Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
Simon makes some interesting points. This is a fascinating discussion and something of real interest to me. I would question whether art doesn't produce knowledge (about the world and about art practice itself). I think art does produce knowledge and arguments about the world. The form of this knowledge of course is often, but no always different to that produced by science. Knowledge of course comes from the greek Gnosis which is a kind of experiential, intuitive knowing of the world which many in the arts will identify with. One of the big shifts in recent years induced by the kinds of funding research projects discussed in this thread is the requirement for artists to document verbalize and make available the knowledge that their practice produces outside of the actual experience of the work itself. Often in written documents. In my opinion this has been beneficial for the research community as it makes this knowledge, knowing and insight available and portable. It also helps us develop shared languages to discuss our work and experiences which is also to the good. It of course shouldn't stand in for the experience of the work itself but be seen as complementary to it. best Tom Corby Simon Biggs wrote: Hi Yann The distinctions you make between art and science are entirely reasonable and I would not disagree. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean you can’t work with both, between or across them. The epistemological distinctions you identify are especially important. Whilst novelty is a given in art the production of knowledge is not. In science it is the other way around – knowledge is default but novelty a far more rare phenomena. Artists doing research, especially those undertaking PhD’s, are well advised to remember these differences. They will be required to produce new knowledge. The first part of that (the novelty) is not something most artists have a problem with. It is therefore the second part (knowledge) they have to take greater care with. That can be very difficult and there is always the danger that in the process of meeting that demand you lose the art. The question of where knowledge lies in art, if at all, is key. But for every artist it is different. It is unsafe to generalise about these things. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.biggs@ eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk *From: *yann le guennec i...@x-arn.org *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Date: *Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:15:30 +0200 *To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] Well, i think it will be a bit difficult for me to explain my point of view in english... but let's try... At a certain level, this question is about paradigms. Scientific research is based on some rules, including the ability to reproduce previous obtained and published results. So it is for experimental and physical science research, but also for mathematic, biology, et.. a researcher should be able to reproduce a demonstration, according to the fact that mathematic concepts can not suffer any semantic ambiguity. insuch a context, it's quite usefull to cite authors of previous experiments as contextual informations, kinf od metadata allowing to link works and reseach in a corpus. So it is in 'soft sciences', or 'humans sciences' like psychology, sociology, etc... concepts, results and experiments have to be referenced (authors, years) in order to disambiguate them and compose the corpus of the domain. All this scientific domains, more or less formal, ...are domains, with some kinds of borders, dominant theories, specific concepts, etc...they are articulated on reseach paradigms at the epistemic level. From my point of view, art (and in a way also design) is 'epistemic in itself', it means art generates as many paradigms that are necessary to the diversity of forms and expressions. Art is not a domain because it does not need to self-reference itself, and does not need to be logicaly articulated in a corpus. It can be the case for some kind of practices, in some artistics subcategories, but it's not a formal rule for its existence. So there is a big gap at this level between art + design and science + research. I'm also interested in this question, and i saw some people in France (mostly in art and design school) are trying sometimes to define a field for artistic research or design research, that does not yet exist. But if it exist one day, i don't think that it can be initiated only on the basis of imported paradigms. I better imagine that art practicies are able to propose other paradigms for research and thinking. (well, i
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/sous_les_paves/epistemology.html ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
Good one! Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Michael Szpakowski szp...@yahoo.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:35:26 -0700 (PDT) To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/sous_les_paves/epistemology.html ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
But as I mentioned in an earlier post, you cannot safely cite Wikipedia! Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Michael Szpakowski szp...@yahoo.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:35:26 -0700 (PDT) To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/sous_les_paves/epistemology.html ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
I tend to think that science produces knowledge about the world, but this knowledge is inherently abstract - string theory, for example, where mathesis becomes almost autonomous. Art relates directly to reception, to consciousness - the experience of negatively curved space for example. The boundaries are indeed blurred, but are there. The problem (and interest) for me lies with science and cosmology; the universe appears increasingly 'alien' without the potential for modeling on a perceptual level: what does it mean to comprehend, say, our cosmos, if comprehension occurs only on the register of mathematical abstraction - and abstraction which may be inherently other (I'm thinking even of such things as the computer solution to the 4-color problem - issues of inelegance and ungainliness in physics/mathematics). - Alan | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org | sondh...@panix.com, sondh...@gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285 ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
I have recently written a chapter on just this subject for a new book coming out later this year on creative arts practice and research. I could quote it here, but from prior experience I know that it is not a good idea to quote yourself from a pending publication. Generally I agree with Alan¹s position, although I might use the word apprehension rather than comprehension. Nevertheless, we have to look carefully at the social value of these activities and phenomena. Our own personal understandings of these things are all well and fine, very likely well intentioned and thought through. However, it is how these things are socially assimilated and instrumentalised that really matters. An important arena for the debate here is sociology, not just epistemology. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:21:00 -0400 (EDT) To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] I tend to think that science produces knowledge about the world, but this knowledge is inherently abstract - string theory, for example, where mathesis becomes almost autonomous. Art relates directly to reception, to consciousness - the experience of negatively curved space for example. The boundaries are indeed blurred, but are there. The problem (and interest) for me lies with science and cosmology; the universe appears increasingly 'alien' without the potential for modeling on a perceptual level: what does it mean to comprehend, say, our cosmos, if comprehension occurs only on the register of mathematical abstraction - and abstraction which may be inherently other (I'm thinking even of such things as the computer solution to the 4-color problem - issues of inelegance and ungainliness in physics/mathematics). - Alan | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org | sondh...@panix.com, sondh...@gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285 ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
There are different kinds of knowledge and perhaps not all forms of knowing are best described with the word knowledge. As I mentioned in my reply to Alan’s post, the word apprehension can be useful. As Alan suggested, compehension is another descriptor. There are many others, each with their own associations. However, arguing semantics is not going to help us a great deal. We have to look at practice; what actually happens and how/why value then accrues to those activities and phenomena. I would suggest the key question concerns the value of knowledge. Why is it important and to whom? Is it important to everyone for the same reasons or do different (knowledge) communities have different reasons for assigning the value they do to these things? To me this looks like a rhetorical question with a one word answer – yes. Many questions then lead on from that. As Tom says, it is a fascinating area. He is also right to note that these sorts of questions have become important to artists in recent years due to shifts in funding and the public role of the arts. That brings us back to the question concerning the value of knowledge. We can also ask that question of creativity. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: tom corby tom.co...@btinternet.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:50:12 +0100 To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] Simon makes some interesting points. This is a fascinating discussion and something of real interest to me. I would question whether art doesn't produce knowledge (about the world and about art practice itself). I think art does produce knowledge and arguments about the world. The form of this knowledge of course is often, but no always different to that produced by science. Knowledge of course comes from the greek Gnosis which is a kind of experiential, intuitive knowing of the world which many in the arts will identify with. One of the big shifts in recent years induced by the kinds of funding research projects discussed in this thread is the requirement for artists to document verbalize and make available the knowledge that their practice produces outside of the actual experience of the work itself. Often in written documents. In my opinion this has been beneficial for the research community as it makes this knowledge, knowing and insight available and portable. It also helps us develop shared languages to discuss our work and experiences which is also to the good. It of course shouldn't stand in for the experience of the work itself but be seen as complementary to it. best Tom Corby Simon Biggs wrote: Hi Yann The distinctions you make between art and science are entirely reasonable and I would not disagree. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean you can’t work with both, between or across them. The epistemological distinctions you identify are especially important. Whilst novelty is a given in art the production of knowledge is not. In science it is the other way around – knowledge is default but novelty a far more rare phenomena. Artists doing research, especially those undertaking PhD’s, are well advised to remember these differences. They will be required to produce new knowledge. The first part of that (the novelty) is not something most artists have a problem with. It is therefore the second part (knowledge) they have to take greater care with. That can be very difficult and there is always the danger that in the process of meeting that demand you lose the art. The question of where knowledge lies in art, if at all, is key. But for every artist it is different. It is unsafe to generalise about these things. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.biggs@ eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk *From: *yann le guennec i...@x-arn.org *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Date: *Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:15:30 +0200 *To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] Well, i think it will be a bit difficult for me to explain my point of view in english... but let's try... At a certain level, this question is about paradigms. Scientific research is based on some rules, including the ability to reproduce previous obtained and published results. So it is for experimental and physical science research, but also for mathematic, biology, et.. a researcher should
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
It's both I think, how these things are assimilated, but also what they mean personally; for me there's no ultimate value in either, but different sorts of values (and interests). I'm personally interested in the relationship of consciousness to these complexities (and have written on that also). I'm not sure 'well intentioned' applies here; one might comprehend with all sorts of intentions as well. - Alan On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Simon Biggs wrote: I have recently written a chapter on just this subject for a new book coming out later this year on creative arts practice and research. I could quote it here, but from prior experience I know that it is not a good idea to quote yourself from a pending publication. Generally I agree with Alan?s position, although I might use the word apprehension rather than comprehension. Nevertheless, we have to look carefully at the social value of these activities and phenomena. Our own personal understandings of these things are all well and fine, very likely well intentioned and thought through. However, it is how these things are socially assimilated and instrumentalised that really matters. An important arena for the debate here is sociology, not just epistemology. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Alan Sondheim sondh...@panix.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:21:00 -0400 (EDT) To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] I tend to think that science produces knowledge about the world, but this knowledge is inherently abstract - string theory, for example, where mathesis becomes almost autonomous. Art relates directly to reception, to consciousness - the experience of negatively curved space for example. The boundaries are indeed blurred, but are there. The problem (and interest) for me lies with science and cosmology; the universe appears increasingly 'alien' without the potential for modeling on a perceptual level: what does it mean to comprehend, say, our cosmos, if comprehension occurs only on the register of mathematical abstraction - and abstraction which may be inherently other (I'm thinking even of such things as the computer solution to the 4-color problem - issues of inelegance and ungainliness in physics/mathematics). - Alan | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org | sondh...@panix.com, sondh...@gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285 ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org | sondh...@panix.com, sondh...@gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285 ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
Hi Yann The distinctions you make between art and science are entirely reasonable and I would not disagree. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean you can’t work with both, between or across them. The epistemological distinctions you identify are especially important. Whilst novelty is a given in art the production of knowledge is not. In science it is the other way around – knowledge is default but novelty a far more rare phenomena. Artists doing research, especially those undertaking PhD’s, are well advised to remember these differences. They will be required to produce new knowledge. The first part of that (the novelty) is not something most artists have a problem with. It is therefore the second part (knowledge) they have to take greater care with. That can be very difficult and there is always the danger that in the process of meeting that demand you lose the art. The question of where knowledge lies in art, if at all, is key. But for every artist it is different. It is unsafe to generalise about these things. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: yann le guennec i...@x-arn.org Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:15:30 +0200 To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] Well, i think it will be a bit difficult for me to explain my point of view in english... but let's try... At a certain level, this question is about paradigms. Scientific research is based on some rules, including the ability to reproduce previous obtained and published results. So it is for experimental and physical science research, but also for mathematic, biology, et.. a researcher should be able to reproduce a demonstration, according to the fact that mathematic concepts can not suffer any semantic ambiguity. insuch a context, it's quite usefull to cite authors of previous experiments as contextual informations, kinf od metadata allowing to link works and reseach in a corpus. So it is in 'soft sciences', or 'humans sciences' like psychology, sociology, etc... concepts, results and experiments have to be referenced (authors, years) in order to disambiguate them and compose the corpus of the domain. All this scientific domains, more or less formal, ...are domains, with some kinds of borders, dominant theories, specific concepts, etc...they are articulated on reseach paradigms at the epistemic level. From my point of view, art (and in a way also design) is 'epistemic in itself', it means art generates as many paradigms that are necessary to the diversity of forms and expressions. Art is not a domain because it does not need to self-reference itself, and does not need to be logicaly articulated in a corpus. It can be the case for some kind of practices, in some artistics subcategories, but it's not a formal rule for its existence. So there is a big gap at this level between art + design and science + research. I'm also interested in this question, and i saw some people in France (mostly in art and design school) are trying sometimes to define a field for artistic research or design research, that does not yet exist. But if it exist one day, i don't think that it can be initiated only on the basis of imported paradigms. I better imagine that art practicies are able to propose other paradigms for research and thinking. (well, i hope this is understandable in some ways...) regards yann Simon Biggs a probablement écrit : Yes, I am being ironic (to a degree). In formal research you cannot cite sources from unrecognised authors. Authors have to be identifiable and their work generally peer reviewed. Sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia are not allowed to be used. It does not mean that these sources are poor – just that the information they provide has not been verfied. This restriction can be annoying but is understandable. I often use Wikipedia for initial background data-mining, but when it comes to using references I go to the original texts (which might be mentioned in Wikipedia) and check them prior to citing them. When reading somebody’s research you want to know their sources are reliable. If you can’t trust their sources you can’t trust the research. It could be anything. Same with journalism. If I am reading a piece of investigative journalism and discover the evidence was unverified I would lose trust in the author (unless they have presented the text as an opinion piece). The reason this thread arrived at this theme was the posting about research opportunities into the creative applications of social technologies at eca. The team undertaking that work is made up of artists, architects, social
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] Simon Biggs a probablement écrit : I agree, referencing Bruce Sterling can be annoying. could you explain why? It shouldn’t be allowed (like citing Wikipedia). ... is it ironic ? Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.biggs@ eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk *From: *james morris ja...@jwm-art.net *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Date: *Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:12:38 +0100 (BST) *To: *netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] I did not mean to bash the project itself, and it did occur to me that the project might be subversive. Which was why I only selected the text that I did. My main issue was the ridiculous suggestion that people using this new technology would suddenly be able to find new uses for old things... as if we had not been doing that for the past few millennia! As if monkeys don't do it with sticks! Etc. And then annoyance that whatever bruce sterling says is taken as word of god. Did not want to bash the project itself, good luck with it. James. On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: The idea with the project Chris has introduced to the list is to enable creative applications of this technology – particularly, social scientists and artists’ use of social and geo-spatial technologies. The intent is more subversive than anything else and explicitly addresses issues of sustainability, a focus of the research and the institutions the project members represent. Note that Apple are already watching us all as red dots and have been since the release of iPhone 3G. If you do not want to be watched then dump the smart phone, the credit cards, your telecoms subscriptions and never accept cookies from strangers (or anybody else). Alternatively, function as a set of false identities (although many legislatures are making this illegal). The information in information technology always travels both ways. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:49:55 + To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch Opportunities onEPSRC funded Project] I don't usually worry much about surveillance. My life's more or less an open book but this story scares me a bit. I can just imagine a group of Apple employees, huddled around a bunch of screens with a million red dots moving around on a Google map of the world: http://happywaffle.livejournal.com/5890.html Pall On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:15 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote: shop, store and share products. The analogue bar code that has for so long been a dumb encrypted reference to a shop’s inventory system, will be superseded by an open platform in which every object manufactured will be able to be tracked from cradle to grave, through manufacturer to distributor, to potentially every single person who comes into contact great! more surveillance! with it following its purchase. Further still, every object that comes close to another object, and is within range of a reader, could also be logged on a database and used to find correlations between owners and applications. In a world that has relied upon a linear chain of supply and demand between manufacturer and consumer via high street shop, the Internet of Things has the potential to transform how we will treat objects, care about their origin and use them to find other objects. If every new object is within reach of a reader, everything is searchable and findable, subsequently the shopping experience may never be the great! even more surveillance! same, and the concept of throwing away objects may become a thing of the past as other people find new uses for old things. Wow man, I'm glad all these technical boffins come up with such fantastic ideas... Just a pity the Wombles[1] beat them to it. [1] http://www.tidybag.co.uk/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- * Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
I did not mean to bash the project itself, and it did occur to me that the project might be subversive. Which was why I only selected the text that I did. My main issue was the ridiculous suggestion that people using this new technology would suddenly be able to find new uses for old things... as if we had not been doing that for the past few millennia! As if monkeys don't do it with sticks! Etc. And then annoyance that whatever bruce sterling says is taken as word of god. Did not want to bash the project itself, good luck with it. James. On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: The idea with the project Chris has introduced to the list is to enable creative applications of this technology â particularly, social scientists and artistsâ use of social and geo-spatial technologies. The intent is more subversive than anything else and explicitly addresses issues of sustainability, a focus of the research and the institutions the project members represent. Note that Apple are already watching us all as red dots and have been since the release of iPhone 3G. If you do not want to be watched then dump the smart phone, the credit cards, your telecoms subscriptions and never accept cookies from strangers (or anybody else). Alternatively, function as a set of false identities (although many legislatures are making this illegal). The information in information technology always travels both ways. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:49:55 + To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch Opportunities onEPSRC funded Project] I don't usually worry much about surveillance. My life's more or less an open book but this story scares me a bit. I can just imagine a group of Apple employees, huddled around a bunch of screens with a million red dots moving around on a Google map of the world: http://happywaffle.livejournal.com/5890.html Pall On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:15 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote: shop, store and share products. The analogue bar code that has for so long been a dumb encrypted reference to a shopââ¬â¢s inventory system, will be superseded by an open platform in which every object manufactured will be able to be tracked from cradle to grave, through manufacturer to distributor, to potentially every single person who comes into contact great! more surveillance! with it following its purchase. Further still, every object that comes close to another object, and is within range of a reader, could also be logged on a database and used to find correlations between owners and applications. In a world that has relied upon a linear chain of supply and demand between manufacturer and consumer via high street shop, the Internet of Things has the potential to transform how we will treat objects, care about their origin and use them to find other objects. If every new object is within reach of a reader, everything is searchable and findable, subsequently the shopping experience may never be the great! even more surveillance! same, and the concept of throwing away objects may become a thing of the past as other people find new uses for old things. Wow man, I'm glad all these technical boffins come up with such fantastic ideas... Just a pity the Wombles[1] beat them to it. [1] http://www.tidybag.co.uk/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- * Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit * ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
I agree, referencing Bruce Sterling can be annoying. It shouldn’t be allowed (like citing Wikipedia). Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: james morris ja...@jwm-art.net Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:12:38 +0100 (BST) To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] I did not mean to bash the project itself, and it did occur to me that the project might be subversive. Which was why I only selected the text that I did. My main issue was the ridiculous suggestion that people using this new technology would suddenly be able to find new uses for old things... as if we had not been doing that for the past few millennia! As if monkeys don't do it with sticks! Etc. And then annoyance that whatever bruce sterling says is taken as word of god. Did not want to bash the project itself, good luck with it. James. On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: The idea with the project Chris has introduced to the list is to enable creative applications of this technology – particularly, social scientists and artists’ use of social and geo-spatial technologies. The intent is more subversive than anything else and explicitly addresses issues of sustainability, a focus of the research and the institutions the project members represent. Note that Apple are already watching us all as red dots and have been since the release of iPhone 3G. If you do not want to be watched then dump the smart phone, the credit cards, your telecoms subscriptions and never accept cookies from strangers (or anybody else). Alternatively, function as a set of false identities (although many legislatures are making this illegal). The information in information technology always travels both ways. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:49:55 + To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch Opportunities onEPSRC funded Project] I don't usually worry much about surveillance. My life's more or less an open book but this story scares me a bit. I can just imagine a group of Apple employees, huddled around a bunch of screens with a million red dots moving around on a Google map of the world: http://happywaffle.livejournal.com/5890.html Pall On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:15 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote: shop, store and share products. The analogue bar code that has for so long been a dumb encrypted reference to a shop’s inventory system, will be superseded by an open platform in which every object manufactured will be able to be tracked from cradle to grave, through manufacturer to distributor, to potentially every single person who comes into contact great! more surveillance! with it following its purchase. Further still, every object that comes close to another object, and is within range of a reader, could also be logged on a database and used to find correlations between owners and applications. In a world that has relied upon a linear chain of supply and demand between manufacturer and consumer via high street shop, the Internet of Things has the potential to transform how we will treat objects, care about their origin and use them to find other objects. If every new object is within reach of a reader, everything is searchable and findable, subsequently the shopping experience may never be the great! even more surveillance! same, and the concept of throwing away objects may become a thing of the past as other people find new uses for old things. Wow man, I'm glad all these technical boffins come up with such fantastic ideas... Just a pity the Wombles[1] beat them to it. [1] http://www.tidybag.co.uk/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- * Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit * ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201 ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
Simon Biggs a probablement écrit : I agree, referencing Bruce Sterling can be annoying. could you explain why? It shouldn’t be allowed (like citing Wikipedia). ... is it ironic ? Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.biggs@ eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk *From: *james morris ja...@jwm-art.net *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Date: *Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:12:38 +0100 (BST) *To: *netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] I did not mean to bash the project itself, and it did occur to me that the project might be subversive. Which was why I only selected the text that I did. My main issue was the ridiculous suggestion that people using this new technology would suddenly be able to find new uses for old things... as if we had not been doing that for the past few millennia! As if monkeys don't do it with sticks! Etc. And then annoyance that whatever bruce sterling says is taken as word of god. Did not want to bash the project itself, good luck with it. James. On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: The idea with the project Chris has introduced to the list is to enable creative applications of this technology – particularly, social scientists and artists’ use of social and geo-spatial technologies. The intent is more subversive than anything else and explicitly addresses issues of sustainability, a focus of the research and the institutions the project members represent. Note that Apple are already watching us all as red dots and have been since the release of iPhone 3G. If you do not want to be watched then dump the smart phone, the credit cards, your telecoms subscriptions and never accept cookies from strangers (or anybody else). Alternatively, function as a set of false identities (although many legislatures are making this illegal). The information in information technology always travels both ways. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:49:55 + To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch Opportunities onEPSRC funded Project] I don't usually worry much about surveillance. My life's more or less an open book but this story scares me a bit. I can just imagine a group of Apple employees, huddled around a bunch of screens with a million red dots moving around on a Google map of the world: http://happywaffle.livejournal.com/5890.html Pall On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:15 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote: shop, store and share products. The analogue bar code that has for so long been a dumb encrypted reference to a shop’s inventory system, will be superseded by an open platform in which every object manufactured will be able to be tracked from cradle to grave, through manufacturer to distributor, to potentially every single person who comes into contact great! more surveillance! with it following its purchase. Further still, every object that comes close to another object, and is within range of a reader, could also be logged on a database and used to find correlations between owners and applications. In a world that has relied upon a linear chain of supply and demand between manufacturer and consumer via high street shop, the Internet of Things has the potential to transform how we will treat objects, care about their origin and use them to find other objects. If every new object is within reach of a reader, everything is searchable and findable, subsequently the shopping experience may never be the great! even more surveillance! same, and the concept of throwing away objects may become a thing of the past as other people find new uses for old things. Wow man, I'm glad all these technical boffins come up with such fantastic ideas... Just a pity the Wombles[1] beat them to it. [1] http://www.tidybag.co.uk/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- * Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit * ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College
Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of Things....Research OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project]
Yes, I am being ironic (to a degree). In formal research you cannot cite sources from unrecognised authors. Authors have to be identifiable and their work generally peer reviewed. Sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia are not allowed to be used. It does not mean that these sources are poor – just that the information they provide has not been verfied. This restriction can be annoying but is understandable. I often use Wikipedia for initial background data-mining, but when it comes to using references I go to the original texts (which might be mentioned in Wikipedia) and check them prior to citing them. When reading somebody’s research you want to know their sources are reliable. If you can’t trust their sources you can’t trust the research. It could be anything. Same with journalism. If I am reading a piece of investigative journalism and discover the evidence was unverified I would lose trust in the author (unless they have presented the text as an opinion piece). The reason this thread arrived at this theme was the posting about research opportunities into the creative applications of social technologies at eca. The team undertaking that work is made up of artists, architects, social scientists and informaticians. The methods they will employ will include those familiar to artists and other creative practitioners, but undertaken alongside and contextualised by methods from the social and physical sciences. These methods require that researchers ensure rigorous proof of their evidence and the criteria for their anaylsis. That is no big deal. It just means the work has to be done openly, transparently, everything recorded and all original material retained for peer assessment. This is not foolproof (there are plenty of examples of poor science around) but nobody has proposed a better system yet. It is unusual for artistic work to be undertaken in this context but not novel. Other’s have done it. It often leads to surprising outcomes, especially for the scientists. As for Bruce Sterling, I find his (non-fiction) writing techno-determinist, utopian and evangelical in nature. What I have seen of his work appears to be oriented towards opinion pieces rather than research. However, I have to admit I’ve not read him much so I could be wrong. Regards Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.bi...@eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: yann le guennec i...@x-arn.org Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:24 +0200 To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] Simon Biggs a probablement écrit : I agree, referencing Bruce Sterling can be annoying. could you explain why? It shouldn’t be allowed (like citing Wikipedia). ... is it ironic ? Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art s.biggs@ eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk www. eca .ac.uk/circle/ si...@littlepig.org.uk www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk *From: *james morris ja...@jwm-art.net *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Date: *Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:12:38 +0100 (BST) *To: *netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] Internet of ThingsResearch OpportunitiesonEPSRC funded Project] I did not mean to bash the project itself, and it did occur to me that the project might be subversive. Which was why I only selected the text that I did. My main issue was the ridiculous suggestion that people using this new technology would suddenly be able to find new uses for old things... as if we had not been doing that for the past few millennia! As if monkeys don't do it with sticks! Etc. And then annoyance that whatever bruce sterling says is taken as word of god. Did not want to bash the project itself, good luck with it. James. On 25/6/2009, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote: The idea with the project Chris has introduced to the list is to enable creative applications of this technology – particularly, social scientists and artists’ use of social and geo-spatial technologies. The intent is more subversive than anything else and explicitly addresses issues of sustainability, a focus of the research and the institutions the project members represent. Note that Apple are already watching us all as red dots and have been since the release of iPhone 3G. If you do not want to be watched then dump the smart phone, the credit cards, your telecoms subscriptions and never accept cookies from strangers (or anybody else). Alternatively, function as a set of false identities (although many legislatures are making this illegal). The information in information technology always
