The artist Tuomo Rainio (2018) explores the idea of an exhibition as an interface. He questions whether transparency can be restored through the current inquiries into the unique relationship between the spatial elements of an exhibition and the two dimensionality of an image. If the exhibition is the interface then, Rainio (2018) notes that the viewer is conceptualised as a user. Images give a sense of visibility through a non hierarchical form, leaving the viewer to interpret what is in front of them.
Rainio (2018) notes that exhibiting work in a way that challenges the traditional structures of the ways of seeing creates an interruption which helps to reveal and explore the depths of the exhibition. He notes while the visual interface makes the depth’s functionality accessible, the algorithms that are behind these interfaces are hidden from the view under functionality. It becomes difficult to grasp how the viewer, as a user, should interact with the exhibition as an interface.
The artist and should be able to embed the meaning of the work within the images in order to make this relationship of surface and depth fairer.
Rainio (2018) notes that the artist should be familiar with this relationship between the interface and the user. Furthermore, the artist and should be able to embed the meaning of the work within the images in order to make this relationship of surface and depth fairer. This includes access to attributes associated with the image files, which can enrich the users understanding of the content by providing metadata descriptors of files. Rainio (2018) references Ryoji Ikenda and how he implements this in his exhibition Supersymmetry by using an immersive technological system which creates multi sensory experience.
An example of a good user experience (UX) design is when an exhibition is laid out in a way that allows the user to clearly access the underlying features of the exhibition, even without prior experience. By providing a clear user interface (UI) design which does not take into account the prior knowledge of a user, you can provide the user with a sense of control and familiarity. Powers ( 2018) begins by defining This. as an online resource that seeks to manage content which limits itself to only share a single link a day. Curation, as a tool, has the potential to combat the oversaturated choice online by applying personalisation. This vision may have set in order to eventually create an online space that is entirely curated where the abundance no longer existed entirely.
The use of the period, or full stop punctuation mark, as part of the name This. was a symbol to pause and pay attention. Unfortunately in 2016, This. ceased operations as they were unable to raise enough long term capital to sustain the business. Reflecting on this, Powers (2018) warns that This. should be an example of what can happen when you try to control and direct the way that information is shared. He notes especially that the limited aspect of This. was misrepresented as the app users themselves having a selective role in the content and a consequent influence on the editors.
Privilege around content sharing that plays into the promotional inclination to dictate how, where, when and what we share and see.
Schmidt (2012) refers to user login approaches which enhance platforms, such as Google and Facebook. He argues that this approach would promote integrity and prevent the over saturation of anonymous identities. Although This. was not following the filtering methods of algorithms that many large social sites such as Instagram were using. But it was still relying on their platform users to create a refining process. This raises the question of what the nature of the relationship is between curation and promotion.
When advertising revenue becomes a driving financial influence in the future of curated social sites, this reintroduces important questions about the reality of control that is behind the personalised choices we are given. Powers (2018) notes that creating apps like This. creates privilege around content sharing that plays into the promotional inclination to dictate how, where, when and what we share and see.
Whelan, Ó. (2020) 'Being human-centred' in Curating Photography: Poolside. TU Dublin: BA Photography [Online]. Available at www.curating.photography/post/orflaith-whelan
Hookin, S. (2015) ‘The Internet of Me: Creating a Personalized Web Experience’ Wired [Online] Viewed: 28th April 2020. <https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/the-internet-of-me/>
Keyes, J. (2016) ‘How Much Transparency is the Right Amount? A Museum Visitor Response Case Study’ Medium. [Online] Viewed: 28th April 2020.
Powers, D. (2018). ‘This. Reader: trending topics and the curation of information’ in Jeremy Morris, W. and Murray, S. (eds), Appified: culture in the age of apps. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Rainio, T. (2018). ‘Interfaces for artistic thinking: redefining visual and spatial metaphors in apost-digital condition’ in Rastenberger, A.K. and Sikking, I. (eds.) Why Exhibit? Positions on exhibiting photographies. Amsterdam: Fw Books.
Schiffer, Z. (2019) ‘‘Filter Bubble’ author Eli Pariser on why we need publicly owned social networks’ The Verge. [Online] Viewed: 28th April 2020. <https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/11/12/20959479/eli-pariser-civic-signals-filter-bubble-q-a >
Schmidt, E. (2012) ‘Eric Schmidt’ interviewed by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. 92Y Talks. Viewed: 15th April 2020. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uvQ5J45nXM >
Fig 1. Devlin, E. (2019). Poem Portraits in AI: More than Human. Across the Centre. Viewed: 27th April 2020 <https://www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2019/event/ai-more-than-human>
Fig 2. Fewings, T. (2019) Supersymmetry, 2065. Barbican [Online] Viewed: 27th April 2020
Figure 3: N/A (n.d.) UI and UX explained. Sun Graphics [Online] Viewed: 27th April 2020.
Fig 4. Maggi, S. (n.d) Content Curation: How does it build value?. Digital Marketing Institute [Online] Viewed: 27th April 2020.