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: @@
 <div style='
-width: 50%;
+width: 75%;
 font-size:16px;
 background-color: white;
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 '>
-=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Draft Thesis</p>=
+=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Thesis Outline:</p>=
+<b>Research question:</b>
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">Introduction</p>==
+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?
-With the growing presence of digital tools in all aspects of our lives, people may now have more concrete experiences of the digital/Web interfaces than the physical space. The distinctions between the physical and virtual worlds are being blurred, as they gradually tend to affect & imitate each other, create interdependencies, and translate our behaviors into informational units (data).  Public spaces, institutions and governments are gradually embracing these technologies and explicitly promoting them as ways to offer us more efficient; easy of use; safer; customizable services.  However, we could also see these technologies as implicit political tools, playing around dynamics of visibility and invisibility in order to assert power and influence over publics and populations.
+<b>Sub questions:</b>
-In a context where our physical reality is turning into a cybernetic reality, my aim is to observe and speculate on how mediating technologies could affect our modes of representation inside the exhibition spaces, as much as ask how could they redefine the agencies, behaviors and circulations of its visitors.
-Through digital and analogical comparisons, we will first try to find out what are the status of visitors inside of these spaces (what is a user or a visitor), what do they have to agree on (terms, conditions, agreements vs Rules, safety, regulations), what is expected from them, how some behaviors and circulations are being encouraged or required, while some others are being minimized or prohibited.
-In a second phase, we will go into a study of these spaces themselves, by first contextualizing the exhibition space and the web/digital interfaces in a historical framework, then consider how a set of spatial, technological and political factors defines a context in itself. In order to do so, we will identify what are the elements defining, communicating or giving structure to the contents; in which kind architecture or system are they existing or being displayed and how does it affect their sustainability or the way they can be perceived.
-Thirdly, we will speculate and make the experience of possible implementations of cybernetics in the exhibition space, by formulating and producing various combinations of concepts belonging to both the physical exhibition space and the virtual/digital interface.
-In complement to the writing of this thesis, an exhibition space will be conceived, inviting the readers to make an experience of the above mentioned speculations . Among them, we will for example explore and experience the conceptual notions of « architectural devices »; « physical events », « programmed physical space » or « exhibition user».
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">I. Agencies and factors within the spaces of representation</p>==
+— 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">1. AGENCIES</p>===
+===Introduction (700 words)===
-What are the status, conditions and agencies of users on the Web in comparison to being a visitor/spectator inside an exhibition space?  What does it means to be a user, a visitor or spectator? What behaviors are being allowed, promoted, limited or prohibited? When and how does these conditions for entering and using these space are being stated? Can these conditions be set in detail by the user/viewer?
+—	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">1.1 Terms, conditions, agreements — The user’s agencies through the Web interfaces</p>====
+===Chapter 1: The marketisation of user’s data, from 2001 until nowadays (1000 words)===
-What does it means to be a user? Does it necessarily involves interactivity? What are the status, conditions of use and agencies of users on the World Wide Web? What are the user’s agencies when visiting a specific website? We will go through terms and agreements; cookies, privacy settings, legal uses, advertisement, copyrights, licenses, etc.
+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>
-====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.2 Rules, safety, regulations — The spectator’s agencies through the physical exhibition spaces</p>====
+• 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>
-What does it’s mean to be exhibition visitor? Does it necessarily involved to be spectating? What is the status, conditions and agencies of a visitor inside a museum, gallery or any other exhibition space? We will talk about artwork(s) safety, public safety, prohibited items, public speaking, photography, equipments, behavior, circulation, etc.
-* 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 are the spatial, technological and/or political factors defining the context in which the user(s) or visitor(s) is/are situated? Is/are the users/visitors and the content situated within the same space? What are the elements defining, communicating or giving structure to the contents? In  which kind architecture or system are these parameters existing or being displayed? How does the technologies used to support and display contents can affect their sustainability, or the way they can be perceived/experienced?
+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.
-=====<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.1.1 Historical framework of the user interfaces</p>=====
-From Batch Computing & Command Line Interfaces [The IBM 029 Card Punch]; to Command-Line Interfaces (CLIs); to video display terminals; to Graphical User Interface (GUI) [Xerox, Windows 1.0, Apple Lisa OfficeSystem 1, VisiCorp Visi On, Mac OS System 1] introducing the pointing systems (mouse/cursor) but also window systems with icons (folders, bins, etc); futher improved [Amiga Workbench 1.0, Windows 2.0, and 3.0, and Mac OS System 7, Windows 95 ]. Then the smartphone shifted the way to conceive UI design and democratized the concept of phone apps, that itself influenced back the way to conceive desktop interfaces (Windows 10). Actual user interfaces seem to give more and more space to  voice, touch imputs, augmented reality, virtual reality, etc. As an observation of this historical framework, we could speculate of the fact that the user interfaces will be less and less embodied inside devices themselves, and more and more projected into the physical space itself, or by the conception virtual spaces. This is how in my opinion, the concept of cybernetic space is slowly becoming a reality.
+===Chapter 3: Agree and continue? Exploring alternatives, and promoting a counter-use of techno surveillance systems (2300 words)===
-=====<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.1.2 An infinite array of individualized, elastic and obsolete perspectives/renders</p>=====
+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>
-The Web digital interfaces offer to each of its users/a custom point of view based on an innumerable and ever-changing array of technological factors.  To list only few of them we could find for example the device; the browser;  the system; the screen-size; the resolution; the user configurations and defaults settings, the IP address; etc.. The users have the choice to change most these settings, often without having to refresh their web page (ex: resizing user interface). Added to that, the display/render 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.
+• 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>
-How to make these differences visible, and why would it be important? How does this ever changing technology involves some unpredictability and obsolescence in the way contents can be rendered? How could the plastic property of the Web digital interfaces be emulated in the exhibition space?  How did this constraint slowly democratized the implementation responsive mechanics inside the Web.
+<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>
-References:
+<br>
-* What you see is what you get — Jonas Lund (2012)
+• 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>
-* Plasticity of User Interfaces:A Revised Reference Framework NOTES INSIDE Gaëlle Calvary, Joëlle Coutaz, David Thevenin Quentin Limbourg, Nathalie Souchon, Laurent Bouillon, Murielle Florins, Jean Vanderdonckt
-* Lopez, J.F., Szekely, P., Web page adaptation for Universal Access, in Proc. of Conf. on Universal Access in HCI UAHCI’ 2001
-====<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.2 Technological contexts in the museum/exhibition space</p>====
-=====<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.2.1 Historical framework of the exhibition spaces</p>=====
-=====<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.2.2 Spaces and agents of the production of knowledge</p>=====
-What are the elements involved into the museum display? Why do they matter? How do they orientate our circulation, affect our perception, and define a object/subject as an artwork? We will be considering the maximum amount of parameters that can be controlled by the curator such as architecture, scale, size, interior design, colors, temperature, layout, writing, arrangement, lighting, display, etc. We will also be talking about some of the parameters than can escape the control of a curator such as the number of visitors inside the space, the surrounding environment of an exhibition, the possible occurence(s) of external constraints and restrictions, etc.
-* Stéphanie Moser, 2010. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS: MUSEUM - Displays and the Creation of Knowledge Doc. 1st ed. Southampton, England
-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 FraserDoc
-* After the White Cube. ref
-==<p style="font-family:helvetica">II. Reversing the desktop metaphor</p>==
-This second part directly evokes the concepts surrounding the exhibition space that is being build for the graduation.
+===Conclusion (700 words)===
-The desktop metaphor was invented in the early ages of computers in order to facilitate the use and understanding of the digital interfaces, by making mental associations related to domains from the physical world. Now democratised, widely used and often replacing our needs to converge in physical spaces (especially in times of pandemic), I would like to reverse this process by getting inspired by the concepts of the digital interfaces in order to suggest a singular experience and understanding of the exhibition space.
-===<p style="font-family:helvetica">1. CONCEPTS OF THE CYBERNETIC EXHIBITION SPACE</p>===
+—Sum up of all the chapter<br>
+—Answer to the research question<br>
+—Further research<br>
-Conceiving the exhibition space as a digital Web interface and exploring concepts that bring together notions from both digital and physical world.
+</div>
-* Ref: The screenless office - Brendan Howell (http://screenl.es/)
-====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.1 "Architectural Device"</p>====
-Conceiving the architecture as a spatial, technological and political device composed of a set of factors and parameters that can be configured.
-====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.2 "Physical Events"</p>====
-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.
-* Clickclickclick.click - VPRO Medialab & Moniker
-====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.3 "Programmed physical space"</p>====
-Comparing the programming of an interface with the curation of a exhbibition space. Could an exhibition space be programmed? Does it make the visitor a user of the space?
-====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.4 "Exhibition User"</p>====
-Conceiving the Spectator as a User or performer of the physical space (ref: [https://www.muhka.be/programme/detail/1405-shilpa-gupta-today-will-end/item/30302-speaking-wall Speaking wall])
-====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.5 "Variable Display"</p>====
-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">Key References</p>==
-* Clickclickclick.click - VPRO Medialab & Moniker
-* 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
-* Brendan Howell, 2017(?) - The screenless office
-<br>
-More [[XPUB2_Research_Board_/_Martin_Foucaut#Readings_.28new.29.28english.29.28with_notes_in_english.29|here]]

Martin (XPUB)-thesis outline: Difference between revisions