Mixed Reality City

 
  • Thursday 3:00-6:00

    Gund Hall Room 522

    Graduate School of Design

    Harvard University

    Fall 2013

     

    Instructor: Yanni Loukissas

    Guest Instructor: Matthew Battles

     

    Introduction

    The contemporary city is constituted by multiple overlapping, intermixing realities articulated across built form and imagined space, individual experience and collective memory, embodied sensation and digital mediation. Often, these multiple realities are invisible or illegible, with certain narratives dominating particular environments. However, realities always leave traces, to be excavated and reconstructed. The Mixed-Reality City is an exploratory research seminar and workshop in which students pursue studies of urbanism-in-the-making through means and methods emerging in the digital arts and humanities, including: data narrative, digital ethnography, adversarial design, and critical technical practice. The course focuses in equal parts on unpacking discourses and developing interpretative digital artifacts.

    This year, the course will examine the mixed-reality of natural and artificial environments, principally in the Northeastern United States. Projects will focus on historical and contemporary controversies over troubled natural or wild places and phenomena by exploring their associations and effects within cities. The class will pursue questions about the co-construction of the natural and the artificial as well as feral presences in cities: places and phenomena once domesticated, now returned to nature. Moreover, we will examine the relationship between natures and networks. What happens to technology in the wild? Can technology itself become feral?

    We will read authors, such as Bruno Latour, Kevin Lynch, Michel DeCerteau, Leo Marx, Donna Haraway and William Cronon, who explain the mixed-reality of cities in their own ways. We will also engage the work of media artists and designers who make a practice out of intervening into controversies: Natalie Jeremijenko, Sara Wylie, Kelly Dobson, Leanne Allison, Jeremy Mendes, Phoebe Sengers, and Carl DiSalvo. The Mixed-Reality City is a highly participatory class. Students will be expected to actively contribute to discussions and project critiques. At the beginning of the term there will be a rapid series of exercises in writing, mapping, and precedent analysis. Towards the end of the term, students will focus on lengthy final projects to interpret and intervene in mixed wild and constructed places in cities.

    The course is open to all graduate students at Harvard and associated institutions. While there are no prerequisites, students are expected to bring basic skills in digital media. The Mixed-Reality City is hosted by metaLAB (at) Harvard, a research unit of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, focused on experiments in the arts and humanities.

     

    Basics

    This course will be run in a seminar/workshop format, composed of a mixture of brief presentations and a considerable amount of discussion involving every student in the class. It is essential that you be prepared to participate at all times. Class typically meets once a week on Thursdays, 3:00-6:00. Attendance is crucial at weekly meetings. If you must miss a class for any reason, please email well in advance. If you miss more than one class, it may significantly affect your grade in the course.

     

    Exercises

    The course will begin with three open-ended experiments to identify and map controversies over the nature and value of city wildscapes. This early focus on controversies is intended to surface the mixed-realities present in cities and, in particular, reveal how varied discourses construct conceptions of “the wild,” in different ways. The course is substantially informed by research in the field of Science, Technology, and Society, which has long studied controversies as a means of revealing the construction of scientific knowledge and technical expertise.

     

    Weekly Readings/Watchings/Listenings/Discussions

    The historical and theoretical portion of the course is guided by weekly readings. Film screenings and audio listenings are recommended but not required. It is expected that each student substantively engage these materials weekly and be prepared to deeply discuss each work in class. The first weeks generally attempt to pair material relevant to the group’s exercises; the later weeks generally focus upon contemporary topics that aim to inform each student’s final projects. In weekly reading responses consider the following:

    1. Reflect upon the reading itself.

    Who is the author? Who is the author writing against? What domain are they writing in? Who is the intended audience? What evidence does the author use? How strong is the central argument of the reading? What concessions does the author make, if any? What does the author not consider?

    2. Situate the reading in the context of other texts.

    These may be texts that we have looked at during the term or which you are personally familiar with. How does this reading reinforce, extend, or call into question the arguments raised by other authors or vice versa? What new insights or evidence supports the author’s argument?

    All readings will be made available as PDFs over the course of the semester on the course website, unless otherwise noted in the syllabus.

     

    Precedent Studies

    The subject matter of this course is constantly evolving, and as such, it is crucial that we also work together to track new developments, develop historical perspective and enhance each other’s learning. Towards this aim, each student will be required to write a brief case study (ca. 500 words) critically analyzing a contemporary or historical project of relevance to the course. Think of these as short essays to help us build a collection of shared references and inspirations for your final projects.

     

    Final Project

    The final project will be a media design experiment. It will draw upon themes and techniques you or others have explored earlier in the semester. You can choose to use existing tools or develop your own forms of technical (or nontechnical) mediation. Projects will be reviewed by critics in a juried presentation/critique.

     

    Technology Expectations

    This course is media and technology intensive. It is expected that all students have some familiarity and experience working with digital media. However, students will be encouraged to learn by doing, and to share skills with each other. The emphasis of this course, however, is not on learning technical skills per se, but rather on being able to make whatever use you can of the media technologies at hand for artistic practice.

     

    Experimental Context

    This course and the work that you will create is an experiment. It is important to keep in mind that all of us will be inventing elements as we go, and this process of discovery and development is part of the excitement. Consequently, it’s also important to understand certain things will fail, break and not turn out as planned, and to embrace these hiccups as part of working in a collaborative, laboratory environment.

     

    Academic Integrity

    The GSD seeks to maintain a learning and working environment characterized by academic integrity and fair access to educational resources. The GSD expects all students to honor these principles. Actions that violate these principles include the following, and may be the basis for disciplinary action: a. Cheating on examinations, either by copying the work of other students or through the use of unauthorized aids: b. Fraudulent presentation of the work of others (either written or visual) as one's own work (plagiarism) c. Simultaneous or repeated submission without permission of substantially the same work (either written or visual) to more than one course: d. Alteration or misrepresentation of academic records.

     

    Evaluation

    Participation in class: 40%

    Final project: 30%

    Warm-up exercises: 15%

    Precedent studies: 15%

     

    Schedule

    Note: This syllabus and schedule will likely change throughout the semester to adapt to student interests, course composition, etc. Please always check this website for the most up-to-date version.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 1 :: September 5 :: Introduction

    In Class Readings

    Elkins, James. “How to Look at a Culvert." In How to Use Your Eyes. 2000.

    Edwards, Paul. “How to Read a Book”

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 2 :: September 12 :: Mixed-Reality Cities

    Required Readings

    * Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City

    *Wordsworth, William. “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, September 3, 1802.”

    * De Certeau, Michel. “Walking in the City" and “Spatial Stories." In The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

    * Latour, Bruno and Hermant, Emilie. Paris: Invisible City. 1998. (INTERACTIVE)

    Recommended Readings

    * Yaneva, Albena. Mapping Controversies in Architecture

    * Lynch, Kevin. What Time is this Place?

    * Appleyard, Donald. “Many Cities in One,” in Planning a Pluralist City. Conflicting Realities in Ciudad Guayana.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 3: September 19 :: Urban Wilderness, Part 1

    Required Readings

    * Cronon, William. 1995. “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” in Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, edited by William Cronon. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

    * Del Tredici, Peter. 2010. “Spontaneous Urban Vegetation: Reflections of Change in a Globalized World” in Nature and Culture 5(3).

    * Gissen, David. 2009. Subnature: Architecture’s Other Environments. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Recommended Readings

    * Jorgensen, Anna. Urban Wildscapes

    * Haraway, Donna. When Species Meet

    * McPhee, John. The Control of Nature

    * Del Tredici, Peter. Wild Urban Plants of the Northeast: A Field Guide

    * McKibben, Bill. The End of Nature

    * Mackaye, Benton. ”An Appalachian Trail: an Exercise in Regional Planning”

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 4: September 26: Urban Wilderness, Part 2

    Experiment 1: Urban Wilderness Controversy Mapping

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 5: October 3: Urban Wilderness, Part 3

    Experiment 1R: Urban Wilderness Controversy Mapping (Revised)

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 6: October 10: Feral Technology, Part 1

    Required Readings

    * Leo Marx. 2010. “Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept.” Technology and Culture 51 (3): 561–577.

    * Kurgan, Laura. 2013. Close up at a Distance: Mapping, Technology, and Politics.

    * Haraway, Donna. 1991. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.

    * Battles, Matthew. 2012. The Call of the Feral

    Recommended Readings

    * Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology

    * Sterling, Bruce. The Viridian

    * Marx, Leo. The Machine in the Garden

    * Feenberg, Andrew. Questioning Technology.

    * Tenner, Edward. Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences.

    * Latour, Bruno. Aramis, or the Love of Technology

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 7: October 17: Feral Technologies, Part 2

    Experiment 2: Feral Technologies Controversy Mapping

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 8: October 24: Understanding Non-human Actors

    Experiment 3: Mixed-Reality Image of the City

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 9: October 31: Provocations

    Experiment 4: Precedent Analysis

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 10: November 7: Mid-Term Review

    Final Project Proposal

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 11: November 14: Guest Talk + Discussion / Project Critiques

    Dietmar Offenhuber

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 12: November 21: Guest Talk + Discussion / Project Critiques

    TBD

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 13: November 28: Thanksgiving

    No Class

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Week 14: December 5: Prelim-Review (Optional)

    Working Session

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Final Review: December 19: 10am-2pm in Gund 522

     

 
  • Required Readings

    * Leo Marx. 2010. “Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept.” Technology and Culture 51 (3): 561–577. (PDF)
    * Kurgan, Laura. 2013. Close up at a Distance: Mapping, Technology, and Politics. (PDF)
    * Haraway, Donna. 1991. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge. (link)
    *Battles, Matthew 2011. "Distributed Ghosts in the Machine." Atlantic Technology Channel.

     

    Recommended Readings

    * Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology
    * Marx, Leo. The Machine in the Garden
    * Williams, Rosalind. Notes on the Underground
    * Feenberg, Andrew. Questioning Technology
    * Latour, Bruno. Aramis, or the Love of Technology
    * Battles, Matthew. The Call of the Feral

    Please follow the previous guidelines for reading and writing your reflection as a comment on this discussion thread.

  • Required Readings
    * Cronon, William. 1995. “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” in Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, edited by William Cronon. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. (PDF)
    * Del Tredici, Peter. 2010. “Spontaneous Urban Vegetation: Reflections of Change in a Globalized World” in Nature and Culture 5(3). (PDF)
    * Gissen, David. 2009. Subnature: Architecture’s Other Environments. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press. (PDF)
     
    Recommended Readings
    * Jorgensen, Anna. Urban Wildscapes
    * Haraway, Donna. When Species Meet
    * McPhee, John. The Control of Nature
    * Del Tredici, Peter. Wild Urban Plants of the Northeast: A Field Guide
    * Stilgoe. Outside Lies Magic
    * McKibben, Bill. The End of Nature
    * Mackaye, Benton. ”An Appalachian Trail: an Exercise in Regional Planning”
     
    Please follow the previous guidelines for reading and writing your reflection as a comment on this discussion thread.
  • Required Readings
    * Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press. (PDF) Pages 1-13, 46-49
    * Wordsworth, William. “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, September 3, 1802.” (Online)
    * De Certeau, Michel. “Walking in the City" and “Spatial Stories." In The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. (PDF)
    * Latour, Bruno and Hermant, Emilie. Paris: Invisible City. 1998. (INTERACTIVE) | (PDF) Pages 1-31.

    Recommended Readings
    * Yaneva, Albena. Mapping Controversies in Architecture
    * Lynch, Kevin. 1976. What Time is this Place? Cambridge: MIT Press: 65-89,163-189, 243-247
    * Appleyard, Donald. 1976. “Many Cities in One,” in Planning a Pluralist City. Conflicting Realities in Ciudad Guayana. Cambridge: MIT Press: 204-232

    Guidelines
    The historical and theoretical portion of the course is guided by weekly readings. It is expected that each student substantively engage the required materials (at a minimum) and be prepared to discuss each work in class. (Use the article, “How to read a book” to guide your reading) The first weeks generally attempt to pair material relevant to the group’s exercises. For each week in which required reading is assigned, you should write a (~500 word) reflection on one or more of the texts. Post your reflection as a comment in the discussion section. In your responses consider the following:

    1. Reflect upon the reading itself.
    What is the argument of the author? How strong is it? What concessions does the author make, if any? Who is writing? Who is the author writing against? What domain is she/he writing in? Who is the intended audience? What evidence does the author use?  What does the author not consider?

    2. Situate the reading in the context of other texts, projects or events.
    These may be texts or projects that we have looked at during the term or which you are personally familiar with. How does this reading reinforce, extend, or call into question the arguments raised by other authors or vice versa? What new insights or evidence does the author bring to light?

    All readings will be made available online or as PDFs over the course of the semester on the course website, unless otherwise noted in the syllabus.

 
  • Due October 31

    Browse all of the media design projects listed below. These projects are provocations, illuminating different trajectories of work that you might follow for the remainder of the term—in sensibility if not in technical execution. Choose one that relates to the work you have already done in experiment 3 or where you would like to take that work next. Then find a second project on your own. Your second provocation can come from any realm of design. It should resonate with the first project but also illustrate your own personal interests. Compose a short 400-500 word post for each precedent. Make use of media and links to online materials where it is useful. Divide each post into three distinct sections and label these sections:

     

    Formal/Aesthetic: Describe the compositional and experiential qualities of the project.

    Socio/Technical: Trace the network of actors (human + non-human) that enable the project to function.

    Cultural/Political: Explain the broader context in which the project takes on meaning for you and others.

     

    Add your posts to the joint project entitled “Provocations”

     

    Provocations:

    The Brooklyn Pigeon Project: http://nowurbanism.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/the-brooklyn-pigeon-project/

    Feral Robotic Dogs: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/xdesign/feralrobots/

    Bear 71: http://bear71.nfb.ca/#/bear71

    All Streets: http://fathom.info/allstreets/

    Million Dollar Block: http://www.spatialinformationdesignlab.org/projects.php?id=16

    Amphibious Architecture: http://vimeo.com/6984048

    John Snow’s Chart of Deaths from Cholera: http://hollis.harvard.edu/?itemid=|library/m/aleph|001966161

    Alter Bahnhof Video Walk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOkQE7m31Pw

    The Nine Eyes: http://9-eyes.com/

    Welcome to Pinepoint: http://pinepoint.nfb.ca/#/pinepoint

    Bansky: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/24/172815000/auction-halted-of-banksy-mural-removed-in-london

    The New Aesthetic: http://www.webdirections.org/resources/james-bridle-waving-at-the-machines/

    Trash Track: http://senseable.mit.edu/trashtrack/

    Extreme Commuters: http://www.surfacecities.com/proj_08.html

    Ghost Bird: http://ghostbirdmovie.com/

    The View from the Road: http://hollis.harvard.edu/?q=ex-Everything-1.0:%22view%20from%20the%20road%22+author:%22lynch,%20kevin%22+

    Monochrome Landscapes: http://www.l00k.org/monochromelandscapes/monochrome-landscapes

    Whale Hunt: http://thewhalehunt.org/whalehunt.html

     

  • Due: Thursday, October 24

    Choose a single non-human actor (ex. an insect, a weed, a drone, a mapping technology) defined in the context of a contemporary controversy of your choice. You may make use of controversies defined in newspaper articles from previous experiments, but you are not required to.

    A couple of things about your actor:

    1. Your actor should be either a type of urban wildlife or a feral technology.
    2. Your actor should be socially troubled in some way (ex. invisible, in flux, ill-defined, contested, a cyborg, or simply a reified concept).
    3. The identity of your actor should be grounded in at least one newspaper source.
    4. Your actor should exist in Boston or in some future version of the city.

    Then, invent a means of visualizing the presence of your actor in the city of Boston. Make use of data, materials, media and traces of your actor found in secondary sources (i.e. online) or collected first hand. This does not require a complete representation of the city, only a demonstration of limited scope. In other words, choose a section of the city to focus on.

    In order to help you develop this visualization, revisit a reading we did earlier in the term: The Image of the City by Kevin Lynch. Lynch created a new mode of representation for the city: a visual language of nodes, paths, edges, districts and landmarks in order to represent the image of the city produced by its inhabitants. In this experiment, you will be gathering information about the image of the city according to non-human actors (urban wildlife or feral technologies) based on how they see, sense, migrate, or navigate. Consider how you might redefine one or more of Lynch’s elements in order to represent a new mixed-reality.

    Create a new project on the website to host your visualization and a short description of your process (~300 words). Be prepared to present and discuss your findings on Mezz (come prepared with jpegs).

  • Feral_20Technology_20Controversies_wwn2vs.zip 

    This is the second experiment in mapping the mixed-reality city.

    As before, we will draw upon recent controversies. This time the controversies concern “feral” technologies. Such controversies are sites where realities meet over disputed rights, unresolved questions, and conflicting values. These controversies are manifest through material traces such as newspaper articles.

    First, choose a feral technology controversy traceable through one of the articles included. If you have another controversy in mind and you can find a relevant news article, please send an inquiry to yanni@metalab.harvard.edu.

    Second, create a list of human and non-human actors identifiable in the article. An actor is any entity defined by the article that performs work within the controversy, including people, plants, non-human animals, buildings, technologies and institutions. Set a limit on the number of actors you define and articulate a rationale for that limit; this experiment is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.

    Third, select one actor that troubles you and create a dossier on that actor. The actor might be invisible, in flux, a cyborg (see Haraway), or simply a reified concept (see Marx). Collect material on the actor, including alternate articles, visual media, quantitative data and other representations. Experiment with ways of presenting this material visually in ways that shed light on the original controversy. Include these experiments in your dossier along with the original material.

    Create a new project on the website to host your dossier and a short description of your process (~300 words). Be prepared to present and discuss your findings in class.

    For more on actors, traces, and associations see: Latour, Bruno. 2008. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

     

  • MRCExperiment1_qdtarw 
    Wild_20Controversies_cwpqm7.zip 

    This is an experiment in mapping the mixed-reality city.

    As a starting point, we will draw upon recent controversies over urban wildscapes.

    Such controversies are sites where realities meet over disputed rights, unresolved technical questions, and conflicting values.  These controversies are manifest through material traces such as photographs, maps, accounts and articles.  

    First, choose a wildscape controversy traceable through one of the articles listed in the attached .zip file.

    If you have another controversy in mind and you can find a relevant news article, please email  the instructor at yanni@metalab.harvard.edu

    Second, create a list of human and non-human actors identifiable in the article.

    An actor is any entity that performs work within a social interaction, including people, plants, non-human animals, buildings, technologies and institutions. If an entity does not make a difference within the controversy, it is not really an actor. Set a limit on the number of actors you define and articulate a rationale for that limit. This experiment is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.

    Third, develop a media dossier for the controversy built around significant actors found in the article.

    This dossier should consist of found traces, such as photographs, maps, documents, and articles like the one you started with.  All media should be transformed into representative .jpegs sharable through Mezz.

    Finally, develop a means of mapping or visually organizing the elements of your dossier and presenting the associations among them.

    Create a new project on the website to host your dossier and a short description of your process (~250 words). Be prepared to present and discuss your results in class.

    For more on actors, traces, and associations see: Latour, Bruno. 2008. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • In_20Philadelphia_2C_20a_20Garden_20Grows_20Wild_20-_20NYTimes_nxu6ni 

    In Class Reading for Thursday, Sept. 19th

  • An op-ed in the NYTimes by GSD Visiting Professor Erle Ellis that is relevant to this week's readings:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html?_r=1&

  • The Hackathon is an opportunity to bring together members of the Harvard community to spend a day collaboratively experimenting with the technological and spatial affordances of Gund522. The hackathon will provide a crash-course on Greenhouse, a platform for building multi-use, multi-display interfaces with gestural and spatial interactions. Participants will work in interdisciplinary teams to explore new uses of and tools for the room. Members of metaLAB, GSD faculty and staff, and engineers from Oblong will be available throughout the day for support and feedback.

    Spatial input devices will be provided, including Microsoft Kinect, Leap Motion controllers, and wands. Greenhouse can also use mobile devices as sources for gestural input.

    Although designers and coders are welcome, no previous skills are required. For those who do have some programming background, the Greenhouse SDK is available online with full documentation and sample programs. Greenhouse is available for Mac OSX and Linux.

    More here: http://research.gsd.harvard.edu/gund522/about/hackathon/ 
    Feel free to email mezz@gsd.harvard.edu with any questions.

  • In Class Readings:

    Elkins, James. “How to Look at a Culvert." In How to Use Your Eyes. 2000. (PDF)

    Edwards, Paul. “How to Read a Book”: (PDF)

  • Take a look at some of the work from the last version of Mixed-Reality City here: http://mixedrealitycity.tumblr.com/

  • next

Ajax_loader_tiny