Out of focus
Parking Meter | Post Box | Garbage Bin
This kind of object-oriented geographical information not only connects the local to the global, but it also encourages accountability to a larger world. I do think though that it would offer a stronger critique if it used more local and social information. For example, instead of just giving a city or country of origin, I would love to see it tell a story of who makes it and how. In other words, putting people in the picture makes it that much easier to feel a social or cultural connection, instead of simply a geographical one.
Also: Bryan's Harvard GSD blog from the Archinect Schoolblog project



Using observations, interventions and interviews to glean information about how people interact with and interpret garbage in public spaces, they produced an augmented trash can which "exposes city dwellers to the pattern of trash interactions". The trash can records the objects thrown into it, and projects an image onto the ground of the collected artefacts. Over time, images disappear from the projection - just as artefacts disappear from the archaeological record. (Watch QuickTime movie of the can in action.)
Explorations in pervasive urban computing seem to be tending towards either gaming or narrative approaches to interacting with or understanding the city, and this project certainly falls under the story-telling category. But it's particularly refreshing to see our understanding of narrative engage a material perspective. After all, I've never heard a story that didn't involve people and things -- and surely we can do better than another city of bits.
For more on the urban probes methodology and the Jetsam project:
Urban Probes: Encountering our Emerging Urban Atmospheres (pdf) by Eric Paulos and Tom Jenkins
And while I don't have time to get into it now, I still find it curious that Situationism is being mobilised to defend non-traditional or playful research practices -- rather than as a way of critiquing the politics and practices of technological use in everyday life. Plus, if they'd only brought in some relevant material culture studies instead of just using Lynch's image of the city...
Related:
The Garbage Project & "The Archaeology of Us" by William Rathje
Found Magazine
Trashlog
If this jacket had a collar like a frilled lizard instead of that razorback boar fur, I'd wear it in a flash!
(via)
No doubt a good way to get nasty mattresses off the street, but it seems to be promoting a moral agenda rather than encouraging cleanliness or hygiene.
Still, it's interesting to see a community decide what constitutes graffiti and what does not. And I while I suspect there is nothing the borough will - or can - do about advertising pollution, it's nice to see someone complain.
(via)
I think that Laurel's nostalgia for the early days of digital interaction is a bit misplaced, but I will stand behind anyone who reminds us of our complicity in producing the society of the spectacle.
When it comes to mobile and pervasive computing, I don't worry about privacy as much as I worry about contributing to the commodification of everyday experience. I don't worry about surveillance as much as I worry that chance encounters and serendipity may disappear. I don't worry about trust as much as I worry about where we will find quiet, slow spaces for reflection.
The paper I'm working on right now involves going beyond Situationist critiques of everyday life - such as dérive and détournement - and critically evaluating strategies offered by Lefebvre, de Certeau, Benjamin and Kracauer.
For example, I've written before about the DIY ethic and its potential for creative agency, but I'm beginning to believe that simply reconfiguring the means of production (or consumption) will be insufficient. In The Mass Ornament, Kracauer writes about boredom as a way of resisting constant distraction or, in other words, defying Debord's spectacle and Lefebvre's colonisation of everyday life by the commodity. But Highmore suggests that Kracauer also shares an affinity with 1970s punk: "to declare yourself bored is not a mark of failure but the necessary precondition for the possibility of generating the authentically new (rather than the old dressed up as the new)."
If our future indeed brings computing into every facet of our daily lives, then I suspect boredom may be our best option. As Kracauer suggests:

Never let anyone tell you that technological utopianism is on the decline! To me, this is much more dangerous than gadget fetishism.
**
I found myself rather disappointed yesterday when only one student of fifty-three in my sociology of science & tech course chose to do their research project on global issues. I am careful to teach them that our understanding of scientific research and technological development on a global scale must acknowledge and account for unequal political and economic power relations, and the organisation of cultural difference. And while I seem to have found some success in getting them to appreciate these issues at local and national scales, I just can't seem to find the way to get them to look beyond that. Or even to understand that the local and the global are connected in more ways than just climate change. But I think all of this is related to something that troubles me much more: their too often completely uncritical acceptance of the authority of science and the neutrality (or worse, the superiority) of technology. I'm also beginning to sense that in our desire to teach students the importance of ideas and words, we have neglected to teach them the importance of material culture. They all understand the communication issues related to mobile phones, but none seem to be able to identify the material culture of mobile tech: from the sourcing of raw materials, to manufacturing, distribution, and eventual disposal or recycling.
I should have assigned John Law and Kevin Hetherington's Materialities, Spatialities, Globalities (pdf).
Students of space and culture should also enjoy the Berlin: Temporal Topographies project:
There are also interesting projects on body language and visual perception that investigate embodiment and communication. And for anyone interested in play and games, How They Got Game: The History and Culture of Interactive Simulations and Video Games explores the history and cultural impact of video game genres including storytelling, strategy, simulation, sports, and shooters.
More: Stanford Humanities Lab
The article specifically addresses the spatialisation of the social and the socialisation of the spatial, but I take issue with the idea that they have ever been separate. Perhaps Nick and I are just defining our terms differently. After all, he considers non-spaces to be "placeless" and I would disagree. To say that mobile phone conversations lack a spatial component seems off to me. What Nick seems to be describing as spatial phenomena appear to have more in common with notions of timelessness and monumentality than with location in either space or time, and at the same time be limited to geographic location.
But moving along, I am particularly interested in his characterisation of everyday life and the notion of persistence. Where I think Nick and I first disagree is in his belief that archaeologists will be grateful to find cultural artefacts already tagged with geographical coordinates. In my experience, geographic location was the easy part; context is the difficult bit. But this notion of an archive is intriguing. What kind of artefact will this be? How will we know its place? How will we understand its social and cultural context, and not just its geographic location? If Nick's vision comes true, if we will be excavating "accretions" of data that have "endured" through space and time, what exactly will we know about everyday urban life?
I'm also curious about his assumption that these accretions will have greater power to act, to shape the physical world in which we live. Act how? Shape how? I understand the idea that the city can be seen to have more builders, more architects, but what exactly will they be able to build? Put another way, what would an archaeologist identify as their cultural artefact(s)? If accretions of data take on qualities of monumentality, what is the place of the monumental in everyday life?
As for the relation between annotation and sociality, I have to say I don't understand how the social emerges as a result of annotating space, or how it manifests itself only in the accretion of annotations, as history so to speak. Is he limiting sociality to direct (i.e. same space-times) interaction between people? That seems to me to be the opposite of duration.
And finally, I really want to better understand what he means by a "process of involution, an intensive rather than an extensive phenomenon: a potential anti-sprawl". What does that have to do with the persistence of the everyday?
Any thoughts?
Shanks looks closely at the life-cycle of a Korinthian perfume jar to demonstrate the symmetry between objects and people:
Now imagine applying this sense of symmetry and duration to a mobile phone. Or an RFID tag. Neither emerge as simple devices or singular objects; both are multiplicities, as objects and in their relationships with (other) people, places, ideas and practices. For example, the mobile phone extends from mines in Africa to landfills in America, and takes on multiple identities in-between.
We need to begin by excavating, or looking closer at the points, and the spaces in-between, in the life-cycles of technological objects. At the same time we also need to recognise that a focus on their secret lives will not be enough. Our understanding of these assemblages must embody - and enact - a greater sense of hybridity and duration.
CC Copyright 2001-2009 by Anne Galloway. Some rights reserved. Powered by Blogger and hosted by Dreamhost.