Hyuns Hong, Leo Kang, Sukmo Koo, Taezoo Park
Geoffrey C. Bowker, Paul Edwards, Steven Jackson, David Ribes
***This document is mainly written by Leo Kang based on his fieldnote, so its perspective might be inclined.***
2/4/2014 ~ 2/8/2014
The basic idea of this project is to see the design process of how academic text and making interact each other. The group of artists in this project(Hyuns Hong, Sukmo Koo, Taezoo Park) read the academic publications of each scolar(Geoffrey C. Bowker, Paul Edwards, David Ribes), and respond them in their own artisic way. Steven Jackson, Leo Kang and Malte Jung play unclear/multiple roles in the intersection of these two groups. Our plan is that once the artist's outcome come out, send it to the academic group see their responce. Our gole is not responding to either certain text or physical artifact, but watching how these two group of people interact and understand each other through the art making process.
Day 0 (2/3/2014): Leo Kang's fieldnote
"8 participants are actually collaborating through the network where all actors are directly or indirectly interconnected in a certain way to make some physical artifact"
Day 1 (2/4/2014): Discussion in Gates Hall
First day, we had discussion on how we interpret and understand the academic papers. The papers that we were suppsed to responde are following:
1. Edwards, Paul N. "Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems." Modernity and technology (2003): 185-225.
2. Ribes, D. (2014 - forthcoming). "Ethnography of Scaling Or How to fit a national research infrastructure in the room " CSCW' 14.
3. Bowker, G. Convergence in Distributed Memory Practice
The artist group discussed how/what to make for the project. One of ideas that we all like was responding to Paul Edward's paper about 'Infrastructure'
We interpreted his idea in that the definition of technology may change acorrding to the Infrastructure ; Infrastrucure makes the definition of technology and modernity(186).
"Meanwhile, inventions of far larger historical significance, such as ceramics, screws, basketry and paper, no longer even count as 'technology'(185)"
While we were reading Paul's paper, we raised a question "Is a tube TV is a television?" It is because people today rarely watch TV through a tube television. My generation usually watch television through a flat TV, iPhone, and laptop. Those technology serve as television thesedays. We can easily find that tube TVs are discarded even though they are still functional. We thought its because it lost its 'Infrastructure.' Its function dosen't count as 'technology' and 'television' in current society. It lost its medium(analog broadcast signal shut down several years ago), and its resolution and size are too low tech to call 'technology'
So we decided to create a physical piece of art where the audience also can raised the quesiton: "What is definition of technology and television? Does its funtion matters to be called technology? how infrastructure change people's perception of this?