Martin (XPUB)-thesis outline: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
No edit summary
 
(35 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style='  
<div style='  
width: 50%;   
width: 75%;   
font-size:14px;
font-size:16px;
background-color: white;
background-color: white;
color:black;
color:black;
Line 9: Line 9:
'>
'>


=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Draft Thesis</p>=
=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Thesis Outline:</p>=


Notes:
<b>Research question:</b>


*For what concerns the form/share of the thesis itself, I am considering to create a WebtoPrint thesis that would display a different amount/arrangement of content (text and images), depending on the user's device (context). If this thesis has to be printed, each user should also get a different physical book (format, layout, etc).
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?
* I know what I want to talk about, and how to connect it to my production, but the structure (parts, sub-parts, and order) is definitly not fixed.
* Reasons why I connect the Web digital interfaces to specificaly the physical exhibition space should be clarified


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">Introduction</p>==
<b>Sub questions:</b>
<br>
[...]
<br>
People may have now <b>more concrete experiences of the digital/Web interfaces than the physical space</b>. Museums, galleries, restaurants, hotels, houses or cars are themselves commonly taking the shape of <b>interfaced physical environments</b>. Both online and in the physical reality, our (past and present) behaviours (and non-behaviours) can be detected and used by the use of various technologies in order to provide us an <b>individualized/customizable perception/experience of a same environment</b>. With the embodiement of user interfaces into many layers of the physical reality</b>, the so called "reality" becomes not only augmented but also optimized to our very own perception. In that sense, "what you see is what you get" may also define new modalities to the  spaces of representation (exhibition spaces), the agencies of its visitors, and the experience of art itself.


Through <b>digital and analogical comparisons</b> between Web interfaces and Exhibition space, I wish to find out what are the elements defining, communicating or giving stucture to contents inside both of these spaces, how do they relate to each others, and what could be the effects of mergings their concepts/properties.
— 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>


=<p style="font-family:helvetica">I.    Agencies and factors within the spaces of representation</p>=
===Introduction (700 words)===


— 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>


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.        THE AGENCIES OF USERS & SPECTATORS</p>==
===Chapter 1: The marketisation of user’s data, from 2001 until nowadays (1000 words)===  


What are users and spectators allowed or expected to do, what should they agree on, what is the meaning of being a spectator or a user, what is the purpose of an exhibition space or an Web interface, how could both differs and relate to each others on all these aspect.
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>


===1.1            The user agency through the Web interfaces===
• 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>


====1.1.1            Terms, conditions, agreements====


Cookies, privacy, legal uses, advertisment, copyrights, etc
===Chapter 2: Self-quantification/alienation, legitimization of surveillance and self-surveillance in physical contexts, and free labor (2300 words)===


===1.2            The spectator agency through the Exhibition Spaces/Museums/Galleries===
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.


====1.2.1            Rules, safety, regulations====
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>


Artwork safety, public safety, prohibed items, public speaking, photography, equipments, behavior, circulation, etc.
• OMAR KHOLEIF, Goodbye, World! — Looking at Art in the digital Age (2018)
Maybe even more than on the Web, being a gallery/museum visitor implies to agree on terms and conditions.
<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.


* example: Louvres Visitors rules: https://www.louvre.fr/en/visit/museum-rules


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.  SPATIAL/TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS</p>==
===Chapter 3: Agree and continue? Exploring alternatives, and promoting a counter-use of techno surveillance systems (2300 words)===


What are the spatial, technological, political factors defining the context/situation in which the representation is being displayed and experienced.
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
<br>
<u>Helpful references:</u>


===<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.1            Technological context of the Web</p>===
• 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>
====2.1.1                An infinite array of individualized/customized perpectives ====
• 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>
 
<br>
In opposition to the physical exhibition space, <b>the Web offers to each of its user/visitors a custom point of view</b> based on an <b>innumerable and everchanging array of technological factors</b>. I like to call this array of factors: a (technological) context. Among these factors, we could list: the browser, the device, the explotation system, the screensize, the resolution, the user configuration and defaults settings, the updates, the IP adress, etc.. This technological complexity <b>diffracts the possible renders of a same Web page in an almost infinite array of user perspectives</b>.  From our own user perspective/point of view, behind our own screen, <b>this technological complexity and the infinite spectrum of perspectives that it leads to can hardly be considered</b> (expect [http://whatyouseeiswhatyouget.net/ here] for example). This brings us to <b>uncounsioulsy forget about the singularity and fragility of what we is being seen/experience/interpretated</b>
• KATRIN FRITSCH, Towards an emancipatory understanding of widespread datafication (2018)<br>
 
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:
* [http://whatyouseeiswhatyouget.net/ What you see is what you get — Jonas Lund] (2012)
 
====  2.1.2              Elasticity, obsolescence and unpredictability / Responsive technology====
 
Web representations are sort of  <b>plastic/elastic</b>, they <b>demultiplies</b> and <b>transforms themselves</b> as much as needed in order to be <b>rendered in an optimal way through our own user perspective/interface</b>. Added to that, the display/render of a website are also affected by the constant evolution of the Web fitself, with <b>patches, updates, expired and added elements that contribute to the ephemerality and unpredictability of what can be seen</b>. In order to overcome the impredictability of rendering online interfaces among the incredible diversity of connected devices, a <b>technology of flexibility/responsiveness/elasticity</b> has been developped, improved and democratised on the Web, and willing to offer an optimal render in most technological contexts.
 
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                Public 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</p>=
 
The desktop metaphor was invented in the early ages of computers for facilitating the use and understanding of the digital interfaces, by making mental associations related to domains from the physical world. Now democratised, widely used and quiet often replacing our needs to converge in physical spaces, I would like to reverse the process by getting inspired by the concepts of the Web interfaces in order to suggest a singular experience and understanding of the physical exhibition space who is awell another space of representation.
 
==<p style="font-family:helvetica">1. CONCEPTS OF THE INTERFACED REALITY</p>==
 
Conceiving the exhibition space as a digital Web interface and exploring concepts that bring together notions from both digital and physical world.
 
*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 that can be configured
 
===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.
===Conclusion (700 words)===
How could such thing be conceptualized inside an exhibition space.


===1.3            "Programmed physical space" ===
—Sum up of all the chapter<br>
—Answer to the research question<br>
—Further research<br>


Comparing the programming of an interface with the curation of a exhbibition space. Could an exhibition space be programmed?
</div>
 
===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">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
 
*    Shilpa Gupta, 2009 - 2010. Speaking Wall
 
*    Frederick Kiesler, 1925, City of space
<br>
More [[XPUB2_Research_Board_/_Martin_Foucaut#Readings_.28new.29.28english.29.28with_notes_in_english.29|here]]

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

Retrieved from "https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/index.php?title=Martin_(XPUB)-thesis_outline&oldid=208027"