"The basis of framing theory is that the media focuses attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning." source: http://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/framing-theory/
Media twists these findings to frame them either in their own interest or to have more visits with polemic titles. But rankings based in scientific measurements might also make use of that to get their results published in the media. I don't mean to undervalue scientific work at all. But the instrumentation of it not for purposes other than scientific.
I think there is in one site a problem with the press business model. People do not pay most of the time for the information they read, so journals are not considered anymore exactly a public service but an investment for funds or controlled by debt and governments. In the other side there is the politics of gross investment in R&D for economic growth and a new diplomacy of rankings about everything education, transparency, business friendly policies to attract investors. The problem as I see it is not in the excesses of the system but in the system of knowledge economy, as we know it. As long as you convert intangible assets in into a patent of so you can speculate with it in the financial economy. Anyway, an interesting approach I've seen lately is sites like theconversation where real experts write about their field, besides every post includes a release statement about their personal involvement, and conflicting interests on the subject. Also this link about the technology of measurement is interesting https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-10-20/rank-has-...
My favorite definition is in this footage of Gordon Pask speaking of the liberty to adventure, not limited to artists but also very common to sciences. Art and science are ways of questioning or proving asumptions about the world and that requires to asume risks. There is no risk in mastery.
https://youtu.be/fifSXXS8fU4
The problem is that art is what a system of galleries and museums establishes as art work. How unfair or not this is I might agree. But artist is not a condition that you can claim.
I agree that there is a bit of arrogance, which is a psicological condition that is very tipical in artists, so it should be no problem. The problem is that in this case this work is not only outside the institution but also outside the discourse of art. I'd like to know what message you read here. As someone that has been tought to look at works of art since I have memory I tell you that the only message implied in these pieces is the inner world of the author. I respect it but art is a metadiscourse, art is always about art, or at least provides a means to refer to art history. It can be about literature, take a look at Lovecraft or Allan Moore. Those are artists. The technique is good, even impressive but dificultness is not needed in art. Museums would be filled of ships constructed inside bottles and they are not. So I understand this negativity because it's not only arrogant to claim to be an artist at the age of 20, but to claim it without having been interested yourself in art history much. Art is not about artists, that is some romantic stuff we've been told from 1800 and stoped working 50 years later, until the new media started emphasizing in personalities so insistently. So of course attitude is really important, but I think the one showing the wrong attitude here is the one claiming to be artist. There is nothing wrong in not being an artist.
It's good. I'd try to avoid a bit more the emotional aesthetization. That would fit more in painting that lacks technique, but you paint too good for that. Make it more rough. Don't mean to know more than you of course but a good trick is to try to paint humans as if they were landscapes. no it's as if you don't leave anything outside of the painting, for the viewer to fill... Only my opinion do.
Charity is the opposity of justice. It preserves a state of things, a division among those who give and those who take. The best charitable cause is a world without it.
It seems that, apart from gitk, there are some tools built for displaying git commit graphs. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1057564/pretty-git-branch...
In terms of the final use of this I haven't digged enough yet. What seems pretty straight forward is the potential of directed graphs for dashboard graphic interfaces. If you could export the git data to JSON, it shouldn't be very difficult to implement with D3 the dinamic generation of SVG's views. This way you might have a chance of making the graph interactive. Example: you could click on a node to retrieve the complete data contained in it, highlight a branch... Otherwise the graph might end not being very usable in terms of information organization or retrieval. However I'm very much for making cool things and not caring too much about usefulness. This is already a cool thing, thanks for sharing.
