Pinning our drafted ontographs around the room, there were two things apparent:

1.) Oh boy, are they all so different.

2.) Wow, mine is incredibly illegible in it’s relations.

As each person gave a quick explanation on their work and media artifact, each poster began changing into a cohesive and complicated map of connections, relations and things. Looking at them as a whole, each tried to break down their item, admitting that their topic was either too large or lacking a substantial amount detail. However, there seemed to be one key factor that surrounded each artifact in what they do and how they do it themselves, which unfortunately was generalisation.

Every person generalised their artifact, trying to break it down through personal views, rather than exploring what the thing does and how it exists within it’s own world. While yes, the subjectiveness of language seemed to dictate how we portrayed these things, the proximity between thinking about the thing as itself appeared disconnected in this poster, especially as we were trying to these things for themselves and not for what we see or know. In the end, we need to ask what do our things do? How do they view themselves? What is important in their world?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *