The post really seemed to focus an an intriguing premise, namely that documenting the creative process has a certain innate value that is often overlooked. This makes a great deal of sense, as sharing this information is beneficial for everyone (as long as you adhere to certain courtesy guidelines). It can serve as a motivator and fan-base builder for the creator, and can satisfy the curiosity of fans while facilitating their own learning. It essentially makes your work more accessible. Within my own realm of video-editing, you often see YouTube channels posting tutorials or how-to posts that can help guide fans into becoming creators themselves. So the act of sharing the process also serves to disseminate knowledge, an awesome act in and of itself. Honestly documenting one’s process can almost serve as a sort of creative democratization. The creative process becomes more of a dialogue between the creator and fans, potentially allowing for more fan interaction and input that can also positively influence the development of a project. Ultimately I felt that it was this emphasis on the process as opposed to the product that was the most important take-away from this post.
Using Hypothesis was a positive experience. I’ve had the opportunity to experiment with it some last semester, and it seems like a good way to essentially digest a text online as a group. Everyone can add their input without fear of being talked over or overlooked, and the annotations can be completed whenever your schedule permits (within the designated timeline of course). That sort of flexibility should hopefully allow more people to participate than they otherwise would have if the format was simply a verbal discussion of the text.