Before I start, I just want to say that I actually liked Sophie. Say what you will, I rarely had a problem with it because I went to ITS where the computers seem able to handle a program as demanding as Sophie. If you guys have time over reading days, I would suggest heading over there and making a digital book! Okay:
The most interesting thing I took away from this course was the way that structure is invariably tied to function. This concept exists in the real world–we expect our architecture to reflect its utility–but it seems all the more evident in the digital one. The way that a website or social network is set up determines the types of interaction that take place on it. The hyperlink allows for two-way communication between an endless number of entities. Before this class, I never realized so clearly that the uses for something are defined by the way it’s set up.
I think it’s interesting to note how much a sense of community the class developed. This wasn’t simply because the people in the class were great, which they were. I think a lot of it had to do with the way in which technology facilitated our interaction. In no other class have I ever been able to learn about so many others’ interests. Also, I believe that we were able to bond as a community over our use of new media, like Google Wave and Sophie. Our shared experiences of these technologies brought us closer, as the projects we created using these new media.
Ever since my final project, it’s occurred to me how much digitial media incorporates the characteristics of autopoiesis: self-creation. Our discussions in class revolve around the technological works that others have created, which then leads to our own creations based off of them, and discussions based off these creations, and more creations as a result of these discussions. There really is something to be said for the way that technology can facilitate an incredible amount of, what is all at its very core, communication–whether it’s through writing, art, music or video.