This research explores mediated ritual interactions in the form of pictures taken using a mobile device in tandem with two critical designs: Probably Not and World to GIF. We take our point of departure in Rich Ling’s understanding of mobile interaction as a ritual of social cohesion and social bonding to explore sociotechnical interactions with mobile technology. By means of playful critical interaction design methods, we explore how deviance from the ritual of mediated interaction through taking pictures on the mobile phone may enhance our understanding of artificial agents. Building upon Ling’s work, we mobilize the ritual aspect of mobile communication to open possibilities for imagining alternatives of seeing the world through artificial intelligence. We conclude by arguing that playful designs in mobile communication research may allow us to disassemble and reassemble mobile apps which enables critical reflection on the role of artificial agents in mobile rituals.
BardzellJBardzellSBlytheMA (eds) (2018) Critical Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BardzellSBardzellJForlizziJ, et al. (2012) Critical design and critical theory: The challenge of designing for provocation. In: Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 11–15 June, pp. 288–297. New York: ACM.
3.
ButlerJ (1990) Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse. In: NicholsonLJ (ed.) Feminism/Postmodernism. London: Routledge, pp. 324–340.
4.
CrawfordK (2021) Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press.
5.
CrawfordKPaglenT (2019) Excavating AI: The politics of training sets for machine learning. Available at: https://excavating.ai
6.
De Souza e SilvaA (2017) Pokémon Go as an HRG: mobility, sociability, and surveillance in hybrid spaces. Mobile Media & Communication5(1): 20–23.
7.
DouglasM (1968) The social control of cognition: some factors in joke perception. Man3(3): 361–376.
8.
DourishP (2017) The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
FrissenVLammesSde LangeM, et al. (2015) 1. Homo ludens 2.0 : Play, media, and identity. In: FrissenV. (ed.) Playful Identities: The Ludification of Digital Media Cultures. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 9–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048523030-001
10.
GaverB (2009) Designing for Homo Ludens, still. In: BinderTLöwgrenJMalmborgL (eds) (Re)Searching the Digital Bauhaus. London: Springer, pp. 163–178.
11.
GillespieTBoczkowskiPJFootKA (eds) (2014) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
HenricksTS (2016) Play and the Human Condition. Urbana, IL; Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
13.
HillAHartmannMAnderssonM (2021) Introduction: Mobile socialities. In: HillAAnderssonMHartmannM (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Mobile Socialities. London: Routledge, pp. 1–15.
14.
HjorthLHendryN (2015) A snapshot of social media: camera phone practices. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 11 May. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115580478.
15.
HjorthLPinkS (2014) New visualities and the digital wayfarer: reconceptualizing camera phone photography and locative media. Mobile Media & Communication2(1): 40–57.
16.
HjorthLRichardsonI (2020) Ambient play: Understanding mobile games in everyday life. In: LingRFortunatiLGogginG, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Communication and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 455–472.
17.
KoskinenIKurvinenELehtonenTK (2002) Mobile Image. Helsinki: IT Press.
18.
LeahuLThom-SantelliJPedersonC, et al. (2008) Taming the situationist beast. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on designing interactive systems, Cape Town, South Africa, 25–27 February, pp. 203–211. New York: ACM.
19.
LicoppeC (2004) “Connected” presence: the emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning22(1): 135–156.
20.
LingR (2004) The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
21.
LingR (2008) New Tech, New Ties: How Mobile Communication Is Reshaping Social Cohesion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
LingR (2012) Taken for Grantedness: The Embedding of Mobile Communication into Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
LingR (2015) The playful use of mobile phones and its link to social cohesion. In: FrissenVLammesSde LangeM, et al. (eds) Playful Identities. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 181–198.
24.
LingRCampbellSW (eds) (2011) Mobile Communication: Bringing Us Together and Tearing Us Apart. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
25.
LingRLiY (2020) Mobile photography. In: LingRFortunatiLGogginG, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Communication and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 392–407.
26.
LingRFortunatiLGogginG, et al. (2020) Introduction. LingRFortunatiLGogginG, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Communication and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–14.
27.
LugonesM (1987) Playfulness, “World”-travelling, and loving perception. Hypatia2(2): 3–19.
28.
MortensenMNeumayerC (2021) The playful politics of memes. Information, Communication & Society24(16): 2367–2377.
29.
NeumayerC (2020) Political protest and mobile communication. In: LingRFortunatiLGogginG, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Communication and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 244–256.
30.
NeumayerCMortensenMPoellT (2018) Introduction. In: MortensenMNeumayerCPoellT (eds) Social Media Materialities and Protest. London: Routledge, pp. 13–26.
31.
NeumayerCRossiL (2018) Images of protest in social media: Struggle over visibility and visual narratives. New Media & Society20(11): 4293–4310.
32.
NobleSU (2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: New York University Press.
33.
PaglenT (2019) Invisible images: your pictures are looking at you. Architectural Design89(1): 22–27.
34.
PinkSForsV (2017) Self-tracking and mobile media: new digital materialities. Mobile Media & Communication5(3): 219–238.
35.
PinkSHjorthL (2012) Emplaced cartographies: reconceptualising camera phone practices in an age of locative media. Media International Australia145(1): 145–155.
36.
RattoM (2011) Critical making: conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society27(4): 252–260.
37.
SicartM (2014) Play Matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
SicartM (2020) Playing software: the role of the ludic in the software society. Information, Communication & Society23(14): 2081–2095.
39.
SicartMShklovskiI (2020) Pataphysical software: (Ridiculous) technological solutions for imaginary problems. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference, Eindhoven, 6–10 July, pp. 1859–1871. New York: ACM.
40.
SontagS (1977) On Photography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
41.
SoonWCoxG (2020) Aesthetic Programming: A Handbook of Software Studies. London: Open Humanities Press.
42.
Sutton-SmithB (2009) The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
ZengJAbidinC (2021) “# OkBoomer, time to meet the Zoomers”: studying the memefication of intergenerational politics on TikTok. Information, Communication & Society24(16): 2459–2481.
44.
ZimmermanJForlizziJEvensonS (2007) Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 28 April–3 May, pp. 493–502. New York: ACM.
