And if you were a detective engaging in tracing a murder, would you expect to find that the murderer had left his photograph behind at the place of the crime, with his address attached? Or would you not necessarily have to be satisfied with comparatively slight and obscure traces of the person you were in search of? (Freud, 1973: 52 cited in Highmore, 2002)
Highmore talks about everyday modern life being composed of both the ‘relentlessly routinized’ (the boring and banal) and the mysterious (the strange and marvellous). In thinking (and talking to Anne ) about locative media, one of my main concerns is the loss of these two qualities.
If we can (technologically) inscribe space with every nuanced action and thought, how do we still leave room for ambiguity in interpretation? Will space become further homogenised? By layering space with information do we destroy the mysteries of everyday life? How do we analyse the ‘slight and obscure traces’ in the ruins of digital place?
Comments