As an interactive media student, I strive to make interactive, participatory work using mainly technology. The whole reason I joined interactive media was to learn coding and technology to create fun, interactive art. Never did I ever fantom the thought of an analog medium to have such great emotional, participatory and interactive feedback.

The way JR and Agnes handled the documentary was an art piece on its own but maybe I can talk about the idea of how the analog interface of photographs, and not just regular photographs, big photographs on large surfaces, could invoke such strong emotional and interactive feedback.

The way JR and Agnes handles the art seems to have something to do with their artistic craft, background and keen interest in humans and their stories. The humans in the stories, almost in a way, are blown up to match the environment or architecture. The stories are also blown up to a larger format because of this. I find it interesting because we were taught during this class that as technology progressed, as tend to start gulerverise screens. However, it almost seems natural to print pictures in such a large format.

The endeavour they went through together and the sad/happy/i-dont-know ending was unexpected and really struck a nerve to how far the analog medium of film and photography can be interactive. Maybe there is more to explore in the analog world than I thought.

I sure wished I read this before embarking on my final year project about rethinking screen based interactions. What an amazing read. Huhtamo effectively summarized how modern to post modern common day screens evolved from what they were pre technology to what we have at least 2 on our desks right now.

I’d like to discuss 2 of Huhtamo’s findings; the culture of interacting with screens and the idea of smart wearables.

Early inception of screens being developed from puppet play was an interesting and bold move to make. It was, technically, a media piece, for its time but it was nothing more than entertainment. I guess that’s where cinema drew its roots and inspirations from. As a budding interaction designer, I wonder what kinds of interactions can be drawn out from the puppetry, immersive paintings and pano–dio–rama days.

I’ve always thought of screens as a means to an end of an output in the chain of interaction, our senses, usually being the input. In the case of live puppetry, the puppets could improvise in real time, creating distinct interactions. However, dioramas and 360 paintings are but still. The act of looking is interaction, perhaps. The shifting perceptives as you move around a space where time stands still, or peaking into a small hole to view moving imagery, it pulls you out of your usual sensorial environment and flings you into a new world. Is this what interaction is? Or is that fleeting feeling of amazement a by product of what interaction can do?

Culture shifts along with technological advancements. The society shifts with the shifting culture. As we approach the modernity of society, efficiency becomes invaluable. Every second that ticks away is another dollar we could’ve earned. Drawing from the example of how society phased out the pocket watch, gave rise to the then exclusively feminine wrist watch, all from a little shift in branding. Now because we wear clocks on our wrist and carry them in our pockets, we are governed by time.

Time, a mere construct, holds us responsible for improper management, lost of finances and making loved ones mad. In the past, time was merely an indicator of when to go to sleep or wake up or the part of the year to harvest your crops.

Carrying around small media devices that contain a universally agreed time changes the culture of a society and how that society interacts. In the cases provided above, we have to think, not only about displacing our audiences, spatially and sensorially, but also through time. Or maybe interaction has always been about these three aspects, made more prominent with the culture we are in.

The discussion about Google Glass got me a little rattled up. Nerdy and arrogant? There’s definitely a better way to phrase that. People are not ready for the unfamiliar. To merely disregard the glass’ technological advancements and to pinpoint its failure on the product is everything opposite of self critical. The audience was simply not ready for a device like this.

Having been published in 2016, Huhtamo probably didn’t realize the direction Apple would’ve went with the Apple Watch. Almost none of did to be honest. Apple took a 180 degree turn and marketed the product to be not only a lifestyle product, but also a sports and wellness device. It was set out to prove it’s place in the market place by not being just another screen. It encompasses functionality over functionality whilst maintaining and improving on its form.

In the latest rendition of the Apple Watch, the Watch 4 in 2018, it made strides in the water proof functionality, making it a go to swim and diving watch and included medically certified ECG features that has already helped people self diagnose probable heart illnesses. Similar to the situation with the pocket watch and wrist watch, it is time to acknowledge that smart watches are the next generation of wearables. They are more than, as Huhtamo put it, a screen and a knob.

Call me an optimist, I am all for our machine overlords to dictate the most efficient path to save the earth and humanity. But until then, any form of innovation, in my opinion, is progress. We live and we learn, so do big organizations. They are pushing boundaries in fields we don’t even know of as of now. But until then, I am convinced that screens are nearing the end of it’s life. Or rather, the current generation of OLED UHD 4K 8K screens. The next wave is upon us.

McQuire’s readings is radically different from what I remembered from Emergent Visions. Through the hour read, McQuire brought me through concepts of how powerful people with agendas reshaped, essentially, humanity and behaviours. Similar to Wodiczko’s reading, it speaks of, but indirectly, of how the architecture shapes our social hierarchy and how we behave in a certain society. McQuire elaborates deeply on these minute changes that snowball into the culture and society we have today.

I would like to reflect on his observations and parallel it to possibilities of how the same will come to pass in the present for the future, and perhaps how we can be more critical when it comes to being part of the masses.

An important part of the timeline in McQuire’s reading is that the introduction of certain technological or ideological advancements. From the capitalistic ideals of bringing together strangers to a certain area that later on allows for architectures to segment them could be similar to the advent of the internet. Through the world wide web, we brought together people from different villages, more than any movement of creation of cities ever could. The internet, without bodies, is the most populated global city out there. I was surprised that McQuire, who was drawing media as a reference, did not pick this parallel up.

The invention of vehicles that commodotized speed was something I would have never phantomed, as much as it was obvious, it was something that was specifically produced to make speed accessible to all, or rather, those who could afford it. Perhaps an era similar to this would be economical uprising of China. Through government intervention, China shifted its economical focus to more of a production stand point and was able to grab market share and this led to a boom in all industries, particularly the IT and media industries. With China leading the fray on speedy production lines, it was an obvious choice to create infrastructure to support this new modern media city. Now, China is one of the top economical giants and will now start to shift its economical stance in the global market. This is similar to what the Situationist preached in McQuire’s reading

We shouldn’t be changing for the vehicles. Transport should change for us.

China’s active stance, now that it is in a position of power, is starting to shift gears because of what it needs to be. In a way, the management of their economy is in a way, similar to Responsive Architecture. As mentioned in McQuire’s reading, is about real time anticipation. This ability to change will be the fundamental of many countries, infrastructures and systems in the near future.

Through my exchange in America, I was able to meet many Chinese international students. We discussed that China is some what, a modern city with people who are not adept with city life. The idea of a modern city is that strangers remain strangers, but through technology, are able to still coexist and cohabit a similar space. This space is shared through the laymen, the middle class, and the rich, who tower above all on their ivory glass buildings. The future, even though bleak to think of in this manner, would probably mean data or speed restriction of the information from the world wide web that favours the privilege.

Active global events are evidence that we are not ready for a global city, both physically and digitally. Through the election of current President of the United States, Donald Trump and the democratic vote of Brexit, it is evident that we are moving away from this idealogical global city.

This would mean the free and open internet we have would be threatened by external, more powerful forces. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before the media city, both digitally and physically reverts back to the times of old, a village of simpler times.

I remember a year ago when Wodiczko came to ADM for the Emergent Visions workshop. His talk wasn’t something I was particularly interested in but I have a vague recollection of the point he was making; make the voice of the people heard. That to me, stood out.

Having been part of the group that presented on Wodiczko’s Critical Vehicles, I want to highlight a few points of my interest that may not be directly linked to the reading, but an inference from my point of view.

Homeless Vehicles

As part of his practice, Wodiczko created a line of devices that were given to the Homeless to engage and facilitate conversations between the Homeless and the others. Homeless Vehicles is part of the larger discussion from his Critical Vehicles which talks about how we need to be more self-aware and self-critical through these mediums. In a way, this project, much like his others, is disruptive to societal norms, attempting to drive an idea towards to majority on these extreme users.

I do wonder from Wodiczko’s standpoint, what he was trying to say, beyond these. Was he really creating something to facilitate conversation or could it be used against him, as a driving force to tear deeper into this open wound, further distancing the norm to these homeless?

Having been to New York to witness it for myself, even though not Poland where Wodiczko comes from, the homeless problem is a real pandemic. A pandemic caused by capitalism and corruption, meritocracy and a facade of a striving nation or city. The homeless, expelled and condemned from the system branded as bums that did not work as hard as we did, and so we justify the state they are in. We did not consider their circumstances, of birth, of finances and or of race or gender. Wodiczko’s other pieces such as PROJECTION ON THE MONUMENT TO FRIEDRICH II, KASSEL (1987) emulate the disparity between the rich and the poor and the how tos that led to this widespread problem.

However, I do believe that Homeless Vehicles, even though a good initiative and art piece, needs to be more self critical and aware of what it is. It is a tool, a home, for discussion and shelter, but also for further discrimination and nothing more than a prison cell. Wodiczko claims the Homeless rather sleep in the streets under shelter, because the living condition in public housing is practically a prison cell. What’s the difference then? Moving from one prison cell to another. They carry now, a monument to signify their social status; to be used for or against them.

My point? I don’t know either. It’s a good conversational starter, it gives the Homeless a choice; a choice where and when to sleep, wherever. But they also carry a badge with them, telling people who they are. This is the difference between some of his works; some shed light on a situation, some cast a shadow to further contrast views and agendas.