I am publishing my notes taken during the workshop Affective Interfaces @ITU Copenhagen, 30 Nov. 2017. Cheers and Thank you to the organizers JONAS Fritsch, SØREN Rasmussen, TORSTEN Andreasen. These are notes looking for an interface with only minor edits for publication // my own views // accents and selections
JONAS welcomes roundabout 50 participants to the symposium. Shall address “real-time level Interface events” // “affective modulation” of communication online // Workshop is part of project “Affects, Interfaces, Events” // focus on Affective ENCOUNTERS, TONALITIES, ATTUNEMENTS, CROWDINGS, MODULATIONS
THE INTERFACE was the TOUCHPOINT BETWEEN THE HUMAN AND THE MACHINE (which used to be restricted to a screen). This now changes. EXAMPLES: smartband for EPILEPSY DETECTION by empatica – sense an attack before it happens // MACHINE PERCEPTION: face becomes the interface e.g. in APPLE face recognition // SELF-DRIVING CARS: Where is the interface of that device with the environment?
HOW to analyse “interfaciality”…?
TORSTEN gives a summary of affective dimensions and alienation. Question the interface. “Regime of the interface” ALLOWS to do certain things. “as long as you participate” nothing happens (cf. Alexander Galloway’s Interface Effect). Spectacle of the Interface // affective networks (Jodi Dean) participate instead of acting? // Current capitalism is the endless accumulation and proliferation of affective interfaces. (trace that genealogy back to Marx, Debord, Agamben [and Torsten]). // Interface as zone of indistinction between human and non-human, action and non-action.
Cross-Examination: The Izbica Massacre Video
Susan Schuppli Goldsmiths University London)
From Project “Material Witness“: compare the testimony of witnesses to massacres in its affective dimensions in relation to the “glacial” mechanic pace of prosecution process at the ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]. Address “performance of justice in the architecture of the court as a flawed design problem.” Tapes of the Izbica massacre (made by Liri Loshi) were smuggled in different versions out of Kosovo, occasionally being hidden away, regained, transported and hidden again.
From abstract: “As the tape journeyed through the ICTY it furnished a great deal of insight into its complex legal role as an interface between victims and perpetrators; a relationship organised by the institutional protocols of the court and the affective register of testimony, which included human as well as material witnesses.”
The court proceedings are mediatised in many ways as no material evidence enters the court room without prior digitization. Every evidence is video or/and image, along with recorded testimony and its simultaneous translation in 5 languages. Case for “forensic architecture”. Witnessing decoded. Lack of image stability and graininess attests to its authenticity. At the same time, in a court prosecution, this defect may be a source of doubt. As the video is cited in trial, shown again, stopped, excerpted etc. its force of evidence is continuously questioned and translated into proceedings that reinstate the affective dimensions of the circumstances of its original production. The “material witness” (ie. the tape) with its material-digital defects stands in for the human witness, who can no longer speak. Interested as how violence is recorded across the material strata of the world.
Why is the material defect important?
- the video is edited for the purposes of the court which is changing its status as an evidential object. The judicial process becomes inscribed in the object
- its material degradation gives rise to doubt about its evidentiary status (low-tech camcorder aesthetic). How the logic of institutional protocols is inscribed in objects that are supposed to speak for someone else
New book: The Metainterface: The Art of Platforms, Cities, and Clouds // Metainterface is “both omnipresent and invisible, universal and intimate, at once embedded in everyday objects and characterized by hidden exchanges of information between objects” (from abstract) // Søren: “We never escape our profile”. Interactivity across platforms creates recommendation systems // TASTE as data-business model // See Linden & Smith 2017 “Two Decades of Recommender Systems at Amazon.com”
Or artwork by Benjamin Grosser // “You like my like of your like of my status“ (2016) — example of datafication of taste and its exposition in randomised, repetitive fashion // “Go Rando” (2017), randomising emotion icons on Facebook profiles — disturbs FB algorithmic observation but also the interaction/communication/self perception of users. Distance between human and algorithmic understanding of “liking” becomes obvious as affective is defined in a specific “quantifiable grammar” that is exposed in Grosser’s endless, mechanistic repetition of a phrase. We have no way to escape the capitalist behavioral schema of metainterface without doing away with the template of interaction. Social networking sites as “parasites to our language”.
Zombification and iPhone bodies: Zombie appendage e.g. Jodi ZYX: smart phones embody a particular grammar of physical movement. Apps inscribe these grammars on bodies. The art collective also exposes how an app is tested and becomes accepted for distribution. // “Body Scan” by Erica Scourti (2014) — connect body images, poetry and meta-search instant results. Body that is sign and signal // intimate and objectified // exposes a machine language sensorium in human language // gender biases and commercial interests are reflected back on to the body. Metainferface as an ideological machine? // Measurement of taste feeds back into the creation of taste and further consumption. cf. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun (2016). Updating to Remain the Same. Habitual New Media. MIT Press.
Activist Sense – Interfacing Affective Relays
Christoph Brunner (Leuphana University Lüneburg)
Activism at G20 Summit in Hamburg July 2017 as state of exception? A “Modulatory State of Excitement” // protest forms informed by Seattle protests, Prague // Counteraesthetic of the sensible // Aesthetics of Activist Movements: Visualization and Visuals. Flashmob interventions. Technopolitics of Protest
Alternative Media Center (FC/MC) during summit in Hamburg. Activists negotiate media use and communication in situated embedding // Follow Brian Massumi, (2015). Politics of Affect. “Resistance as bare activity” // operational logic, ie. politics of pre-emption // owning of time (not space) as military strategy // in run-up to summit a discourse of violent threat and pre-emptive actions by authorities escalated toward the event // Violence then actually erupted.
FC/MC creates an alternative information channel, but it also activates the sensing “bodies in alliance” (Judith Butler), while distributing differential signs across the media spectrum. The sensuous interfaces become sense-making elements to feed them back into communication channels // Joint and distributed task of “making of [a] perception” and create the differentials that resonate in space // generate a space of gathering and making (“counter-power” à la Massumi is an emerging quality of experience) // activist body to resonate in a collective body through affect: “Affect is the body as much as it composes the [collective] body.”
Designing into the Unknown: engaging with material and aesthetic uncertainty
Danielle Wilde (University of Southern Denmark)
Reporting on PKI Project – poetic kinaesthetic interface. Started with motion captures of different of bodies in unusual positions — that failed because the bodies were moving / / not moving in predefined patterns.
Building on Tim Ingold: how materials get woven into the fabric of people’s lives e.g. (2011). Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. // Ingrid Pollard: qualities of materials emergent in practice cannot always be adequately captured in writing/theory
Use language of weaving in a participatory design process // craft as method, technique and tool to scaffold and open responsive research structure // LOOM stands for the space where experiments with fabrics, shapes, uses and users take place // FABRIC emerging from experiment, patterns // QUALITIES emergent as threshold between material and use, perception and questioning // publics as the HEFT of the LOOM that operates its functions and shapes them. Install a VAN as an open air design research lab in the wild // developing body props to interrupt typical body movement and perception patterns e.g. “Blue Cushions” or “Sleeves”: finding out the limitations of the prop and negotiate around them // blur boundaries of testing and making, break barrier between research and interaction // low threshold of participation // make parts of probes and experiments open to observation, participation by people // perform research
Group as interface – Elements for a Mechanology of Participation
Yuk Hui (Leuphana University Lüneburg)
Following up on (2016). On the Existence of Digital Objects. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Group vs. collective Mechanology is a combination of philosophical thinking and technical knowledge to solve/address social issue // to address social networks like Facebook critically, a new theory of participation is necessary // build on Jacob Moreno against individual as “social atom” – method of “sociometry” // he tried to understand child delinquency through maps of social relations and existence of groups // pattern of the social is invisible, only available through charting (visualisation) of relations // in age of Facebook this charting is a method of driving value generation // a method of social science and management in the 1930’s became a managerial tool in online social networks // now, this is problematic and a critique of FB must start with a reimagination of the social network (and its commodified form) beyond the atomised individual.
Individuation takes place psychologically and socially // follow George Simondon: Society is an ensemble of relations, not a substance. The psychic is always trans-individual (individuation) // Gilles Hanus: L’épreuve du collectif (2016): “collective is an intermediate between the individual and the group” // distinguish between isolation and solitude, the latter of which is a deliberate looking outward of the individual to be affectuated by others. // Kurt Lewin: theory of group, where it is not a result or product of socialization (ie. unit of society) but a set of relations that effect the individual (as force). “every individual is always in-group and out-group” Group as an interface: moderates the individual and structures the collective // compare moderation in group to mediation and cybernetics // Being in a group is a form of modulation.// see G. Simondon “The Genesis of the Individual” in Crary / Kwinter (1992) Incorporations. Zone Books.
Facebook conceives of groups from logic of atomised individuals that adapt to the logic of networks ie. individuals IN A GROUP // group should be an intermediary in a theory of social networks // groups should become a condition of participation that allows different kinds of behavior // Limit the space of possibilities and decrease contingency of discovery // Wire that into the technical setup of online social networks // See more: Shang, Shang; Hui, Yuk; Hui, Pan; Cuff, Paul; Kulkarni, Sanjeev (2014). Beyond personalization and anonymity.