Digital and Physical Materialities: Notions of effecting perceptions of value
Earlier today I was speaking with Jed (http://www.jedbrubaker.com/), who’s an amazing PhD student from UC-Irvine. He asked me a question about, the significance of digital objects specifically photos and if the significance we hold them to has changed somehow because they are now an abundant resource.
Upon reflection, I wrote him an email to further our discussion about this topic. This is very similar to the email I sent Jed, with some edits.
Idea 1: Digital and Physical Materiality are different, and we conceptualizes them as being different
The notion of transference of everyday, physical -dare I say a Paul Dourishian** notion of embodiment- and understanding of materiality and how those notions apply to the digital realm, I think is a false transference in some sense. Our understanding our interactions with digital materiality is far different then physical materiality. In a physical world, objects do not miraculously copy themselves, but that does and has to happen all the time in the digital world and this does so with ease. (We always act and interact in an embodied sense, but our understanding and conceptualization of how the world works is a different notion (e.g. interaction vs. understanding).) ***
So we have these two co-forming notions of “how we conceptualize the world works” and “how we interact with that world”, and I think these two notions are constantly co-forming and co-evolving both our understanding and how we interact with different kinds of materiality. (Actually, it’s even more complicated because these notions are dependent upon prior knowledge/experience.)
However, with things like ubicomp, pervasive computing, and true Dourishian embodied computing are converging these two views of materiality, so our understanding of these materialities are still evolving.
Anyway, I think because of these materialities it’s our attention that is now the scare resource, not the objects themselves.
I think this idea relates to Mcluhan’s notion that our attention is now the resource (I think it was Mcluhan who said that…).
Idea 2: With photographs, it’s the experience / memory that matters, which is an inter-subjective (or just subjective) phenomenon, that is not really tied to the physical object.
I’m a phenomenologist at heart, and even though we may have these notions, I think it’s in the our actions that they become special or “meaningful” in considering the nature of digital materiality. Actions such as reminiscing, sharing, tools/aids for reflection, etc.
Basically, it’s us going through the activity and the experiencing that is important, not the object itself.
I know this raises a lot of questions, like are the materialities actually different? Should these cross-material notions apply? If so or if not so, how do we move forward with that understanding (aka what are the implications for our actions (or what are the design implications))?, etc.
I guess I’m saying, that I think in this new realm of the digital, things actually become more significant, the more they are shared with each other, and as they increase experiences. (So this is a different model of how we understand scarcity and rarity, etc; right? since << totally speculating here >> but I think notions of scarcity are derived or rooted in deep biological fears (i.g. do we have enough food / water, etc.), and do not fit well in a refined understanding of the digital materiality of artifacts and experience.
Now, unfortunately I’m not citing anyone in particular, but I know these are not solely my ideas. 
but bugger if I can remember my citations, or who said what, or how this relates to theorist X, who said Y.
—–
** Paul Dourish has a very specific notion of embodiment that he outlines in his book “Where the Action Is”; I understand and define Dourishian embodiment as an approach to designing technology that both recognize that people have “natural” ways of doing things and that we as designers would do well to design for how people naturally act in the world.
*** Upon reflection, I realize this sounds very mind-body dualist separation. Sorry, my bad. I don’t actually think the mind and the body are separate, but I categorize them to show the distinctions. I also think it’s a byproduct of that particular type of epistemological upbringing. You can do stuff, and you can think about things, and all I meant was that we think about digital material in a different way than physical material.
