PROPOSAL

2015: Technical Space Introduction 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) ] [Exhibition of pictures 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)