{"@graph":[{"@id":"_:b0","@type":"https://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle","https://schema.org/about":"https://git.rubenvandeven.com/security_vision/svganim","https://schema.org/abstract":"In this paper we propose a time-based digital tool, a diagram-in-the-making, as to learn about computer vision in the field of security. With this method we want to map the heterogeneous and multiple nature of security vision tech- nologies and their imaginaries. Concretely, we conducted qualitative interviews with professionals who develop, use or militate against these technologies and asked them to draw a diagram as to support their narrative. In spatialising the conversation, the diagrams allow for a wide variety of actants and relations to emerge. The time-based unfolding of the lines enacts imaginaries of computer vision practices which are intrinsically intertwined with the narratives of which they are part. It creates space for hesitation, uncertainties, incongruities and complexities that would have been rendered invisible in a geographic map. Through the spatial, material and temporal unfoldings of the diagrams we learn that security vision imaginaries are partial and contradictory.","https://schema.org/alternativeHeadline":"Con-Figuring Security Vision through Diagramming","https://schema.org/author":[{"@id":"https://rubenvandeven.com/person/ildiko-plajas"},{"@id":"https://rubenvandeven.com/"}],"https://schema.org/datePublished":"2022-10-18","https://schema.org/identifier":"https://doi.org/10.7146/aprja.v11i1.134306","https://schema.org/isPartOf":"A Peer-Reviewed Journal About: Vol. 11 No. 1 (2022): Rendering Research","https://schema.org/name":" Inconsistent Projections","https://schema.org/pageEnd":"65","https://schema.org/pageStart":"50","https://schema.org/url":"https://aprja.net//article/view/134306"},{"@id":"_:b1","@type":"https://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle","https://schema.org/abstract":"How does one map and visualise the complex arrangements of computer vision technologies used in the field of security in a collaborative setting where the research participants come from different scholarly traditions? This paper is an account of how we have attempted to tackle this question, and in the process of doing so, had to overcome challenges linked to the very meaning of collaboration. In a context in which epistemological and ontological differences appeared insurmountable, rather than searching for an illusory consensus, we decided to pluralize our visualisation practices. We thus mobilize maps, diagrams and snapshots not as illustrations but as the very nodes where frictions become tangible and generative of new directions. In our co-laboration we move from networks and maps to diagrams and 3D spaces yet still hold them together by reading across and through them, what we define as a “diffractive” approach.","https://schema.org/alternativeHeadline":"On Generative Frictions in Mapping Computer Vision Technologies in the Field of Security","https://schema.org/author":[{"@id":"https://rubenvandeven.com/person/ildiko-plajas"},{"@id":"https://rubenvandeven.com/person/francesco-ragazzi"},{"@id":"https://rubenvandeven.com/"}],"https://schema.org/datePublished":"2022-07-31","https://schema.org/identifier":"https://doi.org/10.4000/anthrovision.6924","https://schema.org/isPartOf":"Anthrovision [Online], Vol. 8 No. 1 (2020). Mediation, and Comparison","https://schema.org/name":" From Consensus to Diffraction.","https://schema.org/publisher":"European Association of Social Anthropologists—Visual Anthropology Network","https://schema.org/url":"https://journals.openedition.org/anthrovision/6924"},{"@id":"_:b100","@type":"https://schema.org/TheaterEvent","https://schema.org/endDate":"2020-03-20","https://schema.org/location":"Leuven","https://schema.org/name":"STUK","https://schema.org/startDate":"2020-03-19","https://schema.org/workFeatured":{"@id":"https://rubenvandeven.com/pillow-talk"}},{"@id":"_:b101","@type":"https://schema.org/VisualArtsEvent","https://schema.org/name":"Residency: PACT Zollverein","https://schema.org/startDate
