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 physical exhibition space should be clarified
Introduction
[...]
People may have now more concrete experiences of the digital/Web interfaces than the physical space. Museums, galleries, restaurants, hotels, houses or cars are themselves commonly taking the shape of interfaced physical environments. 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 individualized/customizable perception/experience of a same environment. With the embodiement of user interfaces into many layers of the physical reality, 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 digital and analogical comparisons 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.
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:
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:
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