I know that today we were trying to find the code how to interpret those movies. We were talking about one detail give us clues about what would happen later, and the camera positions tell us blablabla. However, David mentioned that the director forced us to see the focuses and the next screen, we have no choice as an audience. Then I found I was trying to guess the directors intentions about why they put some certain background things into the stage, and how the directors put those clothes onto the actors’ body in order to express the roles’ personality. My question is that do I come back to phenomenology from structuralism when I tried to guess and explain the directors’ intentions? Or I am using the structuralism method as far as I still decompose the movie into cloth, camera position and other aspects.
- Why We Turn Away
- Should the critical-interpretavist researchers of CHI leave the design subcommunity?
- The Materiality of Research Practice
- Critiquing Scholarly Positions
- A Dark Pattern in Humanistic HCI
- The “Knowledge as a By-Product of Artistic Practice is Still Not Research” Objection to My “Criterial Knowledge” Post
- The Criterial Knowledge Argument for Research Through Design
- Research Through Design: A Humanistic Conception
- HCI as “Core” or “Relation”?
- An Erotics of Research
Melissa on The Logic of Foucault’s… Kristina Höök on Should the critical-interpreta… jeffreybardzell on Should the critical-interpreta… Paul Dourish on Should the critical-interpreta… 霍達葦訓練企業有限公司 (USBCT) on Macro & Micro