|
Lorna Mills and Sally McKay
Digital Media Tree this blog's archive OVVLvverk Lorna Mills: Artworks / Persona Volare / contact Sally McKay: GIFS / cv and contact |
View current page
...more recent posts
Excerpt from Wired:
[Quadriplegic Matthew] Nagle turned the TV on and off and switched channels (trapped in his hospital room, he's become a daytime-TV addict). Then he opened and read the messages in his dummy email program. "Now I'm at the point where I can bring the cursor just about anywhere," he said. "I can make it hover off to the side, not doing anything. When I first realized I could control it I said, 'Holy shit! I like this.'"
What are you thinking about when you move the cursor? I asked.
"For a while I was thinking about moving the mouse with my hand," Nagle replied. "Now, I just imagine moving the cursor from place to place." In other words, Nagle's brain has assimilated the system. The cursor is as much a part of his self as his arms and legs were.
[...]
At a conference in 2002, Anthony Tether, the director of Darpa, envisioned the military outcome of BCI research. "Imagine 25 years from now where old guys like me put on a pair of glasses or a helmet and open our eyes," Tether said. "Somewhere there will be a robot that will open its eyes, and we will be able to see what the robot sees. We will be able to remotely look down on a cave and think to ourselves, 'Let's go down there and kick some butt.' And the robots will respond, controlled by our thoughts. Imagine a warrior with the intellect of a human and the immortality of a machine."
 |
 |
 |
 | 
|  |
| From Thinkquest: "Now we can explain what the electron cloud is. It is the probability distribution of finding an electron around a nucleus. In places where the cloud thickens the probability of finding an electron grows. We can imagine "glancing" at an atom every second to find where we can see an electron. It will show that in most cases we see an electron in the place where the Schroedinger function defines the probability of finding it as high. Very rarely we would see an electron in the places where the probability is small, and never in places where there is nil probability calculated with Y2 function (That is for example inside the nucleus.). Yet let's take a piece of paper with the nucleus marked on it and mark with a point each electron we have noticed. After a while we will get a picture of an electron cloud." | ||
Thanks to Goodreads for posting Kevin Temple's recent Globe and Mail article on the Canada Council's proposed changes. It's a good summary of the situation.
I just won (!)first(!) prize in a colouring contest and....I am very freakin' proud of it! Eventhough I cheated. The event was A Night of Colouring for Non-Children, organised by Lise Brin. The evening was really great...sitting around beers and shooting the shit while deeply focussed on colouring-in fine, captivating drawings by artists such as: Chloe Bell, Rose Bianchini, Meredith Dault, Anthea Foyer, Brenda Goldstein, Jason Van Horne, Miranda Iossifidis, Rosemary Mosco, April Penny, Nathan Saliwonchyk, Marnie Thorp, Carol Tripp, Daryl Vocat, Julie Voyce, and Holly White.
The way I cheated was by drawing as well as colouring...which is just so terribly wrong, since drawing has it's own fun local event. Also, a nearby table of colour-ers agreed that I had cheated and even said so loudly (yet non-confrontationally, for which I thank them, as I am aware that they were already justifiably mad cause when they wanted to borrow our table's brown crayon we made them give us a silver as trade. And then we wanted our brown back cause silver is really kind of useless, especially if you already have grey, or "gray" as it is called by Crayola).
So...yeah...I am more competitive than I thought. And I have been more competitive than I thought since grade school. As we accumulatively decorated the back room of the Cameron House with crayoned pages hung from clothesline, I was transported to grade 3 art class, when the teacher would put everyone's manilla-paper offering up around the room and I would secretly scowl at the much better job other people did than I at both making an impact, and poignant nuance, in our efforts with stubby broken classroom crayons. Arg!
Anyhow, here's what I won: 16 stars (votes), a beautiful hand-drawn-and-coloured red ribbon, a smattering of applause, a chocolate bunny, and some interesting Fimo-like stuff that makes erasers. I am going to bed a proud and happy woman. Many thanks to Nanmac for letting me in on the action.
NB: Brett Lamb, who was sitting next to us, has posted some notes and pictures. And yes, we did steal his crayons. It was that kind of night.
"They're Made of Meat," by Terry Bisson.
Note: this tally has been updated to reflect new responses as of 9:00am Feb.21. I have also received a request for a breakdown of response by gender, which has been added.
Here (below) is a tally on the response to my informal survey on the perception of gender essentialism in art making. I am very grateful to everyone who participated. People have been really thoughtful, and I've also benefitted from some excellent email conversation on the topic.
Most of the responses were from people in my age bracket. My goal is to prepare a proper survey to administer in art schools. My main concern is to determine whether young people studying art today are getting a message that their gender predetermines certain styles of practice. This test showed me that I probably need to provide a little more context and neutralise the question a bit in further research. MK put it very well in an email, "...this whole line of questioning, posited in a research context, can be seen as trying to support a theory that may disadvantage one group - when in reality, I think what you're investigating is more anecdotal, experience-based evidence of how biases play out, rather than attempting to define how men and women 'should' make art so that it's in line with their respective biological imperatives!" People seemed to feel the need to be persuasive, and while the discursive aspect made for really interesting reading, I think it would probably skew results in a real, by-the-book survey. I've got lots to go on now, however, and thank you thank you to everyone who participated. Also thanks to NSL for sharing her wisdom and research experience.
Question 1:
12 people said they do not think there is a difference
4 people said they do think there is a difference
(7 were equivocal, 1 did not answer this question)
Question 2:
7 people said they have not been told there is a difference
10 people said they have been told there is a difference
(5 were equivocal, 2 did not answer the question)
Of the 4 people who said they think there is a difference, 2 were women aged 20-30
24 people responded altogether:
10 women: 2 aged 20-30, 6 aged 30-40, 1 aged 40-50, 1 aged 60-70
11 men: 2 aged 20-30, 4 aged 30-40, 2 aged 40-50, 3 aged 50-60
3 who did not answer these questions
BY GENDER:
Question 1 Women (10 in total):
6 people said they do not think there is a difference
2 people said they do think there is a difference
(1 was equivocal, 1 did not answer this question)
Question 1 Men (11 total):
5 people said they do not think there is a difference
2 people said they do think there is a difference
(4 were equivocal)
Question 2 Women:
3 people said they have not been told there is a difference
5 people said they have been told there is a difference
(2 were equivocal)
Question 2 Men:
4 people said they have not been told there is a difference
5 people said they have been told there is a difference
(2 did not answer the question)