Skip to main content

The Lab Book: Notes

The Lab Book

Notes

Notes

Introduction

  1. Wondrich, Punch; O’Neil, Fix the Pumps.

    Return to note reference.

  2. Lab Series website, https://www.labseries.com.

    Return to note reference.

  3. Hudson’s Bay Company, “Hudson’s Bay and Lord & Taylor.”

    Return to note reference.

  4. See Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 79–82.

    Return to note reference.

  5. Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory,” 165.

    Return to note reference.

  6. Latour, 168.

    Return to note reference.

  7. Latour, 166.

    Return to note reference.

  8. Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, 13, 27.

    Return to note reference.

  9. Latour, 27.

    Return to note reference.

  10. Latour, 34. Many years before, Lewis Mumford makes a similar argument in Technics and Civilization, 130.

    Return to note reference.

  11. Latour, 11.

    Return to note reference.

  12. Alpers, “The Studio.”

    Return to note reference.

  13. Zielinski, Deep Time of the Media.

    Return to note reference.

  14. Marx, “Preface to the First Edition,” 89.

    Return to note reference.

  15. Bök, ’Pataphysics.

    Return to note reference.

  16. Galison, “Aufbau/Bauhaus.”

    Return to note reference.

  17. See Bruno, “Film, Aesthetics, Science.”

    Return to note reference.

  18. Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life, 30.

    Return to note reference.

  19. Mattern, “Intellectual Furnishing.”

    Return to note reference.

  20. Stengers, Power and Invention, 170.

    Return to note reference.

  21. Geoghegan, “After Kittler,” 70.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Siegert, Cultural Techniques, 2015.

    Return to note reference.

  23. Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life, 47.

    Return to note reference.

  24. Shaviro, Without Criteria, 61.

    Return to note reference.

  25. Urry, Mobilities, 253–54.

    Return to note reference.

  26. Gieryn, “Truth Is Also a Place.”

    Return to note reference.

  27. Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life, 64.

    Return to note reference.

  28. Latour and Woolgar, 65.

    Return to note reference.

  29. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 40–41.

    Return to note reference.

  30. Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life, 58.

    Return to note reference.

  31. Latour and Woolgar, 48.

    Return to note reference.

  32. Sterne, “The Example,” 22.

    Return to note reference.

  33. Sterne, The Audible Past, 36.

    Return to note reference.

  34. Sterne, 42.

    Return to note reference.

  35. T. Bennett, “Civic Laboratories,” 527.

    Return to note reference.

  36. T. Bennett, 528.

    Return to note reference.

  37. The “interthing communication” that takes place in that network, Marc Steinberg proposes, is the precondition for the social function of those things, in that it allows the things to speak to people, and people to speak to each other through them as media. Media are irreducible to commodity products, but commodities are undeniably part of the infrastructure of our communication and making (Anime’s Media Mix, 91).

    Return to note reference.

  38. Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” 380–81.

    Return to note reference.

  39. Star, 381–82.

    Return to note reference.

  40. Siegert, Cultural Techniques, 5.

    Return to note reference.

  41. See Knorr Cetina, “The Couch,” 121.

    Return to note reference.

  42. Burns, The Scientific Revolution, 164.

    Return to note reference.

  43. Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, 44.

    Return to note reference.

  44. Zielinski, “Modelling Media for Ignatius Loyola.”

    Return to note reference.

  45. Parikka, What Is Media Archaeology?, 45.

    Return to note reference.

  46. Bruno, “Film, Aesthetics, Science,” 104.

    Return to note reference.

  47. Bruno, 91.

    Return to note reference.

  48. Bruno, 100.

    Return to note reference.

  49. Bruno, 109.

    Return to note reference.

  50. Feder, “Scrounging Old Equipment.” Scrounging could easily be described as part of the list of common laboratory techniques.

    Return to note reference.

  51. Sterne, “Headset Culture,” 58.

    Return to note reference.

  52. Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life, 182.

    Return to note reference.

  53. Siegert, Cultural Techniques, 11.

    Return to note reference.

  54. Du Gay et al., Doing Cultural Studies, 4.

    Return to note reference.

  55. See, for example, Angus, “The Materiality of Expression,” and Gitelman, Always Already New.

    Return to note reference.

  56. Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life, 243.

    Return to note reference.

  57. T. Bennett, “Civic Laboratories,” 525.

    Return to note reference.

  58. Rheinberger, On Historicizing Epistemology, 29.

    Return to note reference.

  59. Knorr Cetina, “The Couch.” Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  60. Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 24.

    Return to note reference.

  61. Hacking, 36.

    Return to note reference.

  62. Hacking, 36.

    Return to note reference.

  63. Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life, 257. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  64. Pickering, The Mangle of Practice, 562.

    Return to note reference.

  65. Pickering, 563.

    Return to note reference.

  66. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 11.

    Return to note reference.

  67. Kuhn, 19.

    Return to note reference.

  68. Kuhn, 20.

    Return to note reference.

  69. De Landa, Assemblage Theory, 89–90.

    Return to note reference.

  70. De Landa, 90.

    Return to note reference.

  71. Marvin, When Old Technologies Were New, 15.

    Return to note reference.

  72. Marvin, 4.

    Return to note reference.

  73. Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 38–39. See also T. Bennett, “Civic Laboratories,” 522, 526.

    Return to note reference.

  74. R. Williams, Marxism and Literature, 126.

    Return to note reference.

  75. Hacking, “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences,” 30.

    Return to note reference.

  76. Hacking, 30.

    Return to note reference.

  77. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 46.

    Return to note reference.

  78. Kuhn, 46.

    Return to note reference.

  79. Kuhn, 79.

    Return to note reference.

  80. Kuhn, 149.

    Return to note reference.

  81. Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory,” 142.

    Return to note reference.

1. Lab Space

  1. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 37, 57.

    Return to note reference.

  2. Lefebvre, 33.

    Return to note reference.

  3. Lefebvre, 39, 46.

    Return to note reference.

  4. Dourish, email to Lori Emerson, November 9, 2018.

    Return to note reference.

  5. Latour, Science in Action, 4, 99.

    Return to note reference.

  6. Kohler, “Lab History,” 766.

    Return to note reference.

  7. See Larocque, “Hook & Eye”; Bowie, “SpiderWebShow.ca”; and Stepić, “Bums in Seats.”

    Return to note reference.

  8. The origin of most discourse on cyberspace is, of course, William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer; but in terms of media studies works, Michael Benedikt’s edited collection Cyberspace: First Steps and Howard Rheingold’s The Virtual Community are a few of the earliest and most extensive accounts of the shape and contours of early, online communities.

    Return to note reference.

  9. “Professor to Use Sky.”

    Return to note reference.

  10. See, for example, Lomas, “Here’s Cambridge Analytica’s Plan,” and Wong, Lewis, and Davies, “How Academic at Centre of Facebook Scandal Tried.”

    Return to note reference.

  11. Miller and Yúdice, Cultural Policy, 15.

    Return to note reference.

  12. Kim, “An Interview with Edward Kim.”

    Return to note reference.

  13. Kim.

    Return to note reference.

  14. The Lab at Ada’s, https://thelab.adasbooks.com.

    Return to note reference.

  15. Mumford, Technics and Civilization, 138.

    Return to note reference.

  16. Innis, The Bias of Communication, 4.

    Return to note reference.

  17. Gooday, “Placing or Replacing the Laboratory,” 788.

    Return to note reference.

  18. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 581.

    Return to note reference.

  19. Price, The Plan of St. Gall, 32.

    Return to note reference.

  20. M. W. Jackson, “Illuminating the Opacity,” 142.

    Return to note reference.

  21. Jackson, 142.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Crosland, “Early Laboratories,” 234.

    Return to note reference.

  23. See also Ursula Klein’s excellent account in “Apothecary’s Shops, Laboratories and Chemical Manufacture.”

    Return to note reference.

  24. Klein, “The Laboratory Challenge,” 770.

    Return to note reference.

  25. Shapin, “The House of Experiment,” 378. In addition to Shapin’s excellent historical accounts of the roots of laboratories in seventeenth-century England, there are abundant accounts of the genesis of the laboratory over the last three hundred years—among these are Hannaway’s “Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science,” James’s edited collection The Development of the Laboratory, Lenoir’s “Laboratories, Medicine and Public Life,” Gooday’s “Precision Measurement,” and Reich’s The Making of American Industrial Research.

    Return to note reference.

  26. Klein, “The Laboratory Challenge,” 779–80.

    Return to note reference.

  27. Crosland, “Early Laboratories,” 238.

    Return to note reference.

  28. Cooper, “Homes and Households,” 227.

    Return to note reference.

  29. That said, as Marsha L. Richmond elaborates on in “‘A Lab of One’s Own,’” her remarkable history of the Balfour Biological Laboratory for Women in Cambridge, the following decades featured various attempts, some successful and some not, to establish labs exclusively for women.

    Return to note reference.

  30. R. W. Raymond, Glossary, 52.

    Return to note reference.

  31. See also Starosielski’s “Thermocultures of Geological Media” as another account of how gender and power relations have played out in temperature and media.

    Return to note reference.

  32. Quoted in Millard, Edison, 6. See also Noble, America by Design, 119.

    Return to note reference.

  33. Gall, “Thomas A. Edison,” 29–30.

    Return to note reference.

  34. Jehl, Menlo Park Reminiscences, 220.

    Return to note reference.

  35. Gall, “Thomas A. Edison,” 21; Croffut, “The Papa of the Phonograph,” 213.

    Return to note reference.

  36. Gall, “Thomas A. Edison,” 22.

    Return to note reference.

  37. Croffut, “The Papa of the Phonograph,” 213.

    Return to note reference.

  38. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 470.

    Return to note reference.

  39. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, 471.

    Return to note reference.

  40. Millard, Edison and the Business of Innovation, 33.

    Return to note reference.

  41. Millard, 23.

    Return to note reference.

  42. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 541.

    Return to note reference.

  43. Jehl, Menlo Park Reminiscences, 225.

    Return to note reference.

  44. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 399.

    Return to note reference.

  45. Croffut, “The Papa of the Phonograph,” 215.

    Return to note reference.

  46. There are many excellent accounts of the architecture and planning of the MIT campus in general, which of course lays the groundwork for the architecture and design of the MIT Media Lab. See, for example, Mitchell and Vest, Imagining MIT, and Jarzombek, Designing MIT.

    Return to note reference.

  47. Brand, The Media Lab, 4.

    Return to note reference.

  48. Molly Steenson quotes from Nicholas Negroponte’s personal papers, in which he states that media not only belonged to no discipline (strangely overlooking the discipline of Communication Studies and media studies that had its relative beginnings in Canada in the early 1950s and had its first department by 1965) but that it was, in the early 1980s, rejected almost completely by universities: “‘media’ was ripe for claiming, especially because of its unpopularity. . . . Media was intended to connote home, learning, and creative interfaces. . . . ‘By contrast, to my knowledge, nobody at MIT is addressing the home and, for that matter, no American university (to my knowledge) takes the world of consumer electronics seriously’” (quoted in Steenson, Architectural Intelligence, 216).

    Return to note reference.

  49. For more on MIT’s ties to the military-industrial complex, see Leslie, The Cold War and American Science.

    Return to note reference.

  50. Beck and Bishop, “The Return of the Art and Technology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  51. Negroponte, Being Digital, 224–25.

    Return to note reference.

  52. On the avant-garde and corporate labs, see again Beck and Bishop, “The Return of the Art and Technology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  53. Ito and Howe, Whiplash, 16, 30, 140. Also note that, oddly, this reference to “an island of misfit toys” is another instance where lab discourse ignores a Canadian production in order to make a case for American exceptionalism. The metaphor comes from the 1964 Videocraft International (later Rankin/Bass) Christmas special, which was recorded at RCA Studios in Toronto with an entirely Canadian cast, with the exception of Burl Ives.

    Return to note reference.

  54. Hiroshi Ishi, interview by Darren Wershler, Lori Emerson, and Jussi Parikka, February 7, 2017, MIT Media Lab.

    Return to note reference.

  55. MIT Committee on the Visual Arts, Artists and Architects Collaborate, 11.

    Return to note reference.

  56. MIT News Office, “MIT Opens New Media Lab Complex.”

    Return to note reference.

  57. Brand, How Buildings Learn, 53.

    Return to note reference.

  58. Tereshko, “MIT Media Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  59. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 690.

    Return to note reference.

  60. Greg Tucker, interview by Darren Wershler, Lori Emerson, and Jussi Parikka, February 7, 2017, MIT Media Lab.

    Return to note reference.

  61. Tucker interview.

    Return to note reference.

  62. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 718.

    Return to note reference.

  63. Ethan Zuckerman, interview by Darren Wershler, Lori Emerson, and Jussi Parikka, February 7, 2017, MIT Media Lab.

    Return to note reference.

  64. Zuckerman interview.

    Return to note reference.

  65. Zuckerman, “To the Future Occupants.”

    Return to note reference.

  66. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 621; for furtheranalysis of contemporary labs’ space and architecture, see also Klonk’s New Laboratories.

    Return to note reference.

  67. The Media Archaeology Lab (MAL) at the University of Colorado Boulder is driven by a similar philosophy and has a similar history with and relation to its inherited space. For more on the MAL, see Emerson, “The Media Archaeology Lab” and “As If.”

    Return to note reference.

  68. Ernst, “An Interview with Wolfgang Ernst.”

    Return to note reference.

  69. Ernst.

    Return to note reference.

  70. Ernst, Digital Media and the Archive, 55.

    Return to note reference.

  71. Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein, A Pattern Language, 774.

    Return to note reference.

  72. Ernst, “An Interview with Wolfgang Ernst.”

    Return to note reference.

  73. Ernst, “Archives, Materiality, and the ‘Agency of the Machine.’”

    Return to note reference.

2. Lab Apparatus

  1. Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 57.

    Return to note reference.

  2. Zephyr, “Spatial History as Scholarly Practice,” 503.

    Return to note reference.

  3. Nowviskie, “Resistance in Materials,” 383.

    Return to note reference.

  4. This stems from Michel Foucault’s understanding of the apparatus (“dispositif”) and from Giorgio Agamben’s follow-up essay, in which he writes: “I shall call an apparatus anything that has in some way the capacity to capture, orient, determine, intercept, model, control, or secure the gestures, behaviors, opinions, or discourses of living beings. Not only, therefore, prisons, madhouses, the panopticon, schools, confession, factories, disciplines, juridical measures, and so forth (whose connection with power is in a certain sense evident), but also the pen, writing, literature, philosophy, agriculture, cigarettes, navigation, computers, cellular telephones and—why not—language itself” (“What Is an Apparatus?” and Other Essays, 14).

    Return to note reference.

  5. Pickering, The Mangle of Practice, 7.

    Return to note reference.

  6. Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory,” 160–61.

    Return to note reference.

  7. Brand, The Media Lab, 18–19. This is not to say that the current examples of digital (humanities) labs would be anywhere so naive; indeed, many of them are very aware of their proximity to “traditional” locations of old media such as the library. And many of the practices that revolve around the digital are embedded in a more pragmatic way of considering, for example, the benefits of open source systems around which the lab or digital scholarship can build itself as a different sort of a communication system. See Bickoff, “Humanity’s Place in Laboratory Space.”

    Return to note reference.

  8. One broader term that indicates a commitment to articulate a continuum across material objects and information technologies is postdigital. What the term offers is a way to realize the multiple histories of digital technologies from 8-bit sound and graphics to the current HD worlds. See Cramer, “What Is ‘Post-digital’?”

    Return to note reference.

  9. Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory,” 161. See also Law, “Making a Mess with Method.”

    Return to note reference.

  10. Ernst, “An Interview with Wolfgang Ernst.”

    Return to note reference.

  11. Media Archaeological Fundus, https://www.musikundmedien.hu-berlin.de/de/medienwissenschaft/medientheorien/fundus/media-archaeological-fundus.

    Return to note reference.

  12. Ernst, “Archives, Materiality, and the ‘Agency of the Machine.’”

    Return to note reference.

  13. Emerson, “Sister Labs.”

    Return to note reference.

  14. For a list of the objects, see the MAF wiki at https://wikis.hu-berlin.de/maf/Kategorie:Inventar.

    Return to note reference.

  15. For a brief history of the intellectual trajectory of German media studies after Kittler, see Geoghegan, “After Kittler.”

    Return to note reference.

  16. See Bruno, “Film, Aesthetics, Science.”

    Return to note reference.

  17. Ernst, “An Interview with Wolfgang Ernst.” See also Kirschenbaum, Mechanisms.

    Return to note reference.

  18. Ernst, “Archives, Materiality and the ‘Agency of the Machine.’”

    Return to note reference.

  19. Olsson, “Jesper Olsson on the Media Archaeology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  20. As Wolfgang Hagen puts it, media devices restore parts of their own scientific history (Das Radio, xvii).

    Return to note reference.

  21. Thomson, “Scientific Laboratories,” 411.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Ernst, “An Interview with Wolfgang Ernst.”

    Return to note reference.

  23. Guez, “An Interview with Emmanuel Guez.” The Minitel also serves as a prominent example. See, for example, Guez et al., “The Afterlives of Network-Based Artworks.” Their example is the lab-created afterlife for Eduardo Kac’s Videotext Poems from the mid-1980s where the art piece becomes also a way to address the existence of earlier now dead media infrastructures such as the French Minitel networking system: “The most common Minitel could therefore be coupled to a telephone from the 1980s. To connect to the server the user needs to compose a number, wait for the high tone specific to a Minitel server, then press the button ‘Connexion/Fin.’ This procedure, obvious to any Minitel user, is lost to the younger generation of ‘digital natives’ yet experimental media archaeology allows a new audience to re-appropriate such knowledge and in this sense, although the Minitel is a dead medium, creating the ‘second original’ has made it into a sort of ‘zombie’ medium, giving an archival life, or afterlife, to Kac’s Poems. Any happy Minitel owner with access to a landline can call the number linked to the micro-server and get connected” (118).

    Return to note reference.

  24. Höltgen, “Interview with Stefan Höltgen.”

    Return to note reference.

  25. See Höltgen, “Game Circuits.”

    Return to note reference.

  26. Fred Turner connects this to the longer history of R&D in the United States and the emergence of current forms of digital and internet-based utopias as part of the developments since World War II. The story of modern valorization of information is also, then, a story of the emergent military-industrial-academic complex: “The idea that the material world could be thought of as an information system and modeled on computers emerged not with the Internet, but much earlier, in and around the government-sponsored research laboratories of World War II, and particularly around the Radiation Laboratory at MIT” (From Counterculture to Cyberculture, 15).

    Return to note reference.

  27. Brand, The Media Lab, 42.

    Return to note reference.

  28. Sayers and Chan, “Prototyping the Past.”

    Return to note reference.

  29. See Hertz, “Dead Media Research Lab.” See also Zielinski, “Modelling Media for Ignatius Loyola.”

    Return to note reference.

  30. Sayers, “Prototyping the Past.”

    Return to note reference.

  31. Belojevic, “Kits for Cultural History.” The “kit” also resonates strongly with some methods in critical design, like cultural probes, props, and scenarios. See Dunne, Hertzian Tales.

    Return to note reference.

  32. Sayers, “Kits for Cultural History.”

    Return to note reference.

  33. Fickers and van der Oever, “Experimental Media Archaeology,” 275. See also Olsson, “Jesper Olsson on the Media Archaeology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  34. Ernst, “Archives, Materiality and the ‘Agency of the Machine.’” See also Cramer, “Post-digital Literary Studies.”

    Return to note reference.

  35. Ludwig and Weber, “A Rediscovery of Scientific Collections.”

    Return to note reference.

  36. See, for example, Bredekamp, The Lure of Antiquity. See also Ludwig and Weber, “University Collections as Archives.”

    Return to note reference.

  37. Lourenço, “Between Two Worlds,” 45. We would also like to point out that cabinets of physics instruments, models for anatomy, and all kinds of collections of ephemera offered what Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz called, in 1787, “a sort of encyclopaedia for the senses” that was particularly useful for pedagogical purposes as well as for research (quoted in Tega, “Science and Art in Palazzo Poggi,” 8). In many ways, collections were also connected to spaces and architectures such as botanical gardens and anatomical theaters. Of course, in the humanities both archaeological and ethnological collections were already a central part of earlier research collections, including a partial absorption into university museums. While, in our case, research collections are not necessarily serving the public like a museum—and in many cases because of limited or nonexistent staffing or because of the nature of the lab or collection—it is useful to illuminate the importance of the collection by quoting David Murray from 1904: “Every Professor of a branch of science requires a museum and a laboratory for his department; and accordingly in all our great universities and other teaching institutions we have independent museums of botany, palaeontology, geology, mineralogy and zoology, of anatomy, physiology, pathology and materia medica, of archaeology—prehistorical and historical, classical and Christian—each subject taught having its own appropriate collection” (quoted in Lourenço, “Between Two Worlds,” 68–69).

    Return to note reference.

  38. Clark, Academic Charisma, 141.

    Return to note reference.

  39. Clark, 160.

    Return to note reference.

  40. Clark, 174.

    Return to note reference.

  41. Stern, “The Example,” 23.

    Return to note reference.

  42. On Kittler as the daunting godfather of digital humanities, see Holl, “Friedrich Kittler’s Digital Legacy.”

    Return to note reference.

  43. Schmidgen, “The Laboratory,” 11.

    Return to note reference.

  44. In addition to text-based work, reverse engineering and forensics are relevant methodologies for a kind of media-analytical research that approaches cultures of computation from a different perspective than that of data in the abstract. This is not meant as a dismissal of hybrid labs that focus on big data or those that incorporate the old ideal of Big Science in the humanities lab. What we are arguing, though, is that the sort of material practice we have been describing is a necessary complement to data-based work as it frames the link between science and hybrid lab from the perspective of media studies instead of the media industry and the military-industrial complex.

    Return to note reference.

  45. Ernst, “An Interview with Wolfgang Ernst.”

    Return to note reference.

  46. Winthrop-Young, Kittler and the Media, 74.

    Return to note reference.

  47. Frost, “Media Lab Culture in the UK.”

    Return to note reference.

  48. Frost.

    Return to note reference.

  49. For an online catalog of the MAL’s collection, please consult http://mediaarchaeologylab.com/catalogue.

    Return to note reference.

  50. See Emerson, “The Media Archaeology Lab” and “Excavating.”

    Return to note reference.

  51. Bogost, Alien Phenomenology, 100.

    Return to note reference.

  52. Galison, “Trading with the Enemy,” 36. Thin description as defined by Galison is part of his concept of trading zones for interdisciplinary activity.

    Return to note reference.

  53. See the Digital Archive of entries at https://interactions.acm.org/archive.

    Return to note reference.

  54. Kolko, “Day in the Lab”; Budd, “Day in the Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  55. Isbister, “Day in the Lab”; Watson, “Day in the Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  56. Karen Barad uses the term intra-action to emphasize the nature of agency always not merely as interactional; instead, intra-action emphasizes the fluid boundaries in which different agencies co-constitute each other, including the entanglement of matter and meaning in iterative rounds of engagement: “The neologism ‘intra-action’ signifies the mutual constitution of entangled agencies. That is, in contrast to the usual ‘interaction,’ which assumes that there are separate individual agencies that precede their interaction, the notion of intra-action recognizes that distinct agencies do not precede, but rather emerge through, their intra-action. It is important to note that the ‘distinct’ agencies are only distinct in a relational, not an absolute, sense, that is, agencies are only distinct in relation to their mutual entanglement; they don’t exist as individual elements” (Meeting the Universe Halfway, 33).

    Return to note reference.

3. Lab Infrastructure

  1. Garcia, “NASA Updates Spacewalk Assignments.”

    Return to note reference.

  2. Voosen, “Women Make Up Just 15%.”

    Return to note reference.

  3. Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” 380.

    Return to note reference.

  4. Crane, Seales, and Terras, “Cyberinfrastructure for Classical Philology,” section 17.

    Return to note reference.

  5. Crane, Seales, and Terras, section 19.

    Return to note reference.

  6. Parks and Starosielski, Signal Traffic, 8.

    Return to note reference.

  7. Liu, “Drafts for Against the Cultural Singularity.”

    Return to note reference.

  8. Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” 380.

    Return to note reference.

  9. Anderson, “What Are Research Infrastructures?,” 20–21.

    Return to note reference.

  10. Foka et al., “Beyond Humanities qua Digital,” 273.

    Return to note reference.

  11. Foka et al., 273.

    Return to note reference.

  12. Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” 381–82. Latour also makes a similar point with regard to infrastructure’s visibility during breakdown by using construction sites as an analogy in Reassembling the Social, 88.

    Return to note reference.

  13. Liu, “Drafts for Against the Cultural Singularity.”

    Return to note reference.

  14. Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” 377.

    Return to note reference.

  15. Guillory, “The Memo and Modernity,” 112.

    Return to note reference.

  16. Alberani, De Castro Pietrangeli, and Mazza, “The Use of Grey Literature in Health Sciences.”

    Return to note reference.

  17. Bowker and Star, Sorting Things Out, 34.

    Return to note reference.

  18. Bowker and Star, 38.

    Return to note reference.

  19. Vismann, Files.

    Return to note reference.

  20. Bowker and Star, Sorting Things Out, 41.

    Return to note reference.

  21. Hardt and Negri, Empire, 290.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Bowker and Star, Sorting Things Out, 44.

    Return to note reference.

  23. Bowker and Star, 50.

    Return to note reference.

  24. Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, 322.

    Return to note reference.

  25. See https://civiclaboratory.nl/.

    Return to note reference.

  26. CLEAR, CLEAR Lab Book.

    Return to note reference.

  27. Du Gay et al., Doing Cultural Studies, 3–4.

    Return to note reference.

  28. Wilson, “A History of Home Economics Education,” 17.

    Return to note reference.

  29. Quoted in Wilson, appendix B, 218.

    Return to note reference.

  30. Burwell et al., A Time in Our Lives.

    Return to note reference.

  31. Burwell and Burwell, “Extension in Manitoba,” 1.

    Return to note reference.

  32. Wilson, “A History of Home Economics Education,” 43–44. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  33. Wershler, “Neepawa and Minnedosa,” 66.

    Return to note reference.

  34. “Five Stories, 105 Years.”

    Return to note reference.

  35. A fictionalized account of this history appears in Carol Shields’s 1992 novel Republic of Love. Jessaca B. Leinaweaver published a paper on it in 2013 titled “Practice Mothers.”

    Return to note reference.

  36. There is another significant body of photo-documentation from this period, though there is less writing about it. One of the interesting things about this period is that the photographic record suggests a concerted effort on the part of the university to promote not only their sophisticated lab apparatus, but the presence of named lab technicians, who all had professional headshots taken. This is one possible avenue for ongoing research on this project.

    Return to note reference.

  37. Burwell and Burwell, “Extension in Manitoba,” 2.

    Return to note reference.

  38. Quoted in Burwell and Burwell, 2.

    Return to note reference.

  39. Wilson, “A History of Home Economics Education,” 42–43.

    Return to note reference.

  40. Burwell and Burwell, “Extension in Manitoba,” 1.

    Return to note reference.

  41. Burwell and Burwell, 1.

    Return to note reference.

  42. Wilson, “A History of Home Economics Education,” 37.

    Return to note reference.

  43. Parker and Burwell, “Women’s Institute,” 14.

    Return to note reference.

  44. Burwell and Burwell, “Extension in Manitoba,” 3.

    Return to note reference.

  45. Parker and Burwell, “Women’s Institute,” 14.

    Return to note reference.

  46. Parker and Burwell, 14.

    Return to note reference.

  47. Burwell and Burwell, “Extension in Manitoba,” 4.

    Return to note reference.

  48. Scrase, “Foods and Nutrition,” 54.

    Return to note reference.

  49. Burwell, “4-H Club Program,” 39.

    Return to note reference.

  50. Strong-Boag, “Pulling in Double Harness,” 32.

    Return to note reference.

  51. Strong-Boag, 43–44.

    Return to note reference.

  52. Strong-Boag, 43–44.

    Return to note reference.

  53. Keselman, “Academic Structure Initiative Update.”

    Return to note reference.

  54. Reverby, “More than Fact and Fiction,” 22.

    Return to note reference.

  55. Brandt, “Racism and Research,” 21.

    Return to note reference.

  56. Reverby, “Rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” 3–4.

    Return to note reference.

  57. Reverby, “More than Fact and Fiction,” 27.

    Return to note reference.

  58. Goldenstein, “Booker T. Washington,” 10.

    Return to note reference.

  59. Cruzado, “Who Needs Extension, Anyway?,” 6.

    Return to note reference.

  60. Goldenstein, “Booker T. Washington,” 9.

    Return to note reference.

  61. Campbell, Movable School, 92; Goldenstein, “Booker T. Washington,” 11.

    Return to note reference.

  62. Winn, Documenting Racism, 20.

    Return to note reference.

  63. CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1906?amount=674.50, consulted September 14, 2020.

    Return to note reference.

  64. Campbell, Movable School, 94. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  65. This is not hyperbole; for Winn there is little of actual educational value in this film. He cites an internal government document that uses eye-wateringly frank language: “The pictures enabled those who saw them to visualize into concrete action the otherwise abstract points of the propaganda” (“Report to the Secretary of Agriculture on the Work of the Committee on Motion Picture Activities,” November 30, 1914, 8, in Winn, Documenting Racism, 16).

    Return to note reference.

  66. Winn, 13. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  67. Campbell, Movable School, 120–21, 125.

    Return to note reference.

  68. Brown, “1890 Institutions’ Extension Program,” 65.

    Return to note reference.

  69. McFarlane and Rutherford, “Political Infrastructures,” 371.

    Return to note reference.

  70. Galison and Jones, “Factory, Laboratory, Studio,” 498.

    Return to note reference.

  71. Galison and Jones, 524.

    Return to note reference.

  72. Museum of Modern Art, Art in Our Time, 15. See also Museum of Modern Art, “Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Biographical Notes.”

    Return to note reference.

  73. Lowell and the Fogg Art Museum, The Fine Arts in a Laboratory.

    Return to note reference.

  74. Kantor, Alfred H. Barr, Jr., 56.

    Return to note reference.

  75. Kantor, 93.

    Return to note reference.

  76. Kantor, 93

    Return to note reference.

  77. Monash University, “Emerging Technologies Lab Collaboration.”

    Return to note reference.

  78. Liboiron et al., “Equity in Author Order.”

    Return to note reference.

  79. Century, Pathways to Innovation in Digital Culture. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  80. See also Beck and Bishop, “The Return of the Art and Technology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  81. Raunig, Factories of Knowledge, 16. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  82. This is also evident in the history of the art and technology lab as it emerges as part of U.S. Cold War institutions. See Beck and Bishop, “The Return of the Art and Technology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  83. Frodeman, Sustainable Knowledge, 51.

    Return to note reference.

  84. Crow and Dabars, Designing the New American University. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  85. Weingart, “A Short History of Knowledge Formations.”

    Return to note reference.

  86. University Innovation Alliance, http://www.theuia.org.

    Return to note reference.

  87. Crow and Bozeman, Limited by Design, 16. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  88. Zielinski, [. . . After the Media], 226.

    Return to note reference.

  89. To be fair, some European projects have tried to address this: Baltan Laboratories’ project set itself as an “active laboratory space for research and development in the technological arts,” echoing also our contention that it often takes a lab to understand a lab. Plohman, A Blueprint, 7. See also, for example, the CCCB (Barcelona) Dossier on laboratories in the cultural sector, which also includes various insights into the policy aspects in Europe: http://lab.cccb.org/en/dossier/laboratories.

    Return to note reference.

  90. Stripling, “Arizona State U Has Problems.”

    Return to note reference.

  91. See Wysocki, “Once Collegial”; M. L. Phillips, “ASU Cancer Researchers Fired”; Irwin, “ASU Inc.”; Milun v. Arizona Board of Regents; and Wagner and Ryman, “Prominent ASU Scientist Sues University.”

    Return to note reference.

  92. Crow and Bozeman, Limited by Design, 99.

    Return to note reference.

  93. Crow and Bozeman, 98.

    Return to note reference.

  94. Wysocki, “Once Collegial.”

    Return to note reference.

  95. Wagner and Ryman, “Prominent ASU Scientist.”

    Return to note reference.

  96. Crow and Dabars, Designing the New American University, 182, 307 (quotation).

    Return to note reference.

  97. Foka et al., “Beyond Humanities qua Digital,” 265.

    Return to note reference.

  98. Foka et al., 266.

    Return to note reference.

4. Lab People

  1. Kavanagh and Rich, Truth Decay.

    Return to note reference.

  2. Lears, Fables of Abundance, 212.

    Return to note reference.

  3. Bjelopera, City of Clerks, 99; Vivanco, Reconsidering the Bicycle, 49.

    Return to note reference.

  4. Baime, The Arsenal of Democracy, 36.

    Return to note reference.

  5. Whiteley, “Toward a Throw-Away Culture,” 3–4.

    Return to note reference.

  6. Krajewski, “The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy,” 59.

    Return to note reference.

  7. Whiteley, “Toward a Throw-Away Culture,” 3–4.

    Return to note reference.

  8. Latour, “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?,” 227.

    Return to note reference.

  9. Latour, 231.

    Return to note reference.

  10. News of the entanglement of the Media Lab in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal broke while we were in the final stages of manuscript preparation. If anything, it has strengthened our sense of the usefulness of the extended lab model in terms of its ability to explicate aspects of laboratories that might not otherwise be visible: what forms of agencies are promoted and supported by labs, what sort of promotional strategies project a sense of “humanism,” and how alternative discourses and techniques have been employed as part of another legacy of the lab since the 1990s.

    Return to note reference.

  11. Brand, The Media Lab, 6.

    Return to note reference.

  12. Bass, “Being Nicholas.”

    Return to note reference.

  13. P. F. Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 23.

    Return to note reference.

  14. MIT 150 Exhibition, “MIT Charter of 1861.”

    Return to note reference.

  15. “Objects and Plan of an Institute of Technology,” MIT Institute Archives and Special Collections.

    Return to note reference.

  16. For a complete history of the founding of MIT, see Stratton and Mannix, Mind and Hand.

    Return to note reference.

  17. “Scope and Plan of the School of Industrial Science of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,” MIT Institute Archives and Special Collections.

    Return to note reference.

  18. Quoted in Millard, Edison and the Business of Innovation, 18.

    Return to note reference.

  19. Millard, 30.

    Return to note reference.

  20. P. F. Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 137.

    Return to note reference.

  21. Gall, “Thomas A. Edison,” 77.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Noble, America by Design, 118.

    Return to note reference.

  23. Noble, 118.

    Return to note reference.

  24. Noble, 118.

    Return to note reference.

  25. Etzkowitz, MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, 50.

    Return to note reference.

  26. Etzkowitz, “The Making of the Entrepreneurial University,” 530.

    Return to note reference.

  27. Etzkowitz, 530; Guerlac, Radar in World War II, 293.

    Return to note reference.

  28. Guerlac, Radar in World War II, 293.

    Return to note reference.

  29. Guerlac, 681.

    Return to note reference.

  30. Hapgood, “The Media Lab at 10.”

    Return to note reference.

  31. For more on this long-standing porousness between the public and private sectors, see Barrow’s contemporary account, Universities and the Capitalist State, and Etzkowitz’s “The Making of the Entrepreneurial University.” For early, critical accounts of the increasing influence of the private sector on higher education, see John Henry Newman’s 1858 The Idea of the University and Veblen’s 1918 The Higher Learning in America.

    Return to note reference.

  32. Slotnick, “Membership Levels.”

    Return to note reference.

  33. Evers, “Frequently Asked Questions.”

    Return to note reference.

  34. Ethan Zuckerman, interview by Darren Wershler, Lori Emerson, and Jussi Parikka, February 7, 2017, MIT Media Lab.

    Return to note reference.

  35. MIT News Office, “Letter Regarding Jeffrey Epstein and MIT.”

    Return to note reference.

  36. Farrow, “Élite University Research Center.”

    Return to note reference.

  37. Chen and Hao, “MIT Media Lab Founder.”

    Return to note reference.

  38. Chen and Hao.

    Return to note reference.

  39. Brand, The Media Lab, 4. See also Halpern, “The Trauma Machine.”

    Return to note reference.

  40. Ito and Howe, Whiplash, 100.

    Return to note reference.

  41. Ito, “Organizational Structure.”

    Return to note reference.

  42. Veblen, The Higher Learning in America, 94.

    Return to note reference.

  43. Veblen, 96, 99.

    Return to note reference.

  44. Just a few of the more recent books published on the intersection of neoliberalism and higher education are Labaree’s A Perfect Mess, Di Leo’s, Higher Education under Late Capitalism, and Gumport’s Academic Fault Lines.

    Return to note reference.

  45. Servan-Schreiber, The American Challenge, 69.

    Return to note reference.

  46. Servan-Schreiber, 78.

    Return to note reference.

  47. P. F. Drucker, Management, 131.

    Return to note reference.

  48. Drucker, 131.

    Return to note reference.

  49. Drucker, 325.

    Return to note reference.

  50. Drucker, 333.

    Return to note reference.

  51. Johnson, “MIT Commencement Speech.”

    Return to note reference.

  52. Johnson, 7.

    Return to note reference.

  53. Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here.

    Return to note reference.

  54. Renata Avila describes digital colonialism as “the new deployment of a quasi-imperial power over a vast number of people, without their explicit consent, manifested in rules, designs, languages, cultures and belief systems by a vastly dominant power” (“Resisting Digital Colonialism”). However, Negroponte’s writing from the 1960s through the 2000s along with Kay’s and Servan-Schreiber’s writing from the 1970s demonstrates it’s anything but new. See Negroponte, The Architecture Machine; Kay, “A Personal Computer”; and Servan-Schreiber, The American Challenge.

    Return to note reference.

  55. Hapgood, “The Media Lab at 10.”

    Return to note reference.

  56. Farmer, “Where Tomorrow’s Technology Is Born.”

    Return to note reference.

  57. There is significant research on the history of futures and the notion of futurity that goes back to the RAND Corporation in the 1940s. See Beck, “The Future.”

    Return to note reference.

  58. Hearn and Banet-Weiser, “Future Tense.”

    Return to note reference.

  59. Negroponte, The Architecture Machine, 7. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  60. Halpern, “The Trauma Machine,” 61.

    Return to note reference.

  61. Negroponte, The Architecture Machine, 55.

    Return to note reference.

  62. Halpern, “The Trauma Machine,” 61.

    Return to note reference.

  63. Jewish Museum, Software, 23.

    Return to note reference.

  64. Halpern, “Inhuman Vision.”

    Return to note reference.

  65. Halpern, “The Trauma Machine,” 63.

    Return to note reference.

  66. Negroponte, “A 30-Year History.”

    Return to note reference.

  67. Halpern, “The Trauma Machine,” 59.

    Return to note reference.

  68. Kay, “A Personal Computer.”

    Return to note reference.

  69. Kay.

    Return to note reference.

  70. Kay.

    Return to note reference.

  71. Rudofsky, Architecture without Architects, 2.

    Return to note reference.

  72. Negroponte, Soft Architecture Machines, 103.

    Return to note reference.

  73. Negroponte, 104.

    Return to note reference.

  74. Negroponte, 108.

    Return to note reference.

  75. Steenson, Architectural Intelligence, 179.

    Return to note reference.

  76. It’s also worth noting that, while Negroponte appropriates the figure of the “indigenous architect” as his inspiration for his various AMG projects using machine intelligence to solve so-called urban problems, his obsession with the “urban” as such may (whether he was aware of it or not) be part of MIT’s larger obsession of the time, which started in the mid-1960s with solving what it euphemistically referred to as society’s “urban” problems—coded language for, in Charlton McIlwain’s words in Black Software, “the Negro, the Puerto Rican, racial and ethnic minorities, the poor” (19). Across the 153-page-long The Architecture Machine, Negroponte mentions “urban” no fewer than eighty times.

    Return to note reference.

  77. Servan-Schreiber, The World Challenge, 6.

    Return to note reference.

  78. Servan-Schreiber, 13.

    Return to note reference.

  79. Servan-Schreiber, 13.

    Return to note reference.

  80. Servan-Schreiber, 268.

    Return to note reference.

  81. Negroponte, “The $100 Laptop,” 19.

    Return to note reference.

  82. Negroponte, 19.

    Return to note reference.

  83. Negroponte, 20.

    Return to note reference.

  84. See Negroponte, 19–20, and Kane et al., Learning to Change the World, 175. Anita Say Chan has astutely described this method of delivering education technology initiatives to those living in countries perceived as “underdeveloped” or “needy” as an air-drop deployment that’s part of a larger program of technological fundamentalism (“Beyond Technological Fundamentalism”).

    Return to note reference.

  85. Markoff, “Taking the Pulse of Technology.”

    Return to note reference.

  86. Negroponte, “One Laptop per Child.”

    Return to note reference.

  87. Negroponte.

    Return to note reference.

  88. Negroponte.

    Return to note reference.

  89. Fouché, “From Black Inventors to OLPC,” 72.

    Return to note reference.

  90. Diamandis, “XPRIZE.”

    Return to note reference.

  91. Ames, The Charisma Machine.

    Return to note reference.

  92. Frost, “Media Lab Culture in the UK.”

    Return to note reference.

  93. Bosma, Nettitudes, 136.

    Return to note reference.

  94. Bosma, 136.

    Return to note reference.

  95. Bosma, 136.

    Return to note reference.

  96. Stone, “ACTLab, or, Make Stuff!”

    Return to note reference.

  97. Derrida, Dissemination, 5.

    Return to note reference.

  98. Stryker, “Another Dream of Common Language,” 302.

    Return to note reference.

  99. C. Williams, “TERF Hate and Sandy Stone.” See also C. Williams, “Radical Inclusion.”

    Return to note reference.

  100. C. Williams, “TERF Hate and Sandy Stone.”

    Return to note reference.

  101. Stone, “The Empire Strikes Back,” 230.

    Return to note reference.

  102. Stone, 230.

    Return to note reference.

  103. ACTLab, “The Historical ACTLab.”

    Return to note reference.

  104. Holmes, “Extradisciplinary Investigations,” 55; Stryker, “Another Dream of Common Language,” 302.

    Return to note reference.

  105. Stone, “ACTLab, or, Make Stuff!”

    Return to note reference.

  106. Stone, “On Being Trans.”

    Return to note reference.

  107. Doctorow, “U Texas/Austin’s ACTLab to Close.”

    Return to note reference.

  108. Braidotti, “The Critical Posthumanities,” 382.

    Return to note reference.

  109. ACTLab, “The Historical ACTLab.”

    Return to note reference.

  110. ACTLab.

    Return to note reference.

  111. Stone, “On Being Trans.”

    Return to note reference.

  112. Stone.

    Return to note reference.

  113. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges,” 587.

    Return to note reference.

  114. Svensson, “The Landscape of Digital Humanities.”

    Return to note reference.

  115. Toupin, “Feminist Hackerspaces.”

    Return to note reference.

5. Lab Imaginaries

  1. See, for example, Lecher, “The 10 Best Fictional Laboratories.” See also Bouton, “In Lab Lit, Fiction Meets Science.”

    Return to note reference.

  2. Foucault, Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, 106.

    Return to note reference.

  3. Parikka, What Is Media Archaeology?, 41–62.

    Return to note reference.

  4. Mullaney, The Chinese Typewriter, 42, 43.

    Return to note reference.

  5. Mullaney, 22, 23, 26.

    Return to note reference.

  6. To quote Gilles Deleuze, “the institution is always given as an organized system of means. . . . Law is a limitation of actions, institution a positive model for action” (“Instincts and Institutions,” 19).

    Return to note reference.

  7. Kittler, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, 10.

    Return to note reference.

  8. Mullaney, The Chinese Typewriter, 30.

    Return to note reference.

  9. Mullaney, 37.

    Return to note reference.

  10. Mullaney, 56

    Return to note reference.

  11. Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, 341. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  12. See Daston, “The Moral Economy of Science.”

    Return to note reference.

  13. Bureau d’études writes of the planetary lab: “Since World War, the planet is gradually transformed into a scale 1 laboratory. The old model of ‘world factory’ has given way to the model of the ‘world laboratory.’ Objects of this laboratory, can we also be the subjects? Can we reclaim this huge machine that became autonomous and is now developing according to its own dynamic? Can we redirect the fate and direction of this laboratory?” Quoted on the Laboratory Planet website: http://laboratoryplanet.org/en.

    Return to note reference.

  14. Bishop, “The Global University.”

    Return to note reference.

  15. Krzyżanowski, “Values, Imaginaries and Templates,” 346–47.

    Return to note reference.

  16. Gieryn, “Boundary-Work,” 782. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  17. There are plenty of relevant examples, but in terms of recent activism where the rhetoric of the lab is mobilized as a feminist network. It is also a good example of the ways in which the notion of the lab is not necessarily contained by normal architectural arrangements, but becomes a network of participants working on a wider geographical scale and with wider set of global social issues.

    Return to note reference.

  18. Galison and Jones, “Factory, Laboratory, Studio.”

    Return to note reference.

  19. Edison to Charles E. Buell, December 1, 1873, quoted in Israel, “Telegraphy and Edison’s Invention Factory,” 69.

    Return to note reference.

  20. Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, Tomorrow’s Eve, 8.

    Return to note reference.

  21. “Undergirding this new context was an emerging corporate culture that relied less on the invisible hand of the market and more on what historian Alfred Chandler has called the ‘visible hand’ of modern management.” Israel, “Telegraphy and Edison’s Invention Factory,” 66.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Millard, “Thomas Edison,” 199. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  23. Gertner, The Idea Factory, 45, 343.

    Return to note reference.

  24. Altice, I Am Error, 22.

    Return to note reference.

  25. Millard, “Thomas Edison,” 192–95.

    Return to note reference.

  26. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 91.

    Return to note reference.

  27. Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory,” 165.

    Return to note reference.

  28. Latour, 154.

    Return to note reference.

  29. Kluitenberg, “Connection Machines,” 160.

    Return to note reference.

  30. Kluitenberg, 168.

    Return to note reference.

  31. Kluitenberg, 170.

    Return to note reference.

  32. Thibault, “The Automatization of Nikola Tesla.”

    Return to note reference.

  33. Wolffram, “In the Laboratory of the Ghost-Baron.”

    Return to note reference.

  34. See Hamilton, Intention and Survival. See also Sconce, Haunted Media.

    Return to note reference.

  35. Hamilton Family fonds, University of Manitoba Archives and Special Collections.

    Return to note reference.

  36. “At present, photography of the substance is the most valuable means at our disposal of showing its objective reality and of studying its morphology and processes.” Hamilton, Intention and Survival, 10. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text.

    Return to note reference.

  37. “That these phenomena were secured under the direction of intelligences, known as ‘controls,’ that is, trance personalities claiming to be individuals who have survived death, is generally known, and a fact that makes the whole enquiry particularly distasteful to many” (Hamilton, 10).

    Return to note reference.

  38. Sir Oliver Joseph Lodge, a British inventor and physicist who made significant contributions to the development of radio, referred to this room as Hamilton’s “laboratory” (quoted in Hamilton, 132).

    Return to note reference.

  39. Wojcik, “Spirits, Apparitions, and Traditions,” 120. Wojick cites Chéroux et al., The Perfect Medium, and Krauss, Beyond Light and Shadow.

    Return to note reference.

  40. Hamilton writes: “Many of my medical colleagues have accepted my experiments as attempts to get at the truth by genuinely experimental methods, regardless of the somewhat unusual nature of these things” (Intention and Survival, 16).

    Return to note reference.

  41. Quoted in Gertner, The Idea Factory, 4. See also Galison and Jones, “Factory, Laboratory, Studio.”

    Return to note reference.

  42. Frank, The Conquest of Cool, 56–57.

    Return to note reference.

  43. For example, from his first sentence (“This book is about the origins of modern communications as seen through the adventures of several men” [1]), Jon Gertner is unabashed about The Idea Factory being a “great man history.” For all its virtues, he retrenches a mythology of male American midwestern genius at the roots of technological innovation by glossing over the contributions of the thousands of employees (fifteen thousand at its peak) for the work of a handful, including the women who worked at Bell Labs (121) and the Europeans whose discoveries sometimes served as the occasion for innovation (13, 67). The story could have been told otherwise.

    Return to note reference.

  44. Gertner, 346.

    Return to note reference.

  45. Dickerman, “‘Our Future.’”

    Return to note reference.

  46. Barbrook and Cameron, “The Californian Ideology,” 52, 45.

    Return to note reference.

  47. Barbrook and Cameron, 50, 49.

    Return to note reference.

  48. Barbrook and Cameron, 53.

    Return to note reference.

  49. Barbrook and Cameron, 55.

    Return to note reference.

  50. Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here; Golumbia, The Cultural Logic of Computation, 3–4. Golumbia sees in computationalism not only a drift toward the right but also the seeds of a Hobbesian, winner-take-all sensibility that leads directly to authoritarianism: “There is no room in this picture for exactly the kind of distributed sovereignty on which democracy itself would seem to be predicated” (224). And, in the wake of Gamergate and the rise of Trump, Josephine Armistead extends the argument yet again to account for the rise of neo-reactionary philosophy and outright fascism. See “The Silicon Ideology” and “The Silicon Ideology Revisited.”

    Return to note reference.

  51. Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture, 240.

    Return to note reference.

  52. Turner, 242.

    Return to note reference.

  53. Turner, 19–20.

    Return to note reference.

  54. Holmes, “Disconnecting the Dots,” 185.

    Return to note reference.

  55. Holmes, 185.

    Return to note reference.

  56. Crow, “Building an Entrepreneurial University,” 76.

    Return to note reference.

  57. Crow and Dabars, Designing the New American University, 10–11.

    Return to note reference.

  58. Crow and Dabars, 103–4.

    Return to note reference.

  59. Manovich, The Language of New Media, 129.

    Return to note reference.

  60. Galison, “Three Laboratories,” 1149.

    Return to note reference.

  61. Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture, 20.

    Return to note reference.

6. Lab Techniques

  1. See, for example, Farías and Wilkie, “Studio Studies,” 6–7.

    Return to note reference.

  2. Galison, “Trading Zone.”

    Return to note reference.

  3. Farías and Wilkie, “Studio Studies,” 10, 12.

    Return to note reference.

  4. Vismann, “Cultural Techniques and Sovereignty,” 84. 

    Return to note reference.

  5. Sterne, “Communication as Techné,” 4.

    Return to note reference.

  6. Sterne, 5.

    Return to note reference.

  7. Krämer and Bredekamp, “Culture, Technology, Cultural Techniques,” 23.

    Return to note reference.

  8. Fordyce et al., “3D Printing and University Makerspaces,” 193.

    Return to note reference.

  9. Star and Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology,” 393.

    Return to note reference.

  10. Fordyce, “Manufacturing Imaginaries,” 3.

    Return to note reference.

  11. Allahyari and Rourke, “The 3D Additivist Manifesto.”

    Return to note reference.

  12. Molitch-Hou, “3D Printing Health Risks.”

    Return to note reference.

  13. Since the writing of this book, the Lab has continued work renamed as the Praxis Studio for Comparative Media Studies. See https://maker.uvic.ca/studio/.

    Return to note reference.

  14. Sayers, “Prototyping the Past.”

    Return to note reference.

  15. Catlow and Garrett, “DIWO.”

    Return to note reference.

  16. See also Parikka, “Digging.”

    Return to note reference.

  17. Wylie et al., “Institutions for Civic Technoscience”; Marvin, When Old Technologies Were New, 4.

    Return to note reference.

  18. Dragona, “What Is Left to Subvert?,” 187.

    Return to note reference.

  19. O’Gorman, “Broken Tools and Misfit Toys.”

    Return to note reference.

  20. Findlen, Possessing Nature, 100.

    Return to note reference.

  21. Findlen, 107.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Stone, “ACTLab, or, Make Stuff!”

    Return to note reference.

  23. Liboiron, “How to Run a Feminist Science Lab Meeting.”

    Return to note reference.

  24. Hartnett, Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making.

    Return to note reference.

  25. https://civiclaboratory.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/codm-cheat-sheet.docx.

    Return to note reference.

  26. Krmpotich, “Teaching Collections Management Anthropologically,” 115.

    Return to note reference.

  27. Montfort, “An Interview with Nick Montfort.”

    Return to note reference.

  28. Olsson, “Jesper Olsson on the Media Archaeology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  29. For organizations lobbying on behalf of consumers, see, for example, the Repair Association (www.repair.org) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Defend Your Right to Repair!”

    Return to note reference.

  30. Rankin, “EU Plans ‘Right to Repair’ Rules.”

    Return to note reference.

  31. National Science Teaching Association, “Integral Role of Laboratory Investigations.”

    Return to note reference.

  32. Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 149.

    Return to note reference.

  33. Rheinberger, “Experiment, Research, Art.”

    Return to note reference.

  34. Mareis and Allen, “An Interview with Mareis and Allen.”

    Return to note reference.

  35. Rheinberger, “Experiment, Research, Art.”

    Return to note reference.

  36. See also Schwab, Experimental Systems.

    Return to note reference.

  37. For more on Black Mountain College see, for example, Díaz, The Experimenters.

    Return to note reference.

  38. Reimer, “An Interview with Professor Bo Reimer.”

    Return to note reference.

  39. Gross, “Give Me an Experiment”; Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory.”

    Return to note reference.

  40. J. Drucker, SpecLab, 5.

    Return to note reference.

  41. J. Drucker, 21.

    Return to note reference.

  42. Treske, “An Interview with Andreas Treske.”

    Return to note reference.

  43. Quoted in Plohman, A Blueprint, 253.

    Return to note reference.

  44. White, “The Aesthetics of Failure.”

    Return to note reference.

  45. Olsson, “Jesper Olsson on the Media Archaeology Lab.”

    Return to note reference.

  46. O’Gorman, “Broken Tools and Misfit Toys,” 40.

    Return to note reference.

  47. Mareis and Allen, “An Interview with Mareis and Allen.”

    Return to note reference.

  48. Ballon and Schuurman, “Living Labs.”

    Return to note reference.

  49. Ballon and Schuurman.

    Return to note reference.

  50. Ballon and Schuurman. The term “living lab” is often credited to William Mitchell, Kent Larson, and Alex Pentland at MIT, who used the concept in the field of urban planning and city design to observe people in smart homes (the living labs, in this case) and then iterate their product design based on patterns of actual use. But Seppo Leminen (with researchers including Anna-Greta Nyström, Christ Habib, and Mika Westerlund) has argued for a more complex relative beginning for the term, finding early uses in 1749 and 1956, with its relative formalization in 1991 with Bajgier (Leminen, Westerlund, and Nyström, “Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks,” 7).

    Return to note reference.

  51. Bajgier et al., “Introducing Students,” 708.

    Return to note reference.

  52. For bibliographic surveys see Leminen, Habib, and Westerlund, “Living Labs as Innovation Platforms,” and Leminen, Westerlund, and Nyström, “Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks.”

    Return to note reference.

  53. Bajgier et al., “Introducing Students,” 703, 709.

    Return to note reference.

  54. Leminen, Habib, and Westerlund, “Living Labs as Innovation Platforms,” 2.

    Return to note reference.

  55. Ballon and Schuurman, “Living Labs.”

    Return to note reference.

  56. Ballon and Schuurman.

    Return to note reference.

  57. Von Hippel, “Lead Users,” 791.

    Return to note reference.

  58. Mats Eriksson et al., “Living Labs,” 2.

    Return to note reference.

  59. Arrigoni, “Innovation, Collaboration, Education,” 217.

    Return to note reference.

  60. Arrigoni, 219, 223.

    Return to note reference.

  61. Arrigoni, 216.

    Return to note reference.

  62. Tanaka, “Situation within Society,” 19.

    Return to note reference.

  63. Arrigoni and Schofield, “Understanding Artistic Prototypes between Activism and Research,” 25.

    Return to note reference.

  64. Tanaka, 26.

    Return to note reference.

  65. Mareis and Allen, “An Interview with Mareis and Allen.”

    Return to note reference.

  66. Sayers and Chan, “Prototyping the Past.”

    Return to note reference.

  67. Quoted in Redström, Making Design Theory, 73.

    Return to note reference.

  68. Turner, “Prototype,” 258.

    Return to note reference.

  69. Kera, “On Prototypes,” 425.

    Return to note reference.

  70. Ronell, The Test Drive, 164.

    Return to note reference.

  71. Gertner, The Idea Factory, 56.

    Return to note reference.

  72. Zielinski, “Thinking about Art after the Media,” 299.

    Return to note reference.

  73. Arrigoni, “Innovation, Collaboration, Education,” 219.

    Return to note reference.

Conclusion

  1. Canadian Centre for Architecture, Lab Cult.

    Return to note reference.

  2. Parham, “Everything Is New.” See also Chaudhary and Berhe, “Ten Simple Rules,” and the website for the “What Is a Feminist Lab?” symposium: http://whatisafeministlab.online.

    Return to note reference.

  3. Baccus-Clark, “What Role Does Immersive Storytelling Play?”

    Return to note reference.

  4. Huhtamo, “Dismantling the Fairy Engine,” 34.

    Return to note reference.

  5. Huhtamo, 41.

    Return to note reference.

  6. Braidotti, The Posthuman, 157.

    Return to note reference.

  7. Ding, “Interview with Hyphen-Labs.” See also the Hyphen-Labs website at http://www.hyphen-labs.com/.

    Return to note reference.

  8. Ding, “Interview with Hyphen-Labs.”

    Return to note reference.

  9. Ding.

    Return to note reference.

  10. Pickering, The Mangle of Practice, 564.

    Return to note reference.

  11. Pickering, 567.

    Return to note reference.

  12. Cramer, “What Is ‘Post-digital’?,” 18. See also Bishop et al., Across & Beyond.

    Return to note reference.

  13. Parikka, “The Lab Imaginary.”

    Return to note reference.

  14. Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump,15.

    Return to note reference.

  15. CLEAR, CLEAR Lab Book.

    Return to note reference.

  16. Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, 281.

    Return to note reference.

  17. Shapin and Schaffer, 76, 303.

    Return to note reference.

  18. Conway and Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt.

    Return to note reference.

  19. Kavanagh and Rich, Truth Decay.

    Return to note reference.

  20. Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, 343.

    Return to note reference.

  21. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 201.

    Return to note reference.

  22. Kuhn, 202, 5.

    Return to note reference.

Next Chapter
Figure Descriptions
PreviousNext
The University of Minnesota Press gratefully acknowledges the generous support provided for the publication of this book by a Eugene M. Kayden Research Grant from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Copyright 2022 by Darren Wershler, Lori Emerson, and Jussi Parikka
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at manifoldapp.org