Diana Bang's ETEC 531 e-portfolio

Some of the major sci-fi themes proposed by writers include:

– Utopias and dystopias where “idyllic” or self-destructive worlds abound (i.e. Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward, H.G. Wells’ A Modern Utopia, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984)

– Alternative, future societies (i.e. Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land)

– Gender issues (i.e. Theodore Sturgeon’s Venus Plus X)

– Aliens and other “intelligent” lifeforms (i.e. Voltaire’s Micromegas, Frederic Brown’s Martians Go Home)

– Outer space travel (i.e. Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon)

– Time travel (i.e. H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine)

– Parallel universes and different versions of history (i.e. Murray Leinster’s Sidewise in Time)

– Technological advancements (i.e. the concept of invisibility as illustrated in H.G. Wells’ The Invisible man, Philip K. Dick’s A Scanner Darkley)

– Androids, Robots, Cyborgs (i.e. Robert Silverberg’s The Androids are Coming, Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, Ed Naha’s Robocop)

– Cyberpunk (i.e. William Gibson’s Neuromancer)

– ESP and Psychic abilities (i.e. Robert Heinlein’s Time for the Stars)

Also, I think that the pre-cursors of the sci-fi genre included Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886), and Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726). Coupled with the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, the sci-fi genre continued to develop. Additional notable sci-fi writers include Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert Heinlein, (among many others).

I think the status of sci-fi as a literary genre has evolved as it began merely as a work of pure fictitious fantasy incorporating elements of science and has slowly morphed to become almost prophetic in its nature as it has the uncanny ability to foretell some of the realities of the future.  Additionally, stories that were set in an imaginary time and/or place enabled the exploration of different worlds, futuristic societies, life forms, and cultures. However, it seems that these sci-fi stories are not as far-fetched as they initially seemed and have already begun to hit closer to home. Whether the topics deal with cloning, genetic engineering, or the advancement of computers/robots- it has gotten to the point where these topics are not limited to a work of fiction. I recall when Dolly the sheep (the first cloned mammal) made the news headlines with much controversy. Interestingly, the animal had to be put down due to a progressive lung disease and had a shorter than expected life expectancy, raising more questions about cloning: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3393-dolly-the-sheep-dies-young.html. Thus, the issues that were normally kept in the confines of sci-fi literature are being dealt with in reality and so a lot of the discussions generated from sci-fi works have truly crossed the boundary into the real-world.

Furthermore, often in sci-fi literature foreign characters were traditionally depicted in a negative light because not much was known about them (i.e. aliens out to destroy mankind and the world, robots, etc). However, they increasingly appear not to be typecast as the evil villains. Instead, with a twist of irony it seems that more often than not humans are now at the forefront of destruction- as they’re depicted of being both the creators of innovation and masterminds of self-destruction. As sci-fi stories have unfolded it appears they come with morals or hidden messages. For example, the notion that as human civilizations continues to develop and there are greater technological advancements we will have to assume more responsibility for our actions and decisions as evolution may come with an ultimate price. Overall, it seems that science fiction for better or for worse has definitely started blurring the lines between what’s reality and fiction. No longer does it just provide a forum for discussion or stir our imaginations, and instead it’s edging ever closer to a realized version of fiction.

According to Murphie and Potts (2003) science fiction has assumed an increasingly influential cultural position due to its ethical questioning of the social consequences of new technologies. The legacy handed down by precursors of modern science fiction includes the moral questioning and warnings of the work of scientists “playing God” or “meddling with nature.” This is evident as our society has evolved to conducting stem-cell research, genetic engineering, cloning, etc. Essentially, science fiction has played out in real-life and has provided the forum to discuss concerns raised as technological advancements flourish. It has also shaped and re-defined our societal attitudes towards science and technology. For example, several sci-fi shows and movies (X-Files, Aliens, Terminator, etc) have led us to question authority (i.e. government) rather accepting them wholeheartedly. However, the science fiction genre has also been (and continues to be) a source of inspiration and imagination of what may be in store for the future (i.e. Back to the Future, Total Recall, The Matrix, Minority Report, etc). As Murphie and Potts (2003) point out SF literature may be more likely to have a positive outlook on technology as it’s likely to be more “thoughtful, speculative, and engaged with ideas concerning technology” in contrast to cinema.

As this week’s readings and interactivities boldly remind us, educational institutions at their very core are business industries and the growth of e-learning has led to the rise of their e-commerce (Diotalevi, 2003; Noble, 1998; Petrina, 2005; Winner, 1998). Langdon Winner’s (1998) satirical take on the “Automatic Professor Machine” cites some of the forces shaping education include: commodification, globalization, privatization and digital transformation. Although, Winner’s “Automatic Professor Machine” sounds far-fetched, some of his points appear to be valid. For example, in terms of students’ needs for education to be flexible, user-friendly, and accessible on demand. However, his simplistic and artificial definition of education to be “the transfer of knowledge from point a to point b through the most efficient, low cost link possible” leads me to wonder whether the increasing trend towards automation through e-learning initiatives by educational institutions will ultimately be dictated by their bottom dollar (revenue) or a higher cause (i.e. goals to improve learning and to provide fair, equitable, universal access to all)? Is Noble (1998) correct in his stance that this is an epic, ongoing battle between students and professors on one side and university administrations and companies with “educational products” to sell on the other?

Additionally, is the continued rise of virtual universities just a matter of time- isn’t it already happening now? However, will it ever get to the point where virtually no f2f contact is necessary? Take for instance this quote by Cunningham, Tapsall, Ryan et al. (1998): “Picture a future in which students never meet a lecturer face to face in a class room, never physically visit the on-campus library; in fact, never set foot on the campus or into an institutional lecture-room or learning center. Such is the future proposed by the virtual university scenario” (as cited in Dutton & Loader, 2002).

As well, the increasing commercialization of e-learning leads us to question who has the authority to their ownership? As Petrina (2005) illustrates with his example of UBC’s MET program development, the university assumed that faculty members would surrender their academic freedom, and intellectual property rights as the university would ultimately be the sole owner and retain the copyright to all MET program materials. It’s no wonder that automation has affected not only course materials but also the number of adjunct teaching staff vs. faculty that teach the courses. Is this the way of the future as we know it? Are Cunningham, Tapsall, Ryan et al. (1998) merely predicting what’s in store for the evolution and automation of education?

References

Diotalevi, R. N. (2003). An education in copyright law: A primer for cyberspace. Library Philosophy and Practice, 6(1), 1-21.

Dutton, W. H., & Loader, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Digital academe: The new media and institutions of higher education and learning. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://gen.lib.rus.ec/get?nametype=orig&md5=1c6042526c2d99752d58066aca8a0731

Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First Monday, 3(1-5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490

Petrina, S. (2005). How (and why) digital diploma mills (don’t) work: Academic freedom, intellectual property rights, automation and UBC’s Master of Educational Technology program. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 7(1), 38-59.

Winner, L. (1998). The automatic professor machine. Retrieved from http://guinevere.icme.rpi.edu/wvx/lcw/apm.wvx

I initially think of “open source” to denote free software, with available source code for universal access and use by anyone (whether it is used as is or as modified code).

Petrina, Volk & Kim (2004) define “open source” to be “processes of creating, distributing, using, modifying and sharing software programs without the fear of patent infringements in both commercial and non-commercial environments.” According to these authors, Linux is at the heart of current open source software movement which evolved into initiatives by others including Sun Microsystem’s Openoffice.org and MIT’s OpenCourseWare.

According to the Open Source Initiative (2011), the definition of open source doesn’t merely stop at accessible source code.  There’s a “top ten” list of criteria that open-source software has to comply with including:

1. Free redistribution

2. Source code

3. Derived works

4. Integrity of the author’s source code

5. No discrimination against persons or groups

6. No discrimination against fields of endeavors

7. Distribution of license

8. License must not be specific to a product

9. License must not restrict other software

10. License must be technology-neutral

(Source: Open Source Initiative, 2011 at: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd)

On p.71 of our course textbook, Murphie and Potts (2003) assert that the open source movement argues that “basic software should be freely available to all and should be developed freely within a network of benevolent programmers constituting something like the “collective intelligence” advocated by Pierre Levy. Interestingly enough, the next open source movement for higher education (asides from course management systems) is the administrative side- with Kuali leading the charge. Jaschik (2009) discusses this at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/06/kuali. Another useful e-resource examines what’s next for open knowledge and is available at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262033712chap27.pdf

References

García-Peñalvo, F. J. , de Figuerola, C. G., & Merlo,  J. A. (2010). Open knowledge management in higher education. Online Information Review, 34(4). Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1876485&show=html

Gregg, D. (2009). UBC implementation- Kuali CM. Retrieved from http://www.it.ubc.ca/__shared/assets/UBC_Implementation_-_Kuali_CM_Presentation_by_Doug_Gregg9166.pdf

Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2008). Chapter 27: What’s next for open knowledge? In T. Iiyoshi & M.S. Vijay Kumar, Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 417-428). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262033712chap27.pdf

Jaschik, S. (2009). The next open source movement. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/06/kuali

Kuali Foundation. (n.d.). About the Kuali community. Retrieved from http://www.kuali.org/about

Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Chapter 3: Digital aesthetics: Cultural effects of new media technologies. In A. Murphie & J. Potts, Culture and technology (pp.66-94). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Open Source Initiative. (2011). The open source definition. Retrieved from http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Petrina, S., Volk, K., & Kim, S. (2004). Technology and rights. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(3), 1-16.

UBC Student Services. (n.d.). Kuali student: Background. Retrieved from: http://www.students.ubc.ca/mura/kuali/

The Copyright Act available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/index.html (in html) and http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-42.pdf (in pdf format) details the rights that are bundled within a copyright in Canada.

In brief, Petrina (2003) outlines the 5 bundled rights in a copyright to consist of the following:

1. Reproduction– the right to create identical or near identical copies of the work.

2. Adaptation– the right to create derivative works, such as abridgements, translations or versions in a range of media (book to movie to video to CD to on-line game).

3. Distribution– the right to make the first sale of each authorized copy of the work.

4. Performance– the right to present, recite, play, act or publicly perform the work.

5. Display– the right to publicly show the work, by means of film, radio, TV, WWW or other device.

According to the UBC Library, the changes in Access Copyright (an organization that collects copyright fees for publishers from universities and colleges) arrangements have affected the university (and their students) financially. More information about this can be found at: http://collections.library.ubc.ca/copyright. There’s also an informative copyright guide available from UBC Library at: http://collections.library.ubc.ca/copyright/copying-and-scanning-at-ubc

IPRs are intellectually property rights. Murphie and Potts (2003) define intellectual property to be “the ownership of particular items of knowledge, ideas or cultural production” and Petrina (2003) outlines the challenges and issues of “unbundling” (i.e. assigning) intellectual property rights to authors, employers, publishers, universities, etc particularly in the context of distance education and offers a guideline on how to protect your IP rights.

According to the World Trade Organization (2011), they are the “rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time” There are two major forms that they take: 1) copyright and rights related to copyright; and 2) industrial property. For more information from the WTO about intellectual property rights check out: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm.

In Canada, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office administers intellectual property (IP) laws and regulations by granting ownership for five types of IP: patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies.  For more information about IP and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, check out the following links at:
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00331.html

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00027.html

Also, in terms of intellectual property rights crimes, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) outlines it as “copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting” which is a growing international phenomenon linked to organized crime and terrorism. Here’s more information about the penalties and additional resources about intellectual property rights crimes at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/fep-pelf/ipr-dpi/publications-eng.htm

Interestingly, I found that the minimalism “plain” Bauhaus designs were partly attributed to the effect of the science discipline on Bauhaus designers. For example, Anker (2005) cited science as having a profound affect on Bauhaus designers in their development of design. I’d recommend reading “The Bauhaus of Nature” by Peder Anker as it outlines how the Bauhaus designers were influenced by the biological sciences and ecological concerns while reestablishing the school in London after being expelled from Germany. I particularly found it insightful as it explained how ecological sciences and Bauhaus design merged in H.G. Wells’ utopian visions for a society that was harmonious with nature. Ultimately, this has led to the combination of art and science. As Anker (2010) asserts “the unification of art and science is at the heart of the history of ecological design. Bauhaus designers believed that design must follow the laws of nature in order to function effectively. Rightly labeled by one of their contemporaries as “scientific architects,” they saw science as a key vehicle for design development.” Thus, another lasting contribution of the Bauhaus is in the evolution of ecological design.

Here’s the citation below:
Anker, P. (2005). The Bauhaus of nature. Modernism/modernity, 12(2), 229-251. Retrieved from: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/modernism-modernity/v012/12.2anker.html

Also, an additional informative resource by the same author:
Anker, P. (2010). From Bauhaus to ecohouse: A history of ecological design. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Retrieved from: http://arquesustenta.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/2/3/2923945/from_bauhaus_to_ecohouse.pdf

Originating in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, high art was considered to be an elitist cultural practice as depicted in paintings and sculptures whereas low art was then defined by commonly manually made craft and technology in the form of mechanics, drawing, and design (Murphie & Potts, 2003). This separation occurred between fine and applied arts due to the division of labour that was formed as a result of industrial capitalism.According to Jowi Taylor (2007), these distinctions are made in other areas than art (i.e. societal class systems) and are rooted in religion. He goes on to state that: “Shame is a human invention and the high/low distinction is one of its by-products – a fear of the carnal. The assumption is that “high art” appeals to those of refined sensibilities while “low art” is merely consumed like so much opium; the higher classes are predisposed to consider the finer things in life, dabble in philosphy and wine-collecting while the lower classes must concern themselves simply with survival; and that intellectual pursuits offer an escape from the tyranny of our appetites.” Moreover, Brian Eno is cited by Taylor (2007) stating that “the difference between high art and low art is that low art is unafraid to appeal to the senses, and high art is suspicious of the delicious, as if one were being seduced for impure reasons.”Ultimately, I think that art in any form connects with individuals on a variety of levels whether it be emotional, intellectual, and it shouldn’t matter whether it’s categorized as high or low. Thus, I agree with Taylor (2007) in that creating a distinction between high/low art is akin to snobbery as it differentiates class systems of elitists/high classes vs. other classes of society. However, unfortunately these separations still do exist even in today’s modern society. Furthermore, as Taylor (2007) boldly states no one has a claim on the “purity” of their appreciations of art and thus it is a mistake for people to attempt to preserve this distinction between high/low culture as it assumes that one culture gets a more refined, prestigious, unique experience that other cultures (i.e. the masses that consume pop music) could not achieve.

References:

Murphie, A. and Potts, J. (2003). Culture and technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Taylor, J. (2007). Thoughts from the grove: High art/low art. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/blog/2007/06/19/thoughts_from_the_grove_high_a.html

Additional resources include:Barrett, T. (1997). Modernism and postmodernism: An overview with art examples. In J. Hutchens & M. Suggs (Eds.), Art education: Content and practice in a postmodern era (p. 17-30). Washington, DC: NAEA. Retrieved from: http://www.terrybarrettosu.com/pdfs/B_PoMo_97.pdfBright, B. & Blakewell, L. (Eds.). (1995). Looking high and low: Art and cultural identity. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Efland, A. (2007). Interlude: Arts education the aesthetic and cultural studies. In L. Bresler (Ed.). International handbook of research in arts education (p. 39-44). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Retrieved from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/un2125k316n77j1m/(*Note: According to Efland (2007) pop art eliminated the boundary between high/low art and minimalism erased the distinction between fine art and industrial process).Kruger, B. (1990). What’s high, what’s low? And who cares? New York Times, p.43.(*Note: In her article, Barbara Kruger (1990) rejects modernists’ hierarchical fixations of high vs. low culture for their “false authority, pat answers and easy systems“).

The Bahaus was originally a school in Germany founded by an architect named Walter Gropius in 1919 which combined fine arts and crafts leading to a modernist movement. Their aesthetic principle resided in minimalist design without any embellishments (“non-functional decoration”) and their overarching objective aimed to improve societal conditions using technology. It blurred the boundaries between art and technology by combining traditionally separate disciplines. Due to the rise of technological advancements it is without question that the use of technology for artistic/creative design has increased. Thus, the Bauhaus has had a profound influence on the subsequent developments in art, architecture, cinema, computer animation, web design, graphic design, etc. An example of its long-lasting contributions includes modernist architecture of high-rise buildings, mass-produced housing, and town planning. According to Murphie & Potts (2003), this demonstrates the contradictions of modernist culture: “a belief in progress and rationalization on one hand, and a utopian desire on the other.”