PROPOSAL

[28/10/15] – Gaps
A project that focuses on the gaps left by digital communication between family members that live in different countries. The gaps are the things and moments we don’t text about, the distance that is crossed without seeing it, the environment of the spaces where we are standing at the moment of sending a text, our immediate facial responses to messages. The project is made out of different experiments that try to define these moments. The result will be an installation filled with different results of these experiments within different mediums.

When communicating only through this application, we are in control of how we communicate. We create our own versions of each other by not being physically in each other’s presence, whilst we are looking at our own individuality constantly by means of using ‘selfies’ and ‘emoticons’ to emphasize our words. Distances and time are never physically crossed, only via typed text and images in a limited yet boundless space, where we can choose when and what we want to communicate. We fill up the gaps with our imagination, being fed by each others ‘pretence’ as a digital individual. ‘We live in eachothers brains, as voices, images, words on screens’ – Sherry Turkle / Life on the screen

There are a few different research areas that come together in this project. One of the areas is about the gaps that are left when communicating only digitally. An important part of the counter balance of the project is how these ‘gaps’ were left before the digital time. Now we have framed windows into other lives and areas whereas before there were almost no windows at all. How did families in particular communicate back then, when being in different countries for example. What happened with their bonds, did that make them closer? Did we also live in eachothers brains, but as what? I will find and answer questions like this to both situations. Surrounding this communication are the individuals that represent themselves digitally. By looking into a reflecting screen when communicating you are looking at yourself constantly. ’Selfies’ and ‘Emoticons’ are ways to express yourself according to your own needs. This constant self representation towards – in this case, family – is something that influences the ways the others will see you as a person.

With this in mind, I try to fill the gaps by documenting the ways of our communication in varied ways. The result will end in an installation of different experiments via different mediums, trying to find the perfect way to show these gaps, and the last and final result will be buried between the other versions. This will symbolize an invisible connection between gaps, as a symbol for the connections with the mediation. In background the sound of connections is heard to symbolize the traveling of messages. During the project I will look at these gaps not only from my point of view, but also to how the other characters see these specific moments.

(Excuses?? Irresponsibility?? Creativitiy?? Family??? Escape through mediation??? Time! Document?? Book?? Richard dawkins – the selfish gene! Empathy box? The protean self (Robert jay lifton) – boek! Wim wenders film – until the end of the world! Memory?? – book. Mimesis.)

ABSTRACT: Plan to re-enact a script generated by Whatsapp. Of a group chat between me and my mother and younger sister called the very weird abnormals. I want to see how it feels for me and for the other characters to say certain things out loud to each others face. It corresponds with the idea of gaps left by digital communication, and re enacting your own digital inviduality. It’s part of a group of experiments I have done before and will continue that try to make these gaps visible in different ways and mediums.

(EXPERIMENTS SO FAR) 1. Doodle (Stopped)

2. Old Pictures (Stopped)

3. Screen absorption (Stopped)

4. Frames (Stopped)

5. Box of space (Suspended)

6. Technical aspects (Suspended)

7. Upclose camera (Suspended – will definitely come back)

8. 3d versions (Doubting)

9. Reflection with no face (Continuing)

10. Portraits reflect frame (Continuing)

11. Associations (Continuing)

12. Imaginary Travel (Continuing)

13. Photos Telephone (Continuing – selecting constantly)

14. Physical whatsapp script (Starting)

15. Sound of connections (Starting)

questions maybe - Are they experienced as an expanded self or as separate from the self? Do our real-life selves learn lessons from our virtual personae? Are these virtual personae fragments of a coherent real-life personality?

....TO BE CONTINUED

[07/10/15] - The Very Weird Abnormals

When my mom, my sister and me lived together we were very distant to each other. There was never any intimacy towards each other and we all were self-involved. When they both moved to another country, the connection between us went from bad physical to purely digital. It has changed our relationship in both positive ways and negative. Someone asked me last week if I’m like my sister. I didn’t know the answer to that question. Within my project I want to tackle the idea of how technology has changed relationships, for this I will use my own relationship with my mother and sister as an example: As our relationships are built upon and through our technologies I will make these technologies visible as spaces in which we get to know eachother. (Or do we?) Next to that are the actual physical relationships we have when we are together, are we different then? How is our physical relationship changed during the built of our digital relationship? The title is the name of our groupchat in whatsapp: The Very Weird Abnormals

1. When I started this project my intention was to completely focus on the communication through technologies, which creates a isolement between people. I was completely focused on using a script which acts as a conversation between the technologies, that I forgot what in fact the trigger was for this interest in the first place. The moment my mother came to visit me, with whom I have a complete digital relationship, but even then we talked through our telephones. I have to go back to this exact moment, this is what I find interesting, and therefore precisely that relationship is the one I have to focus on. I will visualize these spaces of technology in which we have built relationships, with our conversations as the interweaving thread/script.

I have tried analyzing and drawing the spaces as flatly as possible. In this way they are still two dimensial. This does not create any relation or understanding. I need to move to three dimensial spaces.

But because I already initiated a different approach, I’m continuing with that as well. Maybe I can find a moment in which I can combine both.
2. This other approach is to built a script and let people act out that script by means of their technologies, within the medium film or theater. Now, what will be the content of that script? After some discussion with different teachers the general decision was that building a script from scratch is almost impossible, because it’s a whole different art form. But, using an existing script is. What I’m trying to do is find a dialogue from a film that ‘fits’ and use that script as the basis.

After trying this approach in livingroom setting, it seems this is too distant to find the intimacy towards the actual messages, finding this out however led me towards focusing on the relationship with my mother and my sister. I will try the existing script approach again in theater setting with different people and a more specific script with small hints towards my own relationships.

[This script will document the conversations between a person and her communication windows. The person acts as a modem through which these communication tools reach out. She tries to make connections between them but keeps failing. The spaces of these different communication tools will be defined within the re enactment of the script. Every tool is a different space, and they meet each other within the big Space, the Modem.]
[The script will be the basis for a film/theater. The film style will be like a blackbox theater., which will represent the modem. The different spaces that communicate will be presented in different parts on stage, outlined by white tape. (dogville)]
[The exhibition will be filled with different kinds of installations. Every installation will present the space of a laptop, a computer, etc etc. This can be formed from different mediums. Between these installations cards with parts from the script will float. (hanging on strands of string) ]

The field that I’m researching is what happens to our relationships with others through technologies, but also with ourselves.
(I’m looking into quantification, which is a term used to describe people that document themselves constantly. This group of people is continuously in conversation with their tools. )(Next to that there is the side of digital data that we do not control, but in which we are pulled, which are based in the ‘surveillance’ tools. The cameras and SCHOTELS, social media, that record us and keep us in their database.) (How do we relate differently to each type of documentation? Is there a difference? Is it even important? Is Quantification a risk, or an improvement?) MAYBE THIS IS MORE RELEVANT TO THE OLDER PROJECT: PLACES IN BETWEEN: This project is still under construction but will not be my main focus for the graduation proposal.

Relation to previous practice
My graduation project explored the infrastructure that is used by our digital data. This resulted in the photographed documentation book ‘Data Diary’. During the documentation process of ‘Data Diary’ I had a feeling that I kept myself too much on the surface. The more I discovered about the data world, the more interested I became in the depth of it. Understanding why I became interested in, or better: obsessed by, my own data is the most essential question I need to answer in order to see what’s the next step for me.
During the first year at Piet Zwart I made the project ‘The Places in Between’. This project explores the depth of layers that is involved in viewing our digital data. By actually peeling of layers within a book, you discover all the digital information regarding one day in her life. The book ‘The Places in Between’ is an encrypted documentation of one day in my life. The content of the book is hidden behind stripes of paper. These are metaphors for the privacy and accessibility levels you go through to get to my information. I used key loggers and codes to automatically get data from the devices I use daily in access to the digital world. For instance: I coded my webcam in order to let it take short clips of the view on every hour. All the digital information was stored on my computer daily. I decided to put all this information together in a book, as the opposite metaphor to the digital interface. I wanted the project to be as common as possible and use devices that everyone has access to. It seems logical that I had to get deeper inside the code based world to retrieve this data faster and more efficiently. There is something still missing from the project, though nearly finished.
Exploring the digital world first from the surface, I have developed an interest in the underlying depth of that world, how we relate and interact with digital objects and the invisible world underneath. Where I was interested in a superficial documentation of the digital world before, now I’m circulating the notion of how we see ourselves in relation to our digital components. The projects become more psychologically invested, and in that way demand more depth of knowledge in the research up to the end result. “…computers closely resemble people in their ‘thinking’ and differ only in their lack of ‘feeling’ supports a dichotomized view of human psychology.” (The Other Self, Sherry Turkle)
My projects are about me as an example or as a particular character. The pieces are not really about the content as such, but about the fact that the content is there. Maybe a quote taken from Sherry Turkle’s book ‘The Second Self’ can make my position clearer: “My method shares the advantage of using ‘ideal types’ – examples that present reality in a form larger than life. Ideal types are usually constructed fictions. My examples are real. Yet they isolate and highlight particular aspects of the computers influence because I have chosen to write about people in computer cultures that amplify different aspects of the machines personality.” (Turkle 9)

Relation to a larger context
Right now there are many projects circulating the notion of a Digital World. Most of these are entirely focused on surveillance, tracking, online privacy etc. But also a lot of these projects are just flatout facts, and digital. My previous graduation project for example ‘Data Diary’ seems to be one of the many. But where my projects becomes different, is on the personal note. I apply everything to my personal connections. This is where I hope the uniqueness lies. Focusing on the relationship of people with their personal computers, Sherry Turkle has been the first and a prominent writer I enjoy reading, by adding for example: “The Patternist, Mind of my mind” by Octavia Butler, and “The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age” by Allucquere Rosanne Stone, creates a larger overview instead of only one. Next to that I think it’s important to keep reading more general texts about the participatory digital world: “The Work of Being Watched”new – Mark Andrejevic and “Bastard Culture!” - Mirko Tobias Schafer. [LITTLE SYNOPSIS OF THE TEXTS HERE - AFTER READING THEM] How to get rid of Big Brother, which talks about how to control your online and offline connections. You won’t stop the saving of your data, but you can control the connections. “Whatever I’m doing, it has nothing to do with me – it has to do with what they’re thinking I am, and, that is what they are” (Reality TV, The Work of Being Watched, Mark Andrejevic)

---

[23/09/15] - Spaces of Communication

A script as basis. This script will document the conversations between a person and her communication windows. The person acts as a modem through which these communication tools reach out. She tries to make connections between them but keeps failing. The spaces of these different communication tools will be defined within the re enactment of the script. Every tool is a different space, and they meet each other within the big Space, the Modem.

[(One of the options)The script will be the basis for a film. The film style will be like a blackbox theater., which will represent the modem. The different spaces that communicate will be presented in different parts on stage, outlined by white tape. (dogville)]

[The exhibition will be filled with different kinds of installations. Every installation will present the space of a laptop, a computer, etc etc. This can be formed from different mediums. Between these installations cards with parts from the script will float. (hanging on strands of string) ]

In control of your traces. Plugin.

The field that I’m researching is the consumption of digital data. How we deal with digital data and how it effects us. I’m looking into quantification, which is a term used to describe people that document themselves constantly. This group of people is continuously in conversation with their tools. The tools are reminding them and reading them. They are aware of them and talk to them, they chose them and are in control. Next to that there is the side of digital data that we do not control, but in which we are pulled, which are based in the ‘surveillance’ tools. The cameras and SCHOTELS, social media, that record us and keep us in their database.

How do we relate differently to each type of documentation? Is there a difference? Is it even important? Is Quantification a risk, or an improvement?

Within the script I want the modem to be effected by both and acknowledge there is a difference.

Relation to previous practice
My graduation project explored the infrastructure that is used by our digital data. This resulted in the photographed documentation book ‘Data Diary’. During the documentation process of ‘Data Diary’ I had a feeling that I kept myself too much on the surface. The more I discovered about the data world, the more interested I became in the depth of it. Understanding why I became interested in, or better: obsessed by, my own data is the most essential question I need to answer in order to see what’s the next step for me. This project explores the depth of layers that is involved in viewing our digital data. By actually peeling of layers within a book, you discover all the digital information regarding one day in her life. The book ‘The Places in Between’ is an encrypted documentation of one day in my life. The content of the book is hidden behind stripes of paper. These are metaphors for the privacy and accessibility levels you go through to get to my information. I used key loggers and codes to automatically get data from the devices I use daily in access to the digital world. For instance: I coded my webcam in order to let it take short clips of the view on every hour. All the digital information was stored on my computer daily. I decided to put all this information together in a book, as the opposite metaphor to the digital interface. wanted the project to be as common as possible and use devices that everyone has access to. It seems logical that I had to get deeper inside the code based world to retrieve this data faster and more efficiently. Data about myself. Data about my daily life. My projects are about me as an example or as a particular character. The pieces are not really about the content as such, but about the fact that the content is there. Maybe a quote taken from Sherry Turkle’s book ‘The Second Self’ can make my position clearer: “My method shares the advantage of using ‘ideal types’ – examples that present reality in a form larger than life. Ideal types are usually constructed fictions. My examples are real. Yet they isolate and highlight particular aspects of the computers influence because I have chosen to write about people in computer cultures that amplify different aspects of the machines personality.” (Turkle 9) I have my mind-map in the middle of my living room wall. The mind-map is always there and it keeps changing: becoming smaller and sometimes bigger, pieces are deleted, crossed out, rewritten and/or added.

Exploring the digital world first from the surface, she has developed an interest in the underlying depth of that world, how we relate and interact with digital objects and the invisible world underneath.

Relation to a larger context
Focusing on the relationship of people with their personal computers, Sherry Turkle has been the first and a prominent writer I enjoy reading, by adding for example: “The Patternist, Mind of my mind” by Octavia Butler, and “The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age” by Allucquere Rosanne Stone, creates a larger overview instead of only one. Next to that I think it’s important to keep reading more general texts about the participatory digital world: “The Work of Being Watched”new – Mark Andrejevic and “Bastard Culture!” - Mirko Tobias Schafer. [LITTLE SYNOPSIS OF THE TEXTS HERE - AFTER READING THEM] How to get rid of Big Brother, which talks about how to control your online and offline connections. You won’t stop the saving of your data, but you can control the connections. Looking at previous projects it seems that the digital world as a whole seems to be an interweaving thread. Where the projects used to be focused on the surface of that world, and of how we are surveyed by that world, they now become more intimate not only in their outcome but in their topics and concepts. Where I was interested in a superficial documentation of the digital world before, now I’m circulating the notion of how we see ourselves in relation to our digital components. The projects become more psychologically invested, and in that way demand more depth of knowledge in the research up to the end result. “…computers closely resemble people in their ‘thinking’ and differ only in their lack of ‘feeling’ supports a dichotomized view of human psychology.” (The Other Self, Sherry Turkle) This I believe will be the way I’ll be leading towards my graduation year at the Piet Zwart Institute. “Whatever I’m doing, it has nothing to do with me – it has to do with what they’re thinking I am, and, that is what they are” (Reality TV, The Work of Being Watched, Mark Andrejevic)