Yesterday I posted a picture from IT Universitetet in Copenhagen on my moblog on hq23. Mach replied and explained how it all went down. The students can no longer continue the digital conversation in the public space at IT-U which is sad. It was such a great idea: On some of the screens the students could write numbers that would be converted into graphic shapes. On other screens they could write messages (imagine getting that “Hi, you wanna go on a date?” in a public space or “Congrats with your A+, Nikolaj”). It was public conversations (as some may remeber is what communication as well as markets are all about). The other perspective on this story would be what culture the Maeda-installation was trying to sustain or build and what enlived norms and culture the decision of not letting students participate demonstrates; clearly two different views and goals. My question is, which of these two ways of managing will create more interesting dialogue and effects?
This piece of art went from an authentic user-driven conversation to being a superficial installation. But well, I can still enjoy the thought and recall my early enthusiasm for the work of John Maeda.
Check out this little piece of video to get a feeling of the installation.