This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
45 ADD room 003 week 2 ‐ 9 WG 2 Sarah de Rijcke WED 9.00 ‐ 12.45 RUPPERT room 111 week 2 – 9 http://uu.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. COURSE DESCRIPTION 2. WEEK SCHEDULE 3. ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS 4. COURSE CALENDER 1. COURSE DESCRIPTION This course investigates the role of computer generated imagery and digital visual artifacts in contemporary visual culture; ranging from digital photographs, computer graphics, computer animation, and digital special effects to data visualization and scientific imaging technologies. With the invention of photographic techniques around 1840 the search for ever more convincing ways to mimic the visual world manually (drawing, painting, lithography etc.) slowly came to a halt. Photography ‐ and shortly after film ‐ took over this task of the handcrafted image while traditional artistic techniques moved towards abstraction. From the 1960’s onwards, CGI (computer generated images) started to blur this clearcut distinction between photographic and handmade images again. Since than, as a hybrid genre which encorporates the thruth‐claim of photography as well as the complete freedom of the visual arts, it has made a powerful impact on all areas of visual culture in a very short time: graphics play a crucial role in documentary, fiction, animation and games where they present the viewer with photo‐realistic or non‐ photoreal images of historical, scientific or fantastic event, either with or without a direct referent in the past, present or future reality. CGI are used in the sciences to visualise complex datasets or to simulate for instance the inside of a cell, the behaviour of nano‐ particles, extreme weather circumstances, virtual operations, or the surface of planet mars. In the creative industries and education, CGI are employed in virtual teaching applications in the classroom and museums, in webdesign, CAD, architecture, advertising etc. In the arts, graphics and computer animation are amongst others employed for elaborate datavisualisation and combined into new genres such as visual haptics and audio‐visual effects
Essential to the appearance, operation, and impact of CGI are the technologies used to create particular images. In order to understand and analyse today’s digital visual culture these technologies and their histories and theories – ranging from specific algorithms and various imaging techniques to graphic hard‐ and software – have to be considered. During the course, students will develop a technological perspective in order to investigate how meaning, impact, and interpretation of visual artifacts depend on the makers, actions, materials, procedures, techniques and tools involved in their production. The technological perspective is paired with a number of theoretical questions which shape current discourses on digital visual culture: (1) the striving for ever more realistic images in computer science and popular discourses, addressing the history and definitions of realism on the one hand and technological determinism on the other (2) questions concerning authenticity, indexicality, and the archiving of images (3) the role of craft, skill, and knowledge in image making practices (4) new aesthetics and genres in digital visual culture, such as net.art, data visualization, database aesthetics, and synaesthetic effects through the combination of visual, aural, and haptic aspects (5) epistemic, ethical, social, and economic functions of images and imaging technologies in arts and sciences (6) definitions of visual literacy and visual practices. The course is grouped into six themes. All themes are related to the discourses sketched above, but some in particular COMPUTER GRAPHICS – realism (1) craft (3) COMPUTER ANIMATION – discourse: craft (3) realism (1) new aesthetics (4) DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY – authenticity (2) epistemic functions (5) visual literacy (6) SCIENTIFIC IMAGES – epistemic functions (5) authenticity (2) visual literacy (6) DATA VISUALIZATION – new aesthetics (4) authenticity (2) epistemic functions (5) HAPTIC VISUALITY – new aesthetics (4) realism (1) Students will choose a theme during the first class and an individual research topic related to the theme during the first week. There is a maximum of five students working within each theme. Suggestions for individual research topics
COMPUTER GRAPHICS COMPUTER ANIMATION
Archeological reconstructions Rendering natural phenomena Rendering aging Pixels Brushes: image making on iPad and iPhone Non‐Photorealistic Graphics
Pixar films Animated documentaries Motion Capture in games Machinima Digitising animation techniques (rotoscoping, motion stop, matte painting) Kinetic Typography
Flickr Instagram HDR Photoshop Google Goggles
Computational seeing in biology Brain scans as evidence Digital modeling in archeology Nano‐images on the web Virtual Reality in the lab
Database Net Art Gapminder LinkedIn InMaps, Facebook Friend Wheel, Social Graph Brittain from Above Tag Galaxy
Visual Interaction: Kinect, PlayStation Move, Wii Child of Eden The cinesthetic subject in film Synesthetic art: sound visualizers, touchscreen installations Virtual Reality: HMD, CAVE
The first meeting is devoted to a general introduction to the course. During the second meeting, students will present their first written assignment, the so‐called technical assignment. From the third meeting onwards, each session is devoted to a theme. All students will prepare two to three general articles for each theme and explore a visual online source. After the plenary discussion of literature and visual material, those students who work within the theme will present their ongoing research according to a particular format (see Assignments).
2. WEEK SCHEDULE Every meeting is structured according to the theme and the pertaining discourses, a visual case, compulsory readings, assignments, individual student presentations, and tips for further reading. 12/14 September ‐ INTRODUCTION Lecture: “Making‐Meaning‐Migration”: How to Study Digital Visual Culture and its Artefacts. Explanation of the course outline, assignments and expectations. Discussion of research topics and choice of a theme & topic Further Readings First Monday, Special Issue: Digital Materiality, Volume 15, Number 6 ‐ 7 June 2010 http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/315/showT oc 19/21 September – TECHNICAL ASSIGNMENT Case ACM portal (http://portal.acm.org/portal.cfm) via Omega Wayne Carlson, “A critical history of Computer Graphics and Animation”, Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design, Ohio State University http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/ID797.html http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/resources.html Read Oliver Grau, Thomas Veigl, “Introduction. Imagery in the 21st Century”, in: Imagery in the 21st Century, Cambridge, MA., 2011, 1‐19. Lev Manovich, “Image Future”, Animation 1 (1) 2006, 25‐44, omega: http://proxy.library.uu.nl/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1746847706065839 Luc Pauwels, “Visual Literacy and Visual Culture”, The Open Communication Journal 2 (2008): 79‐85 http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocommj/openaccess2.htm Reading Assignment Write down two or three critical reading questions in which you examine and compare the ideas, concepts, theories and/or hypotheses expressed in these texts. Assignment hand in technical assignment, see Assignment Instructions Present TA in class, related to reading assignments and you research theme/topic Schedule work in progress presentations
26/28 September – THEME COMPUTER GRAPHICS Discourse realism (1) craft (3) When computer scientists realized that the computer could be used as a tool to generate images, they set out to mimic the visual appearance of the real world. CG therefore is the first pictorial genre which originated not in an artistic environment but in the lab, causing a considerable shift in the domains of image making. Ever since, CG have functioned according to the paradigm of visual realism, the goal of which is to become indistinguishable from reality. Within the field of computer science, these graphics are referred to as photorealist graphics as opposed to non photorealist graphics (NPR). In the humanities, this notion of realism has been criticised because it suggests a general visual truth about the actual appearance of the world and seems to ignore cultural determinants which shape representation. The question is if realism is such a strong motive in computer science because of an inherent scientific interest in the visual and physical make‐up of the world or because realism is the desired result of technology and commerce driven media and entertainment products? Another important aspect of computer graphics is the fact that these images are human creations and not, as is often assumed, merely calculated or machine made, questioning the notion of the computer as an uncreative machine. Case SIGGRAPH 2011 Technical Papers Video Preview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK9EEE3RsKM&feature=relmfu Read Julie Dorsey, Pat Hanrahan. “Digital Materials and Virtual Weathering”, Scientific American 282, 2/2000: 64‐71 http://graphics.cs.yale.edu/julie/pubs/sciam_00.pdf Lev Manovich, “Assembling Reality: Myths of Computer Graphics”, Afterimage 20/2 (1992): 12‐14 (http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/assembling.html) Beverly Jones, “Computer Imagery: Imitation and Representation of Realities”. Leonardo: Journal of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology. Computer Art in Context Supplemental Issue (1989): 31‐38 via omega or via http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/lesson9.html Reading Assignment Write down two critical reading questions in which you examine and compare the ideas, concepts, theories and/or hypotheses expressed in these texts. Present Work in progress presentations, group report, discussion Writing skills How to chose a title and write an outline
Further Readings Sean D. Williams, “Dreamweaver and the Procession of Simulations: What You See Is Not What You Get”, in: Small Tech, pp. 57‐68 Jane Harris, “Crafting Computer Graphics”, Textile 3/1 (2005): 20–35 Friedrich Kittler, “Computer Graphics: A semi‐technical Introduction”, Grey Room 02 (Winter 2001): 30–45 via omega Ted Nelson, Computer Lib: You can and must understand computers now / Dream Machines: New freedoms through computer screens—a minority report (1974), Microsoft Press, rev. edition 1987
3/5 October – THEME COMPUTER ANIMATION Discourse craft (3) realism (1) new aesthetics (4) Like computer graphics, computer animation and digital special effects are framed in discourses on realism and technology. While traditional animation is associated with craft (the hand‐drawn image set into motion), computer animation has often been blamed for its technological approach, erasing the hand of the animator and yielding an uncreative approach. Many computer animated movies try to achieve a perfect balance between lifelikeness (visual realism) and the believability (hyperrealism) of the narrative. On close inspection, animation’s stories are always driven by the fact that the images are crafted artifacts – computer or not – and technologies always find their ways into the story. It could even be argued that a computer animated movie with a convincing story has to put technology up front, be it in a disguised way. But computer animation exceeds the frame of Hollywood productions and is used in a wide variety of contexts. Recent research has mostly concentrated on the legacy of Pixar, on the special effect industry and game graphics, but new approaches are needed to understand the full impact and converging potential of computer animation in visual culture. Case TOY STORY III (Lasseter, 2010) Read Katherine Sarafian, “Flashing Digital Animations: Pixar’s Digital Aesthetic.”, in Anna Everett and John T. Caldwell (eds), New Media: Theories and Practices of Digitextuality, New York: Routledge 2003, pp 209–24 Julia Moskovich, “To Infinity and Beyond: Assessing the Technological Imperative in Computer Animation”, Screen 43:3, 2002, pp. 293‐314, omega: http://proxy.library.uu.nl/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/screen/43.3.293 Paul Ward, “Animated realities: the animated film, documentary, realism”, Reconstructions. Studies in Contemporary Culture 8.2 2008 http://reconstruction.eserver.org/082/ward.shtml Reading Assignment two critical reading questions Present Work in progress presentations, group report, discussion Writing skills how to write an abstract and ask the right research question
Further readings Paul Wells, Animation. Genre and Authorship, London 2002 Animation. A Journal (via omega) Animation Studies (on‐line) Andrew Darley, Visual Digital Culture. Surface Play and Spectacle in New Media Genres, London & New York 2000 Ann‐Sophie Lehmann, “In der Ratte. Der Körper als immersiver Ort in 3D Computer Animationsfilmen“, Montage AV 17, 2 (2008): 121‐143 J.P. Telotte, The Mouse Machine: Disney and Technology, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2008
10/12 October – THEME DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY Discourse authenticity (2), epistemic functions (5) The idea that through digitization all images are in fact composed of one’s and zero’s and the conformity of digital code allows for endless manipulation is a myth of digital visual culture. Certainly, digitization has made image manipulation much easier, but the loss of indexicality – the direct connection between what “has been there” as Roland Barthes phrased it, and what we can see in a photograph – is not only disturbed through technology. The question if photography represents the truth or something that has “really happened” has been debated ever since the birth of medium in the 1840’s. Because of its very claim to record reality, photography has always been prone to manipulations. Some theoreticians have hailed digitization for freeing the medium from its truth‐claim, but everyday practices and the power assigned to the photographic image (for instance in journalism), show that the truth‐ claim is not easily discarded and may be an essential feature of photography after all. Another important theoretical issue concerning the digitization of the medium is the availability to a large community of users. It is mainly through photography that the digital image has become an element of participatory culture at large. Fotosharing platforms are a case in point and show that the values attached to the medium, such as artistic and documentary issues are being enforced, rather than deconstructed. At the same time, user participation becomes a new source for archives and demands new forms of archiving and curating digital material. Case a Flickr forum of choice Read Frank Kessler, “What You Get is What You See. Digital Images and the Claim on the Real”, in Marianne van den Boomen et al., Digital Material, Amsterdam: AUP, 2009, pp. 187‐198 www.let.uu.nl/tftv/nieuwemedia/images/uploads/Digital‐Material.pdf Susan Murray, “Digital Images, Photo‐Sharing, and Our Shifting Notions of Everyday Aesthetics”, Journal of Visual Culture, 2008, 7: 147‐163, omega: http://proxy.library.uu.nl/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470412908091935 Reading Assignment two critical reading questions etc. Present Work in progress presentations, group report, discussion Writing skills how to describe and analyse your case
Further Readings Sarah de Rijcke and Anne Beaulieu, “Image as Interface: Consequences for Users of Museum Knowledge”, Library Trends, 59, 4 (2011), 663–685. via omega Melissa Terras, "The Digital Wunderkammer: Flickr as a Platform for Amateur Cultural and Heritage Content". Library Trends 59, 4 (2011): 686‐706 via omega William T. Mitchell, The Reconfigured Eye. Visual Truth in the Post‐photographic Era, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press, 1992 Barbara Savedoff, “Escaping Reality: Digital Imagery and the Resources of Photography", Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55:2 (1997): 202‐214 via omega Larry Gross e.a. (eds.) Image Ethics in the Digital Age, Minneapolis/London 2003
17/19 October – THEME SCIENTIFIC IMAGES Discourse epistemic functions (5) authenticity (2) new aesthetics (4) Sciences have always produced images using traditional media. But with the invention of x‐ray, the history of specific scientific imaging technology was set in, all roughly based on the principle that signals (sound, movement, magnetic fields) are recorded and translates into images. These images bear an indexical relation to the initial signal – comparable to photography – and incorporate scientific knowledge about the object which is represented. They have therefore also been termed ‘epistemic images’. For a long time, epistemic images formed a small niche in visual culture studies, but the advent of digital technologies has brought this particular genre to the front. Epistemic images can be abstract, photographic or representational and are often hybrids of graphic and analogue techniques, for instance in augmented reality applications developed in surgery. There is a strong aesthetic aspect to scientific images and an emerging critical discussion as to how beauty influences the objectivity‐claim of sciences. On the whole, there is still much research to be done in this new field. From a cultural studies perspective, scientists are often blamed for an uncritical stand towards this claim. Scientists on the other hand are extremely aware of the unstable status of the image, of their own implicit knowledge and the impact of technology and research contexts on images. The next move is to translate this awareness into an explicit part of scientific research. Case science images by Felice Frankel http://www.felicefrankel.com/ Wayne Carlson, A Critical History of Computer Graphics and Animation Section 18: Scientific Visualization http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/lesson18.html Read Peter Galison, “Images Scatter into Data, Data Gathers Into Images”, in: Bruno Latour, Peter Weibel (eds), Iconoclash. Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion, and Art, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 2002, pp. 300‐323 M. Norton Wise, "Making Visible", Isis 97 (2006): 75‐82. http://126.96.36.199/gsdl/collect/histsc/index/assoc/HASH01a9.dir/doc.pdf Felice Frankel, “Distilling Meaning from Data”, with R. Reid: Nature 455 (4 September 2008): 30, via omega: http://proxy.library.uu.nl/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/455030a Idem, “The Power of Pretty Pictures, Nature Material 3 (July 2004): 417‐19 http://proxy.library.uu.nl/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat1166 Reading Assignment two critical reading questions Present Work in progress presentations, group report, discussion Writing skills how to built a theoretical framework
Further Readings Felice Frankel, Envisioning Science: The Design and Craft of the Science Image, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 2002 Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison, Objectivity, New York 2008 Horst Bredekamp et al. (eds), Das technische Bild. Kompendium für eine Stilgeschichte wissenschafterlicher Bilder, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2008
24/26 October – THEME DATA VISUALISATION Discourse: new aesthetics (4), visual literacy (6) Visualising complex and large data is a tool to make abstract information more concrete and palpable and has been used in the life sciences, in geography, economics, and sociology for quite a while. Crucial to the concept of data visualistion is the fact that the set of data in question and the particular form that is chosen to visualize it have an arbitrary connection: in other words, data may be visualized in any given form, colour, or shape. The choice for a particular kind of visualization‐ style of course, is often connected to the specificity and meaning of the dataset. Dataviz therefore can be a very powerful visual tool and a critical perception demands a high degree of visual literacy in the viewer. With the advent of the database as digital storage facility for large amounts of data, visualisation, it has been claimed, has developed into a new visual genre within digital visual culture, expressing a unique aesthetics, comparable to abstraction in modern art at the beginning of the twentieh century. Notwithstanding the artistic aspects of data visualistion, there is also an underlying truth claim, when researchers argue that the visualisation of large sets of images brings about new insights into historical, aesthetic, or narrative aspects of culture, otherwise not accessable. Case http://lab.softwarestudies.com/ ‐ dataviz project of Lev Manovich Read Lev Manovich, "What is Visualization?" (2010) Manovich.net http://manovich.net/2010/10/25/new‐article‐what‐is‐visualization/ Christiane Paul, “The Database as System and Cultural Form: Anatomies of Cultural Narratives”, in: Victoria Vesna (ed.) Database Aesthetics: Art in the Age of Information Overflow. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2007, http://victoriavesna.com/dataesthetics/readings.php Reading Assignment two critical reading questions Present Work in progress presentations, group report, discussion Assignment: hand in first draft on‐line and on paper for feedback session Writing skills Citations, notes, bibliography Further Readings
Yuri Engelhardt, The Language of Graphics. Amsterdam: ILLC, 2002 John Maeda, Creative Code: Aesthetics + Computation. London: Thames & Hudson, 2004 Richard Wright, ‘Data Visualization.’ Software Studies: A Lexicon. Ed. Matthew Fuller. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008, pp. 78‐87 Jos de Mul, “The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Recombination”, in M. van den Boomen et al. (eds), Digital Material, Amsterdam: AUP, 2009, pp. 95‐106
31 October/2 November – THEME HAPTIC VISUALITY Discourse: new aesthetics (4) realism (1) When discussing the immersive qualities of the visual presentation of fictional worlds in films and games the human eye is often considered the primary sense with which we observe these worlds. Our visual interpretation is either studied exclusively or studied as separate from our other sensory systems. Supported by neurological and psychological research, theorists criticize this restrictive focus on the human eye. They argue that our senses are linked in a non‐hierarchical manner and that therefore our other senses register visual stimuli as well. We cringe when we see a tortured character as if we could feel his pain, we can almost smell the smoke we see rising from a virtual battlefield and we can imagine how visible materials or fabrics feel to the touch. This notion of haptic visuality raises questions about our interaction with what we see, the need for visual realism and multisensory immersion through representation. It also raises questions about the popular and academic debate on interactive digital media which focuses on behavioural realism as well as on visual realism. Case TED talk Peter Molyneux, tech demo Milo Kinect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwZcHdbYXCg&feature=related
Mark Paterson, "Digital Craft and Digital Touch: Haptics and Design", in Byron Hawk et. al. (eds) Small Tech, 2008, pp. 223-232
Vivian Sobchack, "What My Fingers Knew: The Cinesthetic Subject, or Vision in the Flesh" Senses of Cinema 5 (2000) http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2000/5/fingers/ Laura Marks, "Haptic Visuality: Touching with the Eyes" Frameworks 02 (2004): 79 ‐ 82 http://www.frame‐fund.fi/images/stories/pdf/Fw2004/fw‐issue2‐screen.pdf Present Work in progress presentations, group report, discussion Reading Assignment two or three critical reading questions
Further Readings Laura Marks, Touch. Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. Vivian Sobchack, The address of the eye : a phenomenology of film experience. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton U.P., 1992. Jamie Shotton et. al. "Real‐Time Human Pose Recognition in Parts from Single Depth Images" Microsoft Research (June 2011) http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=145347 David Freedberg en Vittorio Gallese. "Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience" Trends in cognitive sciences 11 (Mei 2007): 197‐203 via omega Kevin Cheng and Paul A. Cairns. "Behaviour, Realism and Immersion in Games" in Proceedings ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Portland: ACM, 2005, pp. 1272‐1275 Marie‐Laure Ryan, “Immersion vs. Interactivity: Virtual Reality and Literary Theory” Substance 28 (1999): 110‐137 via omega
3. ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS There are three main assignments in this course: the technical assignment (20%) the work‐in‐progress presentation/ work in progress group‐task (20%) and the final paper (60%). All assignments must be posted to BB (if you experience technical problems, you may send them directly to a.s. firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com) The TA, paper draft and final paper must be handed in ON PAPER and ON LINE (into designated folder in BlackBoard) on the day of the deadline Please do not use plastic binders for your final paper All papers will be checked for plagiarism (http://www2.let.uu.nl/solis/tftv/plagiaat.htm) A) Technical assignment – 5 minute presentation, NO PPT, written assignment Chose a specific technique, software, algorithm, or hardware related to the research theme you have chosen and the type of images you find interesting. Use the ACM portal to locate literature about this technology. Write a short description of the technology and relate it theoretical concept you have encountered in the course literature so far and think relevant. The goal of this assignment is to better understand digital imaging technologies and the terminology used in the field of imaging technologies. Discuss the technique in relation to your own research interest and try to explain to your fellow researchers how and why it is used (when the technique has been around a while, also give a short history). Do not worry about getting TECHNOLOGY & ALGORITHMS right down to the details: try to curb it down to the essentials and make it understandable. This assignment will also get you on your way with your final paper. It is therefore advised that you pick a very specific technique related to your research interest. Keep in mind that you are writing not only for yourself, but also for your fellow researchers who might benefit from your knowledge. max. 1000 words, excluding notes and bibliography B) Work in Progress Presentation – max. 5 ppt slides, 10 min individual, 10 min group report Meet up with the students who work on the same theme beforehand to share your findings, give feedback and discuss the theme in general. Help each other by giving critical and constructive commentary, offering relevant literature and adding your own insights to each topic. Individually, you will present an ABSTRACT of your final paper in class using a maximum of 5 ppt slides. Present the title of your paper, your object and your research question. Explain which theories you use and propose your own hypothesis – this may vary depending on the stage of your work in progress. Conclude by responding to the critical feedback your fellow students have given you earlier. Do
you agree or disagree with their feedback? What solutions or answers did you come up with, and what questions and doubts remain? As a group you and your fellow students will present a report on the ongoing debate within your theme. Why is research within this theme required? What are your collective findings? How do you position yourselves in the debate and what problems and questions did you run into as a result? What stage of research & writing are you in? UPLOAD YOUR WORK IN PROGRESS ABSTRACT & ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO BB IN THE DESGINATED FOLDER C) Paper In order to start you working on your paper in time and spread feedback throughout the course, you will write a first draft during the course. For formal questions please consult the handboek academische vaardigheden. You will get individual feedback on the first draft during the last course week. Write a short and exciting intro to get the reader interested: this should consist of a clearly stated research question and an explanation of this question (why this topic, why is it interesting now, why this approach, why certain restrictions, what is the larger context of your research. Refer to the methods you will use in your approach (historical, theoretical, technical), specific theories your research will address, state‐ of‐the‐Art in the research done on your subject (authors you will use, recent developments in theory/techniques, difficulties, sources). Describe the structure of your paper (what will you do in which chapter). A number of papers from earlier Get Real! courses are available at BB max. 5000 words, excl. notes and bibliography. The bibliography has to include at least 15 academic articles/books, also references other than named in this course outline; all of which have to be cited in the paper. UPLOAD YOUR FIRST DRAFT & FINAL PAPER TO BB IN THE DESGINATED FOLDER
Course Calendar & Deadlines
12 sept WG 1 14 sept WG 2 09.00 ‐ 12.45 19/21 sept 23 sept 19.30 ‐ 21.00 Introduction, choice of research theme
26/28 sept 3/5 oct 10/12 oct 17/19 oct 18 oct 15.00 ‐ 17.00 24/26 oct 31 oct/2 nov 31 oct/2 nov 13.00 ‐ 18.00 4 nov 10.00 ‐ 17.00 9 nov
HAND IN Technical Assignment online & ON PAPER Lecture by Paul Ward: "Dark Intervals, Mechanics and Magic: Animated Movement as the Illusion of Life" Location: Senaatszaal, Academiegebouw Universiteit Utrecht, Domplein 29 http://www.uu.nl/faculty/humanities/NL/centreforthehumanities/nieuws/Pages/2 0110713cfh‐paulward‐haff‐artists‐in‐residence.aspx Theme computer graphics Theme computer animation Theme digital photography Theme scientific images (both classes taught by Sarah de Rijcke) Workshop Dataviz, Location: TBA. Organized by MT Schaefer & Changing Literacies Theme data visualisation (both classes taught by Ann‐Sophie Lehmann) hand in first draft for feedback session online and ON PAPER Theme haptic visuality (NOTE: Group 1 on 2 nov, Group 2 on 31 oct) Personal feedback on first drafts Location TBA IMPAKT festival, symposium, special guest Mercedes Bunz Final Paper deadline online & On Paper: Muntstraat 2a pidgeonhole Lehmann
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.