Rather than designing the network perhaps our project assumes a networked life layered over the city’s physical life. Our protocological approach plugs in to that network at strategic or tactical points with a view to exploring alternative uses to public space both physical and virtual.
This allows us to acknowledge that the ‘network’ is not absolutely controlled (by government or corporation) but is ‘distributed’. Parts of it will be controlled but most of the network wont be or at least not by a singular entity. Control points may occur at the device end and provider end but even at these points the ‘net’ works most successfully, even for business, when access is free.
Our project reveals the complexity of the ‘public realm’. Experience is not limited to the Gehl postcard.
Do we need to reconsider the device or level of technology expected in 2030 to help shape this new understanding of how physical and communal space might operate?
Eg – The device shrinks to a contact lens. Thoughts trigger searches and are displayed in front of our eyes. Marketers hack access to our visual space to promote their services, shops, events. Searching on line becomes a day-dream.
Protocols develop in public space to try to prevent people playing a game as they walk through a public space eg. Martin Place – ‘Gaming Police’ – to monitor appropriate levels of soial behaviour….
Scenarios could be individual narratives that hint at the everyday negotiation between the real and virtual space.
No comments:
Post a Comment