Search Here ….

Tags

affect AI AI slop AI STORIES alumni art autocorrect Blogging book ChatGPT conferences data analysis digital art electronic literature ELMCIP environmental art exhibition flies Gephi history journalister LLMs London machine vision market literature motherhood network analysis norsk open access Pierre Huyghe publication publications research science fiction self-representation selfies social media Surveillance talks teaching tracking trip report twitter UiB visualisation
Digital Art Machine Vision

Exhibition setup!

JillPost a Comment

OK, this is extremely exciting: the University Museum is making an exhibition about research in our Machine Vision in Everyday Life project! They’ve been working on it for months, and COVID has made everything look very iffy, but now it really looks as though it is nearly ready, and we hope to be able to open it on March 18. Fingers crossed there isn’t a new lockdown before then…

Marit Amundsen is one of the curators on the project.

You’ll enter the exhibition through this tunnel, which will be lit up and “scan” you – then a mechanic guide (a talking head video) will greet you and instruct you to draw a card that gives you a specific role. You’ll view the exhibition from the point of view of your role – a wonderful touch that our larp development team came up with. (The actual larp is planned for November.)

Kurdin Jacob and Magnus Knustad worked with the curators to map surveillance cameras and other tracking around Bergen.

The exhibition is beautifully thought out. Our whole project team contributed ideas, with Andreas Zingerle, Linda Kronman and Gabriele de Seta leading, and the curator team came up with excellent ideas for how to actually make the exhibition exciting to visit. The focus is on the research, but as we research art and games and narratives there are also a lot of artworks in the exhibition – I am thrilled we were able to include this, because there is a lot of evocative art that directly engages with or critiques machine vision technologies.

Eli Hausken and Marit Amundsen looking at James Bridle’s nearly-fully installed artwork, Cloud Index.
Mattias and Eli working on getting the artwork set up – this is Forensic Architecture’s The Battle of Ilovaisk.

There are a lot of details involved with organising an exhibition. Thankfully the Museum are extremely professional, and Andreas was immensely helpful in coordinating with artists and so on (if any of the artists are reading this, your contracts are on the way, we had a few bureaucratic hurdles that are figured out now).

I also loved learning how the museum curators work when designing an exhibition like this. This is the floor plan they developed after many conversations with the research team.

The floor plan for the exhibition.

Sadly the University Museum isn’t able to accept school classes now due to COVID, which is a real shame, as this is an exhibition that would have been so well suited to school visits – and that is usually a major part of what the Museum does. If we’re lucky we’ll be able to have visiting school classes later this spring.

Woman smiling and holding a poster.
This will be on one of the walls. They let me hold it up for the photo though!

I’ll share more as the exhibition is closer to being ready to show!

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI and algorithmic culture University politics

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.