<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Color</title>
	<atom:link href="http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Digital Media and History</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Ken, you have a good point about the "culture of sharing" on the web. That collaborative nature could be one of the hardest things for academicians to comprehend. Does the nature of our business (creation of new knowledge) mesh well with a medium that provides all of the tools to "plagiarize" at will? But while the transparency is a little disconcerting, it also provides opportunity. We can create new and better things when we disagree with the consensus. That's where we need to focus our efforts.

Personally, I believe the democratization of design is a good thing. Especially for people like us, for which the design is a secondary consideration to the content. It allows us to learn from the experiences of the collective webspace and apply Surowiecki's "wisdom of crowds" to our design, freeing us to generate that new knowledge. I think the similarity you see across the web is likely more about the collective intelligence of web designers settling on the design principles for the medium than it is about groupthink. Although I don't doubt that there are plenty of examples of that mindset in action!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ken, you have a good point about the &#8220;culture of sharing&#8221; on the web. That collaborative nature could be one of the hardest things for academicians to comprehend. Does the nature of our business (creation of new knowledge) mesh well with a medium that provides all of the tools to &#8220;plagiarize&#8221; at will? But while the transparency is a little disconcerting, it also provides opportunity. We can create new and better things when we disagree with the consensus. That&#8217;s where we need to focus our efforts.</p>
<p>Personally, I believe the democratization of design is a good thing. Especially for people like us, for which the design is a secondary consideration to the content. It allows us to learn from the experiences of the collective webspace and apply Surowiecki&#8217;s &#8220;wisdom of crowds&#8221; to our design, freeing us to generate that new knowledge. I think the similarity you see across the web is likely more about the collective intelligence of web designers settling on the design principles for the medium than it is about groupthink. Although I don&#8217;t doubt that there are plenty of examples of that mindset in action!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lee ann ghajar</title>
		<link>http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>lee ann ghajar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:28:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/#comment-14</guid>
		<description>I definitely appreciated Wroblewski this week.  As you commented, website similarity negates the creativity that is possible on the web--even for those of us relying heavily on the box model!  Borrowing and collaborating, adapting and reshaping actually bring a sense of creativity to those of us who are artistically impaired.  I've noticed that some websites will copy a standard design, even when it is totally inappropriate for the product of the subject.  Commercially, for example, a law firm site and a cookie retail outlet should't look alike, even if they are both rectangular.  Wroblewski was a good starting point for thinking a little more creatively and for looking for design and color coresponding to the message of the site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I definitely appreciated Wroblewski this week.  As you commented, website similarity negates the creativity that is possible on the web&#8211;even for those of us relying heavily on the box model!  Borrowing and collaborating, adapting and reshaping actually bring a sense of creativity to those of us who are artistically impaired.  I&#8217;ve noticed that some websites will copy a standard design, even when it is totally inappropriate for the product of the subject.  Commercially, for example, a law firm site and a cookie retail outlet should&#8217;t look alike, even if they are both rectangular.  Wroblewski was a good starting point for thinking a little more creatively and for looking for design and color coresponding to the message of the site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer Levasseur</title>
		<link>http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Levasseur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historiarum.org/2007/02/26/color/#comment-13</guid>
		<description>Until reading your blog, I hadn't thought about a sort of reusability factor for web presentation as you see in the art world, but I suppose it does have a history there. Some of the most famous artists of the last century, especially Andy Warhol, were co-opting images from other sources for their own purposes. In his case, for commentary on American culture and consumerism. One of my favorites is his colorization of the Apollo 11 image of Buzz Aldrin, which certainly then connects to the Moonman statue used by MTV at its VMA awards. It's amazing how most anything now can be reused in countless formats.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Until reading your blog, I hadn&#8217;t thought about a sort of reusability factor for web presentation as you see in the art world, but I suppose it does have a history there. Some of the most famous artists of the last century, especially Andy Warhol, were co-opting images from other sources for their own purposes. In his case, for commentary on American culture and consumerism. One of my favorites is his colorization of the Apollo 11 image of Buzz Aldrin, which certainly then connects to the Moonman statue used by MTV at its VMA awards. It&#8217;s amazing how most anything now can be reused in countless formats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- o4 --><!-- c4 -->