Placemaking by mediated urban spatial experiences in the era of the Internet of Things

MEDIACITY 5

Reflecting on Social Smart Cities May 2015, Plymouth, UK

1

MEDIACITY 5


2

PROCEEDINGS

MEDIACITY 5 Internation Confernce, Workshops and Urban Interventions 1-3 may 2015 Plymouth University, UK

Katharine S. Willis, Alessandro Aurigi, Mike Phillips, Gianni Corino Plymouth University, UK

MEDIACITY 5


3

Published and distributed by the School of Architecture, Design & Environment and i-DAT (Institute of Digital Art and Technology), Plymouth University.

School of Architecture, Design & Environment Plymouth University Drake Circus Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK Tel: +44 1752 585020

i-DAT (Institute of Digital Art and Technology) Plymouth University Portland Square Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK Email: [email protected] Telephone: +441752 586201

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-

nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-

MEDIACITY 5


173

Placemaking by mediated urban spatial experiences in the era of the Internet of

Things

Dimitris Charitos1, Iouliani Theona 2

Abstract

1National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Greece

[email protected] 2National Technical University of Athens

Greece

[email protected]

This paper aims to define a theoretical framework for conceptualizing on the placemaking potential of urban spatial experiences, mediated by pervasive and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies. For this purpose, it discusses the relation of human subjects with things and objects as well as with the spaces and places that they produce, while taking into consideration the latest technological advancements. The ultimate goal is to evaluate the hypothesis that the emergence of places in the aforementioned contexts is not necessarily an anthropocentric process but can largely be the outcome of material agency of non-living things and objects. To this end, the paper presents a public space, site-specific installation titled “Pollen” and discusses the manner in which this mediated environment interacted with the physical environment and with animate and inanimate actors within it.

Keywords

Placemaking; urban spatial experiences; post-phenomenology; internet of things

1. Introduction

This paper aims to investigate the manner in which the concept of mediated spaces resonates in contemporary urban environments, the experience of which is being augmented by pervasive and ubiquitous computing systems. More recent technological advancements like the Internet of Things (IoT) call for a rethinking and expanding of the notion of mediation to better incorporate a more holistic approach of urban settings with embedded computation, as aspects of human-computer interfaces.

The main goal of the paper is to investigate the placemaking potential afforded by urban spatial experiences, mediated by pervasive and IoT



MEDIACITY 5


174

technologies. To this end, readings from humanistic geography and phenomenological approaches on space and place will be considered as useful points of departure (Casey, 1993). However, the paper also questions the potential of phenomenology to be utilised as an appropriate theoretical framework for interpreting the relation of human subjects with space and place in the current technological circumstance.

The ultimate goal is to evaluate the hypothesis that placemaking in the aforementioned contexts is not necessarily an anthropocentric process but can largely be the outcome of material agency of non-living things and objects. These objects may be augmented by embedded computation or may also be connected to each other and/or to the internet via the IoT technological infrastructure. Consequently, these objects may interact with human agents in the urban environmental context, as well as with other living and non-living entities that exist in this environment.

As a case study to be studied more in depth for the needs of this discussion, the paper utilises the public space, site-specific installation titled “Pollen”, which was created by Coti K. and Dimitris Charitos in 2009 and was presented during the Expanded Ecologies exhibition at the National Museum of Contemporary Art, in Athens, Greece. This installation, essentially a network of beehives, was situated outside the museum. “Pollen” captured data from the atmospheric and sound pollution of the surroundings of the museum and transformed it into an auditory ecosystem that functioned adversely towards these environmental conditions in an attempt to counterbalance them, at least at a symbolic level (Coti and Charitos, 2009). An analysis of the serendipitous after-effects of exhibiting the artwork will attempt to offer useful insights into the conceptualisation of placemaking in mediated urban spaces.

2. Pervasive Computing and the Internet of Things

The rapid evolution of embedded and pervasive computing technologies, wireless networking, mobile and wearable computing, sensor networks and intelligent environments and the convergence of these technologies has led to the gradual transformation of the internet, from a network of networks to a network that may connect any computers with other computers, as well as with any other human artifacts or physical objects. In recent literature, this

emergent phenomenon has been called: the Internet of Things4 (IoT). The IoT is a universal network of computers, sensors and actuators, connected together via internet protocols (Pfister, 2011, p.29).

This concept implies that physical objects can now be connected amongst each other and with the internet, can be remotely controlled and/or function as points of access to internet services. Consequently, IoT signifies the expansion of internet onto the physical world, including and connecting things, physical

objects of everyday life 5 and artifacts 6 (Mattern & Floerkemeier,

4 One of the first times that this concept was used in international literature was by Gershenfeld (1999)

5 The use of which does not necessarily involve technological mediation.

MEDIACITY 5


175

2010). This vision can also be considered as the evolution of an older vision of “pervasive and ubiquitous computing”, proposed by Mark Weiser (1991), according to which computation would “disappear” and the human would interact with computational environments and not with devices which will appear as personal computers.

The emergence of pervasive computing systems and the IoT brings forward a new condition with regards to human-machine communication. The process of communication between the human and pervasive & ubiquitous computing as well as with the other digital artefacts that participate in this process becomes

spatialised and implicit7 , persistent and invisible. The complexity and the implications of this condition at a social, political and cultural level are not yet well understood. For this purpose, it is essential that we investigate the ways in which computation extends beyond the limits of what was, until now, perceived as its context. In order to achieve this, we need to investigate how computation expands physically and conceptually out towards the physical world and onto any physical, symbolic, material and immaterial objects and the environments that these constitute.

Towards this direction, the paper aims to consider a series of theoretical approaches which may help us understand the complex context which is being formulated as a result of the deployment of pervasive computing and IoT technologies, the new relations that are being established amongst humans and physical objects/things and the environmental experiences that these may afford. In order to develop a better understanding of the significance that these transformations may have on humans, it is important to discuss the issue of humans interacting with artifacts in general. This discussion involves the issue of whether artifacts can actually be considered as entities that act (actors) and carry the potential for social action and agency, whether they can have a social kind of impact on other humans, or animate or inanimate objects, in the context of actor-networks (Latour, 2005).

3. The relation between humans, objects and things

Hodder (2012, pp.7-8) defines the concept of a “thing” as an entity which has the property of presence, in other words which has a configuration which persists in time. This is also true for all objects. We could actually use the term “object” instead of “thing”, with reference to material entities, the form of which remains relatively stable in time.

Hodder, referring to Heidegger (1971, in Hodder, 2012, p.8) considers an object as something that we conceptualize as being “distant from us and set up

against us”. He suggests that entities and objects8 become known to

6 These artifacts embody some form of analogue or digital technology, which mediates their

use.

7 For a definition of the term implicit interaction see Rizopoulos & Charitos (2006, p. 3-4).

8 He implies entities (bounded essences) and objects (which are distant from us and set up against us).

MEDIACITY 5


176

human beings only through their being as things, that is by virtue of their tendency for bringing other humans and non-humans together into heterogeneous mixes (Hodder, 2012, p.8). Things are usually not isolated. They pull together flows and relations into various configurations or assemblages which could comprise heterogeneous constituent elements (Hodder, 2012, p.8). Their nature as things resides in their tendency to maintain connections and in their ability to create flows into other forms.

If we now consider that most objects that comprise the IoT are actually objects, that is, material things with persistent form and configuration, we could argue that a term which corresponds more accurately to the concept of IoT would be: the “Internet of Objects”. This term however, is somehow limiting. The term “Internet of Things” is considered as more appropriate, since the concept of a thing, as was mentioned before, entails the tendency to gather other things and humans in heterogeneous assemblages. This very property of the “thing” reflects more appropriately the constitution, structure and function of the IoT.

Actor-network theory (ANT) (Law, 2009, p.141) is a descriptive theory which takes objects and artifacts into account as “agents”, in a continuous interactive relationship with other humans in actor-networks (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006:196). Differentiating between human and non-human actors (artifacts or objects or other animate non-humans) is not important in ANT, while all these actors are connected with relational links, as agents in the same overall network (Law, 2009, p.141).

Bennett (2010, p.viii) investigates intelligent and sustainable entanglements

and interactions among humans and phenomenally alive and active things9. She attempts to point out the potential of “non-human” or “not so human things” for agency. She puts forward the argument that things do not only have the ability to obstruct the plans and desires of humans but may also act as “quasi agents” or as forces with their own tendencies and trajectories. In agreement with Latour, Bennett suggests that things can be considered as “acting subjects” (actants). An actant can be an agent of a human or non- human essence, an entity that can do things, display effectiveness, bring about certain consequences as a result of its acting and transform the course of events (Bennett, 2010, p.viii).

Activity Theory (AT)10, on the other hand, is a psychological theory that functions as a descriptive tool for conceptualizing on the relation between consciousness and activity, in the context of everyday life and practice (Nardi, 1996, p.7) Being partly in agreement with ANT, AT takes the social world into account as consisting of human beings and artifacts. These artifacts may be physical objects, tools or semiotic systems (Nardi, 1996, p.7-8) Human experience is shaped through the tools and semiotic systems that we use (Nardi, 1996, p.10). These things play a significant mediating role and connect us closely and organically with the environment.

9

She uses the term: “vibrant matter”.

10 Firstly formulated in the USSR in the beginning of the 20th century by Lev Vygotsky and Alexei

Leont'ev.

MEDIACITY 5


177

Phenomenology and Activity Theory consider artifacts in a relatively similar manner, as mediators of human experience and as closely relating to a meaningful objective. Finally, AT assumes a relatively different position in relation to ANT, in that it considers humans and things as having a clearly asymmetrical relationship. Humans have consciousness, motives and intentions and they use artifacts which empower them and which could be considered as nodes or agents in a network of humans and things. Artifacts are mediating human thinking and behavior and as such the agency they afford is significantly different from that afforded by humans (Nardi, 1996, p.13). In any case, only humans have needs which are largely culturally shaped (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, p.199).

Taking into account the above mentioned post-cognitivist theoretical approaches, the paper discusses the possibility that material things and artifacts may be considered as agents, entities that afford social action. In order to begin this discussion, one has to identify the criteria that an entity must fulfill for it to be considered as carrying the ability to act socially. Kaptelinin & Nardi (2006, pp.241-242) define the essence of humans as subjects and agents of social action as “the ability and the need to act” as well as “the ability to produce an effect”. According the AT, this is a characteristic of any “thing” that physically and conceptually exists. A more specific criterion for the essence of being an agent is also “the production of effect as a result of intention”. Only humans however, can satisfy a third criterion: to develop their own intentions, in the basis of their needs and to satisfy these needs, acting upon other human or non-human entities. The need to act entails biological and cultural needs and no other physical, material, thing or artifact can satisfy this criterion.

Based on the principles of AT, Kaptelinin & Nardi (2006, pp.243-248), suggest a typology for categorizing all existing entities according to a series of properties and dimensions regarding the essence of the human as an agent of social action. This categorization is very relevant to the subject of this paper since it helps us differentiate amongst types of social actors and levels of activity that they may afford. According to this categorization, physical things (physical phenomena, material objects etc. not constructed by humans) are able to produce effects and therefore have a dependent ability to act, which however, does not have the intention of another entity as a starting point. Culturally determined things which are produced by humans, in other words artifacts, machines, digital and hybrid objects are able to act or to produce effects (conditional agency) and in doing so they may satisfy intentions which are derived from other human entities (delegated agency). These artifacts can therefore be considered as agents but their action is conducted on behalf of another agent. Humans on the other hand, are considered as agents and this essence is based in their biological and cultural needs, but they can also act for the purpose of fulfilling the intentions of other entities. All entities may also bring about effects which were not in accordance with their intentions, as a result of their actions. Finally, artifacts are a special type of agent, that is produced as a result of cultural needs of humans and that can support either conditional agency or delegated agency (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, p. 244).

MEDIACITY 5


178

4. Investigating the spatial experience of pervasive media and IoT

Wireless networks and location awareness, now considered somewhat of a common currency, spurred the emergence of a variety of projects during the previous decade that sought to escape the confinement of desktop setups and take computation and action to the city streets. Mobile and locative media rise to prominence was associated with ambitions of reshaping the way we encounter the urban environment and experience the places we inhabit. To this end, phenomenology has been employed as a theoretical framework to help conceptualize the nascent locative practices. A detailed examination of the notions of space and place as framed by relevant locative media projects falls out of the scope of this paper. However, we will outline a brief review of the placemaking potential stemming from locative practices in order to better illustrate the shift towards a comprehension of the physical environment as well as of the hermeneutic tools under use, as the technological infrastructure supporting the mediation of the urban experience evolves from locative media to a more pervasive and ubiquitous mode of urban computing.

Prior to pursuing such an investigation, it is useful to revisit readings from humanistic geography and phenomenological approaches of architectural theory as appropriate precedents. Clarifying key concepts of space and place, as interpreted through a phenomenological perspective, may act as a point of departure to further inquire into the two main research questions of this paper, which are:

1. What is the role that technological artifacts play in the IoT era into shaping the relation between human beings and the places they inhabit?

2. Can phenomenology contribute to the analysis of the aforementioned relation?

4.1 Key concepts of a phenomenology of space

Firstly in this section, an attempt is made to discuss the spatial experience afforded to users inhabiting spaces mediated by pervasive and IoT technologies. Lefebvre (1997, pp.144-5) and Merleau-Ponty (1962, pp.243-4) have made a distinction between two conceptions of space, two possible ways in which a subject may relate to space:

The representational space, which is bound by media - paper, computer - and methods of representation -plan, elevation, perspective, etc.; this is a geometrical, abstract and objective kind of space that a subject may reflect about, in other words think about the relationships that underlie this world, while realising that they live only through the medium of a subject who traces out and sustains them. This type of spatial conception is a medium for objects and an object itself and as such it is an appropriate perspective through which to view the design process of any type of spatial experience.

The lived space which is not represented - or conceived- but subjectively experienced by each individual user; the concrete space of

MEDIACITY 5


179

the user's everyday activities. In this case, the subject does not think - or reflect - about space but lives in it, 'lives among things' and experiences them - and consequently experiences space - in an egocentric manner: "my body and things, their concrete relationships expressed in such (relative) terms as top and bottom, right and left, near and far may appear to me as an irreducible manifold variety". (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, pp.243-4)

Merleau-Ponty (1962) has outlined the importance of the body, as actively contributing to the human experience. Thiel (1961, p.35) defines the spatial experience, in the broadest sense, as "a biological function, necessary for the continual adaptation of any organism to its environment, for the purposes of survival." Norberg-Schulz (1971, p.9) explains the orientational aspect of the spatial experience: "Most of man's actions comprise a spatial character, in a sense that objects of orientation are distributed according to spatial relations. (…) Man orients to objects; he adapts physiologically and technologically to physical things (…) and his cognitive or affective orientation to different objects aims at establishing a dynamic equilibrium between him and his environment." But these objects, which are distributed in space, actually allow for space and the spatial experience as such. Perceptual images are generated by the perceptual systems of the human as a result of phenomena. Piaget (1954, p.92) defines an object as "a system of perceptual images endowed with a constant spatial form throughout its sequential displacements and constituting an item which can be isolated in the causal series unfolding in time". It may be therefore suggested that our world consists of phenomena and the most permanent relations between phenomena constitute an object. We survive in our environment by orienting ourselves to objects, which are being manifested to us through the psychological and cognitive processes involved in the perception of phenomena.

Space is, therefore, defined by objects, or elements of form which bind it. Merleau-Ponty (1962, p.242) argues that: "there is no question of a relationship of container to content (between space and the objects that define it), since this relationship exists only between objects, nor even a relationship of logical inclusion (…) since space is anterior to its alleged parts, which are always carved out of it. Space is not the setting (real or logical) in which things are arranged, but the means whereby the position of things becomes possible. This means that instead of imagining it as a sort of ether in which all things float (…) we must think of it as the universal power enabling them to be connected."

If we project Merleau-Ponty’s above mentioned argument to the essence of the spatial experience afforded by computational systems embedded in the physical world, which comprises physical elements as well as computational artifacts, we could argue that this experience is not only determined by the material properties of those objects and the setting within which these objects are arranged. It is mostly determined by the complex network of relations amongst the physical and representational (material and immaterial) objects that this environment consists of.

MEDIACITY 5


180

Humanistic geographers turned to Phenomenology and Existential philosophy for inspiration and conceptual support. Central to the humanistic tradition of geography was the notion of ‘place’ that was addressed not just as a concept, but also as a way of understanding the world that focused on subjectivity and experience. For humanistic geographers, place can be understood and defined in association with space. In agreement with the above mentioned distinction between two conceptions of space (representational space and lived space), Cresswell (2004) suggests that the notion of space is more abstract and related to geometry, whereas place can be said to derive from experience, the unfolding of activities and ascription of meanings.

“Space is amorphous and intangible and not an entity that can be described and analysed. Yet, however we feel or explain space, there is nearly always some associated sense or concept of place. In general it seems that space provides the context for places but derives its meaning from particular places.” (Relph, 1976, p.8)

“What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with value (...) The ideas ‘space’ and ‘place’ require each other for definition.” (Tuan, 1977, p.8)

Space and place are brought together in a dialectical relation. Space is not just a container for place, just as place can emerge without being bound to a specific

location11. Space gets transformed into place through human activity and the emergence of meaning. Place is experienced and at the same time constitutes the ontological foundation supporting such an experience.

Harrison and Dourish have articulated the distinction of space and place and outlined the importance of the notion of place in the context of designing interactive environments.

“Place is a space which is invested with understandings of behavioural appropriateness, cultural expectations and so forth. We are located in ‘space’, but we act in ‘place’.” (Harrison and Dourish, 1996, p.69)

Ten years afterwards, Dourish, revisiting the aforementioned work, summarised: “The catch-phrase was: “space is the opportunity; place is the (understood) reality.” (Dourish, 2006, p.299)

4.2 Outline of a post-phenomenological approach of technological artifacts

Though concepts of space and place, as articulated from a phenomenological perspective, have migrated to other fields of inquiry in order to shed light to the respective facets of human experience, it is questionable whether phenomenology could offer today an inclusive framework, a holistic approach to interpret the relations of humans to spaces and places that additionally incorporates the latest advents in technology. Verbeek (2005, p. 95) argues that Heidegger, in his early works, sought to investigate “the role that actual technologies play in the way in which reality acquires meaning for human

11 Cresswell in (2004) quotes a relevant example provided by Susanne Langer, that of a ship which while continuously shifting its location, can

be considered a self-contained place.

MEDIACITY 5


181

beings”. Progressively, phenomenology distanced itself from the prospect of a philosophy of technology, reducing technological artifacts to conditions of alienation from meaningful encounters with the world. However, current technological reality has proven more complex and dynamic and has not validated –at least entirely- this negative speculation.

Verbeek, building on the work of Ihde (1993a, 1993b), suggests that this calls for a reinterpretation of phenomenology, in order on one hand to maintain the valuable questions on the role of technology in shaping human experience at the core of its discourse, while at the same time addressing contemporary technological circumstance. Thus they both propose a shift to a post- phenomenological paradigm, one that is dedicated to exploring the relations between human beings and the world, as opposed to describing the world in itself. In this context, technological objects are intertwined with human subjects into constituting and co-shaping each other and the relation with the world. This systematic reflection avoids the pitfall of a dichotomy between object and subject and does not attribute to technological artifacts intrinsic properties that affect the way subjects experience the world. Technological objects are perceived through the lens of intentionality that is via the manners in which they engage with the human beings and through the things that they enable them to do.

Seeking a deeper understanding of the ways in which technological artifacts mediate human encounters of the world, Ihde traced a continuum of object/subject relations (Verbeek, 2005). On one extreme, he set what he described as embodiment relations, where objects expand the body and its capacity to experience its surroundings. Hence, subject relates to the world via the object. On the other end, he placed alterity relations. In this case, technological artefacts are regarded as the other, appear to have a certain independence, hence the focus shifts to the interaction between subject and object. Between the two, Ihde distinguishes hermeneutic relations. Again, the object mediates the experience of the world, the difference though lies in the fact that it is not perceived as part of the subject, as an extension of the body, but is regarded as separate. Hence, the technological artifact “provides a representation of the world, which requires interpretation in order to impart something to us about it” (Verbeek, 2005, p. 126). Finally, Ihde sets aside a distinct set of relations between humans and technology that unfold mostly in the background of human experience. In this instance, technological artifacts do not explicitly manifest themselves as means to encounter the world, or objects to interact with, rather they influence the context while seemingly absent.

This brief introduction to the relations of humans and technological artifacts, as informed by post-phenomenology and post-cognitivist theories, is considered to offer valuable insights in understanding how latest technological advancements may shape the experience of urban space and place. Consequently, we will explore the application of Ihde’s taxonomy onto four of the most widely spread and significantly different types of computing and investigate the manner in which they mediate their users’ spatial encounters.

MEDIACITY 5


182

1) In the case of the desktop computer system, the relation between the user and the computational device is static and Information is communicated via a representational context within the limits of a two- dimensional screen. As the physical environment is rendered irrelevant, interaction is directed towards the device (alterity relations).

2) A more dynamic form of interaction would involve a user interacting with a mobile device, being connected online but using location independent services. In this case, the user may move within the city streets at will but does not employ the technological artifact in order to mediate the spatial experience. Rather, she focuses on interacting with the device, accessing information as displayed considering the restrictions of a relatively small flat screen (alterity relations).

3) A third form of interaction could involve the introduction of location- awareness in the former mode of interaction. In this case, the user interacts with a mobile, location-aware system which signifies that the information communicated to her may somehow be related to physical environments and real locations. As experience from location based processes indicates, locative media projects employ devices in two broad ways: a). to attach content to the environment (annotation), b).to track down the unfolding of activity of a –human- subject in the world (Tuters and Varnelis, 2006). The use of such a system affords a hybrid and dynamic spatial experience. The user perceives mediated environmental information displayed through the representational context of the device screen as well as direct environmental stimuli from the physical space and has to cognitively synthesize the two inputs in order to compose the experience (hermeneutic relations).

4) A fourth types of interaction would involve the introduction of embedded computing, pervasive media and the IoT. In this case, information escapes the confines of the representational context and the very limiting two-dimensional space of the screen and is projected into and manifested via the actual activities of the technological artifacts located in the physical world.

An important aspect of the latter case, is that the manners in which the technological artifacts shape the context of human beings are rather implicit and derive largely from machine-to-machine communication, rather than human-machine communication (background relations). However, given the agency assumed by technological artifacts within the IoT framework, we hypothesize that interactions among these devices and other animate (non- human) and inanimate objects may emerge in a serendipitous manner and cannot be fully anticipated or controlled. We regard this prospect as working towards demystifying the processes that constitute the physical environment, contributing to a more in depth experience of space, subsequently transforming it to place.

5. Pollen

“Pollen” is an artwork that was created by Coti K. and Dimitris Charitos in 2009 and was presented during the Expanded Ecologies exhibition at the

MEDIACITY 5


183

National Museum of Contemporary Art, in Athens Greece. “Pollen” was conceptualised as a site-specific installation that was set up at the garden outside the museum from mid June 2009 till October 2009.

The installation captured data from the environment, sound and atmospheric pollution and transformed it into an auditory ecosystem that functions adversely towards these environmental conditions, in an attempt to counterbalance them at a symbolic level. The visual form of the installation was a network of beehives, which were positioned at the exterior of the museum in such a way that they defined a micro-environment (Figure 1), by virtue of their arrangement and the evolving sound composition they transmitted. This environment temporarily carried away the visitor from the

negative stimuli of the urban context.

The beehives contained the input devices that captured environmental information (sensors, microphones, etc.), the information-processing part of the system as well as the devices (amplifiers and speakers) which output the supporting 10-channel audio presentation system. By making use of microphones and sensors, the (usually disturbing) sound levels and other measurements of environmental pollution were digitised in real-time and used as input for the system, consequently producing the auditory environment, which comprised of synthesised sounds, representing natural sounds of insects and birds, in an abstract manner. The beehives were, in a way, a reference to the process through which bees starting from the beehive, set off to explore the environment in order to obtain nectar and pollen, through which they can then create honey, while assisting significantly in the pollination of plants.

MEDIACITY 5


184

Figure 2: Insect cocoons attached to a beehive.

The inception of “Pollen” clearly expressed a “return to the objects” as opposed to interacting with computer based representations and was made feasible in the pervasive media framework. The beehives interacted with and emitted sound as a response to the conditions of their physical surroundings. Hence, the beehives shaped the context not only through their presence, but also through their activity. From a post-phenomenological point of view, though the outcome of this interaction was clearly manifested in the auditory environment that was produced, the problematic, the internal logic as well as the manners in which this interaction took place were largely concealed (background relations).

“Pollen” was envisioned as a comment on the ecological role of objects in the world [Sterling, 2005]. However, the artwork triggered interactions with the physical environment that were unexpected and in conveying their outcome, contributed to a much more meaningful experience of that specific ecology. In particular, as the end of the exhibition was approaching, an instant that coincided with the transition from summertime to the season of autumn, the visitors, as well as the artists themselves were able to observe insect cocoons attached to the beehives (Figure 2) that gradually increased in numbers. Though the insect species was not identified –were they cicadas? - and therefore that particular process in the life of the insect was not clarified –were they shedding their cocoons and transforming into something else, or were they leaving the cocoons behind after they were dead? - it offered a revelatory glimpse into the complexity of the mechanisms and processes that take place in the physical environment when certain technological systems of networked artifacts are introduced in its context and into the relational nature of the

MEDIACITY 5


185

interactions that may emerge amongst all actors in the environment, as a result of the introduction of these systems.

By means of conclusion, it could be suggested that this installation was designed by human actors with the intention of initiating interaction with the environment and its animate (non-human) or inanimate actors. It was an interactive installation that was intended to interact with the environment and not with human actors. A serendipitous effect of the deployment of this installation was that certain insects were attracted to the synthetic soundscape and/or the beehive objects and assumed their own role in this interaction, possibly for the purpose of satisfying their own biological needs.

References

Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.

Casey, E.S. (1993) Getting Back Into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Coti, K. and Charitos, D. (2009) Pollen. In Expanded Ecologies: perspectives in a time of emergency exhibition catalogue. Athens: EMST, pp. 70-71.

Cresswell, T. (2004) Place, a short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Dourish, P. (2006) “Re-Space-ing Place: “Place” and “Space” Ten Years On.” In CSCW '06 Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. New York: ACM, pp. 299-308.

Gershenfeld, N. (1999) When Things Start to Think. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. (1996) “Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Space and Place in Collaborative Systems.” in Proc. ACM Conf. Computer- Supported Cooperative Work CSCW’96 (Boston, MA). New York: ACM, pp: 67-76.

Hodder, Ι. (2012) Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. West Sussex: John Willey and Sons Inc.

Ihde, D. (1993a) Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction. New York: Paragon House.

Ihde, D. (1993b) Postphenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B.A. (2006) Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network- Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MEDIACITY 5


186

Law, J. (2009) “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics”. In B.S. Turner, (ed.). The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Lefebvre, H. (1997) Extracts from "The Production of Space”. In N. Leach, Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge, pp.138-146.

Mattern, F. & Floerkemeier, C. (2010) From the Internet of Computers to the Internet of Things. Informatik- Spektrum,33 (2): 107–121. http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/Internet-of-things.pdf

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) The Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.

Nardi, B. (1996) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human- computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971) Existence, Space and Architecture. New York: Praeger Ltd.

Pfister, C. (2011) Getting Started with the Internet of Things. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Piaget, J. (1954) The child's construction of reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.

Rizopoulos, C. and Charitos, D. (2006). “Intelligence Technologies as a Means of Enhancing Spatial Experience.” In V. Bourdakis.and D. Charitos (eds.),

Communicating Space(s), Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, September 2006, pp. 626-634.

Thiel, P. (1961) "A sequence-experience notation", Town Planning Review, vol. 32, April 1961.

Tuan, Yi Fu (1977) Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.

Tuters, M. and Varnelis, K. (2006) “Beyond Locative Media: Giving Shape to the Internet of Things.” In LEONARDO, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 357-363.

Verbeek, P. P. (2005) What things do: philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Weiser, M. (1991) “The Computer for the 21st Century.” Scientific American Special Issue on Communications, Computers, and Networks. http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/SciAmDraft3.html

http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/Internet-of-things.pdf

http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/SciAmDraft3.html

MEDIACITY 5


330

Published and distributed by the School of Architecture, Design & Environment and i-DAT (Institute of Digital Art and Technology), Plymouth University.

School of Architecture, Design & Environment Plymouth University Drake Circus Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK Tel: +44 1752 585020

i-DAT (Institute of Digital Art and Technology) Plymouth University Portland Square Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK Email: [email protected] Telephone: +441752 586201

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-

nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-

MEDIACITY 5


331

Placemaking by mediated urban spatial experiences in the era of the Internet of Things

Documents