Yesterday marked the end of my Future Everything 2010 experience. It was a full on affair with inspiration to be found in almost every corner. Although I do have to admit, there were moments I was checking my email. But hey, I’ve never protested to have a large or even adequate attention span. Fitting I thought that my last interaction/experience of the conference was watching a mad scientist and his “creation” (or short man wearing sunglasses standing to attention) freestyle words we gave him. Kudos to my colleague Natasha Carolan for trying to bamboozle the poor fellow with “Serendipity” after my feeble attempt with “Ambiguity”. In hindsight, I should have gone for “purple” – it’s un-rhyme-able. Try it.

So, on to the conference itself. One of the highlights for me was the “Doing it Together” presentations and the follow-up panel discussion given by Alison Powell (@Postdocal), Mushon Zer-Aviv (NYU – @Mushon) and Alexandra Deshcamp-Sonsino (Tinker – @TinkerLondon). Now I’m not just saying that because HighWire got a mention… But it helped.

Alison Powell from the Oxford Internet Institute began her talk by introducing Habermas’s ideal public sphere, a renaissance evolution that sought to bring rational, critical debate on public affairs into the public arena. She highlighted cafes as a good example of the establishment of public spheres. Here people would congregate (generally men) and discuss local issues with their peers. Add to this the introduction of mass media through newspapers and the “bottom” rungs of society were able to deliberate on what was going on at the “top”.

The next thing Powell went on to speak about was counterpublics. Counterpublics are alternative media, underground magazines and other non-state-sanctioned or “underground” media. The things the cool kids read. The Public Sphere Guide describes counterpublics as “dissident networks of communication excluded by the dominant public sphere”. The purpose of counterpublics, according to Alison is as a resistance or “push-back” against the structure of idealised public sphere and politics.

Then along came The Network. I have personally never read H.G. Wells’ collection of essays titled World Brain: The Idea of a Permanent World Encyclopedia but Wikipedia tells me it is very good and it is now on the list. Alison Powell goes on in the talks to liken todays internet to H.G. Wells’ writing. I wont lie to you, when she first mentioned Wells I momentarily switched-off assuming it was just another reference to 1984 and how the internet was surrendering our privacy. But thankfully it wasn’t. Powell explains that although there are similarities to Wells’ “brain”, the internet is much more distributed and accessible to all.

Unlike the cafes and mass printed media, the precursors to the internet, the technology can now be a form of mobilising/motivating the public.

Next was Social Media Models (SMM). Powell sees SMM as “a set of functions that can work in different ways and not as specific applications”. SMM are not always as radical as alternative media, but they can be. I’m sure that if you really think about it, you have probably come across some sort of grungy underground movement or anti-establishment group on Facebook. My personal favourite, well, the favourite I am willing to write here is The National Sarcasm Society…

According to Powell there are three parts to SMM: Filter, Feed and Funnel.

In terms of information intake these days, we have moved from scarcity to abundance. Not only are we using more media sources than ever before but those sources are increasingly saturated with undesirable “noise” and there is an ever present need to censor what we let in. That’s where the Filter comes in to play. No longer do we have to wait for someone else to curate our information and feed it to us. We follow the people we want to follow, we befriend those we want to befriend and we watch what we want to watch and as such we are now responsible for our own media and information intake.

Enabling us to filter is the Feed. Often we think of the feed as pulling data in but we are also being swamped by others’ opinions. Your friends that you follow, they are stressing their opinions and whether you like it or not, you are probably swayed by what they have to say. Powell argues however, that the feed is more elite than the “cafe” as we are now in a position to be selective about who we connect with and allow into that feed. It’s not always as easy to remove someone from a cafe setting. However hard you push.

As part of the SMM, Powell also discussed the Funnel. Now, using the funnel, messages and motivations can be amplified empowering the bottom up approach to social commentary. So now, when we have Open Data being sent from the top down, we increase the voice from the bottom up. Not to mention that data generated by the end citizen can now be funneled upwards to the likes of local councils and even country-wide government. A good example of this is fixmystreet.com allowing you to see and report on issues local to you. Powell believes that the Logic is the transformative bit, not necessarily the applications.

There are downsides to the internet and its ability to empower social spheres. All of those citizens that now have an “audible” voice have the power to detract from a single cause. This is known as the Echo Chambers. Imagine two different groups are campaigning for the same cause but do not focus their followings at the same point. It has the potential to divide and detract from a common goal. Pretty much along the same lines as Labour’s pleas to not “split the vote” between Labour and the Lib. Dems. in the recent elections. But I am trying to write a blog post without some sort of political commentary so I’ll stop that analogy right there. Powell’s point was that while deliberation is now easier with the prevalence of the internet, the step from deliberation to action can now be even more difficult.

Another issue with SMM is that we are all now becoming what Powell describes as Data Serfs. Now, with our increasing activity on the internet and digital social networks, we are creating more and more data for others. I for one am pretty well sure I have now reached the point where Google knows more about my past, checkered and un-checkered. A few years ago I read somewhere that Tesco, with the information they scrape from your Club Card, can now not only tell when it is your time of the month (obviously this probably only applies to half of you reading this), but also they can now ascertain when you are pregnant before you yourself can, just by the change in purchasing habits. Most likely just rumour but it does highlight what I’m saying. By innocently participating in services we are creating data that can be used both for us and against us. We now have to be more careful than ever with what information we now allow others to see.

The last points Powell made in her presentation were on Platforms, Infrastructure, Practices and Democracy but at that point, my notes run dry.

Part 2, with Mushon and Alex coming soon…

Yesterday marked the first of a series of workshops being run by the team here at HighWire and despite some early morning apprehension and what could generally be aligned to last minute “jitters” the day was a resounding success. From our end at least. The aim of the day, which is now much clearer in hindsight, was to explore how academics, students and industrial partners viewed and interacted with their data. In a word, physicality. For this workshop we split the subject into three sections: Data, Transformation and Physicality.

In the context of this workshop, Data is the raw information in the “loop”. It is a name, a bus route or the length your hair has grown since you last had it cut. It can both define and be defined by a physical embodiment. Imagine it in the context of Twitter and Data would be the “Tweet”.

For us, in geek speak, Transformation is the “middleware”. It’s the bit in between Physicality and Data that enables interaction between the two. It is the Arduino’s, the API’s, the PHP script and the “Code Monkey” bashing feverishly away at the keyboard to make it all work. Take Twitter again and the Transformation would be Twitter itself. For us, Physicality is about Data being physically represented in a sometimes playful and emotive manner. There are many great example of physical objects being controlled, adjusted or made interactive by using them in conjunction with data. A notable couple would be Tinker’s “Rewind” project and Mathieu Lehanneur’s “Therapeutic Objects”. Once again using the example of Twitter, Physicality could be a man, woman, or even a machine (I often have a tendency to default to technology), physically writing out each Tweet.

In each of these areas we then asked the participants to identify things that they were either doing, wanted to do or perhaps thought were impossible. This was done with trusted Post-It notes and appropriately titled boards.Next we asked the participants, over lunch (we’ve learnt that it is treacherous ground to ask academics anything on empty stomachs), to identify ideas posted on the boards that they felt particularly fell into one of five key areas. Those areas were: “Count Me In” – enabling us to identify potential points of collaboration and/or expertise. “Impossible” – looking for inspiration, we wanted to find the areas that the participants believed were impossible. After all, we do like a challenge. “Done to Death” – Where did the participants believe their was a sense of “overkill”, that the technology or society had moved on or that there were simply more exciting things to be doing. “Reference” – Where participants had prior knowledge of idea and thoughts we wanted them to share references that we could then follow up and Finally we wanted the participants to annotate anything that they believed was “Bright and Exciting”, that one is fairly self explanatory really. After lunch a series of activities designed to entice creativity and divergent, “unstagnated” thinking aimed to build on the playfulness of the day and potentially inspire us with a project direction we had not thought of. But that is another blog post all together.

So that brings me full circle, back to the title of this post – Physicality and the “Done to Death” Pile. At the end of the workshop we began to muse over what we had discussed, discovered and played with during the day. The “Done to Death”’s, a “pile” we had used during the workshop to help us remove the mundane, overused buzzwords from the list of potential key areas. One in which we had payed little attention or interest to, it was highlighted as an unexpected area of interest. So, here they are, listed below:

NB: It is important to note that the following list is subjective and only really based on interest levels

Data

• Search
• Social Networks
• Heart Beat

Transformation

• Google
• Walls for Graffiti

Physicality

• RFID
• GPS Tracking
• Wearable Sensors
• Sensor Tech
• Fridge that shouts at you
• Computer Vision
• Robots

Although, granted, each of the above points have interesting aspects or offshoots well worth exploring, the collective consensus of the workshop group, ruled them out. For me, this highlights the difference between academia and the commercial world and perhaps where they fail to communicate sufficiently. What commercial enterprises find interesting or perhaps a solution to a problem, may already be “old hat” in academic institutes. This is precisely where HighWire is supposed to fit in. Breaking down the ivory towers of academia and dispersing what we learn into industry and doing it quickly. To quote one academic at the workshop, “just get something out there”.