mb/bots-as-digital-infrapunctures
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

adding the paragraph on prototypes

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
manetta 2020-11-05 15:09:02 +01:00
parent bcc0cb77b4
commit 7b1701ea00
1 changed files with 13 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
content/pages/start.md
View File

@ -7,7 +7,15 @@ Welcome to the online module *Bots as Digital Infrapunctures*.
Inspired by the potential of *digital infrapuncture*, a term coined by researcher Deb Verhoeven, this module brings bots and infrastructure together as *infrapunctures*. *Infrapuncture* is a portmanteau word which conflates *infrastructure* and *acupuncture*, referring to small-scale interventions that have a catalytic effect on the whole. The term emerges from the need to reconsider our digital infrastructures, study their underlying systems of inequality and exploitation, and acknowledge their limits in terms of capacity and care. This module explores what role bots can have as infrastructural stress relievers, by actively engaging with the norms and values inscribed into computational tools and infrastructures.
The model intertwines theoretical and practical work together, [mb: insert prototypes as arguments].
This module combines theoretical and practical work—bringing the fields of digital humanities, design and media art together—and proposes to use the format of the *prototype* [and the activity of *prototyping*] as performative theoretical tool that feeds different practices into each other. We understand the prototype both as a research methodology (to critically engage with digital infrastructures in a hands-on way) and as a prefigurative practice (to imagine possible transformations and interventions, bridging between past, present and future), following Alan Galey's and Stan Ruecker's work on framing how prototypes could argue as arguments[^prototype].
<!-- > We suggest that prototyping as a critical process demands that we move beyond the binary in which written project reports become stand-ins for digital objects themselves, in all their complexity and media-specificity. This perspective requires us to learn to read digital objects critically, respecting their intellectual potential in the same way that a peer-reviewer recognizes the potential of an article, book, or grant application—keeping in mind that recognition and approval are not the same thing. -->
<!-- > One theory is not necessarily as good as the next, but the digital humanities will surely benefit from recognizing the diversity of forms which theories and critical arguments may take. -->
<!-- > "As a way of thinking, design positions us in a potent space between the past and the future. Failing to recognize design as a hermeneutic process means failing to understand how our inherited cultural record actually works." -->
<!-- "how the process of designing may be used simultaneously for creating an artifact and as a process of critical interpretation, and whether new forms of digital objects, such as interface components and visualization tools, contain arguments that advance knowledge about the world". -->
# Goals
@ -25,3 +33,7 @@ By the end of the module you will have:
You can go through this module at your own speed. No subscription is required, you can simply start by clicking on the *start* button in each section and follow the instructions.
You will need approximately 4 hours to go through this whole module.
# Footnotes
[^prototype]: Galey, Alan & Ruecker, Stan. (2010). How a Prototype Argues. LLC. 25. 405-424. 10.1093/llc/fqq021. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220675438_How_a_Prototype_Argues>