Urban Screens 2005: discovering the potential of outdoor screens for urban society
International Conference – 23/24 September – Amsterdam
Report by Cecile Landman
Geert Lovink and Mirjam Struppek met in 2004, by way of Struppek’s thesis on the subject. They thought of organizing an expert meeting of one day in the Rietveld academy, but were confronted with an overwhelming response. Within no time the mailing list counted 200 people. With this conference the growth of a network was facilitated.
Mirjam Struppek – Urban Screens – www.urbanscreens.org
“How can screens be used for discussion in public space and in diverse environments? Groups will always live in ‘their areas’ with their ‘alikes’. Can Public Space play a better role as an exchange and connection sphere? Can Public Screens be like glue that holds a city together? And is there any public (non-commercial) space left?”
Geert Lovink – Institute of Network Cultures – https://www.networkcultures.org/
“Are the screens a confirmation of the further decline of Public Space?”
During the conference “Someone tried to ask the question – which seemingly no-one on the panel understood – essentially asking: ‘How do you write graffiti on an LED billboard?’” – Anthony Auerbach
Amongst the density of presentations of futuristic streamlined architecture in the sphere of mainly big ‘Public Screens’ a simplest ad-hoc billboard out of sticky green and yellow office-notepapers was created on a wall during the Urban Screens Conference in Amsterdam. On these notes one could read: More artists, less companies. Or: Screens in Africa… Convivial technology solutions for 3rd world projects. One can ask if these officenotes were in their tiny presence representing the essence of the conference, or if Urban Screens, once erected in the huge sizes as most of them were presented at the conference (on a normal video screen though), will ever have an impact of intimacy and personal involvement like the smaller ‘officenotes’. Or like now is happening in the recent initiative of Qui Vive! that came to existence during the recent riots in the Paris banlieus. Qui Vive! are public newspapers glued on the walls. This is an attempt for public communication exchange in a ‘Public Space’ that has disastrously failed. Or is PS not at all about ‘intimacy’ but about reachability of numbers and masses? And can the big urban screens escape from a passively watching public, in a ‘receiving-only’ modus’?
Just after the conference words echoed in my head like: ‘big, many, much, high, huge (costs), impressive’. The night following the two-day seminar I jumped straight into the last hours of the always impressive Robodock festival taking place in the same days in Amsterdam; and there I wondered if the robotic inventions of the Robodock people will possibly intermingle with futuristic – some interactive – sculpture versions of concepts of the urban screens. How can (and will) the two integrate in near future to the maximum effects architecturalized spaces where – many – people pass by, or stay? What could this mean for interactivity?
The Urban Screens conference was an inventarisation of ‘what’s out there’ and an attempt to challenge the search for content combined with the search for the soul of the -mass- public, combined with financial costs of the big and space-conquering new artefacts.
The always uneasy alliances with players in the field like bigger (advertisement) companies.
Theories and artists’ presentations, some of them surprisingly playish with content, mixing patterns of headscarfs with taped images of the Bold and the Beautiful – images that were disturbed while taping, by an Australian electric storm – and psychologies of televised and terrorised societies, like artist Linda Wallace did, making those characters talk about the murder on Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, with as result an unpredictable ‘does it by itself’ artwork. Wallace: “Sometimes you really don’t know if it’s something you already heard and saw before, or that the conversations in the device are completely new.”
New media have reached a major influence and reach people in many places, first of all in their homes. This could change with the developments of growing numbers of Public Screens in the Urban Space. The latest developments take these technologies out of the house, to streets and squares. Like the ‘Public Space’ in the past when megaphones served to reach the masses. In Sicilian villages they’re still present at some squares.
Many people are on the move and millions have changed habitat. Urban Public Space is changing, but is at the same time globally more and more becoming ‘the same’. In architecture from the 1920’s on ‘Controllable domesticity’ became visible through the growing invisibility of people, not sitting on the front steps of their homes anymore but in the garden, at the back of the house. The exclusive privacy of cars -versus public transport- is another significant separative element. Electronic media integrated in the house turned it into a solitary interaction exchange media centre for many. The dominant political media still remains TV, a medium that knows no past or future, and that so easily reduces policy to just an image, that suggests the idea of intimacy and at large redefines all social relations. TV stays caught in its aim: people must stay tuned and watch.
Manovich introduced the term ‘augmented space’ from ‘augmented reality’ as opposed to ‘virtual reality’. Or: virtual simulation versus working on actual things in actual space. In his speech Manovich addressed the significance of art in churches, compared to a near religious, intensive experience that future ‘augmented spaces’ could bring, by taking the example of the Prada building by Rem Koolhaas. Manovich: “By creating a flagship store for the Prada brand Koolhaas seems to achieve the impossible. He made an ironic statement about the functioning of brands as new religions. But how is our experience of spatial forms influenced by media? How is the relation between the spatial form, our body and the screen and the connection between architecture and media?”
Video surveillance is nowadays so accepted that people even seem to feel flattered seeing themselves observed by these cameras being used to ‘make cities safe’, and to moderate people’s behaviors. Spaces where Public Screens do pop-up consider places where people pass, where money passes; from shoppingmalls to squares, to trainstations and airports. How will Public screens develop in a possible role as instrument for mass-moderation?
Is it a joke or not, to think that big Public Screens above all seem to be projected in similar spaces as preferred by actual terrorism?
“What is concealed by the screen, one could argue, are exactly the shifts in the relations of representation which have occurred since Noam Chomsky analyzed network television”, said Auerbach, pleading to remove the protection from institutions such as TV, and open up. But: “The screen acts as if it is a passive receiver of content. As one agency claims, outdoor advertising is the ‘last remaining truly broadcast medium’. So what is the ideological function of the screen? And how do artists define themselves?”
While television stations and networks are concerned to maintain audience ‘flow’ levels in order to run advertising ratings and revenue, companies strive to qualify for advertising interest. The costs of the screens are so huge that big players will always be necessary. The ‘Big Screen’ in Manchester, for example, bears the local authority, RBS, BBC and Philips permanently branded on the installation. Auerbach: “Close examinations of complicated subjects are not so wanted (for funding) by big companies. What is around is an ambush of all kinds of image (re-)productions.”
Who will be the owners of the Public Screens? Costs for the screens as is the case with a two-minute movie, can rise to a 150.000 Euros.
Try to imagine a ‘reality of Public Screens extensively spread through Public Space’. Let’s forget all the ethusiastic stories from the conference and take a worst case for an imaginary picture. Let’s take Italy! A country where a recent report (Dec. 05) figured that people have re-become illiterate watching TV. In Italy I am quite sure that the screens, just like the small inhouse ones, would be abused for someones aim, for some company, or by the state. However, they’re all one.
Artists from Serbia (Valentin Tomic, Valerija Tomic, Serbia / Montenegro) want to connect three cities through LED screens, and by use of devices like mobile phonecameras facilitate personal contact and direct cultural exchange in an emotive way. They urged for open devices: “The devices should be open to people in the Public Space, in order to create interaction between these tools. People can make a ‘together-story’ by use of the camera’s and their interaction. Galleries over the world can be connected. This could be between Iraq and the USofA. The interactive exchange must be shown. The emotion has to be within the technology.” With the quite recent Serbian media-history, they couldn’t be more serious when saying: “These media could also be quite important tools for politicians. I hope you understand this.”
Jason Lewis – with a background in the emotional art of graffity – creates software for digital graffity. Under the title ‘From private expression to public performance’ he explained a ‘Text-organ’ functioning like a spray-can full of texts, which was applied to a library of visual effects with texts coming in from all different sources. Lewis explicitly addressed that “compared to audio or video, text is relatively easy to move around.”
Clear words. ‘Public speak’ sounds different than Public screens. Reachability of the instruments is in the concept as related to connectivity, bandwidth, or electricity not being given or stable facts around the globe.
A grassroots project with community groups of Staten Island reminded in some way of the old concept of the ‘Cinema Paradiso’. A screen was set-up in the back of a truck showing on its outside images of stolen art objects from Baghdad’s museums. Perry Brard: “The main question was since on the screens we see mainly ‘models’: Where are the people?”
On Enoshima Island people probably go to the square of the spectactular Dragon Tower. A twenty minute video show ends with the Dragon Tower spitting fire, water and pixel power. Mythology is involved here. The Tower with fountain shows a continuous video-parade of faces, nature etc.
Not at all surprising, Doha has a huge tower too. A phallical building, with an ‘electric draped over it. Could this be the third stage of psychosexual development of the screens in Doha?
The conference itself was triggered by the newly planned Urban Screen, at the Zuidas in Amsterdam, ‘a new kind of city-center’. “This ‘south-screen’ is planned to be huge, and so are the costs involved,” assured curator Jan Schuijren. Although he stated that “one has to carefully seduce the public, and that there has to be a notion of relationships between people”. However, there shall be a first struggle with the neighborhood; a tree has to be cut since it stands in the way of the future 40 square meters screen. With souplesse Schuijren took TV logics for granted: “The screen will be divided in prime time – peak hours- and quality time.”
It sounds familiar: Quality time for the few, prime-time for the masses.
Façades of buildings are always a ‘talking’ medium. Public Space can come alive through interaction, but an idea of ‘democratic real interaction’ is not shown through the façades; it is merely a question of bigger firms occupying more space. Like Michelangelo worked for the church, now artists work for big companies, and in between the brands some art still can be put. But fear exists for the disappearance of the Urban Public Space.
During the lectures, returning comparisons were drawn between old painted arts in churches, and places like Times Square, the latter one being recalled by a rough 2/3 of the speakers. Despite future fantasies in architecture and art – buildings with no straight forms at all and future buildings moving in a landscape – screens still remain flat, and do not leave the ‘skin’ or ‘hairnet’ concept.
And how will screens be used for religious purposes?
Someone put the question: “What about the costs of maintenance, and the endurance of the light projects, compared to Christmas lights?”
By Cecile Landman
Amsterdam
16-01-06
The pictures of time and space are rearranged
In this little piece of typical tragedy
Justified candy
Brandy for the nerves
Eloquence belongs to the conqueror
SAD STATUE
I can’t see your soul soul through your eyes
The crying walls of sliding architecture
Kidnapped by the likes of pure conjecture
B.Y.O.B.
SYSTEM OF A DOWN
<>