AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 123–128 | Cite as

Soft architectures for everyday life

Original Article
  • 163 Downloads

Abstract

Technologies not only change “external reality” but also change our internal consciousness, shaping the way we experience the world. As the reality of intelligent environments is upon us—ushered along with the age of ubiquitous computing—we must be careful that the ideology these technologies embody is not blindly incorporated into the environment. As disciplines, engineering and computer science make implicit assumptions about the world that conflict with traditional modes of cultural production. For example, space is commonly understood to be the void left behind when no objects are present. Unfortunately, once we see space in this way, we are unable to understand the role it plays in our everyday experience. In order to make computationally enhanced spaces that are meaningful at the level of the everyday, we must exorcise the notion of intelligence from their design and replace it with life. Henri Lefebvre’s discussions of the space of everyday life provide a framework to help conceive this transition.

Keywords

Everyday space Representational space Ubiquitous computing Henri Lefebvre 

References

  1. Abowd G, Mynatt E (2000) Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(1):29–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dourish P (2001) Where the action is the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Dreyfus H (1992) What computers still can’t do: a critique of artificial reason. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Hall JS (2006) Utility fog: the stuff that dreams are made of. Lecture: Subtle Technologies, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  5. Lefebvre H (1974) The production of space. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  6. McCullough M (2004) Digital ground: architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental knowing. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Penny S (1997) The virtualisation of art practice: body knowledge and the engineering world view. CAA Art J 51(3):30–38Google Scholar
  8. Sha XW (2005) Ethico-aesthetics in T* performative spaces. In: Kuzmanovic M, Boykett T (eds) On transient realities and their generators. Kibla, Slovenia, pp 22–39Google Scholar
  9. Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28:1059–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Turing A (1948) Intelligent machinery. National Physical Laboratory reportGoogle Scholar
  11. Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 265(3):94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations