intelligent agent 06.02

Urban Screens – The Urbane Potential ofPublic Screens for InteractionMirjam Struppek

AbstractWithin a time frame of about ten years, experimental(interactive) media installations and performances havegained recognition as new art forms in public space.Artworks explore the interconnectedness of publicspace, interaction, and new media. Urban Screensinvestigates how the growing infrastructure of dynamicdigital displays in urban space, currently dominated bycommercial forces, can be utilized in this context andbroadened with cultural content. The research projectwants to network and sensitize engaged parties for pos-sibilities of using the digital infrastructure for contributingto a lively urban society. The integration of current infor-mation technologies supports the development of a newdigital layer of the city in a fusion of material and imma-terial space, redefining the function of this growing infra-structure. Interactivity and participation will bind thescreens to the communal context of the space andthereby create local identity and engagement.

The Redefinition of a GrowingInfrastructure

Public space is the city's medium for communicationwith itself, with the new and unknown, with the historyand with the contradictions and conflicts that arise fromall those. Public space is urban planning's moderator ina city of free players. [1]Prof. Wolfgang Christ, 2000

How can the growing digital display infrastructureappearing in the modern urban landscape contribute tothis idea of a public space as moderator and as commu-nication medium?

The mobilization of digital technology and a growing dig-ital culture have changed the urban communicationenvironment. In the context of the rapidly evolving com-mercial information sphere of our cities, various newdigital display technologies are being introduced into theurban landscape: daylight compatible LED billboards,plasma screens exposed in shop windows, beam-boards, information displays in public transport systems,electronic city information terminals, holographic screenprojections, or dynamic and intelligent surfaces, integrat-ed into architectural facade structures. [Fig. 1]

As McQuire has put it, "The migration of electronicscreens into the external cityscape has become one of

the most visible tendencies of contemporary urbanism."[2] Considering this already existing digital infrastruc-ture, it is a great challenge to broaden the use of these"moving billboards," as Lev Manovich calls them in hisvision of an Augmented Space [3], instead of floodingurban space with new techno-objects.

Figure 1: New York Times Square: accumulation of LED boards.Photo: Louis Brill.

So far one of the main targets of this infrastructure is tomanage and control consumer behavior. We are not faraway from the implementation of technology that makesit possible to cover buildings with large flexile planes ofmoving images, networked and controlled from one cen-tral location but making use of site-specifically collectedconsumer data. Display systems already start to detectour behavior and adjust to our consumer preferences.

Paul Virillio sees the new, developing "pervasive archi-tecture-style" of screens covering high-rise-facades as"Electronic Gothic." [4] He refers to the narratives ofGothic church windows, which where aimed at effectingpeople's moral behavior. Immersion and its effects onthe audience will also be increased by the "perfect"incorporation of screens in the architecture of the urbanlandscape.

interactivecity.struppek.urbanscreens.01

How can the use of these screens controlled by marketforces be broadened and culturally curated? Initiativessuch as Locomotion, Going Underground, Strictly Public,Outvideo, the 59th Minute and Transmedia :29:59 [5]are pioneering in their use of commercial outdoor dis-plays for screenings of video art. New balancedalliances are needed that challenge city authorities andregulators, architects, advertisers and broadcasters, aswell as cultural curators, artists, and the citizen as pro-ducer – joint cooperations to shape the future develop-ment of the "screen world" in a sustainable manner,considering the danger of visual and technological pollu-tion of urban space. [Fig. 2]

Figure 2. The range of screens in urban public space.

Urban Screens are defined as various kinds of dynamicdigital displays in urban space that are used in consider-ation of a well balanced, sustainable urban society –screens that support the idea of public space as spacefor creation and exchange of culture, or the formation ofa public sphere through criticism and reflection. Theirdigital and networked nature makes these screeningplatforms an experimental visualization zone on thethreshold of virtual and urban public space.

The Broader Context of UrbanScreensUrban public space – understood as open, civic space –is a key element in the development of European urban-ism. In this role as space for representation, culture, andencounter through trade, exchange and discussion,urban areas have always been a place that is renderedalive through various interactions. Referring back to theold concept of the Greek Agora, urban public space is aunique arena for exchange of rituals and communica-tion. A constant process of renewal and negotiationchallenges the development of urban society. The archi-tectural dimension of urban space has played an impor-tant role in providing a stage for these interactions.Moreover, the architecture itself functions as a medium,telling narratives about the city, its people, and the rep-resented structure of society. Its inhabitants can readthe reoccurring social interactions and the way thespace is populated in a participatory process. The wholeurban structure is becoming the crystallization of thecity's memory over time.

Yet, the vanishing role of public space as place forsocial and symbolic confrontation and discourse has

been much discussed in urban sociology over the lastcentury. Sennett, Häussermann, and Bott, in particular,have pointed out how, since modernization, individual-ization and a growing independence from place andtime seem to have destroyed the old rhythms of the cityand therefore its social systems. We currently face atransitional period of the restructuring of social networksand discover new relations among people and places ina globalized world that is threatened by diffuse andcomplex fears of instability and lack of strong localroots. This situation has resulted in various experimentswith new types of relations, supported by developingnew media tools.

In its early stages, the Internet was discovered as new,alternative public sphere. The rediscovery of a civicsociety is tied to the inherent structure of the Internet,which is strongly based on cooperative exchange andshared engagement through the openness of systems.The population of virtual spaces – virtual cities with theirchat rooms, MUDs, and experimental spaces for creat-ing alternative identities – has been continuously grow-ing. Now we are looking at various experiments withcommunity in the growing field of social computing –peer-to-peer networks, friend-of-a-friend communitiessuch as Orkut or Friendster, and, more recently, mobilecommunities connecting mobile phone users. We alsofind participatory experiments in content creation withinthe mailinglist culture and wiki and blogging systems,serving an increased need for self-expression. Nowthese explorations of virtual worlds have merged withthe rediscovery of urban public space, the recent popu-larity of locative media being one indicator of this devel-opment.

In parallel, an "event culture" has evolved in the realurban space. Guy Debord already foresaw "the societyof the spectacle" in 1967, and his critique of a society"in which the individuals consume a world fabricated byothers rather than producing one of their own, organizedaround the consumption of images, commodities, andstaged events" [6] should be taken seriously. In thegrowing international competition among cities, thefocus often is on tourism or the citizen as consumer.City marketing and urban management strategies areapplied to create a vision of "creative cities" that are infact not necessarily supporting the inhabitants' creativeuse of the city or their creative contribution to a livelyurban culture. Cities are engaged in a struggle with a"feeling of placelessness" caused by the spread of inter-national architecture and branded shops. In fact,screens also tend to look the same everywhere, so

intelligent agent 06.02interactivecity.struppek.urbanscreens.02

there is a need to consider the locality as well as site-specifity of the content in order to prevent further dis-connection of the perception of our urban space fromthe actual locality.

In order to maintain the social sustainability of our cities,it is important to take a closer look at the livability anduse of urban public space and the rediscovery of a civicsociety. The information platform www.interactionfield.degives an overview of numerous interactive media proj-ects, assessing their potential for urban society in termsof:

Promoting interaction, fearless confrontation andcontact with strangers Promoting formation of public sphere by criticism,reflection on society Promoting social interaction and integration in thelocal neighborhood Supporting understanding of the current develop-ment of our high-tech society Supporting conscious participation in the creation ofpublic space [7]

Urban Screens can be understood in the context of areinvention of the public sphere and the urban characterof cities, based on a well-balanced mix of functions andthe idea of the inhabitant as active citizen instead ofproperly behaving consumer. Virtual spaces alone can-not function as spaces for exchange and production ofidentity.

The Character of Urban ScreensIn connection with the ephemeral yet open character ofthe digital information world, Urban Screens asks for anew urban language with its own dynamic signs andsymbols, formed through active participation from vari-ous players. New interactive technologies and net-worked media offer more possibilities for the visual pro-gramming of these digital surfaces through the interplayof new display technologies, broadcasting tools, data-base and content management systems, and sensortechnology. Linda Wallace sees "the internet as a deliv-ery mechanism to inhabit and or change actual urbanspaces." [8]

Through the the Internet and other digital networks, digi-tal content has become more fluid, being, at least in the-ory, available anytime, anywhere, produced for the audi-ence of the new global village. Could large outdoor dis-plays function as experimental "visualization zones" of afusion of virtual public spaces and our real world? Canwe localize the huge flows of information through thesescreens, and can these zones in fact play a more activerole, more active than just providing the canvas onwhich the digital world is rendered? What characterizesUrban Screens is a connection to the locality of the stat-ic nature of the new screening infrastructure.

In contrast to the mobile screens integrated in phones,PDAs, laptops etc., which display content for an individ-ual, Urban Screens focuses on the public urban audi-ence, on joint and widespread reception of media con-tent. The growing embeddedness in screen systems,accessibility of information via Internet, mobile devices,etc. augments the respective urban space's "situated-ness." Levels of locality and globality vary, ranging fromthe local neighborhood screens with symbols and signson a city level to trans-urban networks of screensenabling new "glocal" interconnectivity.

Visions of New Content and UseThe first steps in broadening the commercial advertise-ment content of large digital outdoor screens focused onthe transfer and slight adjustment of TV features to thenew circumstances of public viewing. Soon we mighthave TV broadcast stations specialized in urban publicspace and its local community. The experiments doneby BBC in collaboration with Philips and local CityCouncils in various cities in the UK could be considereda forerunner to these TV broadcast stations. They coor-dinated outdoor movie-screenings, the collective watch-ing of soccer-games, and special City-TV news chan-nels. [Fig. 3] Preferably set up in key locations, in a set-ting for a wider audience, these screenings in memo-rable places could support identification with local cul-ture through joint experiences. A local memory couldindeed develop, if the screens were used as a meansfor maintaining and supporting a rich and complex localculture.

Figure 3. Soccer game on the BBC Big Screen in Manchester; cele-bration of victory.

There has been a growing interest in connecting screen-ing infrastructure with cultural institutions that preserveand produce digital content or video art. Cultural centersand institutions such as the Schaulager in Basel andAustria's Kunsthaus Graz have started, in a more exper-imental style, to officially integrate screens in their archi-tectural facades, so that they function as an extensionof their archives into public space. The Australian

intelligent agent 06.02 interactivecity.struppek.urbanscreens.03

Centre for the Moving Image uses the nearby publicscreen in Federation Square, Melbourne. The CreativeIndustries Precinct (Australia's first site dedicated to cre-ative experimentation and commercial development inthe creative industries, located on the western fringe ofBrisbane's Central Business District) integrated threescreens in its complex of buildings to address differentaudiences. [Fig. 4] One of the screens will be used tosupport the development of a new local community inthe vicinity. The above mentioned BBC project of PublicSpace Broadcasting on community screens collaboratesextensively with local art institutions.

Figure 4. The orientation of the three screens at the CreativeIndustries Precinct, sketch by Peter Lavery.

A new audience can be reached on their daily routes bybringing content into outdoor public space. ConnectingUrban Screens amongst each other could enable newmechanisms for creating and maintaining relationshipsbetween cross-cultural organizations and their audi-ences.

Connected screens could also serve as exchange plat-form between the inhabitants of various cities. A repeat-edly suggested idea for using these screens is toenhance the connectivity of remote communitiesthrough shared visual displays that utilize videoconfer-encing. These connections between remote spacesreflect the relativity of the terms "close" and "remote" ina globalized world and an increasingly transnationallifestyle. Hole In Space (1980), one of the early projectsof this kind connected the people walking past theLincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York Citywith people in the Broadway department store inCentury City (LA) through life-sized television images.The project Hole in the Earth (2003-2004) linked theaudience in Rotterdam with people in Indonesia on theother side of the world through screens, camera, andmicrophones in an installation resembling a well. [Fig. 5]

In Russia, China, USA, and South America large net-works are currently developing on a city as well asnational level. Screens become a key element in thegovernment, regional, and urban informational infra

Figure 5. Opening of the installation Hole in the Earth by Maki Ueda,Rotterdam, December 2003.

structure due to their ability to easily convey and spread content in local spaces.

The appeal of a local environment obviously is a highlysubjective matter, but a sophisticated social interactionand information network in a local neighborhood couldplay an important role in the perception of locality, sup-porting a feeling of security. By connecting large outdoorscreens with experiments in online worlds, the culture ofcollaborative content production and networking couldbe brought to a wider audience and serve as an inspira-tion.

Interactive screens integrated into urban furniture similarto a blackboard for comments, stories, conversations,could also help to circulate and access data, servingand strengthening the local community and its small-scale economy.

In 1997, Philips already was involved in a large researchproject called LIME (Living Memory), which integrated alocal exchange platform into café tables and other urbanfurniture. Following this early example, various projectsaimed at further developing the idea of interactive com-munity boards and supporting the information exchangein a local community are currently being produced. [9]

In an attempt to address issues of fear in urban spaces,Rude Architecture implemented a network of Chat Stopsequipped with interactive video technology, enablingcommunication between people waiting at different busstops. If they desired, people could start a "video confer-ence" with others waiting somewhere else. By means ofcommunication with other inhabitants, the boredom ofwaiting could be alleviated through conversations, andsubjective feelings of safety could potentially beincreased. The project applies video communicationinstead of video surveillance – voluntarily and transpar-ent, but at the same time entertaining.

The mobile phone can also be utilized as informationtransmitter. Various artists have rediscovered the idea ofthe urban dialogue in the form of speaker's corners and

intelligent agent 06.02interactivecity.struppek.urbanscreens.05

have been experimenting with the use of SMS for publicexpression. The project Storyboard by Stefhan Caddickused a mobile Variable Message Sign situated in publicspace to display submitted SMS text. Will the next stepbe to connect the "blogosphere" to Urban Screens?What strategies will prevent misuse and encouragehigh-quality submissions?

Involving an urban audience in experiments requiringparticipatory planning and making use of the participato-ry tools of new media is a great challenge. Screens inpublic spaces could function as mediation boardbetween the community and the local planning depart-ment and serve as a public display for the exchange ofideas.

Jeanne van Heeswijk's project Face Your World – whichtook place in Columbus, Ohio, in 2002 – gave childrenon a bus access to a multi-user computer game allow-ing them to redesigning their communities as they envi-sioned them. [Fig. 6] At three bus stops, the creationswere displayed on special screen sculptures presentingthe results of the game to the urban community. As vanHeeswijk put it, "It's about the way people look at thespace around them. With everything being privatizednow, people don't view the community as their own anymore." [10] In this case, digital media were utilized asinteraction catalysts for the participation and engage-ment of young people in a local community.

Figure 6. Face Your World: involving young kids in community plan-ning.

ConclusionContent needs to be coordinated with new visions ofhow, when, and in what specific locations screens canbe integrated in the urban landscape and its architec-ture. The balance between content, location, and type ofscreen determines the success of the interaction withthe audience and prevents noise and visual pollution.Furthermore, we need to understand how the growinginfrastructure of digital displays influences the percep-tion of our public spaces' visual sphere.

Whenever we integrate a medium into the city's publicspace, we need to assume responsibilities regarding thesustainability of our urban society. Public space is theglue that holds urban society together. It is time to

shape future directions of the developing "screen world"in a sustainable manner. It is time to develop more cre-ative visions for alternative, socially oriented content forvarious types of Urban Screens and to avoid a focus ontechnology. Other forces than merely commercial inter-ests should drive the attempt to shape the future devel-opment of the emergent "screen world." [11]

Mirjam StruppekUrban Media Research, Berlinhttp://www.interactionfield.destruppek@interactionfield.de

References:[1] W. Christ, "Public versus private Space," IRS inter-

national symposium, Die europäische Stadt - ein aus-laufendes Modell? (Erkner bei Berlin, Germany, March2000).

[2] S. McQuire, "The Politics of Public Space in theMedia City" in Urban Screens: Discovering the potentialof outdoor screens for urban society, First MondaySpecial Issue #4 (February 2006), http://www.firstmon-day.org

[3] Lev Manovich, "The Poetics of Augmented Space"(2002),http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/augmented_space.doc

[4] P. Virilio, "We may be entering an electronic gothicera" in Architectural Design - Architects in CyberspaceII, Vol. 68 No. 11 / 12 (Nov. / Dec. 1998), pp. 61-65.

[5] For a list of artistic screening events and initiativessee http://www.urbanscreens.org

[6] S. Best, D. Kellner, The Postmodern Turn (GuilfordPress: New York, NY, 1997), p. 82.

[7] For a detailed description of these developed cate-gories see http://www.interactionfield.de

[8] L. Wallace, "Screenworld" in Material media, arte-facts from a digital age (2003), http://www.machine-hunger.com.au/phd/pdf?

[9] E. Churchill et al. "Multimedia fliers: information shar-ing with digital community bulletin boards" in Huysman,Marleen et al. (eds.) Communities and technologies(Kluwer, B.V.: Deventer, 2003), pp. 97-117.

[10] van Heeswijk cited in J. Gentile, "Exhibit to unitecommunity," The Lantern Issue 6/27/02, Arts Section(2002), http://www.thelantern.com

[11] For a detailed article presenting various UrbanScreens projects, see M. Struppek, "The social potentialof Urban Screens" in Screens and the SocialLandscape, Visual Communication, Vol. 5, No. 2 (SagePublications, June 2006), pp. 173-188.

intelligent agent 06.02 interactivecity.struppek.urbanscreens.05