Latest revision as of 11:28, 26 January 2022

Thesis Outline:

Research question:

How can an understanding of the underlying mechanism operating between users and (self)surveillance systems create more awareness of the issues concerning the marketization of human data?

Sub questions:

— How, when, and why did our online data become merchandized? By whom and for what purposes?
— What are the issues related to the use of self-quantification/self-tracking practices? (self-alienation, legitimization of surveillance and self-surveillance in physical context, free labor).
— What can be done to raise awareness to the users about the effects of self-quantification/self-tracking practices?

Introduction (700 words)

— Starts with an appetizing paragraph, written as a small story about the life of a self-data user.
— Brief context, what are we talking about and why? What is/are the problem(s) Why does it has to be discussed and addressed.
— Introduce the topic of the first chapter about the marketisation of user’s data, from 2001 until nowadays.
— Introduce the topic of the second chapter about self-quantification/alienation, legitimization of surveillance and self-surveillance in physical contexts, and free labor.
— Introduce the topic of the third chapter exploring alternatives, and promoting a counter-use of techno surveillance systems.

Chapter 1: The marketisation of user’s data, from 2001 until nowadays (1000 words)

How/When/Why did our online data became merchandized? How is it valued?
By who and for what purposes can this information be used? Advertising, politics, governments, etc.
Why did the human attention became an economy?

Helpful references:

• SHOSHANA ZUBOFF, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019)
Warns against this shift towards a «surveillance capitalism». Her thesis argues that, by appropriating our personal data, the digital giants are manipulating us and modifying our behavior, attacking our free will and threatening our freedoms and personal sovereignty.

• EVGENY MOROZOV, Capitalism’s New Clothes (2019)
Extensive analysis and critic of Shoshana Zuboff research and publications.

• TIM WU, The Attention Merchants, (2016)
How the detection and marketisation human attention has definied industry of our time/attention

• BYRON REEVES AND CLIFFORD NASS, The Media Equation, How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places (1996) Precursor study of the relation between humans and machine, and how do you human relate to them.

Chapter 2: Self-quantification/alienation, legitimization of surveillance and self-surveillance in physical contexts, and free labor (2300 words)

Self-tracking practices How does the promotion of self tracking/quantification practices/tools allow tech giants to gather and sell even more personal informations about it’s users? What are the alienating effects of such tools/practice? How does this participates in a culture of surveillance and self-surveillance where monitoring systems don’t limit themselves to the online world but are also implemented in physical environments and on human bodies.

From online to physical What are the example of tools, devices, systems which monitors humans behavior in physical contexts, under what pretext do they exist, what are be the risk for our freedoms? How far could it go? Are we becoming users of our own environments?
Helpful references:

• OMAR KHOLEIF, Goodbye, World! — Looking at Art in the digital Age (2018)
Ask how the Internet has changed the way we perceive and relate, and interact with/to images. State that the internet has created an transforming the «world a the network of all network»

• MARK O’CONNELL, To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death Hardcover (2017)
Talks about trans humanism, and show how the fascination/obsession for new technologies can lead to conceive our own human body as a device.

Chapter 3: Agree and continue? Exploring alternatives, and promoting a counter-use of techno surveillance systems (2300 words)

How do these companies manage to sill get the consent from most of their users on their policy? What human biases do they exploit? What can be the alternatives to techno-surveillance? What can be the active of roles of artists, curators and public cultural institution such as museum upon this realm
Helpful references:

• MELISSA GRONLUND, Contemporary Art and Digital Culture (2016) Analyses the impact of the internet and digital technologies in our modern societies and contemporary art practice

• AARON SWARTZ, Freedom to Connect: on Victory To Save Open Internet, Fight Online Censors (1986-2013) How do computers and the Internet « empower people around the world with the freedom to connect », and preaching the Open access to information

• KATRIN FRITSCH, Towards an emancipatory understanding of widespread datafication (2018)
Suggests that in response to our society of surveillance, artists can suggest activist response that doesn’t necessarily involve technological literacy, but instead can promote strong counter metaphors or/and counter use of these introsuing technologies.

Conclusion (700 words)

—Sum up of all the chapter
—Answer to the research question
—Further research

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Introduction</p>=
+<div style='
-<br>
+width: 75%;
-[...]
+font-size:16px;
-<br>
+background-color: white;
-Question(s):
+color:black;
+float: left;
-* What is the agency of a user inside a Web interface compared to a spectator in a museum/gallery? (related to part I  Agencies, contexts and experiences of the spaces of representation)
+border:1px black;
-* To what extend does the technological, political and architectural context of a physical exhibition space affect the spectator's experience and interpretation of artwork(s)? (related to part 2 eversing the desktop metaphor)
+font-family: helvetica;
-* How can the physical experience of an exhibition space educate us about the nature, role and influence of Web interfaces online?
+'>
-* How can the implementation of Web concepts can give a better understanding of a physical exhibition space?
-[...]
+=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Thesis Outline:</p>=
-=<p style="font-family:helvetica">I.    Agencies, contexts and experiences of the spaces of representation</p>=
+<b>Research question:</b>
+How can an understanding of the underlying mechanism operating between users and (self)surveillance systems create more awareness of the issues concerning the marketization of human data?
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.        THE AGENCIES OF USERS & SPECTATORS</p>==
+<b>Sub questions:</b>
-What are users and spectators allowed to do in their respective spaces, what are they supposed to do and what is their purpose as spectors/users.
+— How, when, and why did our online data become merchandized? By whom and for what purposes?<br>
+— What are the issues related to the use of self-quantification/self-tracking practices? (self-alienation, legitimization of surveillance and self-surveillance in physical context, free labor).<br>
+— What can be done to raise awareness to the users about the effects of self-quantification/self-tracking practices?<br>
-===1.1            The user agency through the Web===
+===Introduction (700 words)===
-====1.1.1             Terms, conditions, agreements====
+—	Starts with an appetizing paragraph, written as a small story about the life of a self-data user.<br>
+—	Brief context, what are we talking about and why? What is/are the problem(s) Why does it has to be discussed and addressed.<br>
+—	Introduce the topic of the first chapter about the marketisation of user’s data, from 2001 until nowadays.<br>
+—	Introduce the topic of the second chapter about self-quantification/alienation, legitimization of surveillance and self-surveillance in physical contexts, and free labor.<br>
+—	Introduce the topic of the third chapter exploring alternatives, and promoting a counter-use of techno surveillance systems.<br>
-Cookies, privacy, legal uses, advertisment, copyrights, etc
+===Chapter 1: The marketisation of user’s data, from 2001 until nowadays (1000 words)===
-===1.2             The spectator agency through the Exhibition Spaces/Museums/Galleries===
+How/When/Why did our online data became merchandized? How is it valued? <br>
+By who and for what purposes can this information be used? Advertising, politics, governments, etc. <br>
+Why did the human attention became an economy? <br>
+<br>
+<u>Helpful references:</u>
-====1.2.1                Rules, safety, regulations====
+• SHOSHANA ZUBOFF, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019)<br>
+Warns against this shift towards a «surveillance capitalism». Her thesis argues that, by appropriating our personal data, the digital giants are manipulating us and modifying our behavior, attacking our free will and threatening our freedoms and personal sovereignty.<br>
+<br>
+• EVGENY MOROZOV, Capitalism’s New Clothes (2019) <br>
+Extensive analysis and critic of Shoshana Zuboff research and publications.<br>
+<br>
+• TIM WU, The Attention Merchants, (2016) <br>
+How the detection and marketisation human attention has definied industry of our time/attention <br>
+<br>
+• BYRON REEVES AND CLIFFORD NASS, The Media Equation, How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places (1996) Precursor study of the relation between humans and machine, and how do you human relate to them.
+<br>
-Artwork safety, public safety, prohibed items, public speaking, photography, equipments, behavior, circulation, etc.
-Maybe even more than on the Web, being a gallery/museum visitor implies to agree on terms and conditions.
-* example: Louvres Visitors rules: https://www.louvre.fr/en/visit/museum-rules
+===Chapter 2: Self-quantification/alienation, legitimization of surveillance and self-surveillance in physical contexts, and free labor (2300 words)===
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.  CONTEXTS </p>==
+Self-tracking practices
+How does the promotion of self tracking/quantification practices/tools allow tech giants to gather and sell even more personal informations about it’s users?  What are the alienating effects of such tools/practice? How does this participates in a culture of surveillance and self-surveillance where monitoring systems don’t limit themselves to the online world but are also implemented in physical environments and on human bodies.
-What define our viewing contexts on digital interfaces and in exhibition spaces
+From online to physical
+What are the example of tools, devices, systems which monitors humans behavior in physical contexts, under what pretext do they exist, what are be the risk for our freedoms? How far could it go? Are we becoming users of our own environments?
+<br>
+<u>Helpful references:</u>
-===<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.1            Technological context of the Web</p>===
+• OMAR KHOLEIF, Goodbye, World! — Looking at Art in the digital Age (2018)
+<br>Ask how the Internet has changed the way we perceive and relate, and interact with/to images. State that the internet has created an transforming the «world a the network of all network»<br>
+<br>
+• MARK O’CONNELL, To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death Hardcover (2017)<br>
+Talks about trans humanism, and show how the fascination/obsession for new technologies can lead to conceive our own human body as a device.
-====2.1.1                A network of factors  / Technological contexts / Point of views ====
-On the Web, the render/display of same Web page is always slighly different from a user’s to another. It depends on the technological and spatial context in which each user in situated. This context is made of many factors, such as the device used, its configuration (addons/plugins/custom settings/luminosity/scale), the IP adress, the browser used, its versions among an almost infinite list of other parameters. All theses factors added together creates a very singular context to which the Web and its contents are forced to adapt.
+===Chapter 3: Agree and continue? Exploring alternatives, and promoting a counter-use of techno surveillance systems (2300 words)===
-Ref:
+How do these companies manage to sill get the consent from most of their users on their policy?
-* [http://whatyouseeiswhatyouget.net/ What you see is what you get — Jonas Lund] (2012)
+What human biases do they exploit? What can be the alternatives to techno-surveillance? What can be the active of roles of artists, curators and public cultural institution such as museum upon this realm
+<br>
+<u>Helpful references:</u>
-====   2.1.2               Elasticity, obsolescence and unpredictability / Responsive technology====
+• MELISSA GRONLUND, Contemporary Art and Digital Culture (2016) Analyses the impact of the internet and digital technologies in our modern societies and contemporary art practice<br>
+<br>
+• AARON SWARTZ, Freedom to Connect: on Victory To Save Open Internet, Fight Online Censors (1986-2013) How do computers and the Internet « empower people around the world with the freedom to connect », and preaching the Open access to information<br>
-In that sense the Web materiality is sort of elastic (see: plasticity), which makes it singularily different from most physical objects or achitectures. Added to that, the display and functionalities of a website are also affected by the constant evolution of the Web itself, with patches, updates, expired and added elements that contribute to the ephemerality and unpredictability of what can be seen.
+<br>
+• KATRIN FRITSCH, Towards an emancipatory understanding of widespread datafication (2018)<br>
-In order to overcome the impredicatability of rendering online interfaces among the incredible diversity of connected devices, a technology of flexibility has been developped, improved and  democratised on the Web.
+Suggests that in response to our society of surveillance, artists can suggest activist response that doesn’t necessarily involve technological literacy, but instead can promote strong counter metaphors or/and counter use of these introsuing technologies.<br>
-Ref:
-*[[Plasticity of User Interfaces:A Revised Reference Framework]] NOTES INSIDE<br>
-Gaëlle Calvary, Joëlle Coutaz, David Thevenin
-Quentin Limbourg, Nathalie Souchon, Laurent Bouillon, Murielle Florins, Jean Vanderdonckt
-<br><br>
-See more:
-* Lopez, J.F., Szekely, P., Web page adaptation for Universal Access, in Proc. of Conf. on Universal Access in HCI UAHCI’ 2001<br>
-(New Orleans, August 5-10, 2001), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2001,
-===<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.2            Technological contexts in the museum/exhibition space</p>===
-====   2.2.1                Space and agents of the production of knowledge====
-Architecture, scale, size, interior design, colors, layout, writing, arrangement, lighting, display, etc
-* Stéphanie Moser, 2010. [[THE  DEVIL  IS IN THE  DETAILS: MUSEUM - Displays  and the Creation of Knowledge]] [https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/images/5/57/The_Devil_is_in_the_details-_DETAIT-_MUSEUM_Displays_and_the_Creation_of_Knowledge.pdf Doc]. 1st ed. Southampton, England
-====2.2.2               Institutional critique (optional)====
-Questioning and redifining the exhibition spaces and the heritage from the White Cube by the institutional critique practice (?)
-* [[From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique - Andrea Fraser]][https://aaaaarg.fail/upload/andrea-fraser-from-the-critique-of-institutions-to-an-institution-of-critique-1.pdf Doc]
-* [http://nt2.uqam.ca/fr/biblio/after-white-cube [[After the White Cube.]]] [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n06/hal-foster/after-the-white-cube ref]
-=<p style="font-family:helvetica">II.    Reversing the desktop metaphor (related to practice)</p>=
-The desktop metaphor was invented in the early ages of computers for facilitating hte use and understanding of the digital interfaces, by making mental associations related domains from the physical world.
-Now democratised, widely used and sometimes replacing our needs to converge in physical spaces, how could we facilitate the understanding of physical exhibition spaces by making connections to the Web.
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">1. CONCEPTS OF THE PHYSICAL INTERFACE</p>==
-Conceiving the exhibition space as a digital interface, which is meant to influence/guide our circulation and behaviours.
-*Ref: The screenless office - Brendan Howell (http://screenl.es/)
-===1.1            "Architectural Device" ===
-Conceiving the architecture as a technological and political device made of a set of factors and parameters
-===1.2            "Physical Events" ===
-On the Web, our actions and inactions can be converted into (silent and invisible) events that can give activate things and be converted into valuable informations for advertisers, algorythms, etc.
-How could such thing be conceptualized inside an exhibition space.
-===1.3            "Programmed physical space" ===
-Comparing the programming of an interface with the curation of a exhbibition space. Could an exhibition space be programmed?
-===1.4            "Exhibition User" ===
-Conceiving the Spectator as a User of the physical space
-===1.5            "Variable Display" ===
-Conceiving the physical space as an elastic/variable and potentially unpredicatable display; in order to diffract the range of viewing contexts offered by the Web.
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.           MEDIATIZING THE MEDIA (Optional)</p>==
-===2.1            The medium paradox===
-The better it mediates, the more it becomes invisible. How does our attention make abstraction of the frame, the medium, the form. What interest is there be to put the frame back at the center of attention.
-Ref
-*[https://hub.xpub.nl/bootleglibrary/search?query=+The+Interface+Effect bootleg][[Alexander R. Galloway - The Interface Effect]]   1st ed. Malden, USA: Polity Press.<br>
-===2.2            Meta-Space===
-An exhibition, and artwork, or a media that is nested in itself as a subject. How could meta art be a strategy in order to deal with the interface paradox.
-References to previous practices: [https://issue.xpub.nl/13/TENSE/ TENSE], [https://martinfoucaut.com/ESPACES-MEDIATIQUES-EN MEDIA SPACES]
-Ref
-* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/jac.v6.23009  The meta as an aesthetic category] Bruno Trentini (2014)
-=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Conclusion</p>=
-[...]
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">References</p>==
-*    Stéphanie Moser, 2010. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS: MUSEUM - Displays and the Creation of Knowledge. 1st ed. Southampton, England
-*    Alexander R. Galloway - The Interface Effect 1st ed. Malden, USA: Polity Press.
-*    Jonas Lund, 2012. What you see is what you get
+===Conclusion (700 words)===
-*    Shilpa Gupta, 2009 - 2010. Speaking Wall
+—Sum up of all the chapter<br>
+—Answer to the research question<br>
+—Further research<br>
-*    Frederick Kiesler, 1925, City of space
+</div>

Martin (XPUB)-thesis outline: Difference between revisions