In this insightful article, there is a deep conversation based on what web designers can do to find a balance between the real artwork versus it being placed virtually. Giampietro discusses that some viewers explain the sculpture with the smell of Walker’s installation having an impact. If someone views the artwork online none of that can be observed other than through comments on the web. However with the fast paced world that we live in today, digital databases are much more convenient than traveling an hour away from the city or on across the country to see a specific cultural art piece. Additionally, for museums to do audience research social media becomes that source instead of doing the mega slow in-person surveys. Additionally with the increase in technology, technological advances becomes an artwork and would me nothing in a 2D frozen photo. However for works that date back to the 1800s, I believe there is a disservice to the artist but possibly even more to the viewer because they don’t get to experience art by only going on online databases.

This article explains how we got to this web we have today full of unlimited use and information. As explained in the article, the intention of the web was never to have so much information available so quickly, rather have necessary information that is thoughtful with a plethora of well researched material. However, now we are left with so much information that most of the time scholars would admit to be a high percentage of the material false. If information was harder to get then the non-linear reading space would give someone all well researched truths instead of clicking through millions of contradicting articles. I do think that the linear reading spaces gives the reader an opinion to interpret for themselves what is bad and good information. Although, the non-linear reading space gives a reader all the information needed about a certain topic in the paper, for example a definition of a word and the article come together not separately of dictionary.com and wikipedia. It is a complicated topic but both have pros and cons that can be discussed over and over, unfortunately as we live in 2015 we must sort out the bads and goods of the linear reading space.

How much our convenience cost?

If you think about the Internet as a whole, it made everything much more convenient. All of your files are stored in one place, all of your music as well. Most of the information you need is here too, just waiting for you to click to discover it. No more piles of files or room storage for all that documentation you had to keep and no more Encyclopedias occupying a lot of space in your office.

The development of the cloud made everything even more convenient, more than we could have ever imagined, especially with the amount of technological devices we have nowadays. Storing your files on the cloud made it easy to access anything you needed, anywhere, not only in your home computer. But, how willingly are we, to leave our data up in the cloud, in the hands of a corporation, in the name of convenience?

Well, I would say a lot, putting in other words, all our privacy. With the creation of the Patriot Act, to look out for possible terrorist attacks, our information is freely seen by authorities, with no regards or care for privacy. It’s a power abuse. There are no boundaries, which would stop the government to invade personal lives. And there is no note or question whether you permit that or not, they just do it. The interesting thing is that when talking about the subject with colleagues, friends and family, everyone is, of course, angry and feeling violated. However they know that there is not much that they can do about it, I mean you would be in a fight with the most powerful government in the world. What can they do? Until today, the most I have seen, so far, is people covering their lap top camera with a piece of paper.

Question: How do you project surveillance affecting the digital future? 

I think surveillance is one of the most important civil liberty issues of this generation.  As digital spaces consume every aspect of our lives, the distinction between “real life” and internet lessens, and our personal and private information becomes part of the Internet and by extension, becomes part of corporate and governmental matters.  I think judging on the way we have treated whistle blowers like Snowden, governmental-secret curators like Assange, and corporations like Facebook and Google who profit off private information, it is fair to understand how individuals and corporations are treated very differently when it comes to discovering secret information. Unless we prioritize a shift of knowledge and rights around the Patriot Act, I think many people, in the Untied States and affected by U.S. policy will find that they are unfairly targeted because of the use of digital spaces to profit off of supposedly private information.

While reading this article, I agree that everything that is an art form is subjective. I believe however there is a rate of successfulness dependent on what the designer wanted to accomplish in the end. Being worried about creating with good taste gets in the way of being completely creatively free and can hinder the successfulness or the end product. The thought to not “start out with a solution set (because) that has already excluded a majority of the possibilities” which makes me wonder if designers at large corporations aren’t given the final end note then how could they find a satisfying end with nothing met or really assigned. However, maybe a solution is not directly related to what is needed at the end, ie a portfolio website. I believe to clearly create a succesful website that is not necessarily related to good taste is to have an end goal and a general path (clear wireframes, static mockups etc.) to follow so the process doesn’t keep going round circle and not have anywhere to end.