” Mr. Montgomery said.

Nothing taken away from the power and potential of the trend toward social-network-aware, web-native software, but is it really the only locus for potential? The ability to draw things from, and put things on, the web, does seem essential to me, and that should extend to all of the things one can do on the web, including social networking. But something troubles me about the idea that the only interesting use case is an individual sitting alone at their computer, no matter how "social" what they're connected to is. I still feel that people working, creating, playing together, actually live and face-to-face (also including virtual live settings), is also interesting and a deep well to tap.

A Whole New Mind

A useful book, though a little lighter-weight than I would have liked. Pink explicates six concepts in terms of right-brainedness: Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play, and Meaning, and provides nice links and exercises for each (helpfully summarized here). All quite relevant for knowledge art, and this left-hander appreciates that our kind is the wave of the future.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Even in these circumstances

A quote from Shantaram:
The chain restricted my stride to tiny steps. Walking at any faster pace required a shuffling, hip-swinging gait. There were two other men in my room with leg-irons, and by studying their movements I gradually learned the technique. Within a few days, I walked that rolling, shambling dance as unselfconsciously as they did. In fact, by studying them and imitating them, I gradually discovered something more than necessity in their shuffling dance. They were trying to give some grace to their movements, put something beautiful in the sliding, weaving steps, to soften the indignity of the chain. Even in that, I discovered, human beings will find an art.

An existence proof of Dissanayake's idea of art as making special, even at the bottom of society in a Mumbai prison. It's something necessary that we do, not a luxury or frill on the surface of life. Here are some notes from a reading of her books, and some related thoughts.

Shantaram

I'm halfway through this book, pointed out by my sister on a late night visit to the Union Square Barnes & Noble. It's like the book I got halfway through writing about my 1986 bicycle trip in India, but far more intense and far-reaching. The things I feared and hoped might occur on my trip, happened to the autobiographical main character, Lin, in ways beyond my imagination. But I did have experiences akin, in small and short ways, to what Roberts writes about. Sometimes books like this, artworks like this, are impediments to trying anything myself. I still have a cassette of a demo tape made by a band called Life Unit in Ann Arbor in 1981, that whenever I listen to it, still makes me feel like I could never achieve music with that depth and intensity, so why bother. But there is something inviting about Roberts' writing. He certainly doesn't try to cow you with his intelligence. It seems more honest than that, despite the horrifying things he depicts. Maybe, at some point in the future, I'll rescue my abandoned book from whatever forgotten drawer or box it molders in, and try again.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Interactive Multimedia Events (Wilson 1993)

Some of the key ideas in Stephen Wilson's 1993 article as they relate to the themes covered in this blog:

- engagement in live interactive computer events can't be taken for granted. The technology and new methods alone don't guarantee engaging, quality experiences

- creating successful interactive multimedia events requires the creator/practititioner to deal with challenges in "time design", coordination of the different media types and layers (for example, text, images, verbal interaction), and the kinds and styles of choice-making that participants can make

- getting past the initial excitement and rush of using a new media form, where novelty and flash seem to create the value in and of themselves, requires persistence. There is almost invariably disappointment when the novelty wears off and the promised utopia doesn't come as automatically as it first appeared:
Those currently developing interactive multimedia and those thinking of entering the field need to carefully assess the current hyperbole surrounding it. On the other side of the excitement and high expectations could easily be disappointment and premature abandonment of culturally important lines of inquiry.

Much of the work with Compendium over the years has, in some ways, been a revitalization of the initial excitement over "design rationale" and argumentation-based hypertext in the early 1990s. As we've written about here and elsewhere, when it appeared that constructing issue maps required work out of the ordinary set of skills, the research community mostly dropped it.

I haven't found any further writing by Wilson in this area but I'm hoping to find more.

See further notes on the article here.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Stephen Wilson's links to "Intersections of Art, Technology, Science & Culture"

A truly amazing, encyclopedic set of links to artworks influenced by (and integrated with) developments in science and technology.

I came across this after reading Wilson's 1993 article on The Aesthetics and Practice of Designing Interactive Computer Events. It contains many ideas of high relevance to my research, which I'll summarize in another post.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Tangled Up in Blue

Driving back from dropping my daughter off at her bakery job, grey rainy morning with mist rising off the melting snow, Tangled Up in Blue in the CD player. She's been listening to that album lately, along with Kind of Blue and Frank Morgan. Inspiring that a 16-year-old would come to this music on her own.

There's something perfect about Dylan's recording of that song, and many of the others on Blood on the Tracks. What struck me was the imperfections, especially his guitar and harmonica playing. Somehow they make the whole thing work, the feeling of authenticity, of some kind of true story being told. The voice is what comes through, from the instruments as much as the singing.

Perfection achieved through imperfection, that seems key. In the software world, there is often a presumption of perfection and seamlessness (though they never really are), as if it could be engineered into permanence. There are always implicit and explicit claims that there are no kinks, the solution is complete, just needs to be procured and all the advantage will be realized. To talk as if human effort, skill, artistry are necessary is to diminish, even tarnish the value that ought to lie inherent in the software itself. But things are never permanent and perfection is something only rarely grasped, and often takes great struggle to realize. I think of how Welles never made a film coming anywhere near Citizen Kane again, and it was almost destroyed before anyone saw it (and lay nearly hidden for more than ten years after its first release). Or how Dylan saw Blood as a product of pain and didn't understand how others could enjoy it (according to this article).

Nothing new about this as it relates to films or music, but I am still sure that the same things apply to software, even when they are used in situations ostensibly far removed from emotion and drama. The human element and the struggle to make something meaningful, with all its imperfections, obtains whenever we work together to create something. It's not escapable.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Citizen Kane

I just watched this again for the first time in a decade or so. I've probably seen it between 20 and 30 times since my time as a film major in college nearly 30 years ago. I had to write several papers on it in various classes. The one that always sticks out for me was about the sound techniques in the scene where 'Boss Jim Geddes' has just confronted Kane in Susan's apartment in front of Emily. Kane refuses to drop out of the election in the face of Geddes' extortion, and Geddes leaves shaking his head at Kane's foolishness while Kane thunders "I'm Charles Foster Kane" from the top of the stairs. That paper (10 pages or so) is still in a chest in the attic somewhere.

Even after so many viewings, that film still sends chills up my spine with the depth and breadth of its genius. Every square inch of the film, every technique used, is shaped with such expertise and expressiveness -- mastery. He was only 24, and was new to filmmaking.

That depth and saturation of technique, artistry, expression, is what I want to see with knowledge art as well. The medium is capable of it, it just needs the genius to emerge. Could be happening now, somewhere.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Engagement and usefulness

Further reflections on the Ames videos... looking at them from a research viewpoint, what is the value and contribution of this research? One thing that keeps occuring to me is that practitioner skill in and of itself is not the goal, it's creating engagement and usefulness for the effort. What is the point of using a tool like Compendium (or any other tool) when you're working with a group of people, trying to make the time you are spending together (the session) valuable. What constitutes value is situationally specific, of course (i.e. there isn't just one kind of value).

From an ideal point of view, Compendium sessions would be deeply and energetically engaging, the representation as much of a focal point as the participants' interactions with each other, the two interweaving with each other.

In some of the sessions, things the practitioners (the mappers and facilitators) do move the session in the direction of representational engagement and usefulness, in others they either don't do those things or do other things that in some way prevent or sap engagement and usefulness.

Characterizing the spectrum of those things and those ways feels like it could be a contribution.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

When it doesn't go well

Making and shaping in a medium that you love, does not always go well. Sometimes it's a slog, or painful, or frustrating, or just doesn't seem to add up. You can see this with many kinds of making that involve some form of artistry, because these inherently involve some kind of vision (a desired outcome, level of perfection, or set of qualities to be brought about); a degree of sensitivity to nuance that can easily lead to oversensitivity; often a reliance and/or dependence on other people, whose vision, sensibilities, or capabilities may not align with yours; and sometimes a feeling that the whole enterprise is misguided, pointless, or futile.

While the above is widely acknowledged in what we conventionally think of as the arts (writing, painting, etc.), it is not usually applied in the software world, where there is often an underlying tone of necessary triumphalism (i.e., using this software/approach will bring about success almost by virtue of just using it). But it is just as true with software-based media as with any other.

In music, whether playing with a group or by oneself, there are so many levels where things can run off the rails. So many expectations, hopes, degrees of exertion, stylistic and expressive nuances, that it sometimes feels astounding that any convergence can happen at all. Choice of material (song/style/treatment) can seem too forced, "commercial", "arty", "folky", "emo"; the other musicians (or oneself) can feel too limited in skill, too loud or soft, too arrhythmic, too fast or slow. Someone can solo too long, hogging the spotlight, or conversely hold back too much. Why are they being like that? or conversely why aren't they being like that? Why can't I play that chord without damping the D string? Why am I never able to play that turnaround? Maybe I'm finally fluid enough in this style (after 15 years of practice) on the instrument, but I still can't sing. He plays too much on the high-hat when we need to feel his foot on the kick drum. This is supposed to be funk! She just does not get the groove for this song and never has....

And then there are other times when it all comes together, when the flailing and imperfections fall away, when you move, singly or collectively, in a kind of perfection and beauty and surge of joy, that shimmers and pulses and swings. Sometimes it is just a few moments, but they stand for the whole, and the aftereffects can last for years.

I remember a single night in college, playing bluegrass with three other guys in someone's frat room. The whole session had been pretty good, full of energy and fun, but a couple of minutes into playing Positively Fourth Street, everything seemed to kick up to another level. Every string of the two guitars, banjo, and fiddle vibrated together in some sort of earthly perfection. We had played privately and publicly for a few weeks before that without ever reaching that level, things had sometimes been enjoyable but never transcendent (and, with that particular group, they never would again). Even now, 26 years later, I can still feel the resonance of that night. It keeps me going, along with a few other peak musical moments, through the mundane and sloggy times.

I started thinking about this while analyzing one of the Ames sessions, where the group discussion veers into abstractions and there is no engagement with the map. The facilitators made some halting attempts to create some engagement but were not able to intervene effectively in the flood of discourse to get any group focus on the map (which was the one instruction for the sessions, that they had to involve engaging the group in making some kind of change to the map). It reminded me of many sessions that I facilitated back in the 1990s, especially for our immediate executive management, where the participants were so involved in their (partially productive, partially dysfunctional) mode of conversation that I could never get them to focus on the map, let alone engage with using it to help themselves get to a higher level of coherence and mutual understanding. These sessions felt crappy, and I did not come out of them feeling like this medium and this approach had tremendous potential. At those times it seemed more like a labor-intensive overlay onto a culture and process that was not amenable to intervention, at least from me.

Thankfully there were many other times where the opposite was the case, where we were able to help groups get to a level of shared they had never had before, as well as to produce models and analyses with a rapidity and effectiveness that no other approach could reach. Those were the transcendent times, and they kept me going through the non-triumphal sessions.