What are they anyway??

We had an interesting chat in the workshop about what exactly technology and arts are and it seems that this conversation can and has gone on forever. 

I’m going to attempt to 5R this thang but I’m going to use the framework because I don’t trust myself not to get sidetracked.

1. Report: In the workshop a discussion was had about what the definition of technology and art respectively could be. There were a great many varied responses and some debate occurred.

2. Respond: I was surprised at how difficult it was to define these .. well what would you even call them? Subjects? Themes? Objects? I initially thought that technology in particular would be easier to pin down because it was relatively recent, but it’s not when you think about it, isn’t the wheel technology? Sun dials? Technology has most likely been around as long as art has at least or longer (seeing as art was created using tools)

3. Relate: Each person it seems had their own personal idea of what art or technology might be and had assumptions that were challenged, for example, we were asked if a Bauhaus chair was art or technology?? Is a quilt art or technology? Is architecture art or technology? Significant common factors for a definition of technology were: a man-made object, serving a purpose

4. Reason: A PCSC (Purpose, Context, Specifications, Constraints) framework was then applied to these factors to form three levels of technology (at this point I’m blatantly copying off the slides but they are so succinct that it seems counter-productive to re-word them)

Level 1: Technology that fulfils a human purpose (e.g. a guitar)

Level 2: Technology that is an assemblage of practices and components (e.g. a song)

Level 3: Technology that is a collection of device and practices (e.g. a band)

Note: I have changed the examples to help me #learnbydoing but if you think these are incorrect please tell me!

5. Reconstruct: The definition we ended on was “any artefact, system or environment manipulated or designed by humans that* serves a purpose or meets a need”

*’that’ was changed from ‘to’ to incorporate accidental inventions like the glue on post-it notes or velcro, which weren’t technically invented TO serve a purpose but ended up serving a purpose.

So, now that my reflecting framework is complete I have a few random questions to ponder:

Isn’t all art technology seeing as it serves a purpose by entertaining or pleasing us in some way and is manipulated or designed by humans to serve this need?

What about when animals use tools such as sticks or rocks, is this technology even though it is not manipulated by humans? 

Hahahahahaha! Get it?? I hope you like puns and stolen stock photos cause that is going to be the majority of this blog.

No, but really, let us reflect upon the first week of summer semester in MTeach, particularly EDUC7545 (Teaching Technology and the Arts in the 21st Century).

For the reflections, I will be attempting to use the 5Rs Framework (Bain et al, 2002) which involves the following:

1. Report: Describe (avoiding judgement)

2. Respond: Record my own response

3. Relate: Identify important factors and challenge them (e.g. personal experiences, values, assumptions)

4. Reason: Use relevant research to explain these factors and justify new perspectives

5. Reconstruct: re-evaluate reflection based on the above

Hey y’all,