to the apathetic user of arrogant machines

1 Introduction

“Are we trapped in a flickering dream of infinite freedom within defined coordinates as an apathetic user dancing in between shiny gloom and glossy doom on the surface of a silent concept of arrogant machines*? ”¹

      With the final question of the letter To the Apathetic User of Arrogant Machines, I aim to introduce my theoretical conception, let it to wander as a circulating thought across the following pages of my investigation, in order to finally revisit it again in the realm of my conceptual translation.

      Computer-aided machines create “framing” environments that can influence us as users. These environments are akin to spaces that, in their expansiveness, demonstrate boundaries and, in their form, impact the users. Within the context of programmed “spaces,” boundaries are not readily definable as enclosing walls or ceilings. Analogous to these physically tangible constraints, the boundaries of computer programs manifest in abstract-conceptual form as predetermined parameters of the software. Within this programmed “space,” the user interacts with the machine.
      What influence does the conceptual “space design” of machines exert on users? How are the positions of humans and machines in their relationship to be described?
      I aim to explore these questions in the theoretical analysis and, through engagement with the answers, lay the groundwork for the conception of my visual implentation. To this end, I initially focus on the notion of an architectural and mental space, aiming to establish an analogy to the conceptual-digital space. Subsequently, I will delve into the position and role of a user within the relational dynamic between human and machine, ultimately proposing a thesis that associatively illustrates this relationship.

2 Space as concept

“The power of a ‘space’ lies in the possibilities it implies: immersion, habitation, ‘being-there,’ phenomenal plenitude, unmediated presence, all fall within its domain.”²

     We enter, exit, or linger in spaces voluntarily or involuntarily, for a defined or undefined duration. Spaces are conceptual manifestations and can take on forms beyond architecturally functional building units, such as societal, mental, or technological environments. Tangible walls become invisible boundaries. However, the common characteristic of these spaces lies in establishing conditions with which we must engage when we enter them. Thus, we stand in a relational dynamic with them, rooted in the functions and mechanisms of these spaces, which can be either unilateral or mutual.

     Throughout this chapter, I aim to comprehend spaces as concepts, examine them in various manifestations, and explore their influence on the bodies within them.
     Subsequently, I intend to expand this examination to the establishment of spaces by computer-aided machines, whose conceptual “space design” in the form of software influences us as users and provides a framework for our interaction with them.

2.1 Body in space

     In general, a space relies on an architectural, geographical, political, or mathematical principle that is physically constraining in its extent or at least defined within its boundaries.³ Most distinctly, a physical space can be described as a container that encloses content through walls, influencing its shape and connotation through these boundaries.
     This impact of its shape is also reflected in the principle espoused by Bruce Lee, although he doesn’t understand the formative influence in a physically tangible sense but as a mental concept. He employs allegory to elucidate his method in his methode of fighting in Martial Arts. Drawing from the philosophy of Wu-Wei, he describes, using the metaphor of “flexible” water, the principle of the natural flow of movement achieved through an adaptive response – a mental adjustment – to the respective situation in combat.⁴

“Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot.” ⁵ – Bruce Lee

     Lee understands space as a psychological phenomenon, as a mental adaptation to new conditions arising from a situation. Metaphorically speaking, in this context, the situation - the water container - becomes the condition of the created space, to which a mental response is made - the adoption of the container’s shape.

Alexander Calder, Mobile, 1932. Source: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/calder-mobile-l01686, Accessed 16.11.23

     Limitations, like the walls of a vessel, are not obviously present, or physically identifiable, in the works of Alexander Calder’s Mobiles. Calder’s Mobiles are interconnected shapes, constructing delicate structures that are set in motion by external influences, such as drafts of air. The individual components are not a result of the conditions of the location in which they are exhibited. Their individual form exists prior to being placed in the environment. However, when placed in space, they are subject to the conditions of the location as a whole, continually redefining itself through the constant evolution of their composition. The relationship between space and object thus manifests itself in a mutual influence on appearance, as the changing shifts in the composition of Mobile redefine its surrounding in equal measure.⁶

     These two examples demonstrate that bodies and environments are in a relationship with each other. This relationship can be unilateral, as in Lee’s mental adaptation, or mutual, as in Calder’s Mobiles. Additionally, a space does not necessarily have to be physically tangible but can act as an influencing factor in a conceptual sense.

     Bruce Nauman examined spatial influence and its effects on the human body “[...] in order to acquire insights into the formative powers of normative structures and social patterns.”^{7 > An example of his exploration is the piece Wall-Floor Positions, which he performed and filmed in his studio in 1968. In the 60-minute documentation of his performance, one can observe Nauman continuously shifting positions in relation to the spatial conditions of the walls and floor of his studio. In doing so, he illustrates the limitations and influences of the space on his body. His body becomes the fluid, moving part, while the space remains the conceptual construct.8}

Wall-Floor Positions, Bruce Nauman, 1968, 60 min, b&w, sound Source: Electronic Arts Intermix (EAI). https://www.eai.org/titles/wall-floor-positions, Accessed 16.10.23

      In both Wall-Floor Positions and other works like the series of Corridors installations, Nauman materializes the relationships between humans and their spatial surroundings. Through this, he aims to “[...] direct the experience of imposed postures to the visitors [...] that convey a tactile impression of the way constricting situations or environments have a psychological impact that manipulates human behavior.”⁹ The recipient is confronted with questions that bring awareness to the physical positioning in space and the sensory perceptions within the created situation. Nauman calls for intellectual engagement with the present and the implicit characteristics of their absence.¹⁰

     In summary, using Nauman’s example, the human body, as well as Lee’s or Calder’s object-like bodies, establish a relationship with their surrounding space. Bodies are influenced by spaces and can also influence the space.
     Using this as a foundation, I now intend to incorporate the digitally programmed space as a conceptual framework of a computer program into the discussion and examine it in its design. This examination is an attempt to place the relationship between the user and the computer-mediated machine on a spatial-associative level, akin to Nauman, to compare the influence of conceptual considerations of spatial designs with the conceptual realm of software.

2.2 Digital space

      A digital “space” of a computer-based application is free from physical restrictions; it is not bound by walls or ceilings. It is a “space” that, in its conception, creates an environment. The concept of this structure hovers as a framework over the whole and materializes as possibilities and their conditions. I would like to consider these conditions as equivalent to the walls of an architectural space. Consequently, “movement,” even if it may be digital, is influenced by the conditions programmed into the digital space. It is needless to say that these conditions must be agreed to, because “space” is a fixed concept that cannot be changed.
      Even though we do not physically enter this digital “space,” our movements are still dependent on its parameters. The principle of space and its influencing configuration is thus also found in software as a concept of the computer.

Jeffrey Shaw, Legible City, 1989 Source: https://www.jeffreyshawcompendium.com/portfolio/legible-city/s, Accessed 17.11.23

     Media artist Jeffrey Shaw is considered a pioneer of interactive art and attempted to make immersive environments navigable and experiential with the body through his work Legible City. The installation consists of a folding bicycle and a cityscape represented in three-dimensional words projected onto a screen. These “primitive” virtual worlds can be "explored" by the viewer using the bicycle’s controls. However, the apparent self-determined navigation quickly gives way to critical comments from users. Florian Cramer, in “Exe.cut(up)able statements. Poetische Kalküle und Phantasmen des selbstausführenden Texts,” expresses that Legible City lacks the feel of a freely maneuverable environment where one’s movement is in sync with the depicted dynamics on the screen. The movement is “not spontaneous but part of a predetermined set of mathematical combinations”¹¹ and thus not a journey driven by the participants’ bodies, but rather an illusory-controllable, guided ride through the system.¹² He concludes, “The machine sets the framework for action, subjugates the recipient to its control, and ultimately remains uncontrollable.”¹³
     The critique of Legible City is representative not only of this interactive art installation but also of the relationship and functioning of the human-machine relationship, and the portrayal of a superficial illusion of machine operations by concealing algorithmic structures.¹⁴

     Shaw’s space installation is not the promised free space but an illusion and a “[...] structure of an artificial behaviorist system in which body and technology enter into a precarious relationship of mutual control. It is the machine that wins in this scenario because it dictates the framework of abstraction and cannot be reprogrammed by the cyclist. This artificial [...] [absurdity] characterizes not only Shaw’s work but the entire field of so-called ‘ interactive art,’ which is based on a simplified, reductive understanding of interaction as cybernetic feedback and stimulus-response schemas, a behaviorism further restricted by machine algorithms hidden in black boxes.”¹⁵

     The abstraction framework of the computer, as described by Florian Cramer, is a fixed construct that cannot be influenced or manipulated by the cyclist. The machine has control, and the participant is at the mercy of the inaccessibility of the automated mechanisms. In summary, one could say that the software of the application represents a restrictive, invisible, and unchangeable guidance of the user’s movements.
     On a conceptual level, Shaw’s Legible City resembles the artificial worlds of a video game and, in a broader sense, a digital space or software, which is a computer-aided machine. In the following, I would like to examine the concept of computer-aided machines more closely.

3 Machine concept

      The delimited space of interaction between the user and the machine is based on a computer program. Comparable to the boundaries or influencing factors of a physical space, the user is subject to the conditions of the program.
     Software, after all, are concepts that "come to life" in the execution of the code.¹⁶

“[...] [The] goal is to turn [...] code into an explicit list of instructions that can be carried out by interconnected logic gates, thus turning [...] code into something that can be executed – software.”¹⁷

     Above all, as described in the last part of the preceding chapter, the space of the computer program is defined before the user interacts with it, firmly set in its execution, and immovable from the user’s perspective. The determinism of the program is the fundamental characteristic of the relationship between humans and machines, establishing clear power dynamics between the parties involved.
     In the following, I aim to focus on the concepts underlying these computer programs.

3.1 Programmed to be arrogant

      In attempting to characterize digital machines, Joseph Carl Robnett Licklider juxtaposes humans as the reference point.

“Relative to men, computing machines are very fast and very accurate, but they are constrained to perform only one or a few elementary operations at a time. Men are flexible, capable of ‘programming themselves contingently’ on the basis of newly received information. Computing machines are single-minded, constrained by their ‘pre-programming.’ ”¹⁸

      Certainly, this observation should be understood within the temporal framework and context of technological progress in computers up to 1960. It’s undeniable that today’s computers far surpass the computational capabilities of those early machines, allowing them to handle not only simple tasks but also a multitude of processes simultaneously. However, Licklider’s conclusion, particularly in his conceptual portrayal, points to an intriguing perspective.

      At this point, I’d like to take a look back at the history of computer-assisted processes, which can be traced back to the development of the automated loom by Joseph Marie Jacquard in the early 19th century. The control of the loom was achieved through hardware-level mechanisms. Using punched cards, the loom encoded the holes in the cards into movements of machine’s components, resulting in patterns in the textiles. This step of automation sparked outrage and led to revolts, as workers realized they were no longer in full control of their work processes.
     In the 1930s, the control of automated processes shifted from hardware to software, albeit initially on an abstract level through Alan Turing’s mathematical model (Turing machine).
     As we can observe in current computer technology, over the subsequent years, this fundamental model of controlling and executing computational and command processes has been expanded. The integration of data processing, for example, through sensors (data-driven), as well as the ability to react to events (event-driven), has made the system significantly more flexible and dynamic.¹⁹

3.2 Code as choreography

      Against this backdrop, Licklider’s characterization of the machine as a "single-minded creature," whose inherent concept (software) limits its capabilities, is a relevant notion. History demonstrates that machines have always been subject to a concept that has only evolved in complexity over time.
      This idea is echoed in Alexander R. Galloway’s discourse, where he no longer draws comparisons to humans but instead relies on the principles of conceptual art, specifically those of Sol LeWitt.

“In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.” ²⁰ – Sol LeWitt

With this definition outline, Galloway emphasizes his notion that the idea becomes the machine. Programming brings the concept to life, and the machine is in control of executing its concept at the moment of work.²¹
     Galloway further observes that “LeWitt’s art is an algorithmic process. The algorithm is prepared in advance, and then later executed by the artist (or another artist, for that matter).” ²²
     The necessity for the software concept to exist before execution lies in the specificity of the language of the machine, as expressed by Friedrich Kittler in the following words:

“Code is a language, but a very special kind of language. Code is the only language that is executable. [...] ‘[t]here exists no word in any ordinary language which does what is says. No description of a machine sets the machine into motion.’ ²³ So code is the first language that actually does what is says – it is a machine for converting meaning into action.”²⁴

Software is a language of direct impact that implements the concept at the moment of code execution. Consequently, the existence of the concept before its execution is assumed. In this regard, I would like to highlight Licklider once again, who illustrates the difficulties of this language and implicitly acknowledges the responsibility of programmers.
     He describes that the preformulation of problems requires that“[...] all the alternatives must be foreseen in advance.”²⁵ This has significant consequences because “[i]f an unforeseen alternative arises,the whole process comes to a halt and awaits the necessary extension of the program.”²⁶ However, predicting all possibilities and integrating an appropriate response into the software is simply impossible.²⁷

     As the comparisons and arguments presented show, a computer is, in its programming, a rigid concept, whose framing scope defines the preconceived possibilities.
      The central question now concerns the distribution of roles in the relationship between the computer and the users, as well as the implications of this system on usage.

3.3 Veiled in complexity

      It is evident that the computer can have a significant impact on its users, even if this is not immediately apparent. One reason for this lies in the inaccessibility of the structures and operations of these systems. For most people, what happens behind the screen interface is not necessarily clear. The cause is not disinterest but rather the complexity and opacity of this technology, which may exceed the scope of understanding for many.

“If you open a computer or a computer toy, you see no gears that turn, no levers that move, no tubes that glow. Most often, you see some wires and one black chip. [...] [T]he physical opacity of this machine encourages it to be talked about and thought about in psychological terms.”²⁸

      It is difficult to explain how non-physical, tangible things work. However, characterizing them in human-like terms is more straightforward, and attributing characteristics that ascribe free will or intelligence to computers is plausible. ²⁹ To exaggerate slightly, one might ask whether the consequences of this opacity are akin to surrendering to the workings of computers. Whether the difficulty of access leads to a passive stance or even resignation towards computer-assisted processes. Above all, there’s a danger that invisibility may lead to misunderstanding the influence of a programmed environment and its predetermined parameters, as well as its impact on the framework of interaction.

3.4 Technically solved

      Computers are ubiquitous and take on functions that, upon closer examination, may need to be questioned in terms of their necessity. However, the enthusiasm and progress in the development and application of automated processes through computer technology seem unlikely to wane in the future. Yet, if everything suddenly becomes technical and all abstract problems are solved with computers, do we lose sight of reality?
     The following example serves as an associative exploration attempting to illustrate this consideration.

Author unknown, Source: https://24.media.tumblr.com/44b4436080d97dcea626595d544b9e10/tumblr_mk9384rkab1rkogzbo1_1280.jpg, Accessed 22.11.23

     Two beverage vending machines, cloaked in natural camouflage, are accompanied by the promise of refreshment, available monetarily at the push of a button. Both outside and inside, surrounded by nature, these automated water dispensers advertise their wares - as if it has always been this way - and obstruct the view to the true source, which disappears into invisibility in its banal immediacy.

     Are technical solutions truly simplifications of perceived problems? And does the omnipresence of programmed solutions lead to their legitimization? Does a "computerized normalcy" suppress questioning of functionalities?

4 In the users’ eyes

      Turning now to the second part of the connection between machine and human: the human as the user. After the previous chapters analyzed the functioning of computers and identified the lack of understanding among users, the question arises: how can communication with machines be possible?
     At the outset of this chapter lies the fundamental question of defining a "user." This starting point serves to examine the interface to computerized machines more closely and, subsequently, to understand the significance of interface design.

4.1 How to become a user?

      In the German language, the interaction of a user is limited to a computerized space because, by definition, a user is a “[...] person who uses a computer.”³⁰. However, in English, the word is used in a broader context. Here, a user is a person who uses a product or a machine or avails themselves of a service.³¹.
     The most well-known and perhaps the first official user of an interactive computer system is the engineer Douglas Engelbart, who presented a usable system called the oN-Line System (NLS) at the Augmentation Research Center (ARC) on December 9, 1968. In a carefully crafted demonstration, famously known as "The Mother of All Demos," he showcased a system distinguished by its hardware and software configurations. Remarkably, the presentation highlighted interaction possibilities via a computer mouse, keyboard, and screen connected to the computer, which are considered pioneering in the operation of modern operating systems.³²

Douglas Engelbart uses the 5-button chord keypad of the NLS, a standard QWERTY keyboard and a 3-button mouse, 1968. Source: https://invention.si.edu/mother-all-demos, Accessed 14.11.2023

     At the time of the introduction of the new system, future users were skeptical, describing it as “[…] complicated, hard to learn, poorly documented […]”³³. From today’s perspective, we understand that it is only a matter of time until the “[…] right human […] [ is found, one who adapts to] the new artifact and methodology of operation […]”³⁴ and feels comfortable in their newfound role as a user.³⁵
     There is no trace today of the hesitant mood surrounding the new possibilities from back then, which is likely also due to the scientific examination of cognitive processes, making the operation of the system increasingly intuitive. In 1971, Allen Newell, a US computer scientist and cognitive psychologist, expressed this sentiment with the following words.³⁶

“There is emerging a psychology of cognitive behavior that will permit calculation of behavior in new situations and with new humans…” ³⁷

     Newell is likely referring to our generation, which, thanks to Cognitive Engineering or User-Centered Design, has no qualms about communicating through a Human-Computer Interface (HCI). Today, this comes as naturally as if being a user were practically ingrained from birth.

4.2 User-machine interface

      Communication through interaction with computers is ensured by a Human-Computer Interface. The term "interface" is illustrated by Stéphan Vial, who points out that “[t]he term originally refers to the surface created by the border two bodies have in common.”³⁸ In the field of computer technology, the term carries a deeper significance because, due to its complexity, a computer is not initially as easy to use for humans as other everyday objects. An interface is therefore essential An interface is therefore essential for the usability of computers ³⁹ and “ [...] refers to a point of intersection between two systems where they [– human and computer –] can exchange information and therefore communicate, or interact.”⁴⁰
      In the context of the user as a user of the system, the term User Interface (UI) is introduced. In addition to interaction possibilities through keyboard, mouse, and other hardware components, the screen surface is perhaps the most important interaction interface and is transformed into a Graphical User Interface (GUI) through its design.⁴¹

      With the development of new technologies and increasingly smarter user interfaces, as heralded by the release of the iPhone by Apple in the late 2000s, computer usage has become more complex. Screens are no longer just control surfaces; they are equipped with sensory systems⁴² and can now “[...] gaze back at the viewer, respond to his or her touch, heartbeat, and position in space [...]”.⁴³ The possibilities for us, as well as the spectrum of different user data and processing capabilities, have increased. Consequently, the conditions in which we control our bodies through this new reality, or are controlled by it, have expanded.⁴⁴

      The necessity of this interface – the Human-Computer Interface – in the complex relationship between humans and computers is therefore to be viewed as an essential communication foundation for both sides. Designing the Human-Computer Interface is of crucial importance and is manifested in conceptual-technical and visual decisions.

4.3 Designed navigation

      The exploration of designing these digital devices and applications falls within the field of User Experience Design. Here, the strategy of User-friendly Design prevails, which makes decisions towards intuitive, natural-feeling, and standardized navigation. It argues that “[...] ‘good’ design must feel intimate and natural to allow the interface to erase itself and pass as an extension of the organic,”⁴⁵ as Tomasz Hollanek argues in his essay “Non-User-Friendly: Staging Resistance with Interpassive User Experience Design.” He continues that this strategy of design attitude could have critical side effects on the users of these applications. Because this type of user guidance, “[...] aims to misdirect our attention from what is happening behind the scenes.”⁴⁶ The influence on our actions and thoughts is concealed by this design attitude.⁴⁷

      Hollanek’s concerns regarding the guided user navigation of a conceptually designed and structured application also reflect the investigations into the tools used for designing these applications. Sherry Turkle, an American psychologist and sociologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examined the then-novel digital work environments with the advent of computer-aided design (CAD) and the acquisition of modern computers and computing facilities in 1983.⁴⁸ She collected accounts from students who lamented, “ [...] that the computer’s logic, to which they must bend to do their work, inhibits creative thinking. Others regret seeing their work as designers reduced to simple options in a menu.”⁴⁹

Valie Export, Ping Pong. Ein Film zum Spielen - Ein Spielfilm, 1968 Source: https://www.valieexport.at/jart/prj3/valie_export_web/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1526555820281&tt_news_id=16, Accessed 14.11.2023

     The criticism of the "guided direction" of computer-assisted interactions is also reflected in the art of Valie Export, where she examines interaction in a cinema hall.
     With the art installation Ping Pong. Ein Film zum Spielen - Ein Spielfilm, Export developed around 1968, in the early days of interactive art, the call for the emancipation of the audience in cinema films by questioning their role. In the installation, visitors are invited to hit the randomly projected dots on the screen with a paddle and a ball. By switching from passivity to activity, she demonstrates guided actions and reveals the hierarchy established in the cinema hall between directors as dictators of the rules and the audience as passive and naive consumers, and the cinema hall as a manipulating instrument.⁵⁰

“reiz und reaktion. die ästhetik des konventionellen films ist eine physiologie des verhaltens, seine kommunikationsweise ein ereignis der perzeption. ping pong expliziert das herrschaftsverhältnis zwischen produzent (regisseur, leinwand) und konsument (zuschauer). was hier das auge dem hirn erzählt, ist anlass zu motorischen reflexen und reaktionen. ping pong macht die ideologischen verältnisse sichtbar. zuschauer und leinwand sind partner eines spiels, dessen regeln der regisseur diktitiert.” ⁵¹ – Valie Export

//////////fur//// art entertainment interfaces, Painstation 1 - Enhanced Duelling Artefact, 2001 Source: https://www.fursr.com/projects/painstation, Accessed 14.11.2023

      Painstation by the artist group //////////fur//// art entertainment interfaces, highlights self-conditioning in the interaction with software. In this artwork, the famous game Pong is supplemented with punishment (electric shocks and slaps) for the losers, emphasizing the idea of conditioning through the application in the sense of behaviorism ⁵² – a behavior based on objective observation without introspection or empathy.⁵³ The player submits to the rules of the game or the software, thus unreflectively conforming to the technology and its conditioning framework.

4.4 Comfort in passivity

      Immersing oneself in the world of a user appears effortless, almost natural. Interactions are made intuitive and comfortable through user-centered design of interfaces, while processes and influences remain opaque and conditionally influential. Breaking free from this structure and shedding the role becomes challenging, as users transition into passive consumers. Questioning the influencing factors in the interaction with machines is neglected.

Author unknown, Source: https://buzzly.info/upload/1281/cd5fa3d1b219b63614657d7be7b5dc7e.jpg, Accessed 29.11.2023

Letter front and back

7.5.5 README

      In the exhibition, the README, presented as a website accessible via a QR code, serves as a kind of informative guide and can be regarded as a reference to machine manuals.
     The README provides background information on the project's thesis conception, insights into the underlying associations of the installation’s concept, as well as a brief guide for reading the letter.

     The design of the README also adheres to the principles of the installation. The website begins with a flickering screen, mirroring the visual experience on the monitors of the computers within the construction. Clicking on the screen leads to the subpage with relevant exhibition background information and instructions. However, to read the page’s content, it is necessary to initially rotate the smartphone upside down, as the text is displayed mirrored in its normal position. This action once again prompts user engagement. Only by following the predetermined movement of the smartphone will the content become legible.

http://dancing-in-between-shiny-gloom-and-glossy-doom.online

7.6 Exhibition

      The construction and the letter form an integrated installation unit, complemented by the use of oil, which serves associatively as a unifying element visible directly or indirectly in every part of the installation. It indirectly appears in the depiction of the grilled chicken on the computer display and is employed in fixing the letter to the metal surface as a means of attachment.

     Within the exhibition context, the construction occupies a darkened space, allowing the brightness of the screens to become the sole source of illumination, drawing visitors' attention. Positioned freely within the room to enable access from all sides, the construction invites visitors to engage with it actively.

      As visitors observe the rotating monitors in the installation, read the letter, and utilize the README webpage, they are prompted to be guided by the prescribed movements, offering them a firsthand experience of the work’s concept.

8 List of references