fromCONCENTRATE

Developing my MMME project proposal – I’m wondering what kinds of information and experience are specific to this site and cannot be found elsewhere?  What aspects are important, yet hidden, and need to be interpreted for the visitor?

In past times, fortifications and great walls stood as visible public testimony to the need for constant vigilance against enemy attack.  Newcastle’s Black Gate and Castle Keep have, throughout history, been the site of various sieges and, notably, two of these took place during construction works whilst the guard was down.   The Cathedral has also played a strategic role, employing human shields to defend the city:

Tradition has it that during the siege of Newcastle in 1644, when the Scots army, under the Earl of Leven, threatened to blow up the church with a cannon, the Major, Sir John Marley, put his Scottish prisoners in the lantern tower and thus saved it from destruction.

Local political stability is these days more secure, and the ‘New-Castle’, like all technology it seems, has fallen into obsolescence, to be regarded with nostalgia.  Any message of ‘constant vigilance’ is much better conveyed today ‘virally’ through news headlines and train station announcements, so I ask myself: “What NOW is an appropriate use of this kind of ‘public realm’?”

My thoughts trace back to a presentation given by the artist Krzysztof Wodiczko during 2009’s inaugural ANDfestival: “MACHINE TO FIRE THE TRUTH”…

For the piece ‘War Veteran Vehicle,’ Krzysztof Wodiczko transformed a military Land Rover, replacing what would normally be an onboard weaponry system (missile launcher, radar device etc.) with his high powered ‘projection battlestation’ – a video projector and public address system which visually and acoustically blasted words and voices of traumatised soldiers against the blind and deaf walls of the city “…as if a continuation of war.”

Wodiczko worked with UK servicemen and women and their families, recording discussions about the experience after returning from a warzone. He described this process as very difficult, partly because overwhelming experiences can prevent people from speaking easily, but also, because the M.O.D. were unsupportive. One of the veterans, Rob , talked about his own internal self-censorship – “something that the army puts into you (like a chip) which dictates “you can’t say this” and “you can’t say that.”

Soldiers today are trained like machines to relish the battle – however, the training does not extend to ‘un-training’ and a return to civilian life.  Soldiers are trained to control their emotion (‘opening up’ is a sign of weakness) but every so often one of these machines goes wrong: former soldiers make up nearly one-tenth of the UK prison population.*

“the city speaks in what it says and in what it does not say” – Wodiczko

Aggressively situating these citizen testimonies in public space is an attempt to break through the wall of silence.  Wodiczko explained that the action must be aggressive since we are already relentlessly bombarded by advertising, information and news – resulting in our typical symptom of public experience: ‘numbness.’

The ‘War Veteran Vehicle’ speaks loudly and eloquently on behalf of those who cannot speak, and suggests an alternative democratic role for our public space: “the city as mouthpiece for the people”.  Wodiczko located his work in a historic trajectory, citing an obscure ancient Greek term – parasia – meaning “a special right of free, frank and open, fearless speaking in public space.” This notion encapsulates an obligation and duty to critique authority, denounce what is wrong and shake up public consciousness.  The “War Veteran Vehicle” acts as ‘parasiasta’ – bringing to shoppers and heritage visitors voices returned from the far and distant conflicts which are granting our perception of security.

*source Guardian

Watch the whole of Krzysztof Wodiczko’s “MACHINE TO FIRE THE TRUTH” presentation at FACT.tv

The Mobile Media and Media Ecologies module (MMME) requires our consideration of ways in which ‘cutting edge’ interactive and mobile technologies might play a role alongside traditional interpretive signage in disseminating context-specific information and media for tourists and ‘the general public’ in and around the area of the Castle Keep, Black Gate, and St. Nicholas Cathedral in Newcastle.

I have to admit – I’m no great fan of ‘History.’  The word ‘History’ evokes for me period-drama images of kings and queens, castles and peasants, heavy stone engravings, cosy explanations and linear timelines of ‘important’ dates.

I am however interested in contemporary notions of our collective heritage:  ‘Where we are coming from?’ and ‘Where we are going?’

The historic ‘Old Town’ comprising the Castle Keep, Black Gate and Cathedral is in many senses birthplace of the City of Newcastle so I decided to visit the city’s local history library and try to get some sense of how a city is ‘born’.

Rather than turn this blogpost into my own phony-historic sketch of Newcastle I’d like simply to share, in a scrapbook fashion, various clippings and notes:

In 1168 the burgesses of Newcastle were fined 100 marks for compelling a knight to swear, which was an infringement of the then laws of honour; but the sum was remitted for their services in the king’s Castle.

King Henry I. granted laws, customs and privileges to  this infant community.*

*An ancient parchment register, in Northumberland House, contains an article entitled, “These are the laws and customs which King Henry granted to his burgesses of Newcastle.”

“In the borough there ought neither to be given merchet, heriot, blood-wit or stengedwit.”

“No foreigner be allowed to cut fish to sell.”

“Whosoever shall hold land in the borough a year and a day justly, and without claim, if the claimant be within the kingdom, he is not bound to answer such claimant.”

“Every burgess may have a furness and mill.”

“No foreigner ought to buy cloth to buy, unless he be of the custom of the borough.”

“A burgess may carry his corn out of the country whithersoever he pleases without licence.”

1. Hue and Cry to be raised against obstinate offenders against the peace of the town, who are to be punished by the extremity of law;  one half of the fines imposed on such persons by the Mayor and twenty-four of the town to go to the King, and the other half to the Corporation.

How to visualise data/information, in a tangible way, in the public realm?

Back in November I had a look at this work, DEATH COUNTER by Santiago Sierra, which was installed on the front of Hiscox Insurance HQ in central London, for the course of 2009.

The giant LED, reminiscent of the digital clocks and information boards seen throughout most major cities, tallies (in real-time) the total number of human deaths worldwide, starting from zero at 00:00:00 on the 1st of January 2009.

In terms of ‘visualising data,’ there is a simple reciprocal relationship between a binary conception of life OR death and the counter-intuitive representation of these concepts as ‘one’ (death) and ‘zero’ (life), accumulating on the huge display.  Despite the potentially emotive subject matter, and the high value placed on individual human lives, the presentation is unspectacular in the extreme:

business as usual…

One quite remarkable aspect of the Sierra work, is the way in which it was funded – through a legal contract. The work was loaned to Hiscox for the duration of the exhibition, in exchange for a €150,000 life insurance policy, which would be payable in the event of the artists death.

Through a contextual balancing of an art-market value and an insurance value of the artists life, the work highlights and makes explicit the core component of the insurance industry – careful translation of the perceived, constant, risk of catastrophe into bankable capital.*

* As well as providing insurance for major banks such as Lloyds of London, Bermuda based Hiscox, provide cover in the event of kidnapping, hurricane and financial disasters. They posted pre-tax profits of £320.6m for 2009.

London Evening Standard (9/11/2009) / Insurance Daily

My first assignment of the DOING module (Simple Twisting Interface) introduced me to questions regarding the potential ‘resolution’ of information within a simple and intuitive twisting gesture – in that case turning a potentiometer and triggering audio samples within a MAXmsp patch.

For my second assignment of the DOING module (presentated 17/3/2010) I had an idea, which would work in a conceptually opposite direction:

I have begun to outline concerns regarding tokenistic ‘one click’ digital engagement with legal and political frameworks thru handheld devices and the web (see previous posts.)  Further to this, I am also alert and suspicious of the current ‘mania’ regarding the use of gesture, touch and interaction with digital technology and especially in relation to the new breed of ’smart phones,’ and home physical computing (iPhone, Nintendo Wii etc.)

And, since the title of the project brief was ‘Mirrors,’ I decided to work on something which could bring to the fore this fascination with our own (seemingly) reflected action.

I had an idea to develop some kind of application which could reflect and make apparent the (pathetic) nature of a users contribution.  This application would require a constant interaction in order to provide a very limited and basic feedback.

My idea was to use Processing to create a sketch for a potential iPhone application which would do NOTHING UNLESS SHAKEN.  On shaking the device, a looped video file will play but then, if the user stops shaking, the video will pause.  Since the video is set to loop after only a few seconds this constant user effort will return a very limited response.

In terms of the media file, I wanted something silly and banal and I decided to use a video of someone playing the maracas.  A suitable media file, which I found in the incredible Prelinger Archives and sampled in order to produce the loop, can be viewed here:  http://www.archive.org/details/Havana-Madri_2

Below is my sketch – which is extremely simple – embedding the video and overlaying an image of an iPhone.  Mouse movement over the sketch is used for the purpose of the sketch as an analogous ‘demo’ signal in place of actual, physical iPhone ’shaking.’

//SKETCH ‘Constant Agitation’ – John O’Shea
//DM MRes. / Culture Lab / 17-3-2010

import processing.video.*;

Movie video;
PImage img;

void setup(){
size(400, 400);
frameRate(10);
img = loadImage(“iPhone_template_400_400_240_160.png”);

video = new Movie(this, “MaracusLOOP169QVGAzoomed.mov”);
video.loop();
}

// callback function (below) seemed to result in undesired flickering
//so used ‘if’ function within ‘draw’

//void movieEvent(Movie m) {
// m.read();
//image(video,140,40);

void draw(){

//call video
if (video.available()){
video.read();
}

//video image positioned at desired location
image(video,40,40);

//boolean statement below checks for mouse movement
if (pmouseX == mouseX && pmouseY == mouseY){
video.speed(0);
}else{
video.speed(1);
}

//overlay image inserted at the very end so that it is on top
image(img, 0,0);
}

The complete file (with required media components) can also be downloaded here.

The (symbolic) importance of physically petitioning 10 Downing Street should not be underestimated.

If a citizen takes their petition to 10 Downing Street they are literally and symbolically banging on the ‘front door’ of government and demanding that their issue be given due care and consideration by the highest elected authority in the land.

Our friends, MySociety, facilitate their own online brand of this complaint process; the No 10 Petitions Website – How does this online experience compare?

If you have encountered No 10 Petitions Website it might well have been through receiving an invitation to sign a petition via email (something like) -

Protest the Pope, 10 Downing Street Petition

Petition the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown

Please sign:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ProtestthePope/

And, the Number 10 Petitions Website fosters this kind of signature-gathering-via-email approach, which appears to be a very efficient way to:

• gauge support for current issues
• raise the public profile of an issue
• bring an issue to the attention of central government

When I visited to the site today I noticed that there was a new petition there, campaigning for legislation regarding ‘Mosquito youth deterrent devices.’

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/MosquitoUse/

The petition was created by Howard Stapleton and reads:

‘We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Legislate
the use of the Mosquito device.’

I ’signed’ the petition, (since I strongly disagree with the use of these devices*) and it was pleasingly simple to do so.

Perhaps too simple?  Whilst the online petition is certainly an efficient delivery method, the process feels much more like making a mundane consumer complaint (rather than taking part in an engaged political action).  And that is not the only problem.

The No 10 Petitions Website operates, on one level, on a similar model to the previously mentioned FixMyStreet:

• “report-the-problem-to-the-relevant-authority Model”
  

Can reporting a pothole in need of repair (or reporting a broken traffic light in the DIY Democracy example) to a council department REALLY be equated with reporting bigger, less well defined, more complex issues to the Prime Minister?

*These totally unregulated ‘mosquito devices’ send out a high frequency pulsing sound which can only be heard by younger people, indiscriminately targeting them; making their lives unpleasant. The legal use of these devices has not yet been tested in the British Court, but it is widely believed that they are a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Downing Street image file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Brazil license.
Original image here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lula_and_Brown_1_April_2009.jpg

Sorta like this:

I received a link via email today (thanks Tom):

DIY DEMOCRACY – these guys have developed an iPhone App for… well… engaging in Democracy…

The ‘DIY DEMOCRACY’ App allows citizens to report back to government agencies when they encounter an ‘issue’ and it also gives immediate access to the written law – it even has a button to ‘challenge the law!

The logic of the App seems to be that, given the correct information, our elected government bodies will ‘fix’ society’s problems e.g. broken traffic lights

Here is some more from the App’s website (it’s currently only available for use in the US):

“FIX YOUR STATE”
“FIX YOUR CITY”
“DOCUMENT YOUR EVIDENCE”
“TAKE ACTION”
“SHARE YOUR ISSUES”
“CONTACT YOUR LEADERS”

The above are all really good ideas BTW – but really… with an App? – I’m a little skeptical…

In recent years, in-keeping with the web 2.0 ‘participation,’ ‘interactivity’ trends there have emerged a great number of websites and applications which seem to offer to act as ‘broker’ between disenfranchised citizens and political process.

In the UK, quite a few sites operate under the banner of the charity ‘MySociety.’

An example project is ‘FixMyStreet,’ a website which deals very sensibly with a constant problem – potholes – by putting pro-active citizens in the position of informal ‘monitors.’

If you spot a pothole then you can simply enter the location (postcode) into the site (or a geotagged photo if you like) and all of the necessary information is AUTOMAJICALLY reported to the SPECIFIC RELEVANT LOCAL AUTHORITY so that they can schedule a repair.

In crowdsourcing pothole reporting, FixMyStreet has a very modest and clear remit and I think the website works primarily because it takes a lot of the hassle out of the ‘civic duty’ of COMPLAINING.

The DIY DEMOCRACY App takes this notion of reporting ‘problems’ to a totally different extreme:

THE POWER OF CHANGE IS IN YOUR HAND

Its rhetoric is very seductive, and raises some questions:

Are all of societies inequalities and failings mere logistical ‘bugs’?

And, can we REALLY solve all of our POLITICAL issues by remote control?

There are a growing number of transparent democracy websites and below is a link to a comprehensive blogpost by Tom Steinberg (of MySociety) outlining various emerging trends and strands:

Nine is the number: The different flavours of transparency website in 2009

My Digital Media Research Masters Final Project will require a theoretical understanding of the alliances and interactions between law and digital technologies and it is my hope that this learning can be aided through discussion with both the designers, programmers and theorists resident in Culture Lab and also legal academics across at the Law School.

Tomorrow, at 2pm, I’ll be making a presentation to a PHD Research group at Newcastle Law School to introduce my research and thinking regarding areas where technology, art and law appear to intersect:

Title: Interfacing with Law

John O’Shea is working on an AHRC Research Project at Newcastle University’s Culture Lab proposing and prototyping new kinds of technological ‘interface’ between citizen and law.
The convergence of digital-media collaboration tools (such as wikis), G.P.S. enabled mobile devices, and ubiquitous social networking technologies present not only new challenges for legislation but also new possibilities for governments, corporations, communities and citizens to interact with legal frameworks.
John will present examples from his current avenues of research and open up a discussion regarding the implications of current technologies for citizens and the legal profession.

As well as discussing current examples of “Web 2.0″ technologically enabled initiatives between citizens, government and legislation I would also like to direct some focus onto instances where the two streams – technology and law  – seem to merge and hybridise instigating problematic scenarios brought about neither by citizen nor government BUT instead simply through the advancement and free proliferation of new technologies.

Real practical examples of these unanticipated pairings are often evidenced in the tabloid media:

Top: Recorded data in G.P.S. systems (potential evidence of wrong-doing) causing headaches for businesses and lawyers.
Below: Low unit cost of fingerprint scanners is enabling new, non governmental, identification schemes.
Bottom: To counter thieves, designers technologically ensure that mobile phone owners keep their device on their person at all times (again using G.P.S.)

In each of the three story examples, technological innovation is portrayed in an unswervingly positive light and, although each of these developments could have very obvious implications for the privacy of individuals involved, these concerns are not voiced.

In his ISEA2009 keynote, Clive Van Heerden of the Phillips Technology ‘Design Probes’ division discussed these kind of throwaway news articles and used the phrase ‘weak signals’ to liken them to a kind of cultural indicator.

This idea has parity with one of Marshall Mcluhan’s 1969 conceptions of the role of art and artists in relation to technology:

I think of art, at its most significant as a DEW line, a DISTANT EARLY WARNING system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it.

More info regarding DISTANT EARLY WARNING at this excellent site HERE!

Legal boundaries are often determined in respect of private ownership of land and property and are typically ascribed by the simultaneous use of physical boundaries – walls, fences, gates etc.

What happens if the physical boundary is removed or disappears or deteriorates?

The answer it would seem, is that the legal boundary, lacking its physical scaffold, is prone to demise, and the previously ‘private’ property risks falling into public domain. A simple strategy for combating this undesired collapse of law is to give notification of the established legal boundary whilst also making a symbolic gesture towards the previous physical boundary through the use of small markers.

In this way spaces can give the visible and physical impression of being ‘public’ whilst, at the same time, remaining psychologically, legally, economically and physically ‘private’.

The simple brass studs in the video above allude to the outline of a previous structure which, whilst no longer present, is still able to retain territorial supremacy by invoking law – in this case The Highways ACT 1959.

Regarding the Highways Act 1959 – the Office of Public Sector Information has no record of such an act in their 1959 archive. Further investigation reveals that the act was superseded and repealed with the introduction of the Highways Act 1980.

The situation above presents us with an imaginary building and a sign pointing to a vanished law.

In November 2009, television news reports from the day of the fall of the Berlin Wall returned to our screens, 20 years on, like retinal after images. The Berlin Wall had not been a mere boundary marker but a globally visible, physical, manifestation of a global scale political impasse. The transgression and fall of the wall are now seen as emblematic of the groundswell political changes sweeping Eastern Bloc countries at that time.

In advance of our trip to Berlin for Transmediale, I want to consider some contemporary boundaries and how they manifest.

What (if anything) might contemporary boundaries be symbolic manifestations of?

A couple of months ago I saved a link to a ‘Virtual Berlin Wall’ project but now that I return to the link it directs me to the ‘Google’ web search home page – this anomaly takes this blog post off at a tangent…

Virtual Berlin wall launched to commemorate walls http://tinyurl.com/ydl2oqp 3:47 AM Nov 9th from web

There are three possible reasons for this unexpected outcome:

1. – it is simply a dead link and ‘Google’ is the ‘in browser’ default
2. – this is a smartass conceptual art joke
3. – the ‘error’ is some kind of freudigital slip

I choose to believe all three of the above reasons to be correct.

Google is a kind of global digital interfacing membrane, which applies top secret filtration algorithms in order to control, administer and record the exchange of information on the internet.

Today’s withdrawal of Google from the Chinese ‘market’ on grounds of ongoing state censorship is seen by political commentators as a gesture towards a western democratic moral and political highground.

Despite Google’s seeming omnipotence, the vast majority of internet users seem to perceive Google, less as an oppressive ‘wall’ rather, as a benevolent ‘gateway’. For many, Google is a symbol of free, easy access to information and, as such, Google is more analogous in popular consciousness to the Brandenburg Gate than the Berlin Wall.

Brandenburg Gate image used under licence from Wikimedia Commons.

Links:

Google and China: a cynical ploy or a principled stand? – Charlie Beckett, Director POLIS

Google and China: What’s the real story, and where does it go from here? – Mac Slocum. O’Reilly Radar