Yesterday I experimented with several different games and other interactives on the following webpages:
http://nanozone.org
www.lawrencehallofscience.org/kids/
www.exploratorium.edu/explor/online.html
and www.virtualmuseum.ca/PM.cgi
The nanotechnology website contained text, animation, flash, audio, and push-button items. I attempted to Save the Farm via the Green Milk activity. The activity involved reading charts and graphs, taking blood samples from cartoon cows, and sending healthy cows to the dairy and sick cows to the vet. A cow serves as the narrator and guides you through the activity. Macromedia flashplayer was necessary for some activities.
On the lawrencehallofscience page I played with the aphid eater game. Adobe Flash was required. The game involved moving a ladybug around a rose to eat aphids and in so doing prevent the rose from dying. Cartoon images were involved. No audio elements were added. I also took the bat quiz which contained scanned illustrations of bats and 10 true/false questions. This activity contained mostly text.
I tested my French skills on the Virtual Museum of Canada website. I designed two trains and emailed them to my friends...why, I don't know, it asked me too. The activity involved text, audio, and animation. The activity required macromedia flash.
"Plug-ins," I've discovered, allow you to extend the functionality of your website with customized functions and features.
I think I needed Adobe Flashplayer to play with most of the interactives. But, not all.
I really do not understand these games and interactives. I am not the type of person who enjoys living in the virtual world. Video games have never tempted me and I don't like spending more time on the computer than I have to. I think such interactives can be very damaging to a child's imagination and get them way to accustomed to instant gratification. Push button convenience breeds strip mall mentality.
I was thinking again about yesterday's lecture. Do people really want to see the Mona Lisa because they have seen pictures of the artwork and they think it is so beautiful and the greatest piece of art they have ever seen? Or, do people want to see the Mona Lisa because it is this rare object off in some foreign land? The mystery of it, and the potential that I may never get the chance, is what would drive me to see it...not that I really think it is beautiful, because, I DON'T!! So this idea of a virtual image of her just doesn't make sense to me.
2 comments:
I guess I don't think there is any "right answer" about why folks are fascinated by famous artwork or want to see it. For me, it would less about the mystery of it and more about somehow experiencing something that is a cultural phenomena. Like imagining what it must have been like to be at Woodstock or something. But in the case of the Mona Lisa, it is still there to see. I am not sure beauty enters into it for me either (although I don't have an strong opinion whether the Mona Lisa is beautiful).
Regarding interactives, the point isn't that they are good but that one can be critical and fair about the intent and implementation. I think perhaps it boils down for me less if you liked them than if you think that kids might like them.
Yes, I think there are a variety of reasons. Personally, I'm not interested in the Mona Lisa either because it's unique and far-away or because I like it, and I'd rather have a can of tasty tomato soup than look at a Warhol.
But I'd be thrilled to go see paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger because I love his attention to detail and how much of the character of his subjects he conveys, and also because I'm interested in Tudor clothing and he's just about the only artist from that time period who does paint things like the tiny gold pins holding clothing together.
So while a museum might be able to trick me into looking at a Warhol, I'm less likely to go back to see it than I am to see something more to my tastes. And everyone has different tastes.
-Mel
Post a Comment