For this task, I decided to do a mode-bending that included two new modes not used originally for task 1: gestural representation and audio representation. Originally I was going to do only a gestural representation but then I thought that including an audio representation would allow me to give more clues to the viewer, as I am presenting the objects without giving away their identity through words (although there is a link to reveal that information).<\/span><\/p>\n Using gestures, I am expressing how each object is used. Using sound, I am expressing what sounds can be produced with the objects or activities I do with the objects. It is interesting to contemplate how, compared to the original task, there is no visual nor textual representation of the objects, and how the immediacy of identifying them is reduced. This made me think about how visual and textual representations are usually the most precise modes to describe objects. Seeing an object and its name makes possible instant recognition. I believe it mirrors how the mind works, as it seems in my experience that, in thinking, a name can\u2019t be separated from form (try to imagine a nameless form!). However, what I also learned from this mode-bending task is theat audio (not as speaking, but sound effects) and gestures are very efficient to illustrate actions or dynamic content. This made me think about how when we think about verbs, the images produced in the mind are dynamic and, in that sense, more like a gesture or a sound effect. <\/span><\/p>\n Hence, this redesign process was one of going from static content to dynamic content; from objects to activities; from nouns to verbs. However, if I look at it more critically, it seems like the act of representation is in itself a dynamic process of transformation. Even in the case of the images and the words, there is a initial process in which the objects (which is a perceptual experience) are converted into a static form (pictures and words). This help me to understand Kalantzis and Cope\u2019s (2009) observation that \u201call forms of representation, including language, should be regarded as dynamic processes of transformation rather than processes of reproduction\u201d (p.175). Another important idea expressed by Kalantzis and Cope\u2019s (2009) and in ETEC 540 is that experiences are multimodal. For example, the gestural representation was clearly visual as well, although gestures could also be expressed only through sound or words. But could we have gesture separated from a visual, auditory, or linguistic experience? <\/span><\/p>\n Another interesting observation that came from this task is that my gestural and visual representations are biased. To read these visual and gestural texts the observer must have a cultural background sufficiently close to mine. An individual from 2000 years ago wouldn\u2019t be able to understand most (if not all) of the representations. The gestures and sounds are informed by cultural objects that belong to a particular culture and time. However, it is interesting to think about how some of the emotions I display in the videos (for example enjoyment or peace) have a transcendental quality that could be understood by any human. This made me think about Dobson & Wilinsky’s (2009) assertion that \u201cliteracy should be viewed, rather, as a set of complex characteristics and processes that influence and are influenced by social context and personal circumstance\u201d (p.15). From my analysis of how the objects biased the representations, I can see the truth in this statement. However, from the analysis of the transcendence of some texts (for example emotions), I believe it could be argued that maybe there is some literacy that is inherent in human beings, regardless of context or culture. <\/span><\/p>\nObject 1<\/h2>\n