Martin (XPUB)-thesis outline

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki

Draft Thesis

Introduction

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. 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».

I. Agencies and factors within the spaces of representation

1. AGENCIES

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?

1.1 Terms, conditions, agreements — The user’s agencies through the Web interfaces

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.

1.2 Rules, safety, regulations — The spectator’s agencies through the physical exhibition spaces

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.

2. CONTEXTS

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?

2.1 Technological context of the Web

2.1.1 Historical framework of the user interfaces

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 spacex is becoming a reality. (we will also evoke the UI and UX)

2.1.2 An infinite array of individualized, elastic and obsolete perspectives/renders

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. 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.


2.2 Technological contexts in the museum/exhibition space

2.2.1 Historical framework of the exhibition spaces

What is the purpose of an exhibition space? Exhibition spaces are meant to be where arts becomes public. From private galleries (owned and exhibited by individuals to other individiuals) to public galleries (owned by institutions and exhibited to public audiences); From condensed displays (when frames used to be very close from each others but also puted everywhere on ceiling, corners, etc) to spaced displays to spatialized displays (assigning a space to an artwork or a few artworks); From physical exhibtions to virtual exhibitions). I need to find back my notes about this topic and definitivly need more documentation.

  • Readings and notes about the exhibition space here
  • A few references questioning the exhibition space here

2.2.2 Spaces and agents of the production of knowledge

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

II. Reversing the desktop metaphor

This second part directly evokes the concepts surrounding the exhibition space that is being build for the graduation. 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.

1. CONCEPTS OF THE CYBERNETIC EXHIBITION SPACE

Conceiving the exhibition space as a digital Web interface and exploring concepts that bring together notions from both digital and physical world.

1.1 "Architectural Device"

Conceiving the architecture as a spatial, technological and political device composed of a set of factors and parameters that can be configured.

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.

  • Clickclickclick.click - VPRO Medialab & Moniker

1.3 "Programmed physical space"

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?

1.4 "Exhibition User"

Conceiving the Spectator as a User or performer of the physical space (ref: Speaking wall)

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

[...]

Key References

  • 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


More here

Retrieved from "https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/index.php?title=Martin_(XPUB)-thesis_outline&oldid=203596"