CCRMA User Blog Posts

I’m reflecting on Artful Design’s Principle 7.4, and its claim that usefulness, fullness of expression, authenticity, and transparency of use make a valuable social tool. While these four tenets make sense on the surface level, I wonder how individual users can ascribe their own usages onto a social tool. Take, for example, Facebook. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room about transparency, one could argue that Facebook is an incredibly valuable social tool because it allows you to connect with other people more effectively, you can post anything you want, and we can authentically engage with others on the platform. However, as is the case for social media today, the authenticity factor starts to dwindle as more and more importance is placed on external validation.

I am interested in Artful Design’s Principle 5.4: Bodies Matter! The idea that our body is the ultimate instrument is true right now, and it’s interesting to reflect on how this concept has transformed over years of technological development. We of course started creating music with our voice and hands and limbs, and technology has opened up the scope of that. Page 210 displays some common methods of physical musical actions, like shaking, striking, plucking, tapping, sliding, and twisting. These all existed with rudimentary instruments, and the introduction of synthetic and electronic music has changed the game.

I really like Artful Design’s Principle 3.5: Build complexity from simplicity. Design can often feel extremely intimidating when only the final product is observed and the process of creation is obscured. Just like the example in the book of the rainbow flares, complexity is just an amalgamation of many simple building blocks, and knowing that makes both design and engineering feel accessible. In my computer science background, a fundamental concept underlying all of problem solving is the process of breaking down a complex problem into many simple problems, and building back up to a complex solution. This process demystifies relationships between moving parts, gives you clarity on what steps a problem requires, and allows for more modularization and scalability.

From this week's reading, I'd like to respond to meta-principle 1.4: expect no more precision than a subject naturally affords. As a CS major primarily occupying spaces that are analytical and data-driven, I think this sentiment is often lost on my peers, and to some degree, myself. The book’s comparison of mathematical rigor vs. philosophical rigor is particularly pertinent here, because things that don’t provide explicitly measurable value are often overlooked. I can even take the example of computer science assignments that are graded on both style and functionality. Since functionality can be measured with automated tests that are applied equally to everyone, those points are optimized and weighted accordingly.