Martin (XPUB)-thesis outline

Draft Thesis

Notes:

• 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).
• 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 phyisical exhibition space should be as explicit as possible. In my mind it is because they are both spaces of representation.

Introduction

[...]
People may have now more concrete experiences of the digital/Web interface than the physical space. Museums, galleries, restaurants, hotels, houses or cars are themselves commonly taking the shape of interfaced physical environments. Our (past and present) behaviours (and non-behaviours) can be detected and used in order to "offer" us an individualized and optimized perception of a same environment/representation. This is already quiet already true on the Web (responsive technology & Web events), and with the metaverse or/and virtual reality. In this context, I wish to ask how the growing embodiement of digital interface into our physical environment could affect the curation practice inside spaces specificaly dedicated to representation such as museum/gallery/exhibition spaces. How does it affect the nature of what is being exhibited and subsequently the spectator/user's experience. Through digital and analogical comparisons, I wish to ask how could some elements belonging either to exhibition space and Web interfaces could be compared and merged in the way that they define, communicate or give structure to a content.

I. Agencies and contexts within the spaces of representation

1. THE AGENCIES OF USERS & SPECTATORS

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.

1.1 The user agency through the Web interfaces

1.1.1 Terms, conditions, agreements

Cookies, privacy, legal uses, advertisment, copyrights, etc

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

1.2.1 Rules, safety, regulations

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

2. CONTEXTS ()

What are the spatial, technological, political and architectural factors that are together defining the context in which the representation is being displayed and the knowledge transmitted.

2.1 Technological context of the Web

2.1.1 A network of factors / Technological contexts / Point of views

In opposition to the physical exhibition space, the Web offers to each of its user/visitors a custom point of view based on an innumerable and everchanging array of technological factors. 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 diffracts the possible renders of a same Web page in an almost infinite array of user perspectives. From our own user perspective/point of view, behind our own screen, this technological complexity and the infinite spectrum of perspectives that it leads to can hardly be considered (expect here for example). This brings us to uncounsioulsy forget about the singularity and fragility of what we is being seen/experience/interpretated

Ref:

• What you see is what you get — Jonas Lund (2012)

2.1.2 Elasticity, obsolescence and unpredictability / Responsive technology

Web representations are sort of plastic/elastic, they demultiplies and transforms themselves as much as needed in order to be rendered in an optimal way through our own user perspective/interface. Added to that, the display/render of a website are also affected by the constant evolution of the Web fitself, with patches, updates, expired and added elements that contribute to the ephemerality and unpredictability of what can be seen. In order to overcome the impredictability of rendering online interfaces among the incredible diversity of connected devices, a technology of flexibility/responsiveness/elasticity 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
  

Gaëlle Calvary, Joëlle Coutaz, David Thevenin Quentin Limbourg, Nathalie Souchon, Laurent Bouillon, Murielle Florins, Jean Vanderdonckt

See more:

• Lopez, J.F., Szekely, P., Web page adaptation for Universal Access, in Proc. of Conf. on Universal Access in HCI UAHCI’ 2001
  

(New Orleans, August 5-10, 2001), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2001,

2.2 Technological contexts in the museum/exhibition space

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 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 FraserDoc
• After the White Cube. ref

II. Reversing the desktop metaphor

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.

1. CONCEPTS OF THE INTERFACED REALITY

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

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.

Conclusion

[...]

References

• 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

More here