Author: Cosimo Accoto

“You see it everywhere today. The telltale sign is the positive feedback loop. For example, you buy things with your credit card, presumably to satisfy needs or desires in your life. Needs, desires: you purchase at your soft points. That visceral act is actually an interaction: you have just participated in a data-mining operation. Your input feeds a marketing analysis apparatus, and that feeds a product development machine. The system eventually gets back to you with new products responding to the input, and with new ways to reach you, massage your rhythms, air out your viscera, induce you to spend. New needs and desires are created. Even whole new modes of experience, which your life begins to revolve around. You have become, you have changed, in interaction with the system. You have literally shopped yourself into being. At the same time, the system has adapted itself . It ’ s a kind of double capture of mutual responsiveness in a reciprocal becoming (Massumi, Semblance and Event, 2013, The MIT Press, 48)

“Our conception of the interface is not restricted to the well-known  graphical user interface between humans and computers, e.g. the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointers) interfaces that have become popular and standardised on personal computers the last twenty-five years. As described by Florian Cramer in this volume, the term interface indicates many different contact points and exchanges between different programs and data layers in a computer,  between different machines (e.g. in a network), between humans and machines (such as graphical user interfaces), and as a mediator between humans (e.g. in net culture, interface culture and the public sphere). Some interfaces seem more or less mechanical – such  as the USB interface that most of us know as a plug, but which is in fact an interface that specifies how communication between devices is established – while others are more clearly directed towards human understanding and cultural traditions such as interfaces for computer games or digital art. All interfaces, however, are designs that combine – and translate – signs and signals”

Interface CriticismAesthetics Beyond Buttons (edited by Christian Ulrik Andersen & Søren Bro Pold)
Sample | http://samples.pubhub.dk/9788771242393.pdf

” […] Instead, the collection and collation of factors external to the subject enables the production of various combinations that form sets of different profiles, with each profile essentially being a specific combination of factors. At the moment databases ‘find’ or produce such a specific combination of factors, a subject is placed into the profile that fits that combination. This new mode of observation, in other words, is pattern recognition […] (Savat, Uncoding the Digital, 2013)

“…You see it everywhere today. The telltale sign is the positive feedback loop. For example, you buy things with your credit card, presumably to satisfy needs or desires in your life. Needs, desires: you purchase at your soft points. That visceral act is actually an interaction: you have just participated in a data-mining operation. Your input feeds a marketing analysis apparatus, and that feeds a product development machine. The system eventually gets back to you with new products responding to the input, and with new ways to reach you, massage your rhythms, air out your viscera, induce you to spend. New needs and desires are created. Even whole new modes of experience, which your life begins to revolve around. You have become, you have changed, in interaction with the system. You have literally shopped yourself into being. At the same time, the system has adapted itself . It ’ s a kind of double capture of mutual responsiveness in a reciprocal becoming” (Brian Massumi, Semblance and Event, MIT Press, 2013:48)

“With the postfordist colonization of affect and the concomitant valorization of affective difference, a body has no choice but to speak. A body speaks whether it wants to or not. This is the genius of the ” page rank” algorithm used by search engines: use graph theory to valorize pure heterogeneity, show how quality is an emergent property of quantity, as Barbara Cassin has written in her book on Google. Data mining is often considered in terms of location and extraction of nuggets of information from a sea of background noise. But this metaphor is entirely wrong. Data mining is essentially a plastic art, for it responds to the sculpture of the medium itself, to the background noise itself. I t valorize s the pure shape of relationships. Not “can” but “does” the body speak ? Yes, it has no choice. Making a phone call from the slums of Cairo or Mumbai or Paris , the subaltern “speaks ” into a database – just as much as I do when I pick up the pho ne . The difference for difference is no longer actual, it is technical. The subaltern speaks, and somewhere an algorithm listens” (A. Galloway, “The Interface Effect”, 2013)

“Social media has become the dominant method of using the Internet, and it has infiltrated and changed the way millions of people interact and communicate. Social networking in particular has become extremely popular, with over one billion users on Facebook alone and billions more accounts across thousands of social networking sites online. Understanding social networks—both those explicitly formed on social networking websites and those implicitly formed in many other types of social media—has taken on new importance in light of this astounding popularity. Analysis of these social connections and interactions can help us understand who the important people are in a network, what roles a person plays, what subgroups of users are highly interconnected, how things like diseases or rumors will spread through a network, and how users participate. Applications of these analyses are extensive. Organizations can prevent or control the spread of disease outbreaks. Websites can support participation and contributions from many types of users. Businesses can provide immediate assistance to customers who have problems or complaints. Users can band together to better understand their communities and government or take collective action” (from “Analyzing the Social Web”, Golbeck, 2013; image from the book)

“Future and interaction: this is the task (or the destiny) of code. So code is “ speaking ” us. Geoff Cox is trying to show the other side of the moon: if we can say that code is speaking us (pervading and formatting our action), the other way round is also true. We are speaking code in many ways. In the beginning someone is writing the code, and others are supposed to submit themselves to the effects of the code written by someone. Power is more and more inscribed in code. Writing to Thomas Sebeok, Bill Gates once remarked that “ power is making things easy ” (quoted by Arthur Kroker and Michael A. Weinstein in Data Trash , 1994). Code and interfaces: interfaces are supposed to make the complexity of the code easy, but code in itself is more often about simplifying technical procedures of social life, particularly of economic production and exchange. So code is speaking us, but we are not always working through the effects of written code. More and more we are escaping (or trying to escape) the automatisms implied in the written code” (Cox, “Speaking Code. Coding as Aesthetic and Political Expression”, The MIT Press, 2013)

“Lately, that aggregation has been changing. There has been an invasion of glowing rectangles—ever more computer screens of ever more sizes, in ever more places.1 And not just an invasion of screens but also one of networked objects, sensor fields, positional traces, information shadows, and “big data.” This new era of interface designs is transforming the use of the city. Car and bike share systems for instance, would not have worked as well before now. Also on the rise are do-it-yourself applications and installations to monitor, tag, catalog, or curate everything from local plants to historical images to neighborhood lore. Many of these productions are said to “augment” their immediate surroundings, not just fill them with feeds and pointers to someplace else. Yet however much augmented, the city is also unmediated experience: fixed forms persist underneath all these augmentations and data flows, and for that you might be thankful” (from McCullough, “Ambient Commons. Attention in the Age of Embodied Information, The MIT Press, 2013)

“In days of intense and pervasive digitalization, the numerification of movement requires a broader thinking, or perhaps a rethinking, of what movement itself is (or what it can become). And it is precisely this rethinking that is at stake here: Can it still be defined or thought as movement, when an actual, physical body has been replaced by a string of running data? What happens to the thought of movement, when movement is processed by a digital system? [..] In motion capture and animation software, what we have thought as the infinite virtuality of movement thus becomes visualized as a series of algorithmic paths traced by points, the points in turn resulting from the calculation of parameters and their relations. The program only seems able to remember and manipulate movement’s limited physical possibilities, rather than its infinite potential: for the computer, infinity becomes a number, or a string of numerical data expressed in binary code. But is this string of data, the points and lines remembered by the technology, really ontologically different from a virtual body? Or can the digital variables preserved and manipulated by the program (as variations based on relations that remain constant in the computer’s algorithm), stand for what Deleuze defines as the virtual “variety” of ideas or, as he also defines it, a variation of relations themselves, which is ultimately for him the object of a transcendental (rather than empirical) memory? ” ( from “Moving without a Body. Digital Philosophy and Choreographic Thoughts”, Stamatia Portanova, The MIT Press, 2013)