Wednesday, March 10, 2010
IASC3F00 - Second Life Progress Photos
Here are some shots of people working hard, and some progress shots of our simulation.
Team
Brad
Christian
Cory
Michelle (who no longer looks like this)
Sarah
An empty part of the island pre-poly-invasion
Racetrack
Characters
Fire
A blue version of fire, potentially water
Ghost things in a part of the track. I like to think they are Haunters (Pokemon).
Lab
If you're a mad scientist and you don't have teddy bears keeping your brain-in-a-jars company, you're probably doing it wrong. As you can see, Michan is no longer a squat blue gnome, but Batman-head-in-a-jar.
The Shipwreck
(Cybertar Abonwood is a dummy character for guests to play)
Team
Brad ChristianCoryMichelle (who no longer looks like this)SarahAn empty part of the island pre-poly-invasion
Racetrack
Characters
FireA blue version of fire, potentially waterGhost things in a part of the track. I like to think they are Haunters (Pokemon).Lab
If you're a mad scientist and you don't have teddy bears keeping your brain-in-a-jars company, you're probably doing it wrong. As you can see, Michan is no longer a squat blue gnome, but Batman-head-in-a-jar.The Shipwreck
(Cybertar Abonwood is a dummy character for guests to play)
IASC3F00 - Authorship vs. Narration
A discussion of a class that I recorded a video of, but have unfortunately misplaced.
When speaking in a literal, real-world sense, how do we control our lives? Do we author it as we go, or do we simply narrate our journey?
For those who are religious, they may feel that the authorship of their lives is in the hands of a divine one. In this sense, we merely narrate what has been given to us as the story of our lives by another being. Religious or not, things may be placed into our lives that we simply cannot control and in this way, our authorship is very limited, if we had any to begin with. It can also be an implicit part of life that individuals feel differently - when we are backed into a corner, feeling helpless, perhaps it is then that we lose whatever authorship we had over our lives because we willingly give it up.
In disagreement with this, however, is the idea that we would not move forward in life if we did not author ourselves. We would not seek education or work, we would not see the things we feel we need as people.
Narration is much simpler. Whether or not we actually author our lives and our futures, we still live it and narrate life to ourselves. Our actions are merely the implementation and thus, the storytelling of our authored lives.
When speaking in a literal, real-world sense, how do we control our lives? Do we author it as we go, or do we simply narrate our journey?
For those who are religious, they may feel that the authorship of their lives is in the hands of a divine one. In this sense, we merely narrate what has been given to us as the story of our lives by another being. Religious or not, things may be placed into our lives that we simply cannot control and in this way, our authorship is very limited, if we had any to begin with. It can also be an implicit part of life that individuals feel differently - when we are backed into a corner, feeling helpless, perhaps it is then that we lose whatever authorship we had over our lives because we willingly give it up.
In disagreement with this, however, is the idea that we would not move forward in life if we did not author ourselves. We would not seek education or work, we would not see the things we feel we need as people.
Narration is much simpler. Whether or not we actually author our lives and our futures, we still live it and narrate life to ourselves. Our actions are merely the implementation and thus, the storytelling of our authored lives.
IASC3F00 - Language
As a part of class discussion, we reached the topic of language. The most passionate of participants split into two sides - the English language should continue to "evolve" (side A), and the English language should remain the same (side B).
Side A, Brad, felt that the English language should continue to move in the direction of today's common "chat speak". Abbreviations (TBH, FWIW, AFAIK, AFK*) save time and effort, and are of universal knowledge. Language has been evolving for thousands of years, and it makes no sense for it to stop now. Only a few decades from now, language should be so different that the English language we use now will be seen as archaic. People can be more concise and will be able to easily understand each other, eliminating the hassle of diction confusion. Language is not an art form and should not be held captive in old ways. Since it is a part of many people's everyday lives, especially for those who type online very often, it should become a common practice in society. People should not be reprimanded for using it in academia or other serious situations.
Side B, Casey and I, feel that the English language is indeed an art (was I the only person who had "language arts" classes everyday in elementary school?). Abbreviations are NOT common knowledge and many people need to ask or look up what they mean. To take a language that has been moving forward for thousands of years and break it back down into three-to-five letter abbreviations is insulting and degrades it hundreds of years - sending our progress and knowledge of language and literature backwards. Just because "a lot of people" (not everyone) use chat speak, does not justify its significance for the rest of the world; some people use chat speak online, and some do not. For some, it does not save time or effort, or they choose to present themselves as more than stereotypical, lazy-typing chat users. People should most definitely be reprimanded for using such language in serious situations. It is unprofessional and holds no validity, nor should it, in academic submissions. There is a time and a place for chat speak, and that is on chats if people so choose.
How many people would take this seriously? (Click for full size)
*To Be Honest, For What It's Worth, As Far As I Know, Away From Keyboard
Side A, Brad, felt that the English language should continue to move in the direction of today's common "chat speak". Abbreviations (TBH, FWIW, AFAIK, AFK*) save time and effort, and are of universal knowledge. Language has been evolving for thousands of years, and it makes no sense for it to stop now. Only a few decades from now, language should be so different that the English language we use now will be seen as archaic. People can be more concise and will be able to easily understand each other, eliminating the hassle of diction confusion. Language is not an art form and should not be held captive in old ways. Since it is a part of many people's everyday lives, especially for those who type online very often, it should become a common practice in society. People should not be reprimanded for using it in academia or other serious situations.
Side B, Casey and I, feel that the English language is indeed an art (was I the only person who had "language arts" classes everyday in elementary school?). Abbreviations are NOT common knowledge and many people need to ask or look up what they mean. To take a language that has been moving forward for thousands of years and break it back down into three-to-five letter abbreviations is insulting and degrades it hundreds of years - sending our progress and knowledge of language and literature backwards. Just because "a lot of people" (not everyone) use chat speak, does not justify its significance for the rest of the world; some people use chat speak online, and some do not. For some, it does not save time or effort, or they choose to present themselves as more than stereotypical, lazy-typing chat users. People should most definitely be reprimanded for using such language in serious situations. It is unprofessional and holds no validity, nor should it, in academic submissions. There is a time and a place for chat speak, and that is on chats if people so choose.
How many people would take this seriously? (Click for full size)
*To Be Honest, For What It's Worth, As Far As I Know, Away From Keyboard
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Soundscape audio influences
This soundscape inspired much of what my partner, Jesse, and I conceived our idea from, or at least drove us in a similar direction.
Basically, the idea was very cultural. Without seeing the images that are floating about in the video as I type this, the sounds of the birds and different instruments introduce a very Asian/cultural feeling and evokes a sense of curiosity or intrigue for something our society is not exactly accustomed to hearing. Other compositions added to this feeling, because it was evident that each sound, instrument, or entire composition was trying to convey an emotion or a thought process more complicated than merely what is soothing to the ears. The sounds of nature are very enjoyable, and the leaps of tempo seem subconsciously invigorating, while the sounds of nature in the background are more soothing and are able to hold a balance. The idea of the softer sounds of nature was mainly inspired by that video, and of course, nature itself.
At the same time, however, another influence is this song, which means nothing to non-native speakers of Mandarin (including myself, though I am able to catch onto a few words here and there). Especially at the speed Jay Chou is singing, it can really sound like gibberish, and in contrast to his other works, it sounds almost nonsensical. As Duncan had shown in class, the most logical combination of words could be repeated or somehow distorted to sound nothing like natural language and lose its flow. Distortion may even bring language to, based on its natural rhythms and intonations associated with speech, sound just like music or noise or even "nothing" to some people, something that is totally tuned out because it doesn't bear any significance to them. I find it very interesting that an unknown language is just tuned out or seen as noise to people, and the differences in languages may create similarities that merge multiple languages that have nothing in common to create a benevolent sound.
Thus, it becomes very difficult to decipher a soundscape from music from logical language from "nothing". This makes the project a challenge, because how is one to know what defines music to one, from noise to another, from speech to the next person? I can personally listen to any gibberish and call it music. The "white noise" my space heater emits is, in itself, just as musical as my piano. My parents speaking, even arguing, and crossing language barriers by skipping from one language to another is just as musical as my birds squawking when the sun rises.
.... It's like, two in the morning. :((((((((
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
