Critically Making the Internet of Things, Session III

Notes taken in real-time and subject to my brain’s filtering mechanisms. My comments in italics.

Random Walks on the Internet Side of Things
Christian Lindholm, Fjord

“We design for all the glowing rectangles–and beyond.”

Walks: design evolution; digital-physical; affordance; applications; contextual design

Mail boxes as services and adverts; you pop in an envelope and it pops out somewhere else.

Physical triggers to access the network.

“Designing the ‘of course!’”

simplicity > implicity (“I, the service, want you, the user, to touch me here first.”) — reduces random noise, creates liquid experiences

How do you create applications that scale to things? Contextual integration, surprise, entertainment… Mobile design must adapt to context.

The context dilemma: “In digital services you might be one click from creepy.” Ha!

Just thinking… Supervising PhD students reminds me how valuable it is to not only talk about what to do, but also how to do it. (Method, process, whatever.) It takes longer, but I think it’s worth it. Maybe a conference on how, in practice, to critically make the Internet of Things? Surely we’ve gotten to that point…

Who? Me? Augmented Subjects/Objects
Johanna Drucker, UCLA

“Reality was never consensual … It’s time for criticism to become science fiction, so don’t expect an argument.”

What a beautifully written/spoken presentation! So very hard to take notes…

On AR, “Who speaks these signs hanging in the air? They know who I am without knowing me.”

Augmentation: “Imagination becomes a consensus making machine. The lines between produced subjectivities are shifting. New techniques. A vector of to-ness, toward-ness.”

Blurred boundaries and Lynx’s Fallen Angel Ambush

(The fallen angel advert was the first Lynx promo that didn’t make me throw up in my mouth, because an angel does something that other subjects/objects can’t…)

I, agency vs. me, self-absorption

Augmentation/images not from a point of view, but aimed at one. Systems creating themselves. Subjects imploded into an objectivity. An “I” is made in dialogue. A “me” is an undifferentiated self, infantile. Dialogue becomes not monologue but autolog.

Not a moral argument but a social inquiry. The question of who speaks is relevant. The objects begin their new regimes because they can. When a culture deceives itself, is it different from when a person does? The augmentation of self through objects changes individual agency into narcissistic amplification.


The spectrum of “thingness” is extended in an augmented environment. A new dimension of projection and illusion. Our narcissism leads us to believe that we have control, but there is a life to things.

Resisting a moral argument or privileged critique because of its naivety and complicity. An aesthetics or poetics is a production of knowledge rather than a prescription for behaviour.

Yes. But beware the apolitical.

A good question about whether a latent object can engage in the gaze, especially the gaze as a power transaction. Johanna reminded us that latency ends in the moment of engagement. Rather than asking in whose (other) interests, she wants to ask about the desiring systems in which we are all active parts. The ethical rather than the moral.

Ace talk and discussion!

Critically Making the Internet of Things, Session II

Notes taken in real-time and subject to my brain’s filtering mechanisms. My comments in italics.

smart cities / smart buildings
Nanna Gyldholm Møller, Bjarke Ingels Group

Amazing architecture. Browse their website!

Superkilen: “Taking our point of departure in Superkilen’s location in the heart of outer Nørrebro, which has a local population from 57 different cultures, we have chosen to focus on those initiatives and activities in the urban spaces that work as promoters for integration across ethnicity, religion, culture and languages.” (Dezeen + more images at ArchDaily)

I sure would like to see their design process for this project – especially the public consultation bits…

Good audience question about building new things and the problem of obsolescence. Could do with more of that around the Internet of Things discussions.

Zombies Ahead!
Jennie Olofsson, Luleå University of Technology

“A study of how broken, hacked and malfunctioning digital road signs subvert the physical space of roadways.”

Sign Hacker

eg. Zombie warnings dislocate drivers to the point where the actual threat to their safety (driving backwards, stopping to take photos, etc.) is more worrisome than the threat of zombies.

Good audience point about taking the zombie metaphor further...

Sacred Things: The Digital Bible
Timothy Hutchings, HUMlab

Online bibles and bible cultures.

First, personal bibles online being shown off as marked up, annotated etc.

Second, new bibles and bible zines (eg. Revolve, Refuel). Bible design: Quality design is worship; design inspires emotion; tools support religious work, design sophistication is relevance; relevance aids recruitment. But can competing messages be ignored?

Third, material technologies of the electronic bible: The Franklin Bible (1989) + Speaking Holy Bible: King James Version (2011 – check out that design!!) or Go Bible Voyager (2011)

Fourth, bible social media services like YouVersion are hugely popular. Bible reading as public and social. Reading subject to accountability/surveillance by multiple audiences. (“You’ve fallen behind in your reading.”)

The Bible, as the Word of God, has agency.

How does this impact how we think about material (non-human) agency? Horribly mean person that I am, I actually asked Tim and he very graciously – and rightly – responded “In many ways.”

Electronic bibles as games.

So. Much. To. Think. About. Now.


Critically Making the Internet of Things, Session I

Notes taken in real-time and subject to my brain’s filtering mechanisms. My comments in italics.

Matt Ratto

Critical Making: “A mode of materially productive engagement that is intended to bridge the gap between creative, physical and conceptual exploration.”

By way of background, Matt talked about his classes and an assignment in which students are asked to make a “moral technology” and explain what makes it moral. For example, one project was a box that screamed unless/until it was petted. The students said they couldn’t make a moral technology, but they could make something that encouraged moral behaviour. Another worked with traffic signals, which are moral because they already regulate behaviour through the social contract.

To ask why we need to “critically make” the Internet of Things, we might start by asking “What is the IoT?”

Technical definition: instrumentation of the physical world

Temporal definition: when interconnected devices out-number interconnected people

Socio-technical definition: increasing blurring of the line between the digital and the physical modes of engagement in the world

So why do we need a critical perspective? Because we need to come up with alternatives to continuing the rationalisation of the world, or offering a false return to a romantic past.


Bruce Sterling

* pretty much impossible to take notes but…

“All the gloss of wonder gets scraped off” when the dreams of science fiction become real and commercialised. But also, why is the design in science fiction so bad?

Theory Object for Anticonventional Products

Design fiction instead. See Postscapes’ Best Design Fiction 2011.

But what about real products? What science fiction can’t do.

RFID + Superglue + Object ≠ IoT

“It’s easy to be bewitched by the apparent beauty and logic of this. But the map is not the territory.”

Design fiction is a form of design, not fiction.

Lisa Gitelman

*even harder to take notes because of the extraordinary detail and precise language; would be very nice to read a transcript. excellent talk.

Paper is the Thing of Things. What if today’s electronic networks were understood as made of paper?

Telegraphs, as sending and receiving devices, gave printed words back to the person who said them as well as to the recipient. Reminds me of BERG’s Little Printer. Morse’s original idea was to replace each word with a number, leaving only proper nouns.

But telegraphy was never domesticated. It remained a logic of differentiation and expertise.

Looking at telephone, electricity, etc. poles as carriers of paper notices, we can see (the) technology grabbed by the “wrong end.”

Staples as hardware. Posted by unseen hands. An un-archive. Between storage and transmission. Poles surrounded by street trees in counter-point. De-natured nature, enabling infrastructure. Communications smuggled into public. Illegal communication. Owners and others. Stapled leaflets as electrical communications. Multiple copies. The proximal logic of here (Will Straw). “Hello World.”

Lots here.

Northern Sweden

Dear Diary,

I arrived in Umeå this morning for HUMlab‘s Critically Making the Internet of Things conference, which starts tomorrow and has a really interesting line-up of presentations and workshops that I’m looking forward to. I don’t actually have an abstract for my talk, but will post my slides online afterwards.

I also spent the afternoon with Anna Croon Fors and had fika (my new favourite cultural ritual) with her colleagues in the Department of Informatics, discussing everything from gender and technology to how GPS equipped dogs are changing the experience of moose hunting.

The restaurant we originally went to for lunch was closed because the owners were fighting (or so a sign on the door said!) but that meant I got to see more of the city, including timber industry sites on the river and new residential suburbs. I also got to meet a super cute Norwegian Forest kitten, who was sleeping on a gorgeous Gotland lambskin. (I have to see if I can get one to take home. Skin, not cat. I already have one of those.)

The weather is mild, only -4 or so, and there is only a little snow on the ground, but the sun set around 2pm and it’s hard not to get tired after that. The upside to the darkness is that you can see lovely Advent stars and candles lighting up everyone’s windows, and the trees are strung with fairy lights that you can see for half the afternoon as well. It will be strange to return to NZ summer after this!

But it’s almost time for dinner, so I’d better go get ready now.

More soon,

CFP: Digital Creativity Special Issue on Design Fictions

Digital Creativity is a major peer-reviewed journal at the intersection of the creative arts and digital technologies. It publishes articles of interest to those involved in the practical task and theoretical aspects of making or using digital media in creative contexts. By the term ‘creative arts’ we include such disciplines as fine art, graphic design, illustration, photography, printmaking, sculpture, 3D design, interaction design, product design, textile and fashion design, film making, animation, games design, music, dance, drama, creative writing, poetry, interior design, architecture, and urban design.

This special issue of the journal invites papers, projects and reviews exploring and developing the notion of Design Fictions. One of the early proponents of Design Fictions, the author Bruce Sterling, said that design: “seeks out ways to jump over its own conceptual walls – scenarios, user observation, brainstorming, rapid prototyping, critical design, speculative design” (Sterling, 2009). Despite the current burgeoning of this field and its various histories and antecedents, the coming together of design and fiction, as ‘design fictions’, remains relatively underexplored.

Design Fictions might also be sensed as a ‘speculative turn’ in design practice, founding a new engagement in ‘prototyping’ conjectural projections of designed futures. In the context of ever-present near futures, projected as scenarios that threaten radical ruptures of the real, digital creativity expands into a post-digital cybernetics. Design Fictions speculative design methodologies take their cue from science fiction, Sterling however would also have it the other way around, saying that: “design and literature don’t talk together much, but design has more to offer literature at the moment than literature can offer design” (Sterling, 2009).

This issue seeks to put design and literature into conversation. The journal wishes to ask how Design Fictions and related methodological work have mutated or glitched across art, design and architecture, for example in response to ‘design fictions’ (Nokia/Bleecker); in ‘critical design’ (Dunne & Raby); in speculative and visionary architecture (Spiller); in science fiction as prototyping (Intel/Johnson); and in ethnographic work on design and prototyping (Kelty). Papers are invited from three broad areas:

·      Papers offering critical reflections on post-digital futures rendered as Design Fictions.

·      Papers that illustrate what contemporary design provides as an alternative to the structural orthodoxies of mappings of the ‘hard’ science fictional to the ‘engineering of creativity’ (Altshuller).

·      Papers that reflect on Design Fictions as a methodology and on the ways in which fictional constructs and diegetic prototypes might open design discourse on cybernetic futures.

Initial proposals should be extended abstracts in English, between 800-1200 words. The categories for final submission are Short Papers between 2500-3500 words, and Long Papers, between 5000-7000 words. The papers will be selected through a blind peer review process. Upon acceptance of the abstract, you will be sent further authors’ guidelines based on the Digital Creativity guidelines (Instructions for Authors) at

The extended abstract should include the following information: 1) Name of author(s) with email addresses and affiliation, if applicable 2) Title of the paper 3) Body of the abstract 4) Preliminary bibliography 5) Author(s)’s short bio(s) 6) Indication of whether the submission will be a short or a long paper.

Important dates:

Initial proposals (extended abstracts) deadline: March 5, 2012

Notification of extended abstract acceptance (by editors’ review): March 26, 2012

Final papers are due on: June 04, 2012

Blind peer-reviews due on: July 30, 2012

Revised final papers are due on: September 3, 2012

Special issue published: Winter 2012

Recipients: Please forward your abstract as a PDF attachment in an e-mail addressed to the special issue and Digital Creativity editors below:

Derek Hales, special issue quest editor <>

Digital Creativity editors <>

Page 17 of 35« First...10«1516171819»2030...Last »