I’m Sophie! I live in the Northeast US and I like to work with collage.
I was so stymied every time I tried to learn to code. I was interested in tackling computation from a different angle, and was intrigued by this class’s focus on artistic and scientific (biological) approaches to the topic.
Where am I going? My attempts to apply computational techniques to the artistic process didn’t quite feel successful, in that I didn’t love what I wound up with by the end of each process. However! The ideas we discussed in class, particularly Dave Ackley’s theory about breaking the contract between hardware and software, inspire me to embrace tactics that may go horribly awry.
Part of me wishes I was exiting the class with a bit more of a grasp of a coding language. That said, the class materials made it clear that this was not some kind of coding bootcamp. And the alternative pedagogical approach that Murilo took inspired me to rethink my expectations about learning and educational results.
I would have liked a few more hands-on, synchronous class projects, like we did during the first session (paper weaving). The geomancy practice felt close to that but it was a very prescribed process.
(As mentioned in the previous slide) More hands-on, synchronous activities. And perhaps homework that specifically called for a particular hands-on process (rather than exploring an online program). I did like the open-ended, exploratory feel of the assignments, though.
Week 1: “Meet the participants” section took a long time - I started getting antsy. But was very helpful to hear people’s name pronunciations. Loved the paper weaving. And it was a thrill to actually understand the cellular automata concept! (I had been worried about whether I would.)
Weeks 2 and 3: This is where I started to get scientifically/mathematically confused (e.g., why simulate computers? Don’t they exist already?). Still happy to be here, though, and was very impactful learning about Dave Ackley.
Week 4: Again, I was a little at the limits of my understanding when it came to multidimensional CA. But we had a lovely kind of digressive class discussion.
Week 5: LOVED seeing other people’s artistic practices. That was an ongoing benefit - reviewing the homework and seeing everyone’s interpretations of the assignment.
Lost: running CA on a graph. Didn’t quite grasp exactly how it works.
Creative: Honestly, I think I felt most sure of myself during the first homework assignment, where the cellular automata was so simple and I felt confident about running one by hand. And because of feeling confident about the mathematical portion, I felt like I had a lot of leeway creatively.
Absolutely. I’m really inspired by the idea of intentionally making something that doesn’t work, or at least being open to the idea of dramatic and utter failure. From Todd, during the first session: “I like making things on the computer that are slow and bad.” Relates to Ackley’s breaking the contract between software and hardware.
Definitely - I think I was inspired during every session by my peers’ work. Nay’s homework in the final session illustrating brain fog was impressive and emotionally resonant (and I was excited that we had both used vowels, consonants, and punctuation as rules). Helen’s homework that treated predators and prey as being in dynamic equilibrium, rather than competition, was really thought-provoking. Remi and Heather’s homework from Week One - knitted CA’s - was so impressive. Leyla’s CA with letters from Week Two was SO cool. I didn’t always understand the technological building blocks of Wiley’s projects but I was always impressed - like his water-like splatycode from Week 3. Megan’s Week 3 work, inspired by a pot of boiling water, was so unexpected and great, as was Nay’s Week 3 splatycode forest.
\