This week’s progress had me reflecting on the affordances of digital media but also, on the pitfalls. Digital media allows for more voices to be heard, more perspectives to be shared, and more democratization of information. In relation to my blog theme, I’m grateful that artists can now leverage digital media to share their portfolios, bring awareness to their work and collaborate with other artists.
Upon reflection, I also noted that I’m grateful that my limited digital media browsing has allowed me to avoid the darker side of it. As discussed this week, digital media has also unfortunately created opportunities for misinformation and abuse of platforms. With that said, digital literacy is a critical tool in debunking what is credible and what is B.S.
Upon reading a recent article (that I rather not share), I had to explore it with a critical lens. It was related to art and the history this art carries. While I did enjoy the article, the historic aspects were quite near to my family and while I’m sure the author did their research, there were still some elements that I questioned. As Mike Caulfield (2016) explains, rather than following a vague acronym, most literacies are dependent on “a body of knowledge that comes from mindful immersion in a context” (para. 8). It’s this context that is crucial. This was a credible site, and yet, I found myself questioning some content.
Moreover, I intend to carry on this information integrity in my blog posts. I often directly quote artists because I want to ensure I’m capturing exactly what they intend to say rather than getting it confused with my own biases. Even when it comes to art it’s important that the meaning that specific artist was conveying doesn’t get lost in my own perspective. I take it seriously because art in itself is political.
References:
Caulfield, Mike. December 19, 2016. Yes, Digital Literacy. But which one?
Skip to content