fabric | rblg

Note: the new project Atomized/Retroffited Functioning by fabric | ch has been selected for La Biennale di Venezia / 19th International Architecture Exhibition (2025), curated by C. Ratti.

The piece is currently on display in the Corderie (main exhibition space of the Arsenale, Venice) and will stay exhibited until the 23rd of November 2025 (10.05 – 23.11.2025).

The project present a live iteration of the ongoing Atomized (*) series of work, at this occasion within a fictional space that gather dynamic planetary conditions, in the form of environmental data coming from meteo stations across the globe.

This is a series of radical algorithmic experiments that fabric | ch discreetly initiated in 2014 with a publication—Desierto #3, 28°C—, and an experimental project—Reponsive Atmospheric Patios—on “spatial and environmental intelligence”: real-time environmental data feeds into the automated and continuous assembly of previously “atomized” elements of architectural functions (as well as a diverse set of “atoms” of use/misuse/non-use of space). The results help us to study renewed and evolving assemblies for our changing planet.

... 

The whole project, its genealogy, and the current live feed are presented on https://www.fabric.ch/Atomized/

-----

By fabric | ch

The "Pulsar Map" (Peirce quincuncial projection), or live environmental data coming from the selected planetary and historical setllements locations: Venice (IT), Athens (GR), Uruk (IR), Tokyo (JP), Vancouver (CA), Chicago (US), Manchester (EN), Brasilia (BR), North Pole (-). These live data help us build a fictional and planetary live space, to be investigated by Atomized/Retrofitted Functioning. 

Atomized/Retrofitted Functioning

Loosely inspired by particle physics experiments, where collisions reveal fundamental forces, the project explores new spatial paradigms by rethinking past functional assemblies. It parallels retrofitting, adapting spatial configurations to evolving climates and digital realities rather than following fixed models.

Drawing at the same time on vernacular architecture, which historically responded to local climates through material intelligence (notably the work of Professors F. Aubry at EPFL, and B. Rodofsky at Cooper Union, as well as Philippe Rahm’s contemporary interpretation), the project extends this logic into computational realms. It examines the patterns and phasing effects of contemporary space between material and non-material milieux.

The project takes form as an abstract and speculative habitable volume, where environmental data from key locations in human habitation evolution generate shifting conditions—day and night, hot and cold, urban and desert—coexisting in one space. This approach enables simulations of future climatic conditions, while using real-time data from 2025 during the Venice Biennale.

Presented as a video screencast of an application running live on a server in fabric | ch's studio, driven by machine learning, the project autonomously generates spatial scenarios that stabilize twice a day. These can be downloaded in parallel as an immersive, walkable AR/VR experience.

...

Then, tendencies can be drawn: what is the average presence of a certain type of content (functional, non-functional) over 3 or 6 months (from May to November 2025), for instance, or also only during Venetian nights? During Spring or Summer, etc.? Incoming climate behaviour could also be extrapolated from scientific forecasts: what will the climate be like in 2050? And in 2100? Or conversely, what was it like in 1972, for instance (the year The Limits to Growth was published, which was a clear first warning—even if imperfect—of what was to come if “growth” remained unchecked)?

...

And then, from a haze of potential space use, and non-use, opened and closed volumes can be drawn. None of them being entirely suitable, frozen shapes framing freely evolving conditions. 

Images from the project Responsive Atmospheric Patios – extended experiments (fabric | ch, 2016).

...

Atomized/Retrofitted Functioning is presented in a standardized way by the curatorial team, with the screencast video of the application running on the servers of fabric | ch. It is installed in the Artificiale section of the Biennale, next to the iconic–and somehow problematic–Seek project (1969–1070), by Nicolas Negroponte and Leon Groisser at the MIT Architecture Machine Group. Next to Architecture as a Living System, by John and Julia Frazer—as part of Cedric Price's Generator project (1976–79), but also of more contemporary (post-)critical takes on "computing" and "cybernetics" through the work of Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler (Calculating Empires, 2022), and others.

Atomized/Retrofitted Functioning in the Corderie building, at Biennale Architettura 2025.19th International Architecture Exhibition, Venice 10.05 – 23.11.2025.

...

The project can also be "followed" during the Biennale, at this address: https://www.fabric.ch/Atomized/ , in live streaming during Biennale opening hours.

The whole genealogy of the research and its previous iterations are also accessible at the same location.

Note: fabric | ch has been selected to be part of the next Venice Biennial of Architecture 2025, starting in May '25.

While we cannot display much of the project engaged for now, these (below) are preliminary studies for what was planned first as a large media/data arrchitecture installation, inspired by previous works (notably Atomized Functioning). It will likely become a more standard presentation of the project driven by the curator's team, in the "Artificiale Canon" part of the exhibition.

Nonetheless, fabric | ch will take part in the Biennale Architettura 2025, alos known as the 19th International Architecture Exhibition in Venice.

-----

By fabric | ch

Atomited/Retrofitted Functiong (early draft as large media/data architecture installation, 2025)

 Atomized Functioning & Atmospheric Patios extended study (2018, 2016)

By fabric | ch

-----

As we continue to lack a decent search engine on this blog and as we don't use a "tag cloud" ... This post could help navigate through the updated content on | rblg (as of 09.2023), via all its tags!

FIND BELOW ALL THE TAGS THAT CAN BE USED TO NAVIGATE IN THE CONTENTS OF | RBLG BLOG:

(to be seen just below if you're navigating on the blog's html pages or here for rss readers)

--

Note that we had to hit the "pause" button on our reblogging activities a while ago (mainly because we ran out of time, but also because we received complaints from a major image stock company about some images that were displayed on | rblg, an activity that we felt was still "fair use" - we've never made any money or advertised on this site).

Nevertheless, we continue to publish from time to time information on the activities of fabric | ch, or content directly related to its work (documentation).

Note:

The exhibition Beneath the Skin, Between the Machines just opened at HOW Art Museum (Hao Art Gallery) and fabric | ch was keen to be invited to create a large installation for the show, also intented to be used during a symposium that will be entirely part of the exhibition (panels and talks as part of the installation therefore). The exhibition will be open between January 15 - April 24 2022 in Shanghai.

Along with a selection of chinese and international artists, curator Liaoliao Fu asked us to develop a proposal based on a former architectural device, Public Platform of Future-Past, which in itself was inspired by an older installation of ours... Heterochrony.

This new work, entitled Platform of Future-Past, deals with the temporal oddity that can be produced and induced by the recording, accumulation and storage of monitoring data, which contributes to leaving partial traces of "reality", functioning as spectres of the past.

We are proud to present this work along artists such as Hito Steyerl, Geumhyung Jeong, Lu Yang, Jon Rafman, Forensic Architecture, Lynn Hershman Leeson and Harun Farocki.

...

Last but not least and somehow a "sign of the times", this is the first exhibition in which we are participating and whose main financial backers are a blockchain and crypto-finance company, as well as a NFT platform. Both based in China.

More information about the symposium will be published.

Via Pro Helvetia

-----

-----

Curatorial Statement

By Fu Liaoliao and the curatorial team

"Man is only man at the surface. Remove the skin, dissect, and immediately you come to machinery.” When Paul Valéry wrote this down, he might not foresee that human beings – a biological organism – would indeed be incorporated into machinery at such a profound level in a highly informationized and computerized time and space. In a sense, it is just as what Marx predicted: a conscious connection of machine^[1]. Today, machine is no longer confined to any material form; instead, it presents itself in the forms of data, coding and algorithm – virtually everything that is “operable”, “calculable” and “thinkable”. Ever since the idea of cyborg emerges, the man-machine relation has always been intertwined with our imagination, vision and fear of the past, present and future.

In a sense, machine represents a projection of human beings. We human beings transfer ideas of slavery and freedom to other beings, namely a machine that could replace human beings as technical entities or tools. Opposite (and similar, in a sense,) to the “embodiment” of machine, organic beings such as human beings are hurrying to move towards “disembodiment”. Everything pertinent to our body and behavior can be captured and calculated as data. In the meantime, the social system that human beings have created never stops absorbing new technologies. During the process of trial and error, the difference and fortuity accompanying the “new” are taken in and internalized by the system. “Every accident, every impulse, every error is productive (of the social system),”^[2] and hence is predictable and calculable. Within such a system, differences tend to be obfuscated and erased, but meanwhile due to highly professional complexities embedded in different disciplines/fields, genuine interdisciplinary communication is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

As a result, technologies today are highly centralized, homogenized, sophisticated and commonized. They penetrate deeply into our skin, but beyond knowing, sensing and thinking. On the one hand, the exhibition probes into the reconfiguration of man by technologies through what’s “beneath the skin”; and on the other, encourages people to rethink the position and situation we’re in under this context through what’s “between the machines”. As an art institute located at Shanghai Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone, one of the most important hi-tech parks in China, HOW Art Museum intends to carve out an open rather than enclosed field through the exhibition, inviting the public to immerse themselves and ponder upon the questions such as “How people touch machines?”, “What the machines think of us?” and “Where to position art and its practice in the face of the overwhelming presence of technology and the intricate technological reality?”

Departing from these issues, the exhibition presents a selection of recent works of Revital Cohen & Tuur Van Balen, Simon Denny, Harun Farocki, Nicolás Lamas, Lynn Hershman Leeson, Lu Yang, Lam Pok Yin, David OReilly, Pakui Hardware, Jon Rafman, Hito Steyerl, Shi Zheng and Geumhyung Jeong. In the meantime, it intends to set up a “panel installation”, specially created by fabric | ch for this exhibition, trying to offer a space and occasion for decentralized observation and participation in the above discussions. Conversations and actions are to be activated as well as captured, observed and archived at the same time.

^[1] Karl Marx, “Fragment on Machines”, Foundations of a Critique of Political Economy

^[2] Niklas Luhmann, Social Systems

-----

Schedule

Duration: January 15-April 24, 2022
Artists: Revital Cohen & Tuur Van Balen, Simon Denny, fabric | ch, Harun Farocki, Geumhyung Jeong, Nicolás Lamas, Lynn Hershman Leeson, Lu Yang, Lam Pok Yin, David OReilly, Pakui Hardware, Jon Rafman, Hito Steyerl, Shi Zheng
Curator: Fu Liaoliao
Organizer: HOW Art Museum, Shanghai
Lead Sponsor: APENFT Foundation
Swiss participation is supported by Pro Helvetia Shanghai, Swiss Arts Council.
(Swiss speakers and performers appearing in the educational events will be updated soon.)

-----

Work by fabric | ch

HOW Art Museum has invited Lausanne-based artist group fabric | ch to set up a “panel installation” based on their former project “Public Platform of Future Past” and adapted to the museum space, fostering insightful communication among practitioners from different fields and the audiences.

“Platform of Future-Past” is a temporary environmental device that consists in a twenty meters long walkway, or rather an observation deck, almost archaeological: a platform that overlooks an exhibition space and that, paradoxically, directly links its entrance to its exit. It thus offers the possibility of crossing this space without really entering it and of becoming its observer, as from archaeological observation decks. The platform opens- up contrasting atmospheres and offers affordances or potential uses on the ground.

The peculiarity of the work consists thus in the fact that it generates a dual perception and a potential temporal disruption, which leads to the title of the work, Platform of Future-Past: if the present time of the exhibition space and its visitors is, in fact, the “archeology” to be observed from the platform, and hence a potential “past,” then the present time of the walkway could be understood as a possible “future” viewed from the ground…

“Platform of Future-Past” is equipped in three zones with environmental monitoring devices. The sensors record as much data as possible over time, generated by the continuously changing conditions, presences and uses in the exhibition space. The data is then stored on Platform Future-Past’s servers and replayed in a loop on its computers. It is a “recorded moment”, “frozen” on the data servers, that could potentially replay itself forever or is waiting for someone to reactivate it. A “data center” on the deck, with its set of interfaces and visualizations screens, lets the visitors-observers follow the ongoing process of recording.

The work could be seen as an architectural proposal built on the idea of massive data production from our environment. Every second, our world produces massive amounts of data, stored “forever” in remote data centers, like old gas bubbles trapped in millennial ice.

As such, the project is attempting to introduce doubt about its true nature: would it be possible, in fact, that what is observed from the platform is already a present recorded from the past? A phantom situation? A present regenerated from the data recorded during a scientific experiment that was left abandoned? Or perhaps replayed by the machine itself ? Could it already, in fact, be running on a loop for years?

Platform of Future-Past, Scaffolding, projection screens, sensors, data storage, data flows, plywood panels, textile partitions

-----

Platform of Future-Past (2022)

-----

Beneath the Skin, Between the Machines (exhibition, 01.22 - 04.22)

-----

Platform of Future-Past was realized with the support of Pro Helvetia.

Note: a proto-smart-architecture project by Cedric Price dating back from the 70ies, which sounds much more intersting than almost all contemporary smart architecture/cities proposals.

These lattest being in most cases glued into highly functional approaches driven by the "paths of less resistance-frictions", supported if not financed by data-hungry corporations. That's not a desirable future to my point of view.

"(...). If not changed, the building would have become “bored” and proposed alternative arrangements for evaluation (...)"

Via Interactive Architecture Lab (at the Bartlett)

-----

Cedric Price’s proposal for the Gilman Corporation was a series of relocatable structures on a permanent grid of foundation pads on a site in Florida.

Cedric Price asked John and Julia Frazer to work as computer consultants for this project. They produced a computer program to organize the layout of the site in response to changing requirements, and in addition suggested that a single-chip microprocessor should be embedded in every component of the building, to make it the controlling processor.

This would result in an “intelligent” building which controlled its own organisation in response to use. If not changed, the building would have become “bored” and proposed alternative arrangements for evaluation, learning how to improve its own evaluation, learning how to improve its own organisation on the basis of this experience.

The Brief

Generator (1976-79) sought to create conditions for shifting, changing personal interactions in a reconfigurable and responsive architectural project.

It followed this open-ended brief:

"A building which will not contradict, but enhance, the feeling of being in the middle of nowhere; has to be accessible to the public as well as to private guests; has to create a feeling of seclusion conducive to creative impulses, yet…accommodate audiences; has to respect the wildness of the environment while accommodating a grand piano; has to respect the continuity of the history of the place while being innovative."

The proposal consisted of an orthogonal grid of foundation bases, tracks and linear drains, in which a mobile crane could place a kit of parts comprised of cubical module enclosures and infill components (i.e. timber frames to be filled with modular components raging from movable cladding wall panels to furniture, services and fittings), screening posts, decks and circulation components (i.e. walkways on the ground level and suspended at roof level) in multiple arrangements.

When Cedric Price approached John and Julia Frazer he wrote:

"The whole intention of the project is to create an architecture sufficiently responsive to the making of a change of mind constructively pleasurable."

Generator Project

They proposed four programs that would use input from sensors attached to Generator’s components: the first three provided a “perpetual architect” drawing program that held the data and rules for Generator’s design; an inventory program that offered feedback on utilisation; an interface for “interactive interrogation” that let users model and prototype Generator’s layout before committing the design.

The powerful and curious boredom program served to provoke Generator’s users. “In the event of the site not being re-organized or changed for some time the computer starts generating unsolicited plans and improvements,” the Frazers wrote. These plans would then be handed off to Factor, the mobile crane operator, who would move the cubes and other elements of Generator. “In a sense the building can be described as being literally ‘intelligent’,” wrote John Frazer—Generator “should have a mind of its own.”  It would not only challenge its users, facilitators, architect and programmer—it would challenge itself.

The Frazers’ research and techniques

The first proposal, associated with a level of ‘interactive’ relationship between ‘architect/machine’, would assist in drawing and with the production of additional information, somewhat implicit in the other parallel developments/ proposals.

The second proposal, related to the level of ‘interactive/semiautomatic’ relationship of ‘client–user/machine’, was ‘a perpetual architect for carrying out instructions from the Polorizer’ and for providing, for instance, operative drawings to the crane operator/driver; and the third proposal consisted of a ‘[. . .] scheduling and inventory package for the Factor [. . .] it could act as a perpetual functional critic or commentator.’

The fourth proposal, relating to the third level of relationship, enabled the permanent actions of the users, while the fifth proposal consisted of a ‘morphogenetic program which takes suggested activities and arranges the elements on the site to meet the requirements in accordance with a set of rules.’

Finally, the last proposal was [. . .] an extension [. . .] to generate unsolicited plans, improvements and modifications in response to users’ comments, records of activities, or even by building in a boredom concept so that the site starts to make proposals about rearrangements of itself if no changes are made. The program could be heuristic and improve its own strategies for site organisation on the basis of experience and feedback of user response.

Self Builder Kit and the Cal Build Kit, Working Models

In a certain way, the idea of a computational aid in the Generator project also acknowledged and intended to promote some degree of unpredictability. Generator, even if unbuilt, had acquired a notable position as the first intelligent building project. Cedric Price and the Frazers´ collaboration constituted an outstanding exchange between architecture and computational systems. The Generator experience explored the impact of the new techno-cultural order of the Information Society in terms of participatory design and responsive building. At an early date, it took responsiveness further; and postulates like those behind the Generator, where the influence of new computational technologies reaches the level of experience and an aesthetics of interactivity, seems interesting and productive.

Resources

1. John Frazer, An Evolutionary Architecture, Architectural Association Publications, London 1995.  http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/publications/ea/exhibition.html
2. Frazer to C. Price, (Letter mentioning ‘Second thoughts but using the same classification system as before’), 11 January 1979. Generator document folio DR1995:0280:65 5/5, Cedric Price Archives (Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture).

Related Links:

Note: a few pictures from fabric | ch retrospective at #EphemeralKunsthalleLausanne (disused factory Mayer & Soutter, nearby Lausanne in Renens).

The exhibition is being set up in the context of the production of a monographic book and is still open today (Saturday 17.02, 5.00-8.00 pm)!

By fabric | ch

-----

-

All images Ch. Guignard.

Note: following my previous post about Google further entering the public and "common" space sphere with its company Sidewalks, with the goal to merchandize it necessarily, comes this interesting MIT book about the changing nature of public space: Public Space? Lost & Found. 

I like to believe that we tried on our side to address this question of public space - mediated and somehow "franchised" by technology - through many of our past works at fabric | ch. We even tried with our limited means to articulate or bring scaled answers to these questions...

I'm thinking here about works like Paranoid Shelter, I-Weather as Deep Space Public Lighting, Public Platform of Future Past, Heterochrony, Arctic Opening, and some others. Even with tools like Datadroppers or spaces/environments delivred in the form of data, like Deterritorialized Living.

But the book further develop the question and the field of view, with several essays and proposals by artists and architects.

Via Abitare

 -----

Does public space still exist?

Related Links:

Note: More than a year ago, I posted about this move by Alphabet-Google toward becoming city designers... I tried to point out the problems related to a company which business is to collect data becoming the main investor in public space and common goods (the city is still part of the commons, isn't it?) But of course, this is, again, about big business ("to make the world a better place" ... indeed) and slick ideas.

But it is highly problematic that a company start investing in public space "for free". We all know what this mean now, don't we? It is not needed and not desired.

So where are the "starchitects" now? What do they say? Not much... Where are all the "regular" architects as well? Almost invisible, tricked in the wrong stakes, with -- I'm sorry...-- very few of them being only able to identify the problem.

This is not about building a great building for a big brand or taking a conceptual position, not even about "die Gestalt" anymore. It is about everyday life for 66% of Earth population by 2050 (UN study). It is, in this precise case, about information technologies and mainly information stategies and businesses that materialize into structures of life.

Shouldn't this be a major concern?

Via MIT Technology Review

----- 

By Jamie Condliffe

fabric | rblg legend: this hand drawn image contains all the marketing clichés (green, blue, clean air, bikes, local market, public transportation, autonomous car in a happy village atmosphere... Can't be further from what it will be).

An 800-acre strip of Toronto's waterfront may show us how cities of the future could be built. Alphabet’s urban innovation team, Sidewalk Labs, has announced a plan to inject urban design and new technologies into the city's quayside to boost "sustainability, affordability, mobility, and economic opportunity."

Huh?

Picture streets filled with robo-taxis, autonomous trash collection, modular buildings, and clean power generation. The only snag may be the humans: as we’ve said in the past, people can do dumb things with smart cities. Perhaps Toronto will be different.

Related Links:

Note: the following post has been widely reblogged recently. The reason why I did wait a bit before archiving it in | rblg.

It interests me as a king of "device" that can handle environmental parameters. In this sense, it has undoubtedly architectural characteristics and could extend itself into an "architectural device". Think here for exemple about the ongoing Jade Eco Park by Philippe Rahm architectes, filled with devices in the competition proposal. Or to move less further about our own work, with small "environmental devices" like Perpetual (Tropical) SUNSHINE, Satellite Daylight, etc. Architecture as device like Public Platform of Future Past, I-Weather as Deep Space Public Lighting or Heterochrony, or even data tools like Deterritorialized Living. 

As a matter of fact, there is a "devices" tag in this blog for this precise reason, to give references for trhese king of architectures that trigger modification in the environment.

Via Science

-----

In Switzerland, a giant new machine is sucking carbon directly from the air

By Christa Marshall, E&E News

The world's first commercial plant for capturing carbon dioxide directly from the air opened yesterday, refueling a debate about whether the technology can truly play a significant role in removing greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. The Climeworks AG facility near Zurich becomes the first ever to capture CO2 at industrial scale from air and sell it directly to a buyer.

Developers say the plant will capture about 900 tons of CO2 annually — or the approximate level released from 200 cars — and pipe the gas to help grow vegetables.

While the amount of CO2 is a small fraction of what firms and climate advocates hope to trap at large fossil fuel plants, Climeworks says its venture is a first step in their goal to capture 1 percent of the world's global CO2 emissions with similar technology. To do so, there would need to be about 250,000 similar plants, the company says.

"Highly scalable negative emission technologies are crucial if we are to stay below the 2-degree target [for global temperature rise] of the international community," said Christoph Gebald, co-founder and managing director of Climeworks. The plant sits on top of a waste heat recovery facility that powers the process. Fans push air through a filter system that collects CO2. When the filter is saturated, CO2 is separated at temperatures above 100 degrees Celsius.

The gas is then sent through an underground pipeline to a greenhouse operated by Gebrüder Meier Primanatura AG to help grow vegetables, like tomatoes and cucumbers.

Gebald and Climeworks co-founder Jan Wurzbacher said the CO2 could have a variety of other uses, such as carbonating beverages. They established Climeworks in 2009 after working on air capture during postgraduate studies in Zurich.

The new plant is intended to run as a three-year demonstration project, they said. In the next year, the company said it plans to launch additional commercial ventures, including some that would bury gas underground to achieve negative emissions.

"With the energy and economic data from the plant, we can make reliable calculations for other, larger projects," said Wurzbacher.

Note: with interesting critical comments below concerning the real sustainable effect by Howard Herzog (MIT).

'Sideshow'

There are many critics of air capture technology who say it would be much cheaper to perfect carbon capture directly at fossil fuel plants and keep CO2 out of the air in the first place. Among the skeptics are Massachusetts Institute of Technology senior research engineer Howard Herzog, who called it a "sideshow" during a Washington event earlier this year. He estimated that total system costs for air capture could be as much as $1,000 per ton of CO2, or about 10 times the cost of carbon removal at a fossil fuel plant.

"At that price, it is ridiculous to think about right now. We have so many other ways to do it that are so much cheaper," Herzog said. He did not comment specifically on Climeworks but noted that the cost for air capture is high partly because CO2 is diffuse in the air, while it is more concentrated in the stream from a fossil fuel plant. Climeworks did not immediately release detailed information on its costs but said in a statement that the Swiss Federal Office of Energy would assist in financing. The European Union also provided funding.

In 2015, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a report saying climate intervention technologies like air capture were not a substitute for reducing emissions. Last year, two European scientists wrote in the journal Science that air capture and other "negative emissions" technologies are an "unjust gamble," distracting the world from viable climate solutions (Greenwire, Oct. 14, 2016).

Engineers have been toying with the technology for years, and many say it is a needed option to keep temperatures to controllable levels. It's just a matter of lowering costs, supporters say. More than a decade ago, entrepreneur Richard Branson launched the Virgin Earth Challenge and offered $25 million to the builder of a viable air capture design.

Climeworks was a finalist in that competition, as were companies like Carbon Engineering, which is backed by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and is testing air capture at a pilot plant in British Columbia.

-----

...

And let's also mention while we are here the similar device ("smog removal" for China cities) made by Studio Roosegaarde, Smog Free Project.

Related Links:

Note: let's "start" this new (delusional?) year with this short video about the ways "they" see things, and us. They? The "machines" of course, the bots, the algorithms...

An interesting reassembled trailer that was posted by Matthew Plummer-Fernandez on his Tumblr #algopop that documents the "appearance of algorithms in popular culture". Matthew was with us back in 2014, to collaborate on a research project at ECAL that will soon end btw and worked around this idea of bots in design.

Will this technological future become "delusional" as well, if we don't care enough? As essayist Eric Sadin points it in his recent book, "La silicolonisation du monde" (in French only at this time)? 

Possibly... It is with no doubt up to each of us (to act), so as regarding our everyday life in common with our fellow human beings!
 

Via #algopop

-----

An algorithm watching a movie trailer  by Støj

Everything but the detected objects are removed from the trailer of The Wolf of Wall Street. The software is powered by Yolo object-detection, which has been used for similar experiments.

Related Links: