the ides of spring

Back post-vacation, and I'm not finding that much has happened mediawise in the interim. : ( But Jane Remer has posted an interesting blog entry on the lack of evidence between arts education and impact:

Even the wonderfully simple 'habits of mind' (which are not exclusive to the arts at all) that my serious colleagues Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner recently identified in their on-going arts research at Project Zero are now being paraded on stage by arts enthusiasts as "proof" of the omnipotential power of the arts to ....well, you fill in the blanks*.

Interesting, yes, and a bit sad for this art lover who sees creative production moving in two equally dispiriting directions: mimickry or commercially inspired production for the masses, and more thoughtful, original art for an elite few. While I see the value in mashups, fan fiction, cosplay and the overall creative universe of fandom, it seems that in such setups, there is a corporate puppetmaster in the background already adhering to particular memes around established mainstream narratives.

Remer concludes her post by calling for art teachers to infuse arts education with meaning, transcending the perceptions that art is mere play. Really, a wonderful post. I highly recommend you check it out.



* In the interest of full disclosure, Winner and Hetland are colleagues of mine at Project Zero, at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Architecture yokes us ever closer

I love this. Wired has a visual history of office organization, ending with a design for the 'networked' workplace. "Since the dawn of the white-collar age, office designs have cycled through competing demands: openness versus privacy, interaction versus autonomy." The burgeoning, networked, collaborative, collective intelligence flavor of the contemporary workplace features four-person pods, the edges defined by curved walls.

I dunno. Some people work better alone. Where will those people sit in this new arrangement? Or is collective intelligence the newest repressive regime? I say this as a person who shares her office with a p/t person, and I sit closest to the window. And it's glorious.

Another Volley in the War On Games

Shoot'em up vide games may be good for eyesight, shouts the provocative headline:

Tests before and after showed that the contrast perception of both groups improved. But the action-game group showed 43 per cent improvement on average, compared with just 11 per cent in the other group. The effect persisted for months, even when people didn't play games at all.

I think that's cool, but I have a few questions /comments about the study:

• The study group numbered a robust ... thirteen participants. Lucky thirteen.


• Participants either played "some type of action video game" like Unreal Tournament, or played "a more sedate game" like the Sims. What did they actually play?


• And speaking of good protocol, did they cross-test with, say, an action movie?


• Any monitor variations? Resolution variations? Just sayin'.


• Any unintended consequences?


• The study focused on amblyopia sufferers, or "lazy eye", which affects 3% of the population.

I'm all for an open dialogue on video games, but shoddy-ass research like this should be treated with a high dose of skepticism. Or maybe it's just shoddy reporting, it's hard to tell. New Scientist, I'm watching you...