Anthony Masure

Date

December 2018

Type

Publication

Contexte

Article coécrit avec Alexandre Saint-Jevin et publié dans la revue de recherche Reel-Virtuel.com, n^o 6 « Les normes du numérique »

Résumé

Dans le champ universitaire, la construction et la transmission des savoirs est encore trop souvent ralentie (voire empêchée) par des enjeux commerciaux et/ou par une méconnaissance des enjeux de la culture du libre issue du champ informatique. Des chercheurs peuvent ainsi se voir dépossédés de leurs travaux à cause de contrats d’édition abusifs, ou même être condamnés à de lourdes peines pour avoir partagé des contenus sous copyrights. Mais, au-delà des problèmes légaux, que peuvent faire les chercheurs et designers pour favoriser la libération des connaissances ? Quelles pratiques de publication, de contribution et de valorisation inventer pour répondre à ces enjeux ? La culture libre et les pratiques de design pourraient-elles libérer la recherche de la prégnance des enjeux capitalistes ?

Notions

• Capitalisme,
• Design,
• Design graphique,
• Esthétique,
• Format,
• Forme,
• Norme,
• Publications de recherche,

Personnes citées

• Masure Anthony,
• Saint-Jevin Alexandre,

Date

December 2019

Type

Publication

Contexte

Version enriched with a chapter of the essay Design and digital humanities (2017), translation from French by Jesse Cohn], Berlin, Interface Critique, dir. Florian Hadler, Daniel Irrgang, Alice Soiné, n^o 2, “Navigating the Human”

Résumé

Télécharger l’article en PDF Voir l’article [En ligne «  Human, All Too Human is the monument to a crisis. It calls itself a book for free spirits: almost every sentence is the manifestation of a victory – I used it to liberate myself from things that did not belong to my nature. Idealism is one of them: the title says “where you see ideal things, I see – human, oh, only all too human!”… I know people better. The term “free spirit” does not want to be understood in any other way: a spirit that has become free, that has taken hold of itself again. — Friedrich Nietzsche 1 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo [1888], in: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols: And Other Writings, ed. Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman (Cambridge, England 2005), pp.  115–116. In this seemingly autobiographical fragment, Nietzsche refers back to his book Human, All Too Human [1876-1878]. In current discussions of “interface design,” catchphrases such as “user-centered   design,” “the user experience,” and by extension, “experience design” might not, at first glance, seem to draw scrutiny. After all, isn’t the purpose of design to create ‘useful’ things based on the users’ needs, ‘centered’ on them and on the improvement of their ‘experience’? However, if one looks at these concepts more closely, one might wonder what these methods engage as conceptions of design, and more broadly as an understanding of human relations and human-machine relations. Indeed, it is not unproblematic to presuppose that “we” are users first and foremost, i.e. beings solely concerned with relations of utility. What are we to think, then, of terms such as “user-centered design (UCD) 2 Shawn Lawton Henry, Justin Thorp, Notes on User Centered Design Process (UCD). W3C.org (March 2004), http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/ucd, access: July, 1, 10:00pm., ” “human-centered design (HCD) 3 Human-Centered Design Toolkit. Ideo (2009), http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.,” “activity-centered design (ACD)4 See Geraldine Gay, Helene Hembrooke, Activity-Centered Design. An Ecological Approach to Designing Smart Tools and Usable Systems (Cambridge, MA 2004).,” or “people-centered design (PCD)5 Hugh Graham, People-Centered Design. hughgrahamcreative.com, http://hughgrahamcreative.com/people-centered-design, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.”? Why must design be “centered” on something? More broadly, aren’t there some aspects of human life that can’t be replaced by the “experiences” generated by “user-centered” design? In order to critique the engineering of design and the reduction of the designer’s task to normative and even quantitative methodologies, I propose, as a research method, to bring together an historical study of the concepts to be questioned with technical analyses and the related discourses surrounding them. More precisely, I could synthesize this text’s research method in the following way 6 Here, I borrow the useful summary provided by Alexandre Saint-Jevin in his review of the essay Design et humanités numérique s: Alexandre Saint-Jevin, Sur la trace de l’humain dans les « objets » de design. Non-Fiction (2018),: 1 . To analyze the concept determining the process by which design issues were constructed in order to draw out the underlying philosophical concepts. 2 . To retrace the genealogy of this concept, connecting the technical reality of the products of design with the discourses of all entities being at the origin of the project (originators, designers, contractors, communicators, marketers, etc.) regarding these products. 3 . To synthesize the history and the discourses of these entities concerning matters of design more broadly in order to draw out the philosophical issues entailed in them. 4 . To connect the philosophical issues revealed by the analysis of the discourses of the entities with those of the original concept to show how these come to condition and determine the technical reality. This is thus not a matter of constructing a model of design activity in the form of logical sequences (diagrams, schemata, timelines, etc): rather than trying to tell designers what they should do, this analysis is intended to provide them with critical tools allowing them to analyze, in their own process, what they have already made or are still working on. In order to open up possibilities for making interfaces other than the behavioral scripts of experiential design, I will begin my analysis by turning back to the history of the first graphic interfaces. How do the values embedded within these technological strata infuse and even limit our relations to technology? Xerox Star’s “conceptual model of the user” The expression “user interface” correlates temporally with the development of microcomputers at the end of the 1960s. In 1968, Douglas Engelbart presented the result of the research undertaken at Xerox PARC at the time of an event retrospectively called the “mother of all demos”, where were first showcased videoconferencing, teleconferencing, email, the hypertext navigation system, and the interface modeled on the “office metaphor” based on “windows,” “folders,” the “trash,” etc. Partially realized in the 1973 Xerox Alto 7 Only 1500 units were produced: 1000 for employees of Xerox and the remainder for universities and public institutions. computer, this first form of graphic user interface (GUI) was included in the 1981 Xerox Star. Moreover, the latter was accompanied by network access, email capabilities, a mouse, and a WYSIWIG (What You See Is What You Get) printing system precise enough to make what is seen on the screen coincide with a paper output. In order to specify the origin of the conceptual model used as a basis for a design explicitly asserting needs of “users,” it is important to reconsider the founding principles of the Xerox Star. In an article dating from 1982, five former employees of Xerox Corporation explain their comprehension of the human-machine relations, and more precisely their methodology of interface design: “We have learned from Star the importance of formulating the fundamental concepts (the user’s conceptual model) before software is written, rather than tacking on a user interface afterward. […] It was designed before the functionality of the system was fully decided. It was even designed before the computer hardware was built. We worked for two years before we wrote a single line of actual product software.” 8 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface. Byte 4 (1982), p.  246. Reprinted online: Contemporary readers, used to design being relegated to the end of a process, dependent on a multitude of external parameters, will certainly wonder at the attribution of such importance to design “before” the material specifications are even formulated. In the case of the Star, it was much more a question of introducing the market to “radically new concepts”9 Ibid.p.  242. than of seeking to apply an “order” issued from above. By dedicating a quantity of memory to the screen display, the originators of the Star were able to create a visual interface functioning in tandem with the mouse (also used on Xerox Alto), defined in the 1982 text as “a way to quickly point to items on the screen 10 Ibid. p.  246.” more effective than the cursors activated by the keyboard. It is particularly interesting to study how the Xerox teams developed a project methodology linked to what is today called “user-centered design.” The development of an interface poses many problems indeed: taking into account the variety of languages in which the users address their commands to the computer, the design of on-screen representations displaying the state of the system to the user, and other abstract problems that can affect the understanding of the system’s behavior. According to the Star teams, these problems are highly subjective, and can be solved only on a case-by-case basis. The method employed thus consisted in focusing on what should precede any design of a successful interface, namely “task analysis”: ” The current task description, with its breakdown of the information objects and methods presently employed, offers a starting point for the definition of a corresponding set of objects and methods to be provided by the computer system [including programs and peripherals]. The idea behind this phase of design is to build up a new task environment for the user, in which he can work to accomplish the same goals as before, surrounded now by a different set of objects, and employing new methods.11 Ibid.p.  248. “ For Xerox, the user is an entity centrally dedicated to carrying out tasks in order to achieve objectives. One finds here the common definition of an algorithm, namely, a set of instructions intended to accomplish a given action. In other words, isn’t this understanding of what a user is derived from the “program” (an algorithm written in machine language) as a model of thought? Isn’t it odd that, in order to improve human-machine relations, human beings are to be imagined on the model of the machines? In this sense, what one would call a “user” in the data-processing context would often be merely a logical reduction of human subjectivity, consequently able to hold a dialogue with “extra-human” programs 12 I borrow this expression from the exhibition Haunted By Algorithms, a research project directed by Jeff Guess and Gwenola Wagon, Paris, ENSAPC / YGREC, January 21, 2017 – March 5, 2017.. Just as some see design as a discipline capable of becoming a science 13 See Anthony Masure, Pour une recherche en design sans modèle, in: Design et humanités numériques, ed. Anthony Masure (Paris 2, here it is a matter of constructing “models of behavior” in order to improve the effectiveness of the “tasks.” The etymology of the French noun “tâche” (“task”) can be traced back to the Latin verb “taxare” (“to tax»), indicating “a determinate work that one is obliged to perform, together with a concept of ‘remuneration’ [or] moral duty 14 Alain Rey (dir.), Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, Paris, Le Robert, 2010. p.  9620–9621.”. The French verb “tâcher” (“to try to do”), in turn, expresses the idea of striving, sometimes accompanied by the idea of a degree of painful exertion in order to comply with the imperative to “try to do” something. If the user is a being whose objectives, to be realized, necessarily pass by a series of tasks to achieve, wouldn’t this make us “tâcherons” (“drudges”), i.e. “person[s] performing work on command [emphasis by the author/s] without much intelligence”? 15 Ibid.p.  248–249. In the case of the Xerox Star, nevertheless, things are more complicated. The fact of starting from a “user-model” comprised of a small set of design principles makes it possible to ensure an overall coherence, since “the user experience [acquired in] in one area… [can] apply in others 16 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface. Byte 4 (1982), p.  242: “The Star user interface adheres rigorously to a small set of design principles. These principles make the system seem familiar and friendly, simplify the human-machine interaction, […] and allow user experience in one area to apply in others.” Emphasis mine.,”  thus reducing the cognitive load involved in the use of the computer system. Another aspect discussed in the article – connected with the concept of coherence – pertains to the concept of “familiarity” (the “Familiar User’s Conceptual Model”): “A user’s conceptual model is the set of concepts a person gradually acquires to explain the behavior of a system […] The first task for a system designer is to decide what model is preferable for users […]. This extremely important step is often neglected or done poorly. The [Xerox] Star designers devoted several work-years […] [to] evolving […] an appropriate model for an office information system: the metaphor of a physical office.”17 Ibid.p.  252. The Xerox Star interface was thus constructed on the basis of the users’ current universe, namely, the hierarchical model of the office. It was important to produce a “familiar” interface in order to reduce sources of friction, making the “user experience” seamless. Thus, users find in the machine their customary division, organization, and management of tasks. For example, the pile of paper messages on the physical desk of office-worker users is translated, in their computer, into a pictogram of an envelope indicating when a new email has been received. It is interesting to specify that the metaphorical model defined in advance of the actual development of the program de facto modifies the functions of this program: the design is not approached as a matter of mere presentation. Taking the example of the emails once again, typing a “send mail” command can thus be avoided by manipulating the icons. A last important aspect of the Star interface pertains to the personalization of the interface, as the movable icons make it possible to configure the work environment. Summarizing the overall principles of the Xerox Star, what is indicated here by the term “user” is in fact a succession of goal-directed “tasks” from which the designers construct a “conceptual model” as a basis for the developing of the computer system and ensuring its metaphorical coherence. By providing users with a “familiar” and “friendly” environment, the interface thus developed is intended to increase their productivity by developing “human-machine synergism.” However, the Xerox Star’s “friendly” interface reveals its limitations in certain functions where the office metaphor is inoperative: “One of the raisons d’être for Star is that physical objects do not provide people with enough power to manage the increasing complexity of the “information age.” For example, we can take advantage of the computer’s ability to search rapidly by providing a search function for its electronic file drawers, thus helping to solve the long-standing problem of lost files.” 18 Ibid.p.  282. The 1982 article concludes on an intriguing note, observing that it is difficult to choose between several models of interfaces while relying on stable (scientific) criteria: “User-interface design is still an art, not a science.” 19 Ibid. : «  User-interface design is still an art, not a science. » Although the Xerox Star text ultimately pleads for the establishment of a “more rigorous process” for the development of interfaces, such an assertion must elicit the contemporary reader’s curiosity. The emergence of “rationalized” graphic operating systems In spite of the commercial failure of Xerox Star, these design methods will be a success, definitively changing our relations with electronic machines. A precursor of the research conducted to Xerox PARC, Jef Raskin’s thesis in computer science, Quick-Draw Graphic System, published in 1967 (i.e., 6 years before the Xerox Alto 20 At the beginning of the Seventies, the IBM Usability lab was solely concerned with ergonomics. The Psychology of Computer Programming was published by Gerald Marvin Weinberg in 1971, and the work of Stuart K. Card, Allen Newell and Thomas P. Moran was only made known to the general public after the publication of The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction in 1983.), argued for a data-processing environment in which the graphic interface would hold a dominant place. Such an idea was not at all self-evident at the end of the 1960s: “The most heretical statement I made […] was that my work was based on a “design and implementation philosophy which demanded generality and human usability over execution speed and efficiency.” This at a time when the main aim of computer science courses was to teach you to make programs run fast and use as little memory as possible.” 21 Dr. Bob, Articles from Jef Raskin about the history of the Macintosh. Dr Bob Tech Blog (2013), https://drbobtechblog.com/articles-from-jef-raskin-about-the-history-of-the-macintosh/, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. After contacts with Xerox concerning the development of the mouse, Jef Raskin was hired by Apple in 1978. It is under his impetus and that of Bill Atkinson 22 The title of Jef Raskin’s thesis (A Hardware-Independent Computer Drawing System Using List-Structured Modeling: The Quick-Draw Graphics System, Pennsylvania State University, 1967) was echoed when Bill Atkinson named the Macintosh’s graphics package. that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak took note of the research conducted by Xerox PARC on graphic interfaces. Everyone of us knows the rest of the story. In 1979, the CEO of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs, age 24, visited the Xerox facility. In a 1995 documentary, he recalls the shock which this event constituted for him: “They [Xerox] showed me […] three things. […]. One of the things they showed me was object orienting programming […]. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system [of a hundred computers] […]. I didn’t even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing […] which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I’d ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete […] [But, at the time,] within […] ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.” 23 Steve Jobs, Triumph of the Nerds: The Rise of Accidental Empires. Documentation. PBS.org (1996), http://www.pbs.org/nerds, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. Following this presentation, obtained in exchange for shares in Apple Inc., Steve Jobs launched the Apple LISA micro-computer, which took the principles of the mouse and the graphic interface from Xerox Star, in 1982. With a price that was too high ($10,000 at the time, or $24,000 today), the LISA was replaced by the much more financially accessible Macintosh, released in 1984. While many still think that Steve Jobs did little more than “steal” the key principles of the Xerox Alto, the history is more complicated than that. The leaders of Xerox had not yet recognized the decisive consequences of what they had discovered, leaving their prospective vision in the hands of the sales and marketing teams, which were focused on photocopiers, the core of the brand, and not on the new market for computers 24 For a detailed history of the Xerox company, see: Douglas K. Smith and Robert C. Alexander, Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, then Ignored, the First Personal Computer (New York 1988).. Bill Atkinson would have to rewrite and improve the quantity of functions in order for the LISA, and then the Macintosh, to take advantage of a “superior” graphic interface (with the addition of scrolling menus, the opening of windows with a double-click, the trash icon, etc). No line of code was “copied and pasted,” strictly speaking 25 Christoph Dernbach, Did Steve Jobs steal everything from Xerox PARC? Mac History (February 2012), http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.. In order to bolster the supply of software for Apple machines, at the beginning of the 1980s, Steve Jobs invited Microsoft to publish programs for the Macintosh. In spite of Jobs’ request to Bill Gates (then CEO of Microsoft) not to use a mouse-controlled graphic interface before the Macintosh (1984) had been on sale for a year, Microsoft surprised everyone by announcing the operating system Windows 1.0 in 1983 26 Windows 1.0 was not yet a complete operating system, but rather a “graphic shell” that could be used by third-party software. , although it would only make its official debut in 1985. When Jobs, furious, accused Bill Gates of having betrayed him, Gates replied that they had both stolen from their “rich neighbor, Xerox.”27 Andy Hertzfeld, A Rich Neighbor Named Xerox. Folklore.org (November 1983), https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=A_Rich_Neighbor_Named_Xerox.txt, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. See also : Andy Hertzfeld, How the Mac was born, and other tales. Conversation with Scott Ard. CNET (January 2005), http://news.cnet.com/How-the-Mac-was-born%2C-and-other-tales/2100-1082_3-5529081.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.. The suit brought against Microsoft by Apple in 1988 was unsuccessful in the courts. Don Norman: the limits of the “user experience” After the release of Microsoft Windows, the design methods used in interface design were structured around scientific disciplines connected with this field. In addition to the expressions “human usability” and “user interface,” that of “user experience” (often shortened to “UX”) then achieved a notable success. The latter seems to appear for the first time in 1986 28 For a detailed chronology of the history of this term, see: Peter Merholz, Whither “User Experience”? Peterme.com (November 1998), http://www.peterme.com/index112498.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. in a book co-edited with Donald Norman (a cognitive science researcher), titled User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction 29 Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper, User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction (San Diego 1986).. After a consideration of the impossibility of arriving at a univocal meaning by means of standardized images (pictograms), this quotation follows: “Direct Engagement occurs when a user experiences direct interaction with the objects in a domain. Here, there is a feeling of involvement directly with a world of objects rather than of communicating with an intermediary. The interactions are much like interacting with objects in the physical world. […] [T]he interface and the computer become invisible. Although we believe this feeling of direct engagement to be of critical importance […] we know little about the actual requirements for producing it.”30 Edwin L. Hutchins, James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Norman, Direct Manipulation Interfaces, in: User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, ed. Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper (San Diego 1986), pp.  114-115. “User experience” can thus be understood as a will to export the Xerox Star design model to fields other than that of screen interfaces and computers which can disappear, becoming “invisible.” Frequently cited as the originator of this expression, Don Norman defined it as follows in 1998: “I invented the term [user experience] because I thought Human Interface and usability 31 The concept of “usability” that Don Norman judges insufficient, was addressed by its proponents, Jeff Rubin and Dana Chisnell, in these terms: “when a product or service is truly usable, the user can do what he or she wants to do the way he or she expects to be able to do it, without hindrance, hesitation, or questions.” Source: Jeff Rubin and Dana Chisnell, Handbook of Usability Testing. Second Edition. How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests (Indianapolis 2008 [1994]), p.  4. were too narrow: I wanted to cover all aspects of the person’s experience with a system, including industrial design, graphics, the interface, the physical interaction, and the manual.” 32 Don Norman, quoted in: Peter Merholz, Whither ‘User Experience’? This broader aspect of “user experience” was then refined in the “canonical” version formulated by Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman: “User experience” encompasses all aspects of the end-user’s interaction with the company, its services, and its products.  The first requirement for an exemplary user experience is to meet the exact needs of the customer […]. We should also distinguish UX and usability: According to the definition of usability, it is a quality attribute of the UI, covering whether the system is easy to learn, efficient to use, pleasant, and so forth. Again, this is very important, and again total user experience is an even broader concept.” 33 Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman, The Definition of User Experience. Nielsen Norman Group, http://www.nngroup.com/articles/definition-user-experience, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. “Experience design” and the myth of “invisible” data processing This interest, from then on focusing on the user rather than the technological apparatus (the interface), is even more explicit in the phrase “user-centered design” (“UCD”), which consists in basing the whole methodology of design on the central point that is the user. This design methodology enjoyed considerable success, perhaps because of the bond it helped establish between the marketing services tasked with studying consumers and the teams tasked with designing the products. However, by the admission of its own proponent, Don Norman, the term “user” has shown its limitations. In a 2006 article titled “Words Matter. Talk About People: Not Customers, Not Consumers, Not Users,” Don Norman admitted: “We depersonalize the people we study by calling them “users.” Both terms are derogatory. They take us away from our primary mission: to help people. […] People are rich, complex beings. […] A label such as customer, consumer or user ignores [their] […] social structures. […] It is time to wipe words such as consumer, customer, and user from our vocabulary. Time to speak of people. Power to the people.”34 Don Norman, Words Matter. Talk About People: Not Customers, Not Consumers, Not Users. jnd.org (2008), http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/words_matter_talk_a.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. In the same way, in 2008: “One of the horrible words we use is “users.” I am on a crusade to get rid of the word “users.” I would prefer to call them “people.” […] We design for people, we don’t design for users.” 35 Don Norman at UX Week 2008, Adaptive Path. YouTube, https://youtu.be/WgJcUHC3qJ8, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. Let us summarize these points. The methodology of “user-centered design” consists in designing so as to treat each human being as a user, as a person dedicated to maintaining with companies only relations “centered” on his or her “exact needs,”36 Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman, The Definition of User Experience. Nielsen Norman Group, http://www.nngroup.com/articles/definition-user-experience, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. concerning which there should be no “hindrance[s], hesitation[s], or questions.”37 Jeff Rubin and Dana Chisnell, Handbook of Usability Testing. How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests (New York 2008), p.  4. This current of thought results from a scientific modeling of the principles that governed the design of the Xerox Star in order to make it a “personal” machine, optimizing the tasks to be performed by the user. Retrospectively, the performative texts of Don Norman speaking in praise of the study of “needs,” by the admission of their author, led to a dead end, because the human being cannot be reduced to a specific role 38 This idea was inscribed within the ISO standards, which propose replacing the expression “user-centered   experience” with “human-centred design.” See: ISO 9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Iso.org (March 2010), https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-1:v1:en, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.. Such a reversal of thought might be amusing. However, on closer inspection, wouldn’t one also have to interpret these contradictory injunctions as the sign of a power belonging not to the “people,” but to those who make these speeches? In other words, isn’t this an indictment of those who are constantly getting richer (in the banal sense of the term) by controlling the circulation of the design methodologies that are to be gotten rid of by this “crusade”? More than a plea in favor of taking complexity into account in design, this “appeal to the human,” for Don Norman, provides a rationale for gradually eliminating “interfaces” in the name of an “invisible” computing 39 Donald A. Norman, The Invisible Computer. Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution (Cambridge MA, 1998)., the products of which would be “human-centered.”40 Chapter 2 of The Invisible Computer is titled “Growing up: Moving from technology-centered to human-centered products.” This prediction of invisibility, passing under the guise of a change in vocabulary, a priori innocent, was so absorbed so thoroughly by the corporations that in 2012, Apple made it into a selling point: “We believe technology is at its very best when it’s invisible, when you’re conscious only of what you’re doing, not the device you’re doing it with. An iPad is the perfect expression of that idea. It’s just this magical pane of glass. It can become anything you want it to be […] It’s a more personal experience with technology than people have ever had.” 41 Official Apple (New) iPad Trailer. YouTube (March 2012), https://youtu.be/RQieoqCLWDo , access: July, 1, 10:00pm. However, Don Norman’s big picture does not mean that his idea of “invisible” computing is viable. The important term here is “experience,” which goes hand in hand with that of “magic.” What could be more magical, indeed, than experiencing an “invisible” technology? The artist Olia Lialina, in a critical article on the study of the concept of user, does not join in the chorus: “This is why Interface Design starts to rename itself to Experience Design — whose primary goal is to make users forget that computers and interfaces exist. With Experience Design there is only you and your emotions to feel, goals to achieve, tasks to complete. ” 42 Olia Lialina, Turing Complete User (2012), http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-user/, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. A world without experience In the conclusion of her article studying the limitations of an exclusion of the term user of the methods of interface design, Olia Lialina proposes to return to foundations predating the Xerox Star, namely those developed by the computer scientist Ted Nelson in his 1974 work Computer Lib/Dream Machine: “COMPUTING HAS ALWAYS BEEN PERSONAL. By this I mean that if you weren’t intensely involved in it, sometimes with every fiber in your mind atwitch, you weren’t doing computers, you were just a user. If you get involved, it involves all of you: your heart and mind and way of doing things and your image of yourself. A whole way of life.” 43 Theodor Holm Nelson, Computer Lib. You can and must understand computers now (self-published, revised edition 1987 [1974]), p.  3. The argument is strong. Nelson’s denunciation of a “naïve” use points to the risk of a loss of contact with the computer, which, from Xerox Star to the iPad, presupposes that everything “real” (real life, creativity, etc) is external to the machine. However, in spite of the ascendancy of tactile interfaces (without mouses), in spite of the emergence of gestural interfaces (without buttons) and sound interfaces (without screens), and in spite of the return of command-line interfaces (without icons), it is clear that the great principles of the graphic interfaces created at Xerox PARC at the beginning of the 1970s are still the main ones governing our relations with electronic machines – which are not yet “invisible,” far from it. Take, for example, the “Apple Human Interface Guidelines” 44 See for example: “Designing for Yosemite: […] A great OS X app integrates seamlessly into this environment, while at the same time providing custom functionality and a unique user experience.” Human Interface Guidelines, developer.apple.com, https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines, access: July, 1, 10:00pm.   and Google’s “Material Design,” 45 Google Material Design, material.io (first version published June 2014), https://www.google.com/design/spec/material-design/introduction.html, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. which, in the 2010s, are the recommended readings – with the proviso of reading critically – for anyone interested in interface design. In spite of its widespread acceptance, the cognitive model of an interface coupled with an idealized user (understood as a bundle of habits) has its limitations. Since Jef Raskin’s 1967 text associating “human usability” with efficient task completion 46 See Jef Raskin, A Hardware-Independent Computer Using List-Structured Modeling: The Quick-Draw Graphics System (Pennsylvania, 1967)., the will to create a graphic interface to procure for the “user” a new work environment and new methods “to accomplish the same goals as before” 47 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface, p.  248. has consisted in envisaging electronic media as “problem solvers” rather than as powers of transformation and invention. However, as the humanities specialist Yves Citton perceptively notes: “The invention of communication technologies […] takes place within a vast nebula of hopes, anxieties, dreams, tinkerings, parallel knowledges, subversive appropriations and reappropriations, crossing many traditional disciplinary fields […]. Indeed, our media cannot be reduced to mere instruments for the transmission of forms and contents: it functions, first and foremost, in just the same way as the mediums who fascinate us, delude us, hypnotize us and stimulate us via simulations that penetrate our senses.” 48 Yves Citton, Gestes d’humanités. Anthropologie sauvage de nos expériences esthétiques (Paris, 2012), pp.  21–22. Taking into consideration these foundational design texts of the computer age, it is obvious that electronic machines raise questions that did not exist before. But perhaps it is precisely against these innovations that methodologies of design were themselves designed with an eye to preserving the powers and knowledges already in place. In spite of its undeniably advanced technology, the Xerox Star did not have the full support of the corporate leaders, who preferred to focus on the photocopier business, more in phase with the “uses” of the time. In this history of “user-centered design,” an expression originating after the Xerox Star, it is indeed a matter of a concern about forgetting the “useful,” the utility of the object. But is this really possible in a world in which marketing services, for example, constantly seek to anticipate consumers’ “needs  ” by statistical processes linked to observation protocols? Another factor suggesting a design constructing against technological innovations – i.e., for habits – is this history of the “center,” a term which should now be examined. This twofold suffix coupled with design could have been the subject of variations. Why does one never speak, for example, of “form-centered” design, for example, or of “practice-centered” design? Perhaps is this because these two concepts (there could be others) resist the idea of a “center,” of delimitation. If one considers the concept of form, it is notable that this, historically, was related to design – according to the formula of the architect Louis Sullivan, according to which “form ever follows function.” As a canny observer of a history that sometimes “tramples” (in which the issues are sometimes obscured, sometimes rediscovered), the philosopher Pierre-Damien Huyghe notes that the concept of form expresses the “artistic interest” of design: “It was not only a question of creating potentially functional objects. The concern for making form is absolutely essential to the design. We may note here that the Latin forma can be translated as “beauty.””49 Pierre-Damien Huyghe, On appelle beaucoup trop de choses ‘design’. Interview with Julie Delem. Naja21 (April 2015), http://www.naja21.com/fr/espace-journal/pierre-damien-huyghe-on-appelle-beaucoup-trop-de-choses-design, access: July, 1, 10:00pm. In a more general way, design, in so far as it encompasses the capacity to transform the world, cannot “center” on anything. Design is only of any interest if it is derived from tensions, polarities, contradictions – in other words, the opposite of a center. Olia Lialina, in the conclusion of her article, also refuses to let herself be reduced to a label: “We, general purpose users — not hackers and not people — who are challenging, consciously or subconsciously, what we can do and what computers can do, are the ultimate participants of man-computer symbiosis.” 50 Olia Lialina, Turing Complete User. One must then reconsider the fact that the conceptual model of the 1981 Xerox Star interface was decided “before” the material (hardware) existed, “two years before we wrote a single line of actual product software.” 51 David Canfield Smith, Charles Irby, Ralph Kimball, Bill Verplank, and Eric Harslem, Designing the Star User Interface, p.  246. Retrospectively, this account can be understood as that of a missed encounter with the otherness of the machines, since it is, in effect, a matter of subordinating the digital technology (hardware and software) to a “model,” i.e., to something anticipated and stabilized. This progressive distancing of the concept of the “General Purpose User” 52 Olia Lialina, Turing Complete User.op.  cit (active and polyvalent) has made possible the expressions “human-centered design” and “experience design”, which incarnate the promise of a world in which one could “do whatever one wishes,” immediately, as if by “magic.” But which kind of “doing” are we talking about when invisibility becomes the ideal for the machines? This myth of the invisibility of technological innovations in fact already existed in a nascent form at the dawn of personal computing. In a 1979 commercial for the Xerox Alto intended to demonstrate the power of the “office of the future,” an office worker (Bill) arrives at work and greets his colleagues, coffee in hand. When he arrives at his station, he turns on his Alto computer and addresses it verbally: “Hello, Fred.” The computer answers him: “Hello, Bill.” After a series of tasks, easily solved by the machine, comes the final dialogue: Bill (tired): “Anything else?” Fred: A richly detailed bouquet of daisies spreads across the screen. Bill (puzzled): “Flowers? What flowers?” Fred: “Your anniversary is tonight.” Bill (chagrined): “My anniversary. I forgot.” Fred: “It’s okay. We’re only human.” 53 Douglas K. Smith and Robert C. Alexander, Fumbling the Future, (Indiana, 1999), p.  20. What such initiatives describe, paradoxically, is a world without experience [un monde sans expérience] 54 The French word expérience can mean “experience” or “experiment.” (Translator’s note.), in the sense in which experience/experimentation can take place only within a field of possibilities open to uncertainty: Economic power is what the socialization of experiences implements. However, if this implementation augments shared experience and perception day by day, it does not appear authentically. Most often, it borrows the forms of habit, it slips mimetically into experience. 55 Pierre-Damien Huyghe, Faire place, in: Qu’est-ce que l’art domestique ?, ed. Richard Conte and Sandrine Morsillo (Paris, 2006), p.  29. Symptomatic of an era when “apparatuses” 56 The apparatus is defined by Pierre-Damien Huyghe as “a technological method distinct from the tool and the machine [which produces] within us a power of perception, a particular form of sensibility.” See: Pierre-Damien Huyghe, Introduction au dossier “Temps et appareils”. Plastik 3 (2003), p.  4. are no longer objects worthy of interest, human-machine relations are increasingly marked (branded) by the registers of utility, output, or time-saving. The human experience of “experience design” is often reduced to an experimental situation, that of a rat seeking the way out of a labyrinth. Even if it is “friendly” or “invisible,” this technological medium is no less a straightjacket, a controlled situation in which any exchange is anticipated and preprogrammed. When we are mirrored in the form of the “human, all too human” computer, we “ordinary people” are the ones who stand to lose sight of our complex and infinite possibilities.

Notions

• Design,
• Design des connaissances,
• DesignDH,
• Humanités numériques,
• Interface,
• <abbr><abbr>UCD</abbr></abbr>,
• Uti<abbr>LISA</abbr>teur,

Personnes citées

• Anthony Masure,

Date

April 2023

Type

Blog

Contexte

Anthony Masure, Florie Souday, « IA et pédagogie : un état de l’art », blog AnthonyMasure.com, 24 avril 2023 [pour la première version]

Résumé

Cet état de l’art propose d’examiner une sélection de ressources traitant des enjeux pédagogiques des « intelligences [dites] artificielles » contemporaines. Apparues pour le grand public avec le lancement de services orientés divertissement et création tels que DALL·E (janvier 2021), Midjourney (juillet 2022) ou ChatGPT (novembre 2022), les technologies du machine learning (apprentissage automatique) permettent d’automatiser la production d’objets numériques tels que du texte, des images, mais aussi du son, de la vidéo ou de la 3D — ce qui oblige à repenser les compétences à enseigner et les façons de les évaluer. Cette initiative vise ainsi à poser, de façon éclairée, les termes d’un débat de fond quant à la place des IA en milieu scolaire afin de préfigurer des formats de cours, exercices et projets de recherche contributifs.

Notions

• IA,
• Intelligence artificielle,
• Pédagogie,

Personnes citées

• Alombert Anne,
• Avenati Olaf,
• Barbier Julien,
• Beckers Brieuc,
• Bender Emily,
• Benjamin Ruha,
• Birhane Abeba,
• Bonnefon Jean-François,
• Boullier Dominique,
• Browning Jacob,
• Carré Marion,
• Cathelin Cécile,
• Casilli Antonio,
• Chardel Pierre-Antoine,
• Chatonsky Grégory,
• Chavagneux Christian,
• Chomsky Noam,
• Cohn-Gordon Reuben,
• Cordier Amélie,
• Davis Andrew,
• Dand Mia,
• De la Higuera Colin,
• Dessaux Marine,
• Devilliers Laurence,
• Didion Joan,
• Ekenstam Linus,
• El Mhamdi El Mahdi,
• Edwards Benj,
• Ertzscheid Olivier,
• Fayolle Jacques,
• Froeliger Nicolas,
• Ganascia Jean-Gabriel,
• Gasquet-Cyrus Médéric,
• Garcia Léo,
• Gebru Tmimnit,
• Giroux Mathieu,
• Godard Elsa,
• Goudey Alain,
• Grimes Andrea,
• Gurfinkel Jenka,
• Guichard Éric,
• Guillaud Philippe,
• Hull Jim,
• Hamer Ashley,
• Holz David,
• Johnson Katherine,
• Justeau Stéphane,
• Kasirzadeh Atoosa,
• Klein Naomi,
• Kleiman Gleinn,
• Khan Sal,
• Krim Tariq,
• Laheurte Baptise,
• Lacroix Alexandre,
• Leeds Leanne,
• Lellouche Nicolas,
• Legros Martin,
• LeCun Yann,
• Leslie David,
• Licklider J.C.R,
• Lepore Jill,
• Lovelace Ada,
• Lukács Georg,
• Luccioni Sasha,
• Lyotard Jean-François,
• Mhalla Asma,
• Maillé Pablo,
• Marcus Gary,
• Mafter Mara Magda,
• Marche Stephen,
• Manoukian André,
• Mendès Tristan,
• Menneveux Richard,
• Mitchell Margaret,
• Mineur Etienne,
• Moran Chris,
• Morozov Evgeny,
• Ornes Stephen,
• O'Connor Flannery,
• Protais Marine,
• Raji Inioluwa Deborah,
• Ré Chris,
• Rico Lucie,
• Roberts Ian,
• Rodrigues Rachel,
• Rotamn David,
• Scott Mark,
• Sellars Wilfrid,
• Sharples Mike,
• Skinner B.F,
• Snow C.P,
• Stephens Doug,
• Suchanel Fabian,
• Tainturier Benjamin,
• Varoquaux Gaël,
• Vasseur Victor,
• Vincent James,
• Viennot Bérengère,
• Walk Hunter,
• Watumull Jeffrey,
• Watcher Sandra,
• Yudkowsky Eliezer,

Objets mentionnés

• ChatGPT,
• Midjourney,
• OpenAI,
• GPT-3,
• PuTorch,
• Meta,
• Keras,
• Google,
• Transformers,
• Hugging Face,
• BLOOM,
• Sciences Po,
• Holberton School,
• MatchTunes,
• Neoma Business School,
• Elsevier,
• STAA-CNT-CO,
• ELIZA,
• GPU,
• GAB,
• OIT (Organisation Internationale du Travail),
• Vallée de l’étrange,
• Décolonialisme numérique,
• Commentariat,

Médias

• JavaScript,

Date

June 2011

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, « Adobe : le créatif au pouvoir », Strabic.fr, « L’usager au pouvoir », juin 2011

Résumé

« À l’issue de sa présentation, Jean a été félicité par ses collègues. Ils ont même applaudi ! » — Publicité sur Adobe.com, consultée le 7 avril 2011. Jean utilise les « solutions » Adobe pour concevoir des présentations où il associe textes et images. Depuis qu’il se sert de ces outils, cela n’a jamais été aussi simple. La pieuvre Adobe Systems (qui a avalé en 2005 son concurrent Macromedia) déploie à intervalles réguliers ses suites créatives qui font d’un simple employé du secteur tertiaire un créatif en puissance. Lev Manovich, dans Le Langage des Nouveaux Médias 1 Lev Manovich, Le langage des nouveaux médias [2001], trad. de l’anglais par Richard Crevier, Dijon, Les Presses du Réel, 2010., analyse le mode d’existence contemporain des logiciels sous l’angle d’une « logique de la sélection ». Il constate que notre approche des outils de création (et des softwares en général) se fait essentiellement par la « sélection » d’actions à partir de menus prédéfinis. Adobe a précisément bâti son empire sur cette idée, en ajoutant à chaque itération de ses logiciels des lignes supplémentaires dans les menus. La richesse supposée du programme tient à l’accumulation de choix à sélectionner : toujours plus de lignes et de curseurs déplaçables. Les publicités ciblant les habitués de la marque sont orientées dans ce sens, elles ne font la plupart du temps que lister les nouveaux ajouts de menus. La création serait donc fonction d’une suite de choix à régler dans des listes prédéfinies. Ces présaisies ont pour but d’organiser et de simplifier le cheminement de l’utilisateur, dans un souci d’efficacité. La création est vue ici comme un processus sans effort et sans résistance. Adobe entend proposer des « outils familiers » pour les créatifs, destinés à exprimer sans heurts les « idées les plus folles ». Le logiciel de création est conçu pour servir de façon satisfaisante le créatif, que l’on pourrait alors considérer comme un usager, c’est-à-dire quelqu’un qui se sert de quelque chose en vue d’obtenir un résultat déterminé. Il attend que son objet puisse répondre de façon précise à ses attentes 2 Pierre-Damien Huyghe, « Définir l’utile », conférence donnée à l’IFM le 6 avril 2011.. Le logiciel lui en donnerait le pouvoir, c’est-à-dire la condition matérielle d’accomplir une action. Les programmes d’Adobe rendent service quand ils ne s’écartent pas de ce qui était prévu. Ils organisent une « mise à disposition » de la créativité (Pierre-Damien Huyghe). Ils indiquent une disponibilité servile qui fait de ces objets nos serviteurs impassibles. L’ordinateur ne se plaint jamais et ne peut pas ne pas servir, sauf dans le cas du bug. Il enclot notre réflexion dans des choix donnés. La dimension de souffrance du travail est évacuée, au profit d’une fluidité « sans écrire de code » (Adobe). Aucune résistance, aucun imprévu ne doit interrompre le flow des créatifs. Pendant naturel des fonctions automatisées, les sources d’inspirations sont aussi organisées en sélections. Ces aides à la création sont facilement disponibles via des sites accumulatifs (Smashing Magazine, Daily Dose of Inspiration, Designer Daily, etc.) Ceux-ci fonctionnent par billets thématiques et rassemblent sur le mode du catalogage une collection de liens sur un même sujet, sans chercher à l’épuiser ou à le problématiser. Les bases (ou images-source) sont indexées de plus en plus finement pour faciliter la recherche via des moteurs généralistes. S’opère ici une économie de la radicalité ou de l’imprévu par la recherche d’un consensus sur un même mot-clé (keyword). Il s’agit de donner l’idée au grand public que la création est quelque chose de facile, par la navigation sans effort parmi des galeries d’images lissées. Dans ce pouvoir nouveau donné aux créatifs se dessine en creux une démocratisation voulue et provoquée par les décideurs. Si le prix du logiciel reste prohibitif pour le grand public, Adobe segmente sa gamme en produits moins chers dits « essentials », tout en laissant faire (voire en favorisant ?) le piratage des versions professionnelles pour habituer à s’en servir ceux qui de toute façon ne les auraient jamais achetées. Il en va souvent de même dans les écoles d’art et de design, où aucune alternative n’est envisagée. Cette hégémonie finement contrôlée déplace le pouvoir de l’usager vers l’entreprise de services, qui dicte tous les ans un rythme de renouvellement de son système. Suite à l’émergence de professions identifiées comme le chef de projet, des programmes dédiés (Adobe Version Cue) se chargent désormais d’organiser le savoir-faire organisationnel. Il devient lui-aussi affaire de systèmes parfaitement réglés. Automatisation des fonctions, travail organisé en « chaîne de production » (Adobe), capitalisation de « l’imagination au pouvoir » de quelques grands groupes… autant de notions qui articulent l’idée d’une production sans accrocs et sans fin, c’est-à-dire une production industrielle. L’organisation croissante au tournant du siècle des systèmes de fabrication a pour but d’achever l’idée d’une réalisation qui irait droit du concept à l’objet. Cette absence de divergence est encouragée et guidée par des méthodes qui deviennent systèmes : taylorisme, fordisme… Ils visent à donner une place à chaque outil, étape, personnel de production. Dans cette prise de pouvoir concentrée autour de la production sans accident, le prolétaire perd l’usage de ses savoir-faire, dont il est dépossédé. L’ouvrier devient usager de son outil de production, parfaitement conçu pour effectuer une action précise. Les gestes et temps de travail ne doivent pas diverger de l’organisation mécanisée des structures productives. Dès 1844, dans les Manuscrits de 1844 3 Karl Marx, Manuscrits de 1844, Paris, Garnier Flammarion, 1999. puis dans le chapitre 14 du Capital, Marx pose la question de l’aliénation et de la soumission à la machine. S’il n’insiste pas spécifiquement sur le terme de pouvoir, il nous alerte sur l’ordre nécessairement autoritaire de l’industrie pour contenir les risques d’indiscipline des ouvriers. Le prolétaire est une machine dans son travail, et aucun accomplissement social n’y est possible. Son salaire doit juste lui permettre de subsister dans sa condition ouvrière. Le pouvoir de la manufacture soumet l’ouvrier à un ordre dont il ne peut pas se détourner ou diverger. Si les « créatifs » sont généralement mieux lotis financièrement, une analyse marxiste plus poussée pourrait nous permettre d’envisager des recoupements entre le prolétaire ouvrier et l’assistant de création. Il faudrait alors déplacer les notions d’aliénation et de subsistance vers celles de dépendance et de pensée dans un système prédéfini et difficile à déplacer. S’il serait abusif de faire des logiciels Adobe des outils purement limitatifs, rien n’indique en eux une volonté d’ouverture vers l’imprévu. Concurrence inexistante et faiblesse des solutions libres (GIMP) contribuent à ce monopole problématique, qui fait encourir un danger de formatage des productions (même constat avec l’éditeur 3D Autodesk, avec l’éloignement de la matière en sus). En faisant l’économie de modèles divergents, Adobe organise les modes de travail en réduisant les possibilités à des dispositifs constitués dans des choix de « sélections » (Lev Manovich). Le passage du réglage à la sélection (il faudrait développer ce point) est celui de l’ouverture des possibles vers un mode de réflexion borné, automatisé comme les modes scènes des appareils numériques contemporains. Il nous enjoint à appliquer des méthodes créatives réalisables sans effort grâce à des outils dédiés (automatisations, filtres), utilisables servilement via des sélections organisées discrètement. En faisant du designer un créatif se servant sans effort d’une suite d’outils, Adobe rabat la dimension d’usage sur l’activité artistique. L’iconographie marketing de ses publicités montre des designers et décideurs envisagés sous l’angle de la rentabilité et de l’efficacité. La pensée doit tracer sa route sans écart pour répondre efficacement aux sollicitations de l’économie de la créativité. Mais qu’économisons-nous quand nous raisonnons ainsi ? Est-il pertinent d’envisager l’activité de création comme une économie d’efforts et de modalités ? Il est d’autres voies possibles, qui feraient place au hasard, à la divergence, aux imprévus, et c’est même ce que nous pourrions nommer « design ». Les objets serviles nous desservent de nos pratiques. Là où Adobe pense en termes de solutions, le designer crée de la divergence dans des systèmes techniques ou réflexifs. C’est paradoxalement en ouvrant et en se jouant de la résistance de l’idée à la forme que le designer peut construire son autonomie. C’est dans cette nécessaire liberté qu’un pouvoir pourrait s’exercer. L’outil numérique serait à envisager comme un champ de possibles qui ne serait pas autoritaire et normé (deux notions habituellement liées au pouvoir). Le dispositif, dont Giorgio Agamben 4 Giorgio Agamben, Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif ?, Paris, Rivages Poches, 2007. (via Foucault) montre « qu’il s’inscrit toujours dans une relation de pouvoir » manifeste sa volonté de clôture dans une utilisation dictée (voire ordonnée) par des modes d’emploi et habitudes culturelles. L’idée d’un « usage correct » du dispositif est caduque car il n’existe pas de bon usage, ou plutôt que faire usage d’un objet n’a à voir qu’avec des conduites qui n’en n’épuisent pas les possibles (Pierre-Damien Huyghe). Il s’agirait donc de faire varier les attendus serviles des objets, qui s’épuisent dans leur fonction. Ce jeu (liberté de mouvement) serait alors une zone de pouvoir possible, qui ne serait plus orientée en vue d’obtenir un effet déterminé. L’open source (code source libre), sans en faire une lecture naïve de remède anti-autoritaire, serait du côté d’un pouvoir rendu en amont et en aval à l’usager. La conception nécessairement ouverte et partagée du programme implique un pouvoir non concentré, qui met de fait « au pouvoir » les membres de la communauté. Ce pouvoir partagé ne serait pas celui d’une volonté de contrôle mais plutôt un pouvoir décentralisé et diffus. Il existe des degrés d’implication divers dans la conception du programme, qui ne sont pas ceux d’un projet normé et balisé. Même si des roadmaps (feuilles de route) sont nécessaires, des retards et fonctions de dernière minute peuvent apparaître, de même que des forks (fourches) qui sont une bifurcation du programme, redéveloppée par une partie de la communauté des développeurs. Il y a ici une forme de valorisation qui ne passe pas par des logiques de profit, une économie de la connaissance qui fait de l’usager un contributeur (Bernard Stiegler). Alors que les logiciels utilitaires épuisent l’attention dans une simple tâche à effectuer, il y a dans les codes sources ouverts l’idée d’une amélioration possible depuis la base. N’importe qui peut faire remonter des idées ou améliorations (il faudrait détailler ces différents degrés possibles d’interventions). Le programme est aisément reconfigurable pour répondre à des localisations (terme qui désigne à la base la traduction) ou contextes précis, qui ne sont pas forcément ceux qui sont le plus économiquement viables. Le pouvoir de changer librement éloigne ce type de programme des notions de système (pas de ligne figée, ni de concepts inamovibles) et de dispositif (pas d’idée de manipulation ou de rapport de force). Ce passage du logiciel-outil à un champ de possible, cela serait l’appareil. Un appareil s’envisage par sa capacité à ouvrir une disponibilité à partir de « réglages » (Pierre-Damien Huyghe 5 Pierre-Damien Huyghe (dir.), L’art au temps des appareils, Paris, L’Harmattan, coll. Esthétiques, 2005.). Appareiller un dispositif serait donc œuvrer à sa mise en jeu, ce qui dépasse la logique de fonctions sélectionnables pour réactiver une liberté permettant de nous subjectiver. Reste à envisager ce modèle en action, répondre à ces questions en designer. Le « créatif » devra pour un temps encore se satisfaire d’utilitaires. Des productions intéressantes peuvent bien sûr émerger, à condition de prendre ses distances avec le conditionnement technique et marketing. Question d’attitude et de regard, qui passe aussi par un véritable enseignement de ces domaines afin de dépasser les usages pour en faire des pratiques. « À l’issue de sa contribution, Jean a été félicité par ses collègues. Ils ont même amélioré son code source ! »

Notions

• Créatif,
• Création,
• Dispositif,
• Filtre,
• Liberté,
• Logiciel,
• Logiciel Libre,
• Menu,
• Open Source,
• Ouverture,
• Programme,
• Réglage,

Personnes citées

• Agamben Giorgio,
• Foucault Michel,
• Huyghe Pierre-Damien,
• Manovich Lev,
• Marx Karl,
• Stiegler Bernard,

Objets mentionnés

• 3D Max,
• Adobe,
• Adobe Photoshop,
• Adobe Systems,
• Adobe Version Cue,
• Autodesk,
• Macromedia,
• Smashing Magazine,
• Daily Dose of Inspiration,
• Designer Daily,
• GIMP,

Date

May 2012

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, « Le numérique dans le design et ses enseignements », texte d’intention rédigé pour la séance « Design et Art », séminaire « Éducation et TIC », laboratoire STEF, ENS Cachan, 10 mai 2012

Résumé

En tant qu’il tient à l’art autant qu’à l’industrie, le design ne cesse de questionner les limites des avancées techniques et technologiques. Comment le design et ses enseignements peuvent-ils prendre en compte la conception de logiciels pour dépasser la simple formation à des outils dont des nouveaux apparaissent chaque jour ? Comment repenser les objets et les environnements dans une époque travaillée par des initiatives multiples visant à ouvrir des systèmes brevetés ou inaccessibles ? Comment penser un enseignement au fait de cette richesse et de ces défis ?

Notions

• Appareil,
• Conception,
• Découverte,
• École,
• Enseignement,
• Invention,
• Logiciels,
• Modèles,
• Ouverture,
• Outils,
• Pédagogie,
• Publication,

Personnes citées

• Aron J.,
• Benjamin Walter,
• Bernays Edward,
• Devillez Didier,
• Dresler Michelle,
• Freud,
• Geel C.,
• Laudouar Janique,
• Maeda J.,
• Moholy-Nagy László,
• Huyghe Pierre-Damien,
• Mineur Étienne,
• Rousseau Jean-Jacques,
• Scheer Léo,
• Schumpeter J.,

Objets mentionnés

• Braun,
• Fondation Mozilla,
• Logiciels CAO-PAO,

Date

September 2022

Type

Publication

Contexte

Paper written with Guillaume Helleu for the journal AOC, which appeared in September 2022. Translated from French by Aviva Cashmira Kakar.

Résumé

NFTs (non-fungible tokens) appeared in 2017. They are tamper-proof decentralized digital certificates which have gained fame because of their appropriation by the art world. NFTs have attracted a great deal of controversy, and are frequently accused of being speculative, useless and polluting. We propose to examine these polemics, founded for the most part, in order to show that other approaches are possible. In fact, artistic applications are merely one link in the chain, and NFTs cannot be reduced to their mere visible aspect, they require a wider examination of their value systems, distribution chains, and methods of governance.

Notions

• Blockchain,
• NFT,

Personnes citées

• Helleu Guillaume,

Date

December 2022

Type

Conférence

Contexte

Conférence pour le MasterCard Innovation Forum 2022, Paris, Stade de France.

Résumé

Le déploiement du metavers, l’essor des crypto-monnaies et des NFT dessinent les contours d’un futur disruptif. L’édition 2022 du MasterCard Innovation Forum qui se tiendra le 8 décembre interroge toutes ces dimensions, cherche à cerner les opportunités, dessiner les limites et imaginer les solutions pour qu’émerge un futur responsable.

Notions

• Blockchain,
• DAO,
• Métavers,
• NFT,

Objets mentionnés

• Bitcoin,
• Ethereum,
• Migros,
• Nouns DAO,
• Oculus,

Médias

• PDF,
• Slides,

Date

Type

Contexte

Résumé

Date

June 2010

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, « iPad et mimesis », préparation à une journée d’étude à propos de László Moholy-Nagy, université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, juin 2010

Résumé

Étude et analyse de l’interface de lecture de l’application Apple iBooks sur iPad : comment sortir d’un modèle mimétique pour proposer une expérience de lecture singulière ?

Notions

• Amateur,
• Conditionnement,
• GAFAM,
• Interface,
• Lecture,
• Lecture numérique,
• Livre,
• Métadonnées,
• Mimesis,
• Template,

Personnes citées

• Bayart Benjamin,
• Bureaud Annick,
• Crouzet Thierry,
• Gévaudan Camille,
• Giffard Alain,
• Gilbertson Scott,
• Girardeaud Astrid,
• Gutenberg,
• Jobs Steve,
• Magnan Nathalie,
• Mallarmé,
• Manovich Lev,
• Mauclair Camille,
• Mod Craig,
• Moholy-Nagy László,
• Monjou Clément,
• Orwell George,
• Queneau Raymond,
• Redon Odilon,
• Starck Philippe,
• Steele Danielle,
• Vollard Ambroise,

Objets mentionnés

• Adobe Flash,
• Adobe Air,
• Amazon,
• Apple,
• Apple Bookstore,
• Apple iBooks,
• Apple iPad,
• Apple iPhone,
• Apple iTunes,
• Apple macOS,
• Borders,
• Borders Magic Shelf,
• Cosmopolis,
• CSS,
• DEIS,
• e-book,
• E-Ink,
• Encre électronique,
• Flash Player,
• Folio Gallimard,
• Google,
• IKEA,
• Kindle,
• Magic Shelf,
• Microsoft Silverlight,
• Minitel,
• Nintendo,
• Nintendo DS XL,
• Nintendo DS,
• Sony E-Reader,
• Stanza,

Date

May 2013

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, « Que fait l’amateur ? », Rencontres de Lure, Après\Avant, n^o 1, mai 2013, p. 52-53

Résumé

À une époque où la figure du consommateur est à la fois contestée et installée de fait, il est possible de penser le succès médiatique de « l’amateur » comme une tentative d’ajustement de l’époque à ses objets techniques. Pris dans les cadences d’un temps écrasé sur lui-même, nous ne serions plus en mesure de réaliser autre chose que du déjà-là. L’accélération des communications réduit le sensible à des informations dont la valeur décroît à mesure qu’augmente le temps de leur réception. De la même façon, les marchandises aux cycles de renouvellement toujours plus rapides ne permettent pas de réaliser autre chose que des comportements, c’est-à-dire des actes soumis à des réflexes.

Notions

• Amateur,
• Amour,
• Consommation,
• Emploi,
• Individuation,
• Innovation,
• Langue,
• Marchandise,
• Usage,
• Sens,

Personnes citées

• Certeau de Michel,
• Derrida Jacques,
• Flichy Patrice,
• Simondon Gilbert,
• Stiegler Bernard,
• Thély Nicolas,

Objets mentionnés

• Rencontres de Lure,

Date

September 2013

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, «Des dispositifs aux appareils : l’espacement d’un calcul», Reel-Virtuel.com, n^o 4 : «Du dispositif à l’imprévu», septembre 2013

Résumé

À partir de l’étude du concept de dispositif développé par Michel Foucault, nous envisageons deux rapports à l’objet technique: l’un se situant dans un contrôle des usages, et l’autre ouvrant à des pratiques singulières. Tandis que l’usage et l’emploi rabattent la créativité dans une anticipation constante de ce qui sera produit, il est d’autres façons de faire qui ne limitent pas a priori ce que nous pouvons inventer. Dans le fonctionnement d’un appareil, quelque chose échappe à l’opérateur: il s’y joue de l’imprévu.

Notions

• Appareil,
• Design,
• Dispositif,
• Imprévu,
• Photographie,
• Pratique,
• Programme,
• Projet,
• Usage,

Personnes citées

• Agamben Giorgio,
• Atget Eugène,
• Benjamin Walter,
• Certeau de Michel,
• Foucault Michel,
• Giedion Siegfried,
• Huyghe Pierre-Damien,
• Stiegler Bernard,

Date

December 2013

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, « Le logiciel au pouvoir », note de lecture du livre de Lev Manovich Software takes command, Interfaces numériques, n^o 3, vol. 2, décembre 2013

Résumé

New York, novembre 2013 : Le panel de la conférence #LISA2013 1 Conférence Leaders in Software and Art, panel « DIY start-ups: 3D printing and Hardware Hacking », New-York, 1 er novembre 2013. sur l’impression 3D et le Do It Yourself s’enlise dans les bons sentiments, au risque du cliché. Les intervenants y font l’apologie d’un certain type de « faire », mélange d’american dream et de volontarisme dynamique. Bousculant les idées reçues nous enjoignant à agir sans réfléchir, Lev Manovich interpella les orateurs en leur demandant si « Einstein ne fit que faire ? » [« So Einstein ‹ just did it ›? »] Alors que les universitaires sont souvent accusés de « ne pas faire », la boutade lancée par Lev Manovich interroge le fait de croire qu’une activité pourrait se passer de réflexion. Dans le domaine numérique, la multiplication des systèmes de conception et de production alimente l’illusion d’une fluidité de la pensée s’incarnant sans difficulté dans des formes et objets ; mais n’est-ce pas le logiciel qui a pris le pouvoir ? L’importance des software studies Contrairement aux machines qui ne sont pas renouvelées si fréquemment que cela, les programmes sont depuis quelques années mis à jour dans des flux en temps réel. Alors qu’aucune profession ou activité humaine ne semble échapper à terme à l’usage des logiciels, par quelles disciplines théoriques faut-il passer pour penser ces « nouveaux » objets ? C’est précisément cette question que pose le champ des « software studies », ouvert par Lev Manovich et Matthew Fuller 2 Matthew Fuller, Behind the Blip.  Essays on the Culture of Software, New York, Autonomedia, 2003. au début des années 2000 pour sortir d’une approche centrée sur la fonction et le mode d’emploi. En étudiant les fondements esthétiques, historiques ou idéologiques de programmes tels que Word, Photoshop, ou After Effects, ces auteurs ont renouvelé, voire inventé, l’analyse d’objets essentiels à la compréhension de notre époque. Paru en 2001 (2010 en France), l’ouvrage Le langage des nouveaux médias 3 Lev Manovich, Le langage des nouveaux médias (2001), trad. de l’anglais par Richard Crevier, Dijon, Les Presses du réel, 2010. élabore un lexique et des modes d’articulation (les « opérations ») propres aux logiciels dits de création et s’est rapidement imposé comme un ouvrage de référence des théories des nouveaux médias. C’est précisément cette dernière expression qui est au cœur de Software takes command. Tandis que le vingtième siècle aura été marqué par la notion de « média », les environnements numériques, selon Lev Manovich la déplacent et la redéfinissent. À rebours des discours économiques ou marketing des éditeurs de logiciels, c’est donc une exploration tant historique que théorique qui nous est ici proposée. Rédéfinir la notion de média Alors que l’on traite trop souvent le numérique comme une imitation d’anciens médias (songeons par exemple aux balbutiements du mal nommé « livre numérique »), Lev Manovich montre que le développement des interfaces graphiques portait déjà en lui des caractéristiques nouvelles : « Plutôt que de nous concentrer sur les productions amateurs des logiciels, nous devrions nous intéresser aux programmes en eux-mêmes — en tant qu’il permettent de travailler avec les médias de façons jamais vues auparavant. Tandis que le numérique est habituellement abordé comme une opération de « remédiation » (représentation) des anciens médias, l’environnement numérique dans lequel ces médias « vivent » est très différent. » Lev Manovich s’appuie notamment sur les recherches d’Alan Kay, qui participa, à la fin des années 70, au sein du Xerox PARC, à l’invention de la « programmation orientée objet », ainsi qu’au développement des interfaces graphiques, et plus largement à la conceptualisation du computer. Pour Alan Kay, l’ordinateur personnel est un « métamédium », c’est à dire un environnement pouvant simuler les anciens médias, et suffisamment malléable pour pouvoir intégrer des médias qui n’existent pas encore 4 Lev Manovich, Software takes command, op.  cit., p.  44. Traduction personnelle.. C’est la nature même des interfaces numériques que de produire une « remédiation » des anciens médias. La simulation de la photographie, de la peinture, du cinéma, etc. s’accompagne immédiatement de fonctions nouvelles, telles que le copier/coller, la recherche par mots-clés, ou le changement des modes d’affichage d’un même objet. Une bonne part du livre consiste ainsi à interroger la spécificités de ces techniques 5 Ibid., p.  119 : « Visualization, searchability, findability—these and many other new “media-independent techniques” (i.e. concepts implemented to work across many data types) clearly stand out in the map of the computer metamedium we have drawn because they go against our habitual understanding of media as plural. », selon qu’elles soient propres à certains médias, ou généralisables à tous. Se référant par endroit à la théorie de l’évolution 6 Comme le chapitre « The evolution of media species », p.  233., Lev Manovich étudie comment ces nouvelles possibilités apparaissent, se répandent ou disparaissent. Le principal apport du livre se situe dans ce point faussement évident pour qui travaille la matière numérique, à savoir que la nouveauté des nouveaux médias est celle de toujours pouvoir leur ajouter des propriétés (et ce sans altérer les fichiers source). Pouvoirs du logiciel Le titre du livre est un hommage au livre Mechanization takes command de Siegfried Giedion 7 Siegfried Giedion, La mécanisation au pouvoir (1947), trad. de l’américain par P. Guivarch, Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou, CCI, 1980., pour marquer l’idée d’une « softwarization » de la culture depuis 1960, c’est à dire d’un développement ubiquitaire des logiciels dans toutes les strates de la société. L’ouvrage de Manovich n’a cependant pas l’ambition d’analyser un spectre aussi large, et c’est pourquoi il se focalise sur les logiciels de création (« media softwares »). La thèse de Software takes command est que les médias n’existent désormais qu’à travers les logiciels. Pour comprendre les médias, il nous faut parfois découvrir la nouveauté sous des interfaces anachroniques. Lev Manovich donne ainsi l’exemple d’Adobe Acrobat 8.0, qui est selon lui un modèle d’incohérence de métaphores obsolètes et de fonctions propres au numérique. C’est comme si, dit-il, « les designers Acrobat avaient voulu donner aux utilisateurs une multitude de façons de naviguer dans les documents 8 Ibid., p.  189 ». On trouvera ainsi au sein du livre des pistes de recherche fructueuses pour élaborer un « design des programmes » cohérent et pertinent. Mettant « en action » les hypothèses des deux premiers tiers du livre, le chapitre final 9 Chapitre « Software in action », p.  241. étudie le logiciel Adobe After Effects, en montrant en quoi ses spécificités techniques contribuent à changer les façons de faire des vidéos – par exemple en passant d’une interface basée sur le temps à une interface basée sur la composition 10 Ibid., p.  282. On pourra aussi mentionner la couverture de l’édition anglaise, qui déplie sur plusieurs milliers de captures d’écran une partie du jeu vidéo Kingdom Hearts.. Pour comprendre les médias, intéressons-nous aux programmes L’habileté d’une telle démarche est de réussir à intéresser tant les ingénieurs, que les historiens ou les designers. L’écriture est d’une clarté remarquable, l’auteur partant d’une définition minimale du terme de média pour la faire évoluer au fil des chapitres, jusqu’à – fait trop rare – se risquer en conclusion à un résumé en deux pages de l’ensemble de l’ouvrage. Un chapitre bonus, disponible en téléchargement pour ne pas alourdir un texte déjà bien dense, traite des réseaux sociaux – peut-être l’amorce d’un prochain titre ? Si, comme le dit Lev Manovich, le logiciel est bien l’électricité du 21 e siècle, il nous faut réfléchir à ses tenants et aboutissants au lieu de mettre les doigts dans la prise. Devra-t-on attendre 10 ans, comme son précédent livre, pour avoir une traduction française et tirer les conséquences de ces hypothèses de recherche ? À nous de prendre les commandes.

Notions

• Faire,
• Livre,
• Logiciel,
• Média,
• Programme,
• Software Studies,

Personnes citées

• Einstein Albert,
• Fuller Matthew,
• Giedion Siegfried,
• Kay Alan,
• Manovich Lev,

Objets mentionnés

• Adobe Acrobat,
• Adobe Acrobat 8.0,
• Adobe After Effects,
• LISA,
• Leaders in Software and Art,
• Xerox PARC,

Date

April 2016

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, « L’injonction à la créativité dans le design. Des logiciels de création innovants aux programmes inventifs », dans : Anne-France Kogan, Yanita Andonova (dir.), actes du colloque « De l’injonction à la créativité à sa mise en œuvre : quel parallèle entre monde de l’art et monde productif ? » [2015], MSH Nantes, Mines Nantes, université Paris 13, 2016, p. 16-23

Résumé

Il est de plus en plus demandé au design de se placer du côté de la « créativité » et de « l’innovation », comme si cela allait de soi. Que recouvre cette injonction, et comment est-elle mise en œuvre ? Après avoir situé le design dans une tension entre le monde productif et le monde de l’art, nous examinerons quelques logiciels sensés « exalter » la créativité des utilisateurs avant de conclure sur une vision du design échappant à cette injonction stérilisante.

Notions

• Création,
• Créativité,
• Design,
• Injonction,
• Innovation,
• Invention,
• Logiciel,
• Marketing,

Personnes citées

• Adebiaye Frank,
• Cadix Alain,
• Certeau de Michel,
• Chatonsky Grégory,
• Citton Yves,
• Foucault Éric,
• Frommer Frank,
• Fuller Matthew,
• Gropius Walter,
• Huyghe Pierre-Damien,
• Karl Marx,
• Manovich Lev,
• Midal Alexandra,
• Moholy-Nagy László,
• Montebourg Arnaud,
• Porte de la Xavier,
• Simondon Gilbert,
• Sottsass Ettore,
• Stiegler Bernard,
• Taffin Nicolas,

Objets mentionnés

• Adobe,
• Adobe Behance,
• Adobe Creative Cloud,
• Adobe Creative Suite,
• Apple iPhone,
• Bauhaus,
• Facebook,
• JCDecaux,
• Microsoft PowerPoint,
• Microsoft Word,
• Vélib’,

Date

January 2019

Type

Publication

Contexte

Article coécrit avec Loup Cellard dans la revue Multitudes, n^o 73, dossier « Tyrannies de la transparence »

Résumé

Mobilisées dans de nombreuses initiatives citoyennes, les interfaces numériques se retrouvent prises dans une « injonction à la transparence » aux enjeux ambigus. Cette contribution met ainsi en évidence trois paradoxes :
1. Le fait que les interfaces numériques reposent sur une obfuscation ontologique des couches programmatiques.
2. La tendance des projets politiques de transparence à invisibiliser les controverses grâce à l’utilisation rhétorique des interfaces et de leurs données.
3. La transformation du paysage médiatique de la transparence en une tension entre divulgation, mise en visibilité de processus, et création d’expériences de simulation renouvelant potentiellement les capacités de narration des citoyens.

Notions

• Algorithme,
• Design,
• Design graphique,
• Données,
• Interface,
• Politique,
• Transparence,

Personnes citées

• Cellard Loup,

Date

March 2019

Type

Publication

Contexte

« Overall Technology  », introduction de section coécrite avec Océane Ragoucy, dans : Catherine Geel, Clément Gaillard (dir.), Extended French Theory & The Design Field… On Nature and Ecology: A Reader, Paris, T&P Work UNiT

Résumé

Book published on the occasion of reflections adapted within the framework of the French Section, From thought to the visible. Design as large ring, XXIIth Milan Triennale, Broken Nature, March 1 st to March 1 st sup > september 2019. In the common vision of things, ecology, understood as the management of natural resources, is de facto opposed to technique: it is assumed that modernist logic has pushed technological progress to a crisis point where that progress would collapse under the finite nature of its growth. Technique as know-how or the capacity to change one’s environment is understood here, then, in its contemporary sense of “technology”: a series of technical articulations (logos) embodied in consumable artefacts. Now, the texts that follow show that ecology is multiple, just as technique should be. This plurality of life environments, a concern at the heart of the fields of art and design, dovetails with some incisive texts by the philosopher Félix Guattari. His notion of “ecosophy” (global ecology) also encourages us not to think about ecology separately from aesthetics: « To bring into being other worlds beyond those of purely abstract information, to engender Universes of reference and existential Territories where singularity and finitude are taken into consideration […] to confront the vertiginous Cosmos so as to make it inhabitable; these are the tangled paths of the tri-ecological vision [of environments, social relations and subjectivities]. 1 Félix Guattari, The three ecologies, (Paris, Galilée, 1989), 70.. »  Today, gaining a clearer idea of the relations between ecology and technique implies taking a look at texts written from the 1970s onwards in the context of the Cold War and the effective development of so-called “personal” computing. The philosophy of technique, or technics, which already had a rich history, had been enjoying a tremendous period of international growth for some forty years. Because it is articulated with aesthetic and ecological issues, in France this field has been echoed in some singular ways. That is what this selection of texts sets out to explore. There is one domain, the archaeology of media, which offers a powerful counterweight to the sometimes-frightening promises of effectiveness made by these digital technologies. It does so by jolting together heterogeneous technical layers, whether of history, hardware, or software. A precursor of this field is the nomadic philosopher Vilém Flusser, whose essay Vampyroteuthis infernalis 2 Vilém Flusser, Vampyroteuthis infernalis [1981-1987], trans. C. Lucchese, (Bruxelles: Zones sensibles, 2015). sets out a bestiary derived from squids and octopuses implicitly revealing the unthought implications of the proliferation of electronic information machines. Taking different approaches, the philosophers of French Theory and their contemporary heirs (Bernard Stiegler, Pierre-Damien Huyghe, Isabelle Stengers, Bruno Latour, Madeleine Akrich, etc.) have engaged acutely with the profound consequences of technological mutations. Inspired by the idea of thinking about technique beyond human actors and/or its subservience to principle of efficacy, these authors – although they do not necessarily invoke this notion – interrogate an overly limited understanding of ecology. While they are not (all) contemporaries of the massification of the use of digital technologies, the fact that these writings are still widely studied bears witness to an obvious fact: in research, there are times when notions of novelty and progress simply do not apply. In This Progress, a participative performance (Palais de Tokyo, Paris, 2016) 3 This Progress* ( Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, 2006) is replayed at the Palais de Tokyo, (Paris, October 12, 2016 – December 18, 2016): “Carte blanche to Tino Sehgal”, curated by Rebecca Lamarche Vadel., the German-British artist Tino Sehgal shakes up the notion of progress by activating its dimensions: personal, shared and trans-generational. One visitor’s account relates this surprising experience based on the human voice, bodily movement and social interaction: “As we moved forward alone into a big empty space, a twelve year-old child came up to us and suddenly asked, ‘What is progress?’” Let us recall elements of the historical context: the emergence of mass-market computers was to a major extent based on a cognitivist understanding of the cybernetic model. 4 For a broader understanding of cybernetics, see: Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics and society. The human use of human beings [1954], trans. P.-Y. Mistoulon, (Paris: Point, 2014).. This paradigm of understanding, which still informs to a large extent the interfaces of the digital apparatus (dispositifs) 5 Giorgio Agamben, Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif ? [2006], trans. M. Rueff, (Paris: Payot & Rivages, 2007). » that we use every day, developed, economically, in a hidden way – covered by waves of objects renewed at a quick rate and installed among us without negotiation and unprepared by any civic reflection. In other words: we lack perspective for understanding what the digital media are doing to us, doing with us, or doing against us. The artists’ collective RYBN undermines the idea of progress and technological neutrality. By hybridising computer rationality with modes of thought based on mythology or belief, the esoteric forms of their work betray the “haunted” character of electronic machines. Their Data Ghost project 6 RYBN, Data Ghost 1, installation presented at the “Media Mediums” exhibition, curated by Jeff Guess and Gwenola Wagon, Paris, Ygrec, (April 4-May 31, 2014) (galerie Ygrec, Paris, 2014) tirelessly scans the background noises of digital data flows and detects “phantom” messages there. The internet then becomes the echo chamber of retro-inter-active ghostsspectres. Some thirty years since the writings of Félix Guattari, these reflections on the desubjectification of individuals resonate with dispositifs that are invisible (because encoded) and yet infiltrate most human activities. This is what researcher Evgeny Morozov calls “algorithmic regulation”, 7 Evgeny Morozov. “The power of data and the death of politics”. Trans. P. Jorion, August 2014. https://www.pauljorion.com/blog/2014/08/25/la-prise-de-pouvoir-par-les-donnees-et-la-mort-de-la-politique -by-evgeny-morozov/, that is, a pernicious form of social control effected by non-human agents. At the turn of the 2010s, there was no avoiding the realisation that information networks had not created a global village”. The power of “platform capitalism” 9 Nick Srnicek, Platform Capitalism. The hegemony of the digital economy [2016], trans. P. Blouin, (Montreal: Lux, 2018). – that of GAFAM and BATX – is increasingly a threat to citizens’ capacity to invent their own way of lifemodes of existence. Amassing value from the sampling of “data”, digital devices are also redoubtable machines for polluting the mind, the moment one starts to surf without a filter. In this opposition between an invasive technology and the capacity of the social body to organise its conditions of existence, ecology here acquires a psychic dimension. Since technique is constitutive of humanity, however, there can be no question of going back to a golden age that never existed. In this sense, designer Ezio Manzini pleads for an “ecology of the artificial environment” 10 Ezio Manzini, Artifacts. Towards an ecology of the artificial environment [1990], trans. Adriana Pilia, (Paris: Center Georges Pompidou, CCI, 1991). » – a “second nature” formed by the technical tissue, which to a large extent still has to be invented. As of the early 1990s, he warned of the risk that information overload would turn into “noise”: “We are living amidst a growing mass of ‘semiotic waste’ – in other words, messages, texts and used codes that we cannot get rid of. […] By their uncontrolled proliferation, the greatest variety of forms, colours and textures can result in the greyest of worlds.” 11 Ezio Manzini, Artifacts. Towards an ecology of the artificial environment [1990], trans. Adriana Pilia, (Paris: Center Georges Pompidou, CCI, 1991), 36-37. ), 36-37. ». Counter to the “attention deficit” supposedly engendered by the behavioural retroaction loops of the dominant digital “services” – that is, the economic exploitation of behaviours, affects and desires – researcher Yves Citton thus invites us to imagine the conditions of an “ecology of attention” 12 Yves Citton, For an ecology of attention, (Paris: Seuil, 2014). » going hand in hand with a reorientation of media policies. The philosopher of technologies Gilbert Simondon noted at the end of the 1950s, when reflecting on this loss of intelligibility, that “what is missing is the essential; the active centre of the technical operation remains veiled.” 13 Gilbert Simondon, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques [1958], (Paris: Aubier, 2012).». Technical advances have continually heightened this opacity and multiplied the “black boxes”. Who today really understands, for example, how blockchain protocols work, or the self-developing codes of deep learning ? In the video Rare Earthenware (exhibited at ZKM in Karlsruhe as part of the Reset Modernity! exhibition (2016, directed by sociologist and philosopher Bruno Latour), the design studio Unknown Field Divisions documented the trajectory of the rare metals needed to construct three telecommunications objects: a mobile phone, an ultra-thin laptop computer and a chip for an “intelligent” car battery. The quantity of toxic waste required to produce them was then assembled in the form of traditional Ming vases. Inseparable from the conception of many technological objects, “civil wars” cast a veil over the environmentally and humanly damaging nature of mining operations and make the supply process invisible. At stake in an ecology of digital techniques, from a psychic point of view, would be interrogating the claim of technologies to “solve” 14 Evgeny Morozov, To solve everything, click here. The aberration of technological solutionism [2013], trans. M-C. Braud, (Limoges: Fyp, 2014). » all the world’s problems. Not only do digital technologies not always save time, but they cause a proliferation of new problems. In order for the digital to benefit the masses and not just a handful of investors, we need to stand back from the idea that problems linked to technologies can simply be solved with more technology. We are indeed confronted with two gave ecological questions: environmental and human. There is, now, a third, at the other end of the chain. It concerns the user and is – in the broad sense — a disjunction between a “technical milieu” 15 André Leroi-Gourhan, Évolution et techniques. Milieu et techniques, (Paris: Albin Michel, 1973). » and the “actors” 16 Actor network theory (AnT) was developed in the 1990s by researchers Bruno Latour, Madeleine Akrich and Michel Callon. » inhabiting it. To treat persons as “users” comes down to introducing a dissymmetry between the conceivers of objects, of digital programmes, etc., and those who can only use them. Via ecology, then, we can prise open other dimensions than the reduction of technique to its technological and digital assignation: imagination, spirituality, memory, etc.  In the French context, for example, it is interesting to study a genealogy that runs through the work of palaeontologist André Leroi-Gourhan, of the philosopher of technology Gilbert Simondon, and of philosopher Bernard Stiegler on digital mutations. For Leroi-Gourhan, the notion of the tool takes an almost biological turn. The tool is that whereby a living being accedes to existence by developing gesture and speech. The relation to the milieu is always a dynamic, and never something that is acquired for good and could be stabilised: human existence is a progressive and continuous detachment from its initial conditions. Simondon approaches technical objects as “lineages” that can be compared to organic configurations and reconfigurations. His later writings on imagination and invention in techniques take an almost spiritual direction. The subject is to be understood within a constant evolution. More precisely, the individual is conceived in relation to a “pre-individual” tending towards a “transindividual”. These reflections on “individuation” and technique have been extensively taken up by Bernard Stiegler, who places them in the context of a period when the combination of neoliberalism and marketing (via behavioural sciences) is massively heightening the risk of the subjection of human beings. For Stiegler, ecology is to be understood as living beings’ relation to their milieu, relations that are threatened by capitalism (industrial, financial, cognitive, etc.). Thus, in addition to necessary actions and reflections on the ecology of resources (the exhaustion of capacities of subsistence), rethinking the ecology of the spirit (exhaustion of the psyche and of desire) is emerging as an increasingly urgent task.

Notions

• Écologie,
• Technologie,

Personnes citées

• Gaillard Clément,
• Geel Catherine Ragoucy Océane,

Date

May 2021

Type

Publication

Contexte

Contribution au dossier « Globalisations esthétiques » du 82^e numéro de la revue Multitudes, dirigé par Nathalie Blanc et David Christoffel.

Résumé

À rebours d’un progrès technique consistant à voir les logiciels de CAO/PAO (« Conception/Publication Assistée par Ordinateur ») comme une « augmentation » mécanique des possibilités créatives, nous proposons de considérer ce processus comme une accélération – voire comme une automatisation – de façons de faire traditionnelles. Alors que les designers utilisent au quotidien les mêmes logiciels, ont-ils pleinement conscience de leur histoire et de leurs implications ? Comment cette tendance à la normalisation s’inscrit-elle dans l’histoire des transformations techniques induites par le développement de la computation ? Pour traiter ces enjeux, nous invitons à parcourir sous forme de courtes notices une série d’objets techniques (logiciels de création, machines, etc.), classés du plus standardisant au plus ouvert. Chacun de ces items comprend trois sous-parties : une description de son caractère standardisant, une critique des valeurs qu’il embarque, et des contre-emplois (antérieurs ou postérieurs) en art et en design.

Notions

• Abstraction,
• Augmentation,
• Conception,
• Contre-emploi,
• Creative coding,
• Créativité,
• Critique,
• Deep Learning,
• Design space,
• Ergonomie,
• GUI,
• Homogénéisation,
• IA,
• Intelligence artificielle,
• IHM,
• Interface,
• Logiciel,
• Machine learning,
• Métaphore,
• Normativité,
• Publication,
• Programmation,
• Programmes,
• Standard,
• Standardisation,
• Utilisateur,
• UX design,
• Workflow,

Personnes citées

• Bruet Manon,
• Casilli Antonio A.,
• Citton Yves,
• Cooper Alan,
• Crawford Kate,
• Duarte Matías,
• Crawford Kate,
• Eisenman Peter,
• Engelbart Douglas,
• Fry Ben,
• Fuller Matthew,
• Gehry Frank,
• Goodhouse Andrew,
• Hoberman Chuck,
• Huyghe Pierre-Damien,
• Jodi.org,
• Joler Vladan,
• Kay Alan,
• Metahaven,
• Knoll John,
• Knoll Thomas,
• Lehni Jürg,
• Lialina Olia,
• Maeda John,
• Manovich Lev,
• Mitchell William,
• Niemelä Sami,
• Pandelakis Saul,
• Prévieux Julien,
• Puckey Jonathan,
• Reas Casey,
• Rebaudengo Simone,
• Ross David Jonathan,
• Sutherland Ivan Edward,

Objets mentionnés

• Adobe,
• Adobe Creative Suite,
• Adobe Illustrator,
• Adobe Photoshop,
• Adobe Sensei,
• Adobe XD,
• Amazon Alexa,
• Anatomy of an AI System,
• Apple Siri,
• Autodesk AutoCAD,
• BIM,
• Facebook,
• Figma,
• Fortnite,
• Gimlet X-Ray,
• Google Android,
• Google Home,
• Google Material Design,
• Jodi.org,
• Made in Machina/e,
• Microsoft Word,
• Paper.js,
• Processing,
• Rhino,
• Scriptographer,
• Sketch,
• Sketchpad,
• TikTok,
• What Shall We Do Next?,
• Xerox Alto,

Date

May 2023

Type

Publication

Contexte

Anthony Masure, Guillaume Helleu, “The improvised economics to the Web3,” LSD, n^o 3, May 2023, pp. 175-183

Résumé

Emerging in 2017, NFT s (Non Fungible Tokens), are un-forgeable, decentralised certificates that have become famous through their use in the art world. While this usage is what has brought them media attention, they actually are simply one part of a far wider technological movement often marketed as “Web3” 1 Appeared with Ethereum as a response to the Web 2.0 of the GAFAM, the Web3 proposes an all-in-one ecosystem: a monetary system (Bitcoin) within an economic system (DeFi) to exchange digital assets (NFT s), the whole managed by a governance system (DAO) using digital identities (DID s).. Web3, or the new order of Web To understand the workings of this new iteration of the Web based on decentralised blockchain 2 The term blockchain refers to a distributed ledger for storing, certifying and sharing information in a decentralised manner. The data is replicated in multiple storage spaces, forming a public chain secured by the addition of the various nodes of the network. This chain is designed to make information unalterable and transactions unfalsifiable. technologies, first we have to review its predecessors. Invented in 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee at the Cern, the Web - which later came to be called Web 1.0 - brought the promise of a utopia where all the world’s scientific knowledge could be shared through simplified publication proto-cols. However, as it turned out, it was too technically complex for use by the general public. This “read-only mode” allowing for nothing more than the consulta-fion of documents gave rise to corresponding marketing strategies for devices such as the laptops, smartphones and modems that occupy such a central place in our daily lives and yet were not conceived as servers suitable to function as Web sites able to store and manage information. This problem of access was addressed by the Web 2.0 that arose in the 2000s with the development of participative platforms such as social media (Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) where anyone can create an account and share information on a mass scale. The main problem with the “platformisation” of the Web paradigm that predominates today resides in the non-distribution of the value produced by Web users and its increasing centralisation. Reacting against the hegemony of the GAFAM s 3 The term blockchain refers to a distributed ledger for storing, certifying and sharing information in a decentralised manner. The data is replicated in multiple storage spaces, forming a public chain secured by the addition of the various nodes of the network. This chain is designed to make information unalterable and transactions unfalsifiable. (and their Asian avatars), the renewed promise of decentralisation raised by the Web3 could restore ownership and control over their data to ordinary Web users. Five key principles will mark this historic shift: 1 – A monetary system Bitcoin 4 Bitcoin (฿, 2009) is a decentralised digital protocol that allows transactions of monetary values independently of traditional financial institutions and fat currencies. It was invented by a person, or group of anonymous people, using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. (2009) and other cryptocurrencies will play a key role. 2 – An economic system D e F i (Decentralised Finance) can be defined as a financial transaction environment that no longer requires traditional intermediaries such as brokers, exchanges and banks. Various D e F i protocols like Compound (2019) and Uniswap (2018) create gateways between traditional and decentralised economies through the introduction of “stablecoins” (Tether, 2014; Dai, 2017; Binance USD, 2018), value tokens 5 A token, or authentication token, is a digital representation of a value (currency, social share, artwork, etc.) verified in a blockchain. based on Fiat 6 The value of a fat currency is imposed by a state in an identified territory, and its management is entrusted to a central bank. For example, the value and distribution of the Euro is managed by the European Central Bank (ECB), while the dollar is managed by the United States Federal Reserve (FED). The word fiat is determinist. It comes from Latin and means, in the imperative mode, “Let it be done.” currencies. They make it possible to exchange these state-issued currencies without going through traditional channels (SWIFT), and they function almost instantaneously. Working 24/7 and almost impossible to stop, by January 2022 D e F i represented a market worth more than 200 billion dollars. 3 – A property system NFT s can transform any digital entity into merchandise. In the field of art, the best-known example is CryptoPunks, 10,000 files containing images (originally 24 × 24 pixels) distributed without charge over the Ethereum 7 Ethereum (2015) is a decentralised, collaborative exchange platform, originally envisioned by Vitalik Buterin as an upgrade to Bitcoin. Ethereum extends the principles of Bitcoin to move from a currency to a configurable value system, particularly via the use of smart contracts. network. Thanks to blockchain technology, there can be thousands of copies of a single CryptoPunk 8 CryptoPunks (2017) are a famous collection of NFT s representing computer-generated pixelated characters. meme, but only one of them contains a digital signature and thus has value. 4 – A governance system A project launched in April 2016 called the DAO (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation) marked the appearance of new kinds of governance that prevent fraud and corruption through previously-established rules and smart contracts 9 Smart contracts enable value to be programmed by automating the triggering of actions within a blockchain and recording the results.. While DAO s make governmental processes such as voting and the approval and execution of decisions more fluid, they raise possible concerns insofar as they can become substitutes for traditional state functions, regulatory bodies and so on justice systems, associations, unions, etc.). 5 – An identity system DID s (Decentralised Identifiers) are sure to become a major issue in the coming decades. In a world where the concept of identity has never been so much brought into question and the profiling carried out by GAFAMs so problematic, the need for a new system of identity has become obvious. Web 1.0’s traditional authentif-cation mechanisms (email and password) have been replaced, to some degree, bysociallogins (Facebook Connect, 2008; Google Sign In, 2015; Sign in with Apple, 2019), all of which entrain the problems inherent in Web 2.0 (targeted advertising, data capture, dependence on private actors, etc.). In contrast, Web3 offers new forms of online authentification through the use of wallets such as MetaMask 10 MetaMask (2016) is a digital wallet of cryptocurrencies and tokens that allows interaction with many decentralised applications and environments. (2016). These kinds of decentralised and user-owned protocols provide for a better interoperability of data while allowing users to control what they want to share. Their possible integration into Instagram and Twitter shows that we are in a transitional phase between Web 2.0 and Web3, with no guarantee, at this point, that the problems Web3 is supposed to solve will not be replaced by even more serious risks. Towards improvised economies? ? In contrast to the traditional economy where only sovereign states (or central banks) are authorised to issue currency, Web3 technologies make it possible for anyone (with the necessary technical skills) to not only create digital spaces, but even program value systems and thus economic models based on the principles of already-existing innovations like local currencies, SCOPS (Cooperative and Participative Societies) and participative financing (crowdfunding). The latter has been updated through the use of NFT s, with initiatives like Stoner Cats (2021) - an animated multi-episode entertainment series with access limited to owners of special tokens, and Hamlet Within (2022) - a documentary by the British avantgarde filmmaker Ken McMullen sold as an NFT on the Cineverse network and divided into several “unique” parts only available to token buy-ers. As McMullen explains, the artistic model (of movies) will become totally participative, thus changing the aesthetic vocabulary of the twenty-first century so that game thinking becomes predominate. In this respect, the still unstable “play-to-earn” paradigm pop-ularised by video games like Axie Infinity (2018) gives players back most of the rewards earned by the sale of in-game collectables. More generally speaking, Web3 creates new ways to use these technologies, greater economic creativity and even a kind of legal design 11 Legal design is a practice that aims to introduce and facilitate the understanding of law to all. User-centered, legal design is by definition multidisciplinary and collaborative.. Smart contracts, for example, are NFT-associated scripts that offer, among other things, the automatic distribution of the initial gains and profits from future resales, accruing either to the artist or the designer thus updating the concept of artist resale rights), or for donations to institutions such as NGO s as well as foundations that produce open-source applications like those found on the NFT platform Teia.art. These smart contracts can also serve unexpected purposes, such as allowing a piece of property to be divided into multiple fragments, setting a ceiling on resale prices, and bringing about a process of deflation based on time lapsed or external factors. Here we are approaching the farthest frontiers of the art world where artworks are produced according to rules governing the relations between humans and non-human entities. For instance, Nouns DAO (2021) is a treasury financed by the number of daily sales of an NFT. Owners can vote to use this money to support all sorts of projects. Botto (2021) is an art robot whose taste is conditioned by community members’ weekly votes. The result of this AI heuristics is automatically put up for sale as an NFT. In light of all these examples, it’s probable that the next few years will provide opportunities to study the tensions between long-standing capitalist logics (which readily appropriated the anarchist logic of Bitcoin) and new “improvised economies” that, while still embryonic, may yield more redistributive outcomes.

Notions

• Blockchain,
• DAO,
• Ethereum,
• NFT,
• Web 2.0,
• Web 3.0,

Personnes citées

• Berners-Lee Tim,
• Helleu Guillaume,
• McMullen Ken,

Objets mentionnés

• Axie Infinity,
• Botto,
• CryptoPunK,
• Facebook,
• Flickr,
• Google,
• Hamlet Within,
• MetaMask,
• MySpace,
• StonerCats,
• Twitter,

Date

January 2024

Type

Publication

Contexte

Texte issu de l’ouvrage collectif Éthique et design. Pour un climat de soin, dirigé par Cynthia Fleury et Antoine Fenoglio, et publié en 2024.

Résumé

À la fin des années 2010, des programmes présentés comme « intelligents » permettent de générer des productions s’apparentant à l’art et au design. Pour mieux comprendre cette tendance à vouloir substituer la machine à l’humain, cet article propose de replacer les technologies du deep learning dans une histoire plus longue visant à réduire le design à une suite de modèles schématiques. Ce parcours dans l’histoire des logiciels de création montre comment les sciences cognitives se sont insérées au sein des principes historiques du design, au point de les reformuler et de les subvertir de façon insidieuse.

Notions

• IA,
• Logiciels,
• UX Design,
• Deep learning,
• Cognitivisme,

Personnes citées

• Adorno Theodor W.,
• Arendt Hannah,
• Benjamin Walter,
• Crawford Kate,
• Fogg Brian Jeffrey,
• Gehry Frank,
• Hinton Geoff,
• Horkheimer Max,
• Kauffman Jordan,
• Lassègue Jean,
• Lialina Olia,
• Maeda John,
• Manovich Lev,
• Mineur Étienne,
• Moholy-Nagy László,
• Müller-Brockmann Josef,
• Negroponte Nicholas,
• Nielsen Jakob,
• Norman Donald,
• Posture Julien,
• Steinbeck John,
• Tschichold Jan,
• Turing Alan,

Objets mentionnés

• DALL·E,
• Figma,
• GAFAM,
• GAN,
• Midjourney,
• Photoshop,

Date

May 2025

Type

Publication

Contexte

Entretien avec Jérémy Lucas-Boursier et Inès Garmon publié dans Quaderni. Communication, technologies, pouvoir, n^o 115, « Designer les objets numériques », printemps 2025, p. 13-26.

Résumé

Cet entretien s’intéresse aux enjeux du design face aux dispositifs numériques : la place du logiciel dans la création, la critique des interfaces et des outils d’IA, la pédagogie du design et la médiation des savoirs. Le texte revient sur les recherches d’Anthony Masure autour des notions d’appareil et de dispositif, et sur des projets tels que WYSIWYG, Fucking Tech! et Play-to-Learn.

Notions

• Appareil,
• Automatisation,
• Culture numérique,
• Dataset,
• Design,
• Design d’interaction,
• Design numérique,
• Dispositif,
• Enseignement,
• IA,
• Interfaces,
• Logiciel,
• Machine learning,
• Médiation,
• Outil,
• Pédagogie,
• Politique,
• Prompt,
• Recherche-création,
• Software studies,
• WYSIWYG,

Personnes citées

• Agamben Giorgio,
• Garmon Inès,
• Helleu Guillaume,
• Huygue Pierre-Damien,
• Jacquier Vincent,
• Kay Alan,
• Lucas-Boursier Jérémy,
• Maillard Thibéry,
• Manovich Lev,
• Martin-Juchat Fabienne,
• Pandelakis Saul,
• Robial Étienne,

Objets mentionnés

• Adobe Photoshop,
• Canva,
• ChatGPT,
• ECAL,
• Figma,
• Fucking Tech,
• Midjourney,
• Play-to-Learn,
• SADAO,
• StoryTellurX,

Date

September 2025

Type

Publication

Contexte

Contribution co-écrite avec Élise Rigot à l’ouvrage collectif L’Encyclopédie des Objets Impossibles, publié en septembre 2025.

Résumé

Ce recueil de notices explore la performativité d’utopies technologiques des corps à l’œuvre dans des projets de design fiction. Ces productions peuvent être considérées comme des « artefacts performatifs » (Suchman, Trigg & Blomberg 2002), au sens où elles construisent une réalité et deviennent les instruments de médiation proches des théories transhumanistes. Six projets sont analysés en trois moments — fiction, dissection et spéculation : The Audio Tooth Implant (James Auger, 2001), La ville des hémisphères (Superstudio, 1971), United Micro Kingdoms (Anthony Dunne et Fiona Raby, 2013), The Modular Body (Floris Kaayk, 2016), Transfigurations (Agi Haines, 2013) et Wanderers (Neri Oxman, 2014-2015).

Notions

• Architecture radicale,
• Artefacts performatifs,
• Augmentation,
• Biologie synthétique,
• Biologie,
• Biotechnologie,
• Capitalisme,
• Chirurgie,
• Cinéma,
• Corps,
• Critical design,
• Design fiction,
• Design spéculatif,
• Écologie,
• Hyperréalisme,
• Impression 3D,
• Jeu vidéo,
• Narration,
• Performativité,
• Photomontage,
• Programme,
• Prototypes,
• Science-fiction,
• Solutionnisme,
• Technologie,
• Transhumanisme,
• Urbanisme,
• Utopie,

Personnes citées

• Arendt Hannah,
• Atala Anthony,
• Auger James,
• Barlow Sam,
• Blomberg Jeannette,
• Caramia Pierangelo,
• Close Chuck,
• Dunne Anthony,
• Flusser Vilém,
• Frassinelli Piero,
• Guillaud Hubert,
• Haines Agi,
• Haraway Donna,
• Houellebecq Michel,
• Kaayk Floris,
• Kirby David,
• Maulan Latif,
• Mendini Alessandro,
• Morozov Evgeny,
• Mueck Ron,
• Oxman Neri,
• Peterson Denis,
• Raby Fiona,
• Rigot Élise,
• Spielberg Steven,
• Stengers Isabelle,
• Sterling Bruce,
• Stone Oliver,
• Suchman Lucy,
• Trigg Randy,
• Wachowski Lilly,
• Wachowski Lana,

Objets mentionnés

• Bandersnatch,
• Black Mirror,
• Elysium,
• Her Story,
• La possibilité d'une île,
• La ville des hémisphères,
• Mars Attacks!,
• Matrix,
• Minority Report,
• Rambo,
• Stranger Things,
• Terminator,
• The Audio Tooth Implant,
• The Modular Body,
• Transfigurations,
• United Micro Kingdoms,
• Wanderers,
• Wall Street,
• Westworld,

Date

January 2026

Type

Publication

Contexte

Article de recherche co-écrit avec Saul Pandelakis et Dominika Čupková dans le cadre du projet Fucking Tech! (2024-2027) et publié dans INC Longform (Institute of Network Cultures) en janvier 2026.

Résumé

À partir d’une semaine d’expérimentation avec onze applications d’« AI Girlfriends », ce texte examine ces services comme des artefacts culturels toucahnt aux notions de genre, de plaisir, d’amour et de psychologie. Appliquant une méthode de « recherche hypersituée », les auteurs décrivent leurs interactions avec des chatbots dédiés à la romance et à la sexualité pour en analyser les promesses (personnalisation, disponibilité permanente, absence de censure) et leurs angles morts (consentement automatisé, biais cishetéronormatifs, incohérences entre texte et image générée). Ils concluent sur la nécessité de repenser ces interfaces au-delà des imaginaires normatifs.

Notions

• Chatbot,
• Consentement,
• Corps,
• Design,
• Féminisme,
• Genre,
• IA,
• Interface,
• Intimité,
• Pornographie,
• Queer,
• Sexualité,
• Solitude,
• Technologie,

Personnes citées

• Altman Sam,
• Baudry Patrick,
• Chen Qian,
• Cheng Michelle,
• Čupková Dominika,
• Dautrey Jehanne,
• Edwards Benj,
• Haraway Donna,
• Jonze Spike,
• Masure Anthony,
• Musk Elon,
• Pandelakis Saul,
• Pélicot Dominique,
• Pélicot Gisèle,
• Pollitt Katha,
• Qian Zilan,
• Quinz Emanuele,
• Raybaud Alice,
• Visser Marthe,
• Weizenbaum Joseph,

Objets mentionnés

• Blush,
• Character AI,
• Chub AI,
• Dialogue,
• ELIZA,
• Her,
• Kindroid,
• Nastia,
• Promptchan,
• Replika,
• RushChat,

Date

April 2017

Type

Conférence

Contexte

Conférence donnée au colloque international de design RAID, « Objet(s) post-numérique(s) », École Supérieure des Sciences et Technologies du Design (Essted), université de la Manouba, Tunis

Résumé

Depuis une dizaine d’années environ, le champ des objets dits « connectés » (à Internet) a fait son chemin dans notre quotidien (domotique, wearables, etc.). Fréquemment qualifiés « d’intelligents », ces derniers se situent à l’intrication du design produit et de la programmation. Pourtant, alors que le vocabulaire de l’intelligence et de la connexion semble impliquer des valeurs d’objectivation et de partage, les objets qui sont désignés sous ce terme se caractérisent trop souvent par le fait que leur « centre de commande » est en fait une « boîte noire » où « l’individu devient seulement le spectateur des résultats du fonctionnement des machines » (Gilbert Simondon). Reliés à des « applications » numériques, les objets « connectés » ne semblent exister que parce qu’il est loisible de les fabriquer.

Notions

• Capteur,
• Dispositif,
• Gestion,
• Innovation,
• Invisible,
• Intelligence,
• Objets connectés,
• Politique des données,
• Smart,
• Smart cities,
• Urbanisme,
• Ville,
• Ville intelligente,

Personnes citées

• Chatonsky Grégory,
• Dautrey Jehanne,
• Emanuele Quinz,
• Foucault Michel,
• Huyghe Pierre-Damien,
• Lantenois Annick,
• Lyotard Jean-François,
• Manovich Lev,
• Morris William,
• Mendini Alessandro,
• Morozov Evgeny,
• Nitot Tristan,
• Rollot Mathias,
• Simondon Gilbert,
• Wiener Norbert,

Objets mentionnés

• Black Mirror,
• Compteur électrique EDF Linky,
• libreobjet.org,
• Mr. Robot,
• N O R M A L S,
• Objets trous noirs,
• OGP toolbox,
• Puces RFID,
• Withings,