Non-Digital Public Authoring
I happen to be wandering around Trento, Italy which still has remnants of old Roman walls and streets left to look at. And apparently the Romans were some of the earlier examples of graffiti artists - much of it political in nature. This tradition appears to continue today, as one can easily discover by wandering the streets. So this has gotten me thinking about what we can learn about digital public authoring from the more pedestrian paint-based version.
One distinction which immediately presents itself is authoritative versus non-authoritative public authoring. Authoritative artifacts clearly are accepted by society and put in place by governments or land-owners for general use. Non-authoritative authoring appears to occur by individuals or small groups who "borrow" either public or private property to display their messages.
The following examples show some of the variations of these two categories. (Note: this is the not the only valid taxonomy, just a useful one). Using these examples of art, politics and informational aids, I will explore the relationship between the two categories and make some suggestions for designing the next digital public authoring systems. I will purposefully be avoiding the value-laden term 'graffiti' and instead use 'artifact'.
ART
Oftentimes people with artistic tendencies want to have an outlet for expressing themselves. This happens in a variety of ways both supported by authorities and not.
Photo 1
This artifact may have other cultural meanings, but it is an example of fairly amateur art which is being displayed to the public. This artist might have trouble finding other legal locations to publicly display their creations.
Photo 2
This artifact is by an established artist, was produced at considerable cost, and undoubtedly had the blessings of the local authorities. It also probably has the broad support of the public and was paid for by them.
Photo 3
This is probably the name of a person or group of people, but it really is a work of art. Effort has been made to add aesthetic touches such as the red circles. Also note the apology by the author, apparently to the owner of the wall. Also note that it has not been removed by the owner of wall.
POLITICS
People often have opinions about government, social systems and power relationships. It is often desired to influence others' opinions by displaying ideas in a public forum.
Photo 4
Some socialist paper artifacts (thus, they can show more detail and be put up rapidly and in great number). Several layers may show competition between various groups and the tears probably show that the content is controversial and someone has tried to remove it.
Photo 5
A fairly simple negative opinion, which might not be positively received by many people. It may have been an emotional outlet for the author.
Photo 6
I'm presuming this is in Arabic. I have no idea what the words mean, but the use of Arabic in an Italian-German speaking town (and the current international political climate) probably shows a disadvantaged group attempting to organize resistance or influence the opinions of a subset of society.
INFORMATIONAL AIDS
Photo 7
This sign represents an authoritative artifact which provides navigational information, and is intended to communicate to people unfamiliar with the environment. It uses both pictures and text. This artifact is probably not very controversial and positively supports many people.
Photo 8
This is also an authoritative artifact providing information about parking. Unfortunately I don't read Italian. Would additional information in other languages added by other authors improve the utility of this public artifact?
Photo 9
This artifact has multiple layers. The underlying layer is an authoritative map which helps people navigate the local bike path area. The non-authoritative layer is a statement of unknown meaning, which probably does not have as much utilitarian value for as many users (although this subjective). The main point is that one obscures the other. Is this vandalism?
DISCUSSION
The above examples illustrate some of the uses of both authoritative and non-authoritative non-digital public authoring. They also bring to light a number of existing problems and limitations of existing public authoring systems that may usefully inform design. The following are several points to consider.
Authoritative artifacts tend to be more durable, expensive and able to articulate more complex messages and content. They also may gain privileged locations where they can be viewed or experienced more easily by the public. If we take a memetic view, memes in these artifacts are given a greater chance of survival and propagation because they are protected and their spread is encouraged through other media (e.g. passing car drivers).
What is the relationship between authoritative and non-authoritative? Authoritative artifacts are presumed to have the support of those in power, and in a democracy the support of the general public. However what about non-authoritative artifacts which manage to survive for long periods, or gain wide propagation (or use)? Most of the "graffiti" in Trento appears to have been there a long time, and is widespread. Society here seems to have accepted the use of private property for displaying non-authoritative messages. Thus these messages seem to gain credibility, or perhaps there is simply a different cultural standard for the use of public spaces here. Should our digital environments be more accepting of a wide variety of personal artifacts such as Trento is?
What is the definition of vandalism? A privately-owned wall that is written on might be considered vandalism. However, the wall wasn't previously being used to convey information (although it might be argued that it can be appreciated for its *lack* of information.) Currently those authors wanting to convey information desire a canvas, so to speak. The only canvas available to communicate to the local community is either public or private property. So there is an existing conflict over availability of space to convey information. Photo 9 above clearly demonstrates what is arguably vandalism - it is a case where one message makes it difficult or impossible to access the other information. Arguably Photo 4 is also vandalism - one socialist advertisement obscuring another.
So this brings up issues of fair use of limited display resources. Should each author be allocated a period of time and a location for displaying their message? And what about censorship? I have seen some censorship on the walls of Trento such as a swastika, with a slash through it in a different color. Presumably different societies will be more tolerant of extreme message content than others. Currently anyone can choose to censor public artifact, but it require some work and possibly legal consequences. This practically means that only the most extreme content actually gets censored. So hindering usability of some functions may be useful.
OPEN QUESTIONS
So what does this mean for digital public authoring? Here is a few design ideas:
- Potentially a computer-mediated environment could have unlimited display space. Messages posted on top of each other wouldn't necessarily have to obscure each other. This could remove a point of conflict which exists in the non-digital world.
- Authoritative artifacts aren't necessarily optimal. Non-authoritative additions/changes/overlays could improve their quality.
- Vandalism doesn't have to be a permitted option, or encouraged by competition for resources.
- Can we create a more democratic way of creating authoritative content? Does non-authoritative content (e.g. graffiti) become authoritative over time? Is there a way we can vote on content to more accurately indicate how widely accepted it is and how prominent it should be in placement?
- Is there a way we can make it easier for individuals to display their creations be they art projects, political ideas or assistive informational content? Currently it is only the outlaws or those in power that have access to this medium. Can we improve access to broadcasting ideas?
- Is it desirable to separate physical and informational layers in our cities? Walls could look like walls, and information could be presented as on overlay, using a different medium. Is this what we aesthetically want, or will it even be possible to remove the use of physical media for displaying information?
One distinction which immediately presents itself is authoritative versus non-authoritative public authoring. Authoritative artifacts clearly are accepted by society and put in place by governments or land-owners for general use. Non-authoritative authoring appears to occur by individuals or small groups who "borrow" either public or private property to display their messages.
| Authoritative | Non-Authoritative |
| (Consensus) - street signs - park direction signs | (Individual) - gang signatures - modified authoritative directions |
The following examples show some of the variations of these two categories. (Note: this is the not the only valid taxonomy, just a useful one). Using these examples of art, politics and informational aids, I will explore the relationship between the two categories and make some suggestions for designing the next digital public authoring systems. I will purposefully be avoiding the value-laden term 'graffiti' and instead use 'artifact'.
ART
Oftentimes people with artistic tendencies want to have an outlet for expressing themselves. This happens in a variety of ways both supported by authorities and not.
Photo 1
This artifact may have other cultural meanings, but it is an example of fairly amateur art which is being displayed to the public. This artist might have trouble finding other legal locations to publicly display their creations.
Photo 2
This artifact is by an established artist, was produced at considerable cost, and undoubtedly had the blessings of the local authorities. It also probably has the broad support of the public and was paid for by them.
Photo 3
This is probably the name of a person or group of people, but it really is a work of art. Effort has been made to add aesthetic touches such as the red circles. Also note the apology by the author, apparently to the owner of the wall. Also note that it has not been removed by the owner of wall.
POLITICS
People often have opinions about government, social systems and power relationships. It is often desired to influence others' opinions by displaying ideas in a public forum.
Photo 4
Some socialist paper artifacts (thus, they can show more detail and be put up rapidly and in great number). Several layers may show competition between various groups and the tears probably show that the content is controversial and someone has tried to remove it.
Photo 5
A fairly simple negative opinion, which might not be positively received by many people. It may have been an emotional outlet for the author.
Photo 6
I'm presuming this is in Arabic. I have no idea what the words mean, but the use of Arabic in an Italian-German speaking town (and the current international political climate) probably shows a disadvantaged group attempting to organize resistance or influence the opinions of a subset of society.
INFORMATIONAL AIDS
Photo 7
This sign represents an authoritative artifact which provides navigational information, and is intended to communicate to people unfamiliar with the environment. It uses both pictures and text. This artifact is probably not very controversial and positively supports many people.
Photo 8
This is also an authoritative artifact providing information about parking. Unfortunately I don't read Italian. Would additional information in other languages added by other authors improve the utility of this public artifact?
Photo 9
This artifact has multiple layers. The underlying layer is an authoritative map which helps people navigate the local bike path area. The non-authoritative layer is a statement of unknown meaning, which probably does not have as much utilitarian value for as many users (although this subjective). The main point is that one obscures the other. Is this vandalism?
DISCUSSION
The above examples illustrate some of the uses of both authoritative and non-authoritative non-digital public authoring. They also bring to light a number of existing problems and limitations of existing public authoring systems that may usefully inform design. The following are several points to consider.
Authoritative artifacts tend to be more durable, expensive and able to articulate more complex messages and content. They also may gain privileged locations where they can be viewed or experienced more easily by the public. If we take a memetic view, memes in these artifacts are given a greater chance of survival and propagation because they are protected and their spread is encouraged through other media (e.g. passing car drivers).
What is the relationship between authoritative and non-authoritative? Authoritative artifacts are presumed to have the support of those in power, and in a democracy the support of the general public. However what about non-authoritative artifacts which manage to survive for long periods, or gain wide propagation (or use)? Most of the "graffiti" in Trento appears to have been there a long time, and is widespread. Society here seems to have accepted the use of private property for displaying non-authoritative messages. Thus these messages seem to gain credibility, or perhaps there is simply a different cultural standard for the use of public spaces here. Should our digital environments be more accepting of a wide variety of personal artifacts such as Trento is?
What is the definition of vandalism? A privately-owned wall that is written on might be considered vandalism. However, the wall wasn't previously being used to convey information (although it might be argued that it can be appreciated for its *lack* of information.) Currently those authors wanting to convey information desire a canvas, so to speak. The only canvas available to communicate to the local community is either public or private property. So there is an existing conflict over availability of space to convey information. Photo 9 above clearly demonstrates what is arguably vandalism - it is a case where one message makes it difficult or impossible to access the other information. Arguably Photo 4 is also vandalism - one socialist advertisement obscuring another.
So this brings up issues of fair use of limited display resources. Should each author be allocated a period of time and a location for displaying their message? And what about censorship? I have seen some censorship on the walls of Trento such as a swastika, with a slash through it in a different color. Presumably different societies will be more tolerant of extreme message content than others. Currently anyone can choose to censor public artifact, but it require some work and possibly legal consequences. This practically means that only the most extreme content actually gets censored. So hindering usability of some functions may be useful.
OPEN QUESTIONS
So what does this mean for digital public authoring? Here is a few design ideas:
- Potentially a computer-mediated environment could have unlimited display space. Messages posted on top of each other wouldn't necessarily have to obscure each other. This could remove a point of conflict which exists in the non-digital world.
- Authoritative artifacts aren't necessarily optimal. Non-authoritative additions/changes/overlays could improve their quality.
- Vandalism doesn't have to be a permitted option, or encouraged by competition for resources.
- Can we create a more democratic way of creating authoritative content? Does non-authoritative content (e.g. graffiti) become authoritative over time? Is there a way we can vote on content to more accurately indicate how widely accepted it is and how prominent it should be in placement?
- Is there a way we can make it easier for individuals to display their creations be they art projects, political ideas or assistive informational content? Currently it is only the outlaws or those in power that have access to this medium. Can we improve access to broadcasting ideas?
- Is it desirable to separate physical and informational layers in our cities? Walls could look like walls, and information could be presented as on overlay, using a different medium. Is this what we aesthetically want, or will it even be possible to remove the use of physical media for displaying information?
posted by axup at 12:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home