be exploited

dieksploitasi

exploit

mengeksploitasi

organization must define information and knowledge in the light of their activities and goals (Orna 44). Additionally, IBM and Lotus used this definition of KM when developing their entry into the KM arena: ‘‘a discipline that systematically leverages content and expertise to provide innovation, responsiveness, competency, and efficiency’’ (Pohs 11). While Microsoft prefers to state that ‘‘KM is nothing more than managing information flow; getting the right information to the people who need it so they can act on it quickly’’ (Gates 19). The American National Standards Institute proposes to define knowledge management as ‘‘the production, mediation, and use of knowledge; the management of intellectual capital’’ (ANSI/GKEC 20). Peter Drucker brings us a more concise definition: ‘‘the coordination and exploitation of organizations knowledge resources, in order to create benefit and competitive advantage’’ (Perseus Publishing 200). KM has antecedents in corporate libraries, CI, best practices sharing in corporate quality organizations, and knowledge transfer efforts. Its primary focus has been on the capture, sharing and distribution of unstructured textual and graphic information as opposed to the structured, quantitative orientation of business intelligence. KM has also had a technological focus (particularly on web-based, repository, and collaborative technologies), but its adherents also place strong emphasis on the need for human and cultural interventions in order to make knowledge sharing work.

Technology encompasses the hardware, the tangible artefacts (i.e. machines; tools and techniques), used to perform some practical task, as well as the software immediately associated with the hardware and the brainware (e.g. knowledge-based

What the art is? Some brief definition of art would oversimplify the matter, but, here we can say that all the definitions offered over the centuries include some notion of human agency, whether through manual skills, intellectual manipulation, or public or personal expression (as in the art of conversation). Recall that the word is etymologically related to artificial i.e., produced by human beings. Since this embraces many types of production that are not conventionally deems as art, perhaps a better term for them would be visual culture. This would explain why certain preindustrial cultures produce objects, which Eurocentric interests characterize as art, even though the producing culture has no linguistic term to differentiate these objects from utilitarian artifacts. Having said that, we are still lefts with a class of objects, ideas, and activities that are held to be separate or special in some way. Even those things, which become art even though they are not altered in any material way -- e.g., ready-mades --, are accorded some special status in a describable way. Because of this complexity, writers have developed a variety of ways to characterize the art impulse. Ellen Dissanayake's What is art for? Here these as follows (no particular order): the product of conscious intention, a self rewarding activity, a tendency to unite dissimilar things, a concern with change and variety, the aesthetic exploitation of familiarity vs. surprise, the aesthetic exploitation of tension vs. release, the imposition of order on disorder, the creation of illusions, an indulgence in sensuousness, the exhibition of skill, a desire to convey meanings, an indulgence in fantasy, the aggrandizement of self or others, illustration, the heightening of existence, revelation, personal adornment or embellishment, therapy, the giving of meaning to life, the generation of unselfconscious experience, the provision of paradigms of order and/or disorder, training in the perception of reality.

What the art is? Some brief definition of art would oversimplify the matter, but, here we can say that all the definitions offered over the centuries include some notion of human agency, whether through manual skills, intellectual manipulation, or public or personal expression (as in the art of conversation). Recall that the word is etymologically related to artificial i.e., produced by human beings. Since this embraces many types of production that are not conventionally deems as art, perhaps a better term for them would be visual culture. This would explain why certain preindustrial cultures produce objects, which Eurocentric interests characterize as art, even though the producing culture has no linguistic term to differentiate these objects from utilitarian artifacts. Having said that, we are still lefts with a class of objects, ideas, and activities that are held to be separate or special in some way. Even those things, which become art even though they are not altered in any material way -- e.g., ready-mades --, are accorded some special status in a describable way. Because of this complexity, writers have developed a variety of ways to characterize the art impulse. Ellen Dissanayake's What is art for? Here these as follows (no particular order): the product of conscious intention, a self rewarding activity, a tendency to unite dissimilar things, a concern with change and variety, the aesthetic exploitation of familiarity vs. surprise, the aesthetic exploitation of tension vs. release, the imposition of order on disorder, the creation of illusions, an indulgence in sensuousness, the exhibition of skill, a desire to convey meanings, an indulgence in fantasy, the aggrandizement of self or others, illustration, the heightening of existence, revelation, personal adornment or embellishment, therapy, the giving of meaning to life, the generation of unselfconscious experience, the provision of paradigms of order and/or disorder, training in the perception of reality.

What the art is? Some brief definition of art would oversimplify the matter, but, here we can say that all the definitions offered over the centuries include some notion of human agency, whether through manual skills, intellectual manipulation, or public or personal expression (as in the art of conversation). Recall that the word is etymologically related to artificial i.e., produced by human beings. Since this embraces many types of production that are not conventionally deems as art, perhaps a better term for them would be visual culture. This would explain why certain preindustrial cultures produce objects, which Eurocentric interests characterize as art, even though the producing culture has no linguistic term to differentiate these objects from utilitarian artifacts. Having said that, we are still lefts with a class of objects, ideas, and activities that are held to be separate or special in some way. Even those things, which become art even though they are not altered in any material way -- e.g., ready-mades --, are accorded some special status in a describable way. Because of this complexity, writers have developed a variety of ways to characterize the art impulse. Ellen Dissanayake's What is art for? Here these as follows (no particular order): the product of conscious intention, a self rewarding activity, a tendency to unite dissimilar things, a concern with change and variety, the aesthetic exploitation of familiarity vs. surprise, the aesthetic exploitation of tension vs. release, the imposition of order on disorder, the creation of illusions, an indulgence in sensuousness, the exhibition of skill, a desire to convey meanings, an indulgence in fantasy, the aggrandizement of self or others, illustration, the heightening of existence, revelation, personal adornment or embellishment, therapy, the giving of meaning to life, the generation of unselfconscious experience, the provision of paradigms of order and/or disorder, training in the perception of reality.