Martin (XPUB)-thesis outline: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style='  
<div style='  
width: 50%;   
width: 50%;   
font-size:14px;
font-size:16px;
background-color: white;
background-color: white;
color:black;
color:black;
Line 11: Line 11:
=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Draft Thesis</p>=
=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Draft Thesis</p>=


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).
==<p style="font-family:helvetica">Introduction</p>==
* 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
* Focus on the cybernetic empire, and its influence on different aspects of society (beyond the exhibition space)
* Dystopian space?


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">Introduction</p>==
<br>
[...]
<br>
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.
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.
<br>
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.
In a context where our physical reality is turning into a cybernetic reality, my aim is to observe and speculate on how these technologies could affect our modes of representation inside the exhibition spaces, as much as how could they redefine the agencies, behaviors and circulations of its visitors.
<br><br>
Through digital and analogical comparisons, we will first try to find out what is 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.  
Through digital and analogical comparisons, we will first try to find out what is 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.  
<br><br>
In a second phase, we will go into a study of these spaces themselves, understand how a set of spatial, technological and political factors defines a context in itself. We will also find out what are the elements defining, communicating or giving structure to the contents; consider in which kind architecture or system are they existing or being displayed, and how this can affect their sustainability or the way they can be perceived.
In a second phase, we will go into a study of these spaces themselves, understand how a set of spatial, technological and political factors defines a context in itself. We will also find out what are the elements defining, communicating or giving structure to the contents; consider in which kind architecture or system are they existing or being displayed, and how this can affect their sustainability or the way they can be perceived.
<br><br>
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.  
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.  
Complementary to the writing of this thesis will be conceived an exhibition space inviting the readers to make an experience of these observations and speculations. Among them, we will for example explore and experience the conceptual notions of « architectural device »; « physical events », « programmed physical space » or « exhibition user».
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».  


=<p style="font-family:helvetica">I.    Agencies and factors within the spaces of representation</p>=


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">I. Agencies and factors within the spaces of representation</p>==


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.       THE AGENCIES OF USERS & SPECTATORS</p>==
===<p style="font-family:helvetica">1. AGENCIES</p>===


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.
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           The user agency through the Web interfaces===
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.1 Terms, conditions, agreements — The user’s agencies through the Web interfaces</p>====


====1.1.1            Terms, conditions, agreements====
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.


Cookies, privacy, legal uses, advertisment, copyrights, etc
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.2 Rules, safety, regulations — The spectator’s agencies through the physical exhibition spaces</p>====


===1.2            The spectator agency through the Exhibition Spaces/Museums/Galleries===
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.  
 
====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
* example: Louvres Visitors rules: https://www.louvre.fr/en/visit/museum-rules


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.  SPATIAL/TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS</p>==
===<p style="font-family:helvetica">2. CONTEXTS</p>===
 
What are the spatial, technological, political factors defining the context/situation in which the representation is being displayed and experienced.
 
===<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.1            Technological context of the Web</p>===
 
====2.1.1                An infinite array of individualized/customized perpectives ====
 
In opposition to the physical exhibition space, <b>the Web offers to each of its user/visitors a custom point of view</b> based on an <b>innumerable and everchanging array of technological factors</b>. 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 <b>diffracts the possible renders of a same Web page in an almost infinite array of user perspectives</b>.  From our own user perspective/point of view, behind our own screen, <b>this technological complexity and the infinite spectrum of perspectives that it leads to can hardly be considered</b> (expect [http://whatyouseeiswhatyouget.net/ here] for example). This brings us to <b>uncounsioulsy forget about the singularity and fragility of what we is being seen/experience/interpretated</b>
 
Ref:
* [http://whatyouseeiswhatyouget.net/ What you see is what you get — Jonas Lund] (2012)
 
====  2.1.2              Elasticity, obsolescence and unpredictability / Responsive technology====
 
Web representations are sort of  <b>plastic/elastic</b>, they <b>demultiplies</b> and <b>transforms themselves</b> as much as needed in order to be <b>rendered in an optimal way through our own user perspective/interface</b>. Added to that, the display/render of a website are also affected by the constant evolution of the Web fitself, with <b>patches, updates, expired and added elements that contribute to the ephemerality and unpredictability of what can be seen</b>. In order to overcome the impredictability of rendering online interfaces among the incredible diversity of connected devices, a <b>technology of flexibility/responsiveness/elasticity</b> 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<br>
Gaëlle Calvary, Joëlle Coutaz, David Thevenin
Quentin Limbourg, Nathalie Souchon, Laurent Bouillon, Murielle Florins, Jean Vanderdonckt
<br><br>
See more:
* Lopez, J.F., Szekely, P., Web page adaptation for Universal Access, in Proc. of Conf. on Universal Access in HCI UAHCI’ 2001<br>
(New Orleans, August 5-10, 2001), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2001,
 
===<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.2            Technological contexts in the museum/exhibition space</p>===
 
====  2.2.1                Public 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]] [https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/images/5/57/The_Devil_is_in_the_details-_DETAIT-_MUSEUM_Displays_and_the_Creation_of_Knowledge.pdf 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 Fraser]][https://aaaaarg.fail/upload/andrea-fraser-from-the-critique-of-institutions-to-an-institution-of-critique-1.pdf Doc]
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?
* [http://nt2.uqam.ca/fr/biblio/after-white-cube [[After the White Cube.]]] [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n06/hal-foster/after-the-white-cube ref]


=<p style="font-family:helvetica">II.   Reversing the desktop metaphor</p>=
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.1 Technological context of the Web - An infinite array of individualized, elastic and obsolete perspectives</p>====


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.
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.  


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">1. CONCEPTS OF THE INTERFACED REALITY</p>==
References:  
* What you see is what you get — Jonas Lund (2012)


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

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



*Ref: The screenless office - Brendan Howell (http://screenl.es/)
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">2.2 Technological contexts in the museum/exhibition space - Institutionalized spaces and agents of the production of knowledge</p>====


===1.1            "Architectural Device" ===
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.


Conceiving the architecture as a technological and political device made of a set of factors and parameters that can be configured
* 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


===1.2            "Physical Events" ===
==<p style="font-family:helvetica">II. Reversing the desktop metaphor</p>==


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.
This second part directly evokes the concepts surrounding the exhibition space that is being build for the graduation.
How could such thing be conceptualized inside an exhibition space.
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.


===1.3            "Programmed physical space" ===
===<p style="font-family:helvetica">1. CONCEPTS OF THE INTERFACED REALITY</p>===


Comparing the programming of an interface with the curation of a exhbibition space. Could an exhibition space be programmed?
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/)


===1.4            "Exhibition User" ===
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.1 "Architectural Device"</p>====


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


===1.5            "Variable Display" ===
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.2 "Physical Events"</p>====


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.
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.  


=<p style="font-family:helvetica">Conclusion</p>=
* Clickclickclick.click - VPRO Medialab & Moniker


[...]
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.3 "Programmed physical space"</p>====


==<p style="font-family:helvetica">References</p>==
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?
   


* [https://clickclickclick.click/ Clickclickclick.click] -  VPRO Medialab & Moniker
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.4 "Exhibition User"</p>====


*Stéphanie Moser, 2010. [[THE_DEVIL_IS_IN_THE_DETAILS:_MUSEUM_-_Displays_and_the_Creation_of_Knowledge|THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS: MUSEUM - Displays and the Creation of Knowledge]]. 1st ed. Southampton, England
Conceiving the Spectator as a User or performer of the physical space (ref: [https://www.muhka.be/programme/detail/1405-shilpa-gupta-today-will-end/item/30302-speaking-wall Speaking wall])


*Alexander R. Galloway - [[Alexander_R._Galloway_-_The_Interface_Effect|The Interface Effect]] 1st ed. Malden, USA: Polity Press.
====<p style="font-family:helvetica">1.5 "Variable Display"</p>====


*Jonas Lund, 2012. [http://whatyouseeiswhatyouget.net/ What you see is what you get]
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.  


*Shilpa Gupta, 2009 - 2010. [http://shilpagupta.com/speaking-wall/| Speaking Wall]
==<p style="font-family:helvetica">Conclusion</p>==
[...]  


*Frederick Kiesler, 1925, [https://thecharnelhouse.org/2013/11/19/frederick-kiesler-city-of-space-1925/ City of space]
==<p style="font-family:helvetica">Key References</p>==


*Brendan Howell, 2017(?) - [http://screenl.es/ The screenless office]
* 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


<br>
<br>
More [[XPUB2_Research_Board_/_Martin_Foucaut#Readings_.28new.29.28english.29.28with_notes_in_english.29|here]]
More [[XPUB2_Research_Board_/_Martin_Foucaut#Readings_.28new.29.28english.29.28with_notes_in_english.29|here]]

Revision as of 12:17, 21 November 2021

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 is 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, understand how a set of spatial, technological and political factors defines a context in itself. We will also find out what are the elements defining, communicating or giving structure to the contents; consider in which kind architecture or system are they existing or being displayed, and how this can 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 - An infinite array of individualized, elastic and obsolete perspectives

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.

References:

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

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


2.2 Technological contexts in the museum/exhibition space - Institutionalized 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 INTERFACED REALITY

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