Russell Davies

As disappointed as you are
About | Feed | Archive | Findings | This blog by email

again with the post digital

post digital

I talked to a fascinating event in Endhoven on Friday. There was an associcated and rather good show at an art gallery in town (featuring James Bridle) and they asked me to write something about 'Post Digital' for it. I wasn't keen really, I'm a bit fed up with Post Digital. But I was flattered to be asked to write something for the art world and it felt like I might be supporting James a bit so I did it.

It does't actually seem to have been published anywhere though, so I thought I'd stick it here. There's not a lot of new news about it, but it's here for completeness.

(UPDATE: Apparently, there is a printed version of this available in the gallery, so, if you find youself in Eindhoven you could pop in and get one.)

Have at it:

I first talked about Post Digital at an event called Thinking Digital in 2009 in Gateshead. Looking back that’s probably where the phrase came from. I imagine I was trying to make a point that it was already too late to be merely Thinking Digital and we had to try and get beyond that kind of trammelled and limiting mindset. That’s the kind of arse I am.

My original Post Digital ramblings were inspired by three things:

1. Starting a thing called Newspaper Club

2. Reading Shaping Things by Bruce Sterling

3. Boredom with screens

The first was really an accident. The second was a desperate search for some sort of rationale that would make the first seem less stupid. The third is just characteristic of a short attention span.

We started Newspaper Club at about the same time as that talk in Gateshead - as the capitalist culmination of what started as a Christmas gift for our friends: a printed newspaper full of favourite blogposts called Things Our Friends Have Written On The Internet. (Which we made when another friend pointed out how cheap printing newspapers was these days, cheaper than you’d think.)

Watching the paper being printed, feeling the rumble of the machines, we became slightly obsessed with the idea of putting all this in a browser, wiring it all up to the internet, making it into another web accessible resource. Of not seeing the web as a way of floating off the physical world, disappearing in a puff of bits but embedding the web in the world, using it to reclaim, reuse and re-appropriate industrial age technologies. We became interested in the idea that we didn’t have to invent new ecosystems for everything that needed doing, that there were all these magnificent infrastructures just lying around, waiting to have new life breathed into them. They were being abandoned by the commercial entities that built them – just as they finally grasped the need to ‘get digital’ – but that didn’t mean they were valueless.

We decided that Newspaper Club’s message to the newspaper business could perhaps be a rallying cry for the internet at large: We Have Broken Your Businesses, Now We Want Your Machines.

We started the business because that seemed the best way to explore these things; how do you combine the best of the web – distribution, accessibility, curation – with the fastest, cheapest real-world printing? The reaction was weird, we had to keep explaining what was so good about newsprint to people who’d grown up with it. They seemed unable to divorce the technology from the business infrastructure that had built it. But it’s a great way to read, we pointed out, it’s durable, requires no batteries, the grammar and affordances are well understood, you can wave it around at a protest, it’s easy to monetise. Blah, blah, blah. All the familiar arguments. But it’s not digital they’d say, it’s not modern, you can’t update it on the fly, it’s out of date as soon as it’s printed, it’s a terrible way to deliver news. Yes, we’d say, and we’re not using it to deliver news. We’re letting people make wedding gifts, or print wrapping paper, or newsletters for their Paintballing Club or limited edition artistic monographs. It just takes digital content and makes it into something with higher resolution. Yes, er, but, they’d say. It’s still not very digital is it?

And, I think that’s why I liked Post Digital. I was trying to suggest that a generation of business people and technologists should get over themselves. They were so proud of being the people that monetised the web that they couldn’t get past it, they couldn’t think about what was next. They thought they were the end of the revolution, they’d stormed the Winter Palace and they were starting to tidy up. Post Digital was a suggestion that, maybe, we needed to get over that and start thinking about the next phase, the phase where it got integrated into the world. What will we do, I was asking, when we can take all this connectivity for granted? When it’s no longer special or interesting? What will we build then?

I, obviously, wasn’t talking about ‘Digital’ meaning ones and zeros, or Post Digital meaning Post Technology. I was getting at a particular cohort of technologies, attitudes and organisations. The companies that delightedly described themselves as Digital, the ones with the big screens in reception, the people that think a life well lived involves a big empty room, a really nice chair and a laptop. 

But it didn’t really work as a provocation. In fact, a bit later, I had to write a blog post disowning the idea. Or, rather, disowning what everyone thought I meant. A company I was working for, a traditional and resolutely analogue business decided it might like to use Post Digital as its marketing slogan. I realised then that it didn’t mean enough that was useful to me. It was just silly. Nowadays I only hear the words Post Digital when my friends want to take the piss. But, but, but…there’s still something there. There are still some thoughts worth exploring.

Firstly, I’m not getting any less bored with screens. And I don’t think I’m alone in that. A generation of designers and makers has grown up with the web, but they’re starting to realise that they’ve put every single pixel in every single position and there are no new possibilities in that glowing rectangle. Yes, of course, there are magical technological moments to come - and screens will deliver most of them. Screens will get cheaper, easier to power, easier to deploy and, hopefully, less glowing and attention grabbing. But it’s increasingly hard to impress anyone with a screen, everyone’s seen everything, in movies if not in life. But making matter do interesting new stuff still excites the hell out of people. We’ve seen that with Newspaper Club; hardened journalists and experienced print workers are astonished that we can print a single copy of a newspaper – much more befuddled than they would be by a genuinely difficult technological achievement delivered through a screen.

The problem right now, is that matter is hard, whereas bits are easy. You can take a new idea and push it through well-established pipes and into familiar pixels and sell it to the world. Digital scales. But even though the digital is convenient, you can feel people turning back to the real. Designers want to express themselves in new objects, they want to connect to more senses, they want to feel the grain of new materials and understand the implications of weight and friction. And, of course, capitalist and technological logic will dictate that the harder thing will soon become the desirable thing. Hard equals rare, rare equals exclusive, exclusive equals valuable.

So you’re seeing people playing with arduinos, not just as hobbyists but to explore new possibilities. You’re seeing them playing with 3D printing, inventing ‘computational wood’, rediscovering sound and tactility. They’re working to extract the joy of the connectivity and intelligence from our shiney, square devices and to squeeze it into our world. I’ve decided to deem that instinct an aspect of Post Digital. Why not? It may as well be.

And here’s another one: we’re not going to be living in a world of analogue ‘out here’ and digital ‘in there’. There’s not going to be analogue stuff wondering out in the world and digital stuff lurking behind screens. The digital stuff is going to be walking the earth too. We already have it embedded in our cars and washing machines and operating theatres, but we choose to ignore that, or to read it as something other than robotics. But, now, we’re starting to live with robots that look like robots, drones that look like drones. Digital is living in the real with us and it’s starting to change things, it’s starting to make what my friend Matt Jones calls a ‘Robot-Readable World’ - a world that accommodates machines as much as it accommodates us.

I wrote a thing a few years ago wondering about this kind of stuff, imagining what my fellow marketing professionals would do with cheap and easy robotics if they got their hands on it. The answer popped into my head fully formed and depressing. They’d build robo-chuggers. Cute, charming robots designed to replacer the ‘chuggers’ (or charity muggers) that roam British streets looking to sign people up to Direct Debits for good causes. It seemed like one of those slightly parodic speculative things that would never come to pass but might illustrate some worrying issues. It got built last year. Only they came up with a better name – ChugBot.

The robots are coming, they’re sliding into our lives via electrical goods departments and toy shops and catalogues and soon, straight from China into the Pound Shops and onto the market stalls. Yes, we’ll be getting fancy, glossy robots doing all sorts of deeply sophisticated things but mostly we’ll be getting bottom-up, cheap robotics doing stupidly amusing things. We’ll be getting robot gadgets and novelties. Snow-globes connected to the weather forecast. Coasters connected to calorie counters.

This isn’t nice websites and fancy apps. This is something else. This is what comes after that. So we could call it Post Digital. Why not?

Of course, the positive upside of all these cheap robotics is the same as the upside of a cheap web. We can make our own stuff. We can express ourselves. We can build what my friend Andy Huntington calls The Geocities of Things. We can add life and connectivity to the things in our lives like we were little Harry Potters. The magic and silliness of the web can escape from behind the screen and spill into the world, sweeping away the pristine banality of mass consumer electronics in a tide of walking gonks and talking doorknobs. It’ll be stupid and brutal and glorious and fun. And designers will absolutely hate it. Remember when we had to tell graphic designers that they couldn’t control how things looked online? That the lovely page they’d designed might not look like that on someone else’s computer, in someone else’s browser? Soon we’re going to have to do that with everything. Designers are going to have to design things that might or not get made with the specified materials, in the specified way, to the specified tolerances. They’re going to have to design the idea of an object and let the world make it the way it wants to. That seems Post Digital to me. I like the sound of it. Maybe it won’t take over the world, maybe it won’t be as big as the web, but I bet it gets to be as big as fishing or tabletop games. And that’d be fantastic; the imaginative, creative energy that goes into DIY and model railways and quilting getting poured into improving the stuff of everyday life and connecting it to everything else. That’s properly Post Digital.

And then, this morning, when struggling to think of a good ending to this, I heard a brilliant talk by George Dyson – describing the early history of computing unearthed from correspondence between Turing and Von Neumann. And I thought I heard him cite this quote from Turing. I wasn’t quite fast enough with my pen to be 100% sure and I can’t find it on Google, but I think this is what he said. And, if it is, it’s exactly what I mean and we can leave it at that. What I think he said is this: “being digital should be more interesting than just being electronic”. I’m sure that meant something slightly different in the middle of the last century but the words are useful and simple now, they’ll do for me as a tiny rallying cry; being digital should be more interesting than just being electronic.

 

November 27, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

I do, I like your hat

slow messaging service

The introversion article from The Atlantic seemed to strike a chord with people so here are a few related things:

@alby sent this: 10 Myths About Introvert

I found this a while ago: 'Shy students who use Facebook have better quality relationships"

And a lovely piece from Danny O'Brien which echoes what I've always thought - one of the reasons people (some people, at least) like blogging is because they can express themselves without having to meet anyone.

And, if you do want to meet people, it's a way of getting to know them first, so you don't have to deal with all that awkwardness at the beginning of a conversation. You're already through all that via the internet.

November 24, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

a bold initiative

the teapot of planning

We got our own tea pot.

November 23, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

speaking of shyness

Screen shot 2011-11-22 at 12.46.33 PM
This is good.

November 22, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

three months at R/GA

WARNING - LONG AND SELF-INVOLVED BLOG POST THAT INCLUDES FEELINGS AND NO SILLY VIDEOS ABOUT THE INTERNET OF THINGS

I've been at R/GA for about three months now. I've got to the end of my probationary period so I've just had what I can't help thinking of as my 'probationary hearing', which means getting lots of feedback from my colleagues.

As long-time readers of this blog will know I'm not very good with comments (I must be a nightmare to manage) so I was up all night thinking about it.

There was a gratifying number of positive thoughts from people. They seem to think that I'l be quite good at presenting and strategy and stuff (though they've not really seen me do it yet). But, obviously, I can't take any comfort from that because I have skin thinner than Bible paper and can only obsess about the bad stuff.

One point someone made was that I've never talked about R/GA on here or any other part of my 'public persence'. Which is, sort of, true, and made me wonder why not.

I think it's mostly because in every induction process I've had for a large company they've been mad keen to emphasise the strict prohibitions on breaking confidentiality or saying anything that might be seen as representing a corporate point of view. I've therefore been really cautious about blogging or tweeting about my proper jobs (as opposed to my hobby jobs). I did do it a bit at w+k, but that was before anyone really knew what was going on, I hardly did it at Nike - only really in retrospect, I hardly did it Ogilvy and haven't done it yet at R/GA. Until now.

But I think my feedbacker is right, I should. Blogging about what I'm doing is part of how I work and not doing it has been frustrating me recently. Also - it's probably part of the reason to hire me, it seems unfair to just switch it off. I once promised to never blog about planning/advertising again, I felt like I'd run out of things to say, but hey! I don't work in 'advertising' any more, maybe I'll find new things to say. We'll find out.

So, I'm going to blog more about work, while, obviously, respecting client confidentiality and emphasising these are my views, not R/GA's. Maybe I'll be guilty of oversharing rather than undersharing, maybe I already am. But sod it, I'm a blogger, that's what everyone thinks of me anyway.

A more depressing comment was that I often look bored or unengaged in meetings - going as far as being actually rude to people. I'll cop to this. It's a fair point and it's bad of me. I apologise.

My only possible excuse is that personal circumstances have been a bit shit recently and it's been hard to think that any meeting has been worth being in - in comparison with where I should be. But that's not the fault of anyone in the meeting and I shouldn't be taking it out on them.

It can't be just that though, I've had this before. I got this as w+k and I imagine I would have at Ogilvy. I have to accept it's probably true. I like to think it's a symptom of shyness rather than arrogance but that might be entirely self-serving, the line between the two is probably very thin.

So; two pledges right now. Share more. Be less rude.

And, in the spirit of the first pledge. How is R/GA?

Well, it's good. Due to aforsaid personal circumstances I've not engaged as much as I should have and I've not actually done that much I can talk about, but I've noticed the following things:

1. It's tremendous to be in a business with such a deep understanding of technology. It's a company that builds stuff rather than commissions stuff - that's a big and exciting change for me.

2. Everyone's nice. Everyone's smart. Everyone's younger than me. (This is simultaneously depressing and energising. It also gives the place an 'evening culture' which doesn't quiet fit with my earlyness agenda but I suppose that'll get smoothed out.)

3. We have a small but rather special planning department who I'm really enjoying getting to know.

4. Analytics! We've got proper analytics people and they know what they're talking about. I've wibbled on about data for so long without ever needing to justify my opinions to real-life data scientists - this is going to be good.

5. There's this inchoate ambition here to do much more and build much more than they're currently doing but it's not found a way to break the surface yet. I'm hoping I'll be able to help with that.

6. I've only got deeply involved with one client project so far, but it's a really interesting problem with really nice people. We're doing strategic stuff at the moment and it's really nice to flex those muscles again.

The only bad point? I've only been here three months and they've already spotted what a grumpy sod I am.

Anyway. That's a very long-winded way to say - look out for more blogging about work. Maybe I'll start doing weeknotes.

November 22, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

visions of the future

There seem to be a lot of 'visions of the future' videos floating around at the moment. Like these. So I thought I'd make my own - considering particularly some of the likely effects of widely embedded cheap computing and accesible APIs. I hope you enjoy it.

November 07, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

the solace of objects

More little half-term trips; Bletchley Park and the Wellcome Collection, more things that seem to relate to current trains of thought:

bletchley park

bletchley park

bletchley park

bletchley park

bletchley park

bletchley park

wellcome collection

wellcome collection

wellcome collection

wellcome collection

wellcome collection

October 28, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

the smallness of things

A quick trip to the Science Museum today. Not, on the face of it, a good idea in the middle of half-term, but actually, very rewarding. There's always a quiet corner where you can find something interesting. And there's always evidence that, whatever you're thinking about, someone's thought about it before.

science museum

science museum

science museum

science museum

October 26, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

talk to the hand

I'm experiencing one of those little clusters of noticing. Your attention snags on one thing, then lots of similar things seem to crop up all at once.

I realised that, all my life, I'd been wondering about those hand signals people use in action movies. Holding up their fist to say Stop etc. And I finally wondered about it while in front of a computer and ready to do a little googling.

Here, for instance, is a guide from the First City Rifles, a military explorer programme for 14-18 year olds.

I can imagine this being useful on a conference call:

Fig2-5

This, hopefully, would crop up less often:

Fig2-57

And, then I saw this piece in the NY Times which illustrates the signs the staff at a New York restaurant use to talk to each other and references the same practise at the 'legendary Stork Club'. Photos of which you can see here. Guess what this means:

C61

It just occured to me that these are all North American examples. I wonder why that is, the influence of baseball maybe? Did military signals preceed sporting ones?

Ah - I've just thought of a non-US version - cricket umpires. And, of course, Give Us A Clue.

There's no particular point to this except to wonder whether these vocabularies will be mined by the gesture scientists. I can imagine furiously signalling I DO NOT UNDERSTAND at a computer vision device somewhere - trying to do the signal equivalent of shouting or enunciating more clearly.

(I always wanted to make a Kinect Hack which would read Give Us A Clue signals, connect to the IMDB database and guess the movie. That'd be a proper demo of machine learning.)

Anyway.

 

October 25, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

how things work: cubelets, littlebits, others

cubelets - first play

Various interesting little kits have gathered at our house in the past few months. We got the cubelets beta kit from modular robotics, the littlebits kit and various bits and bobs I've been practising my soldering on.

The best thing about them all is the way they let you see inside processes - let you play around with things you might understand intellectually, but haven't fiddled with with your fingers, haven't understood at that level.

cubelets - first play

Within about 10 minutes of getting the cubelets out of the box, for instance, we'd built this robot that follows your hand around:

It's not new and surprising behaviour in a toy and it's not unbuildable with Lego or Mecanno. But there's something different and good about being able to do it so quickly, roughly and spontaneously - throwing bits together and getting behaviour out. Not following instructions or typing laboriously. That ease makes it magical and educational - you start to understand the functions of things as a builder not a thinker. (Slightly, you know, slightly - at a lego level, not at a 5-year engineering degree level, but it's a start.)

I'm sure once a huge box of cubelets with loads of different behaviours becomes properly affordable then all sorts of interesting things will emerge.

littleBits

Littlebits seem even earlier in the cycle - there's a fantastic idea here, waiting for scale and economics to make it work. Right now, you can see what they're getting at, but it needs a huge box of bits for it to be properly fun. It'll be good when it's going properly though - you can imagine this sort of thing being easily buildable, just by snapping things together.

littleBits

littleBits

I tell you what this all feels like. It's like the weekend Ben and I went toyhacking with Alex. I suddenly got unafraid of poking around at this stuff and started thinking about what's inside.

noise hero

I've been plugging leads into jacks for 30 years, for instance, and waggling them unhappily when they don't quite work. But only while building the Noise Hero did I actually examine what one looks like on the inside. And that's fundamentally changed my sense of what's going on in there. It's not a big thing, but it's something. It makes devices a little bit more comprehensible, which must be a good thing.

We're not quite at the Geocities of Things, but we're getting closer.

October 24, 2011 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

« Previous | Next »