Lesley's E-learning and Digital Cultures Blog

October 18, 2009

my visual artefact

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — lesleyf @ 8:56 pm

visual dystopia


  1. Crikey Lesley – this one’s a bit of a poser! For me it reads like a commentary on cyborg ways of looking – the human eye falling from the socket to reveal binary code and machinic fusion? Is it a comment on the idea that ‘we are all posthuman’?

    Comment by sian — October 19, 2009 @ 9:05 am

  2. I’m a little baffled to but I wonder if it’s something to do with what we see vs. what is there. We see a digital world of text and images but what we are actually seeing, at base, is binary code underlying all of that? Seems like a bit of a Matrix comment almost?

    Comment by Nicola Osborne — October 19, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

  3. yes, and it’s interesting also that the human eye looks no more ‘human’ or real than the code behind. In fact, the handwritten code suggests more humanity than the graphic of the eye.

    Comment by jen — October 20, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

  4. Or it could be complementary the human eye (stylised and looking a bit like a flower) as well as the machine?

    Comment by sibyller — October 21, 2009 @ 10:25 pm

  5. I’m not really sure if I managed to convey what I had intended. but then the whole idea of creating a visual artefact I suppose was to leave out descriptions in the hope you can manage to convey intended message using visuals alone.
    My idea was really quite simple – Sinlge entry point (lens of the eye)that processes, increasingly more digital information than analogue. As there was lots of discussion about multiple entry points and I just wanted to represent the dichotomy.
    Also the use of binary was meant to illustrate that from simplicity comes complexity by way of multimedia rich visual artefacts.
    Also I wanted to highlight how w3e must learn to see and not merely look at complex images and visual artefacts. and that it can indeed be more difficult to establish authors intended meaning.
    hope this makes sense

    Comment by lesleyf — October 22, 2009 @ 12:42 am

  6. Spot on Nicola, as I explained below to Sian the binary was used to show the different types of information being processed and that a larger part of it is now digital. when I looked back at the artefact after I posted it did look a bit sinister- not intentional but intersting to hear different points of view about intended meaning vs interpreted meaning – if you know what I mean.

    Comment by lesleyf — October 22, 2009 @ 12:47 am

  7. mmm jen a whole different angle I hadn’t even thought about.the code was meant to illustrate how the eye processes increasingly more digital information than analogue these days. but in addition to this I wanted to deonstrate that there was just one entry point which seemed significant in view of our discussions about multiple entry points and the significance of this whne discussing transliteracies etc. simplicity and complexity and how one can create the other. I also wanted to highlight the need to learn how to see and not merely look at visual artefacts so that we can establish intended meaning.

    Comment by lesleyf — October 22, 2009 @ 12:56 am

  8. I like this interpretation Sibylle I think you must be a romantic? yes I suppose the eye is a machine and it takes in more digital information than analogue these days and my intention ws to represent this idea but also to draw attention to the idea that we should be learnign to see and not merely look when contemplating visual artefacts.

    Comment by lesleyf — October 22, 2009 @ 1:00 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress