Blogging this week (prompt suggestions)

• Reflection of Project 1: insights, upon re-viewing
  — particularly about your thought and composition processes;
  noticing your “default mood”; evident pattern(s), (concrete details, if not necessarily visual); new knowledge, within context of overall project method and aims.
  note: Two of the key concepts from chp. 5-6 are applicable, about which you can now remark in view of your work: “interface metaphor” and “conductive logic.” Might identify instance and extent of these in your work, and possibly discuss how you can enhance either/both in future work.

 

• As always, feel free to connect a specific topic from this week’s reading to your experience & popcycle{Career, Family, Entertainment}, with an illustrative example (just as Ulmer instructs about his relays, for us to relate with relevant and contemporary examples). Please choose (at least) one concept from each chapter, if you opt for this approach.

 

• Along these lines, you could undertake one of the Exercises from Chp. 5 or 6. Although not introduced as such, the “inventio” composition for Meetings in Wonderland (p. 174) would be an excellent strategy to attempt — using a fictional character of your choosing in this fashion, ideally one with which you “identify” in recognizing her/his style (cf. chp. 5) — embodied (and) performance.
  Start by identifying the “signature” style that can be extracted and “re-deployed” digitally; choose an “unknown” dimension or phenomenon that this expressive “persona” can help you engage.
   
  The example from class is highly theoretical and might be a bit challenging for a first attempt: the potential for expression of lived experience (bodily sensation?), in the techno-media situation of “space-time compression” (virtually lightspeed, in the 0.24 second Google search).
  Perhaps start with the “unknown” dimension of the character’s “story-world,” like Alice—Wonderland—Paradox.
   
  Remember, we identified style even in the “most restrictive” sport (true?) of baseball…

  

 
 
 

• If discussing one presentation during a “Futures of Digital Studies” conference panel (optional) — try to identify how (whether?) the rhetoric and topics reflect electracy, as you understand it thus far. Please frame your discussion in some way like this, rather than summarizing; likewise, beneficial to mention any insights or new ideas learned from the presenter.
  Note: please contact me about writing a Response (500 words) for assignment credit, to confirm the prompt (as you’ll likely address all of these points).

 

• If discussing (or responding to, at greater length) Prof. Ulmer’s presentation, be sure to read “The Learning Screen.” Given the respective discussions of his undergraduate and graduate courses (Parts II & III of article), consider our course and your work thus far — reflexive evaluation and identification about our course and your work specifically thus far will be most valuable. Also, identify any key points to introduce or enhance in our subsequent experiment with “the learning screen.”