{"id":125040,"date":"2021-04-10T11:34:15","date_gmt":"2021-04-10T09:34:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/?post_type=opera_digitale&#038;p=125040"},"modified":"2022-10-20T23:24:09","modified_gmt":"2022-10-20T21:24:09","slug":"leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public","status":"publish","type":"opera_digitale","link":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/","title":{"rendered":"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public?"},"content":{"rendered":"<section id=\"section-block_63518fa48249f\" class=\"section  wpb-margin-top wpb-margin-bottom wpb-padding-top wpb-padding-bottom\" data-aos=\"fade\" data-type=\"mst-two-columns-content-section\">\n\t<div class=\"container-fluid\">\n\t\t<div class=\"row\">\n\t\t\t\n<div id=\"block-block_63518faa824a0\" class=\"col offset-0 offset-lg-1 col-12 col-lg-4 align-text-left align-content-top\" data-type=\"mst-column\">\n\t\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-what-is-the-public\/\">First Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Second Episode<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-human-public-the-only-public-we-can-aspire-to\/\">Third Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-public-a-neutral-notion-what-about-the-gender-audience\/\">Fourth Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-what-about-audiences-not-aligned-with-a-dominant-culture-audiences-from-other-cultures\/\">Fifth Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-what-does-it-mean-to-be-observed-by-historical-memory\/\">Sixth Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-arent-objects-and-artworks-themselves-a-form-of-public\/\">Seventh&nbsp;Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-what-does-it-mean-to-do-something-for-an-audience-of-the-future\/\">Eight Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-i-robot-sono-una-forma-di-pubblico\/\">Ninth Episode<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n<div id=\"block-block_63518faa824a1\" class=\"col  col-12 col-lg-7 align-text-left align-content-top\" data-type=\"mst-column\">\n\t\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Second Episode<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:20px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n    <div class=\"iframe-wrapper\">\n                <!--IUB-COOKIE-BLOCK-SKIP-START-->\n        <iframe src=\"\/\/players.brightcove.net\/745468061001\/default_default\/index.html?videoId=6247514816001\" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n        <!--IUB-COOKIE-BLOCK-SKIP-END-->\n    <\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>Transcript of the second episode of&nbsp;<strong><em>The Disappearance of the Public<\/em><\/strong>, a new podcast in which Castello di Rivoli Philosopher-in-Residence Leonardo Caffo investigates the notion of the public, its disappearance, its different characteristics, and qualities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><strong>Manuela Vasco<\/strong>: Welcome to our weekly podcast with Castello di Rivoli Philosopher-in-Residence Leonardo Caffo, who\u2019s investigating with us the idea of the public, its disappearance, its different characteristics, and qualities. I\u2019m your host Manuela Vasco from Castello di Rivoli\u2014Cerruti Collection Communication Office. I welcome Leonardo Caffo and I\u2019d like to ask him: is the digital audience a real audience? How is it a different world, a different audience from before?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Leonardo Caffo<\/strong>: Hello Manuela. Thank you for this very interesting question about the nature of the digital audience. Many artists have actually anticipated, as art often does, the issues regarding the disappearance of the analogical public\u2014that public made up of bodies, blood, physical presence, room noises. They\u2019ve talked about what it could be to shift to the gaze of the other, of otherness, into a digital type of spatiality, and tried to understand what kind of subjectivity and what kind of audience the digital audience is. In this context, I would mention the project&nbsp;<em>Annlee<\/em>, by Pierre Huyghe [Paris, 1962] and Philippe Parreno [Oran, 1964]. Many years ago, these artists bought an online manga character, which was on sale for anyone who wanted to create cartoons. They acted on this \u201cshell,\u201d trying to introduce multiple personalities, visions, curiosities, emotions. They also involved many other artists, giving life to what is a real work of art in motion, constantly changing. We find Annlee in many different international exhibitions\u2014such as the one at PS1 in 2001\u201302 curated by Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev\u2014<em>No Ghost Just a Shell<\/em>. At this specific time, Castello di Rivoli is showing a work that comes from this experimentation, created by Pierre Huyghe, under the title&nbsp;<em>Two Minutes Out of Time<\/em>&nbsp;(2000). Annlee walks on a kind of dynamic 3D moon, reads novels, watches films, talks about the concerns of the artists who have personified her. This group of artists who\u2019ve worked on this character give her life; they use her as a means of expressing their thoughts. But in this way, Annlee, triggered by a hybridization of thought, becomes a being in her own right, albeit a being who doesn\u2019t exist in the normal public domain. You won\u2019t find Annlee at the supermarket or in the post office line. But her very existence in what in ontology is called the \u201cdomain of fictitious entities,\u201d introduces an incredible theme: that of the ontology of functional objects. We have, in fact, a new living being. She lives in a different space; she lives in the digital space. But she observes us, she questions us, she tells us things of some kind. By questioning us, despite being a fictional character, she tells us something on which we must reflect: the disappearance of the public. Whether existing or non-existent, Annlee observes us, talks to us, tells us about her problems. Perhaps these problems have an effect in the real world? Listening to Annlee, do we feel some kind of emotion? Does it make sense to ask if she exists, or how we feel about it? The domain of existence becomes wider, bigger, more complex, and objects born from fictitious narrative contexts exist in their own way. This is a question of philosophy that is fundamental to understanding the hybridization between art and the philosophy of the digital audience. It is precisely this theme of the observation of objects and digital subjects that crosses art. &nbsp;We\u2019ve just made reference to Huyghe and Parreno, but we can also think of another great artist who\u2019s crossed the recent history of Castello di Rivoli, and this is Ed Atkins [Oxford, 1982], who had a solo exhibition in 2017 curated by the Castello\u2019s director Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev and by its curator Marianna Vecellio. Here, there\u2019s a great analysis of the existential conditions of contemporary life, filtered through the interaction between the body and technology. The characters that Atkins created show the ambivalence between digital reality and analog reality and the gap we need to bridge. It\u2019s above all a question that concerns the subjectivity of the digital, the gaze of the digital. Is it the same as the gaze developed in the analog? Artists today work on this question a lot. &nbsp;Another work that Carolyn and I have been thinking about is by Miao Ying, who created a great narrative based on the novel&nbsp;<em>Walden<\/em>&nbsp;(1854) by Henry David Thoreau [Concord, 1817\u20131862] in which, as we know, there was this idea of a utopian social credit, in which people behave well because they get rewards. This artist created&nbsp;<em>Pilgrimage into Walden Twelve<\/em>&nbsp;(2019), which is a great sci-fi fantasy of animation and artificial intelligences, which are precisely trained with stimuli and become more real than reality itself. This happens in some way because the audience and the actors have always been in great communion. The action is oriented to the gaze of the other; it always has been. If we think of the most primordial public, we think of the theatrical representations of Athens in the 5th century, or the so-called Dionysian festivals, on which many philosophers reflected\u2014I\u2019m obviously thinking about Friedrich Nietzsche [R\u00f6cken, 1844\u2013Weimar, 1900] and the tragedy. The closeness of the audience to the actors was also an architectural fact. It was a spatial datum that had to do with the conceptual: the noises of the audience influenced the actions of the actors; the actors influenced the noises of the audience. Everything has always held together. &nbsp;But one could say that today\u2019s digital audience is the same thing. We have an audience, even today. It\u2019s a fundamental question. We talked about the disappearance of the public in the first episode. Somehow, the analog audience disappeared during coronavirus. The museums are empty, the stadiums are empty, the theaters are empty. But we\u2019re still observers in other contexts. We use museums as large databases to digitize on the internet and we\u2019ve tried to make public programs on Zoom, Instagram, Clubhouse. The people who\u2019ve connected to these have in some way served to create an analogic public. Let\u2019s say the gaze of the other has remained. &nbsp;First of all, it must be spatiality understood. If Huyghe\u2019s and Parreno\u2019s works hadn\u2019t been spatialized in this lunar landscape, the work itself would have been much weaker. What is the space within which the public manifests itself? The first thesis of this second podcast: the audience is the context. The context allows observation to develop in a certain way. I\u2019m thinking, for example, of what Achille Bonito Oliva recently said about museums, which are fundamentally enjoyed in a dimension of stasis. The public enters and is \u201cforced to observe\u201d first one work then another, to participate in the set-up that curators have created for viewers to enjoy the works through a path that influences their observation. In the digital realm, this is very different. One thing that changes with the digital audience is the attention threshold. Digital gives us the possibility to infinitely scroll. We can watch Rivoli live for two seconds, then we can watch MoMA live. In the meantime, we can consult the weather, check the&nbsp;<em>Corriere<\/em>,&nbsp;<em>Le Monde<\/em>,&nbsp;<em>El Pais<\/em>&nbsp;websites and in all this our attention threshold is different. It\u2019s an ingoing and an outgoing of things. Moreover, a live audience becomes fundamental to you as the actor, the musician, the artist, etc., because it tells you how it observes you, how much it observes, and according to this, your performance changes. There\u2019s a difference between performing in a real analog, museum space or in a digital space\u2014as we\u2019ve experienced in recent months during the coronavirus. But the only information we have access to on our Instagram, for example, or with our rooms on Clubhouse, is the number of visitors. It tells us that someone is listening to us, but we don\u2019t know how they\u2019re listening to us, if they\u2019re doing something else while they\u2019re listening to us, if they\u2019re really focused in the moment of observation, and this makes our performance different once again. The digital audience has changed not only digital but also analog production. The great communion between the audience and the actors that was created, for example, in the \u201cproagon\u201d ceremonies\u2014the prologues before the Dionysian festivals in 5th-century Athens\u2014helped audiences to understand the context, triaining them in the knowledge of the playwrights. This aspect has been completely lost. &nbsp;There\u2019s a Kantian thesis that I\u2019d like to share with you regarding this collaboration between philosophy and art that we\u2019re staging at the museum. In the&nbsp;<em>Critique of Pure Reason<\/em>&nbsp;(1781), when elaborating on transcendental schematism and transcendental analytics, Immanuel Kant [K\u00f6nigsberg, 1724\u20131804] says that we\u2019re only able to aquire knowledge through a scheme. Without this schema, a concept that governs our intuitions, we remain blind. We need a way to \u201cgrab\u201d the information that we receive; otherwise, we can\u2019t observe all its nuances. This means, for example, that the digital only apparently gives us more information than analog. We may be able to look at a weather forecast, read a newspaper, observe a live broadcast all at the same time, but we\u2019re unable to grasp the nuances of the complexity of the space in front of us, what is called the \u201clandscape,\u201d that is, the portioning of the world given by the eye. The limits of our world are the limits of our language, as Ludwig Wittgenstein [Vienna, 1889 \u2013 Cambridge, 1951] would have said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There\u2019s a partiality of observation. &nbsp;Why are the works we started from, created by Huyghe, Parreno, Miao Ying and Ed Atkins important? Because they help us to understand the contemporary audience. It makes no sense to be nostalgic for an analog audience. Today, in 2021, with the hybridization of analog and digital, we speak in the technical jargon of \u201con line\u201d\u2014 that is, we no longer go on the internet, we are the internet. We\u2019re constantly traversed by a network. It makes no sense to say, \u201cIt was better when we looked at museums more carefully before we had Instagram and before Google Arts and Culture digitized everything.\u201d We must understand the phenomena of contemporaneity, while always taking an archaeological approach to audience analysis. I use the term \u201cArchaeological\u201d in the sense in which Michel Foucault [Poitiers, 1926\u2013Paris, 1984] spoke of it in his great research on sexuality and madness. With this podcast and with this research project at the museum, we\u2019re carrying out an \u201carcheology of the public.\u201d &nbsp;Essential to understanding the reason for talking about Foucault\u2019s archeology of power is what he tells us in his great book&nbsp;<em>Discipline and Punish<\/em>&nbsp;(1975). He tells us about the Panopticon, a utilitarian prison, where incarcerated people know they can be constantly seen by the guard, who is at the center of this circular prison, but they don\u2019t know if, how and when they\u2019re seen, and therefore their actions change on the basis of always being subject to an audience. Even the guard is not aware of his audience. The Panopticon is one of the great philosophical conceptualizations that can be read completely from the perspective of the public. The archeology of the Panopticon can helps us to understand what \u201cpublic\u201d means. Foucault spoke of a post-1960s society, the first society of observation, surveillance cameras, etc., but not a society in which there was a certainty of being watched. Today, however, we\u2019re in total pursuit of being seen. We\u2019re not only unafraid of the Panopticon, but we live in constant expectation of grabbing that famous 15 minutes of fame that Andy Warhol [Pittsburgh, 1928 \u2013 New York, 1987] talked about. We want the guard to see us, and we offer him information constantly. With the general mobilization given by the digital, we show off our homes, tell our stories, etc., constantly seeking the public eye. We live to be observed, supervised and therefore also punished. This is a central aspect, because the categories of philosophy in which we spoke of the gaze of the other and the impossibility of protecting oneself from this gaze of the other\u2014what Jacques Derrida [Algiers, 1930 \u2013 Paris, 2004] called \u201cthe taste for secrets\u201d\u2014have changed profoundly with technology. When the technique changes, the tyranny changes too. Gilles Deleuze [Paris, 1925\u20131995] said that every technique expresses a tyrant. He meant that technology equates to a new form of life and therefore to new life expectancy and therefore to a new spatiality of life, a new spatiality of existence. &nbsp;The question you asked me is: is the audience the same as before? Yes and no. There\u2019s no other way to answer. In some ways, the audience remains the same. Let\u2019s give a better definition of \u201caudience\u201d than the one we gave the first time\u2014because I\u2019m contantly researching while working on this podcast. The real, ontologically decisive, powerful public, the one we always pursue in some way, is made up of an observer who doesn\u2019t simply look at reality, but helps to create it, as happens in quantum physics. But, above all, the observer shouldn\u2019t be someone you choose, as happens in invited exhibitions or in the short lists that museums produce for inaugurations and so on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The audience should be someone who arrives suddenly, with the gaze of the other, of the madman, who as Foucault said, suddenly observes you, questions you. As we shall see next time, the animal\u2019s gaze is absolutely other and asks you \u201cWho are you? What do you want? What are you introducing me to?\u201d And the public in turn must be seen and recognized as an observer, beyond the prejudicial claims of our being observed, where we may assume, he\u2019s not prepared enough, he\u2019s not intelligent enough, he\u2019s not educated enough. This doesn\u2019t mean that there\u2019s no objective reality that we must provide for an audience, but that there are many, and that therefore\u2014and this is where the \u201cno\u201d of the \u201cyes and no\u201d answer I gave earlier lies\u2014the digital audience has contributed to creating new types of reality and therefore also new types of performativity. Annlee observes us, questions us, and it makes no sense to ask ourselves if she does it well, that is, as we would like, because she is not human, she is not intelligent, etc. We aren\u2019t what we do, but we are what others see us doing. And in this apparent transition from one position to another, relative to a context, lies in my opinion the decisive revolution with respect to the image of existence that we\u2019ve always given ourselves in our various cultures. It\u2019s obvious that one thing is applause, making a live noise inside a room, and the other is simply a number that grows the digital audience. In this sense, it\u2019s crazy because you can even buy followers on Instagram or Twitter or Facebook, knowing that this quantity doesn\u2019t equate to a quality or a reality. The poor Indian boy who\u2019s paid by the digital subcultures to follow them will never observe us. Yet today, we evaluate the quality of the digital audience through quantity: how many followers does Castello di Rivoli or Leonardo Caffo have on Instagram? This becomes an evaluation, even thorugh we know that it\u2019s absolutely not equivalent to a real look. The thing that must be understood, however\u2014and here\u2019s the defect of the digital public\u2014is that in the definition of public that I\u2019ve just given you and that, in a hypothetical future, I\u2019d like to discuss further\u2014is that the public isn\u2019t something that\u2019s there to gratify us, but is something that\u2019s there to make us responsible, that is, to make the action, the music, the art that we\u2019re putting in front of them perform. It\u2019s therefore quality that should count much more than quantity&nbsp;<em>tout court<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>An important thing that the artists we started with also understood is that what worries us about digital subjectivities is not so much whether they\u2019re real or not. This is a profoundly wrong question, because, as the philosophers say, as soon as an entity is communicated, it enters the domain of reality, like all other entities, with its own status of reality. But what types of new subjectivities do we have before us? And therefore, what types of gazes of the other, what types of audiences and what types of actions will follow this gaze of the other? And this is the thing we must try to investigate and understand. Digital offers new possibilities. It also does this in art. Who is the audience of the NFTs<a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/leonardo-caffo-pubblico-del-digitale-un-pubblico-vero\/#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;that are being auctioned for millions of pounds today? Is there really an audience for NFTs, for a work that, in fact, is a certificate and not an aesthetic phenomenon? This ontological question is important and fundamental. What are these works that are now produced in the digital sphere, that are equivalent to their certification and not to the power of the aesthetic phenomenology they generate? The museum is fundamental for aesthetic phenomenology: to cross a threshold and be amazed to find yourself in front of something you weren\u2019t looking for, while digital always gives you what you were already looking for. As Pablo Picasso [Malaga, 1881\u2013 Mougins, 1973] would say, \u201cI don\u2019t seek I find.\u201d Digital is essential to understand that sentence: the algorithm always puts the thing you were looking for in front of you. However, this doesn\u2019t immediately generate the idea that the digital audience is a worse audience, and the analog audience is a better audience. It also generates a reflection on new forms of art production. What does it mean to produce a work for a glance that you\u2019ll never get to verify? A look that\u2019s equivalent to a quantity and not a quality? A look that\u2019s equivalent to a \u201clike,\u201d an appearance? And above all, what does it mean when there\u2019s no way to interpret the reason for that like, the reason for having suddenly appeared in history while we\u2019re doing a performance? Reading a face, however enigmatic, allows us a better understanding when we\u2019re developing an action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The real question is this: what\u2019s the difference between us and Annlee? And this is where the good and the bad of the research project we\u2019re developing together comes. One might say \u201cIs Annlee fake? Why should I care about the concerns of artists who created her?\u201d But what do we really know about the other?&nbsp;<em>I<\/em>&nbsp;could be created; my voice could be fake. You don\u2019t know if Leonardo Caffo really recorded this podcast or if the director recorded my voice, recalibrated it through an automaton and made me say things that I don\u2019t really think. Basically, the knowledge of otherness and therefore the gaze that otherness exercises towards us is always an act of trust. When we\u2019re in a conference and someone in the room nods as we speak, they might do so because they feel they\u2019re being watched and think, \u201cOh, I\u2019d better nod so he thinks I\u2019m listening carefully,\u201d or they might nod, but in reality, they\u2019re minding their own business or listening to something else. Annlee is fake, because so is the mind of the other, since it\u2019s always inaccessible. It\u2019s always a great act of trust. So then the digital audience leads us to the oldest, most complex, most articulated question: what do we really know about who\u2019s observing us and for whom we\u2019re producing things, if we\u2019re not sure that attention is really being paid on the other side? And this is where new perspectives open up: the audience and the actor, just as in the 5th century in Athens, merge in a much more structural way. The only certainty we have to produce art again, to produce beauty again, to produce genuine questions of meaning about existence, is to let the actors and the audience walk together, as happened in the proagon, or as Marina Abramovi\u0107 [Belgrade, 1946] put it: when we train the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here we find the enormous horizons for contemporary art: from walking with the audience to not even producing graphic works, which are becoming NFTs. But there is a way to work together, to make the public walk together with the works. We must understand a way\u2014and perhaps we\u2019ll find it later in the next episodes\u2014to make sure that behind those numbers, behind that quantity, which is not equivalent to quality, there is a way to understand that basically the landscape in which we walk is no less lunar, less different, less abstract than the one in which Annlee walks. And it\u2019s made above all not of our dreams, but of the dreams of others; not of words but of the words of others; not of our own concerns, but of the concerns of others. We\u2019re actually more like Annlee than the many dreams of actors and authorship we\u2019ve always had.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Manuela Vasco<\/strong>: I thank you all for being with us. I\u2019d also like to thank Regione Piemonte, Fondazione CRT, Citt\u00e0 di Torino, Citt\u00e0 di Rivoli and our partners Fondazione Compagnia di San Paolo and Intesa San Paolo \/ Gallerie D\u2019Italia. We look forward to welcoming you again next week for this exciting series of podcasts with the philosopher Leonardo Caffo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/leonardo-caffo-pubblico-del-digitale-un-pubblico-vero\/#_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;A&nbsp;non-fungible token (NFT)&nbsp;is a unit of data stored on a digital&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ledger\">ledger<\/a>, called a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Blockchain\">blockchain<\/a>, that certifies a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_asset\">digital asset<\/a>&nbsp;to be unique and therefore not interchangeable.&nbsp;NFTs can be used to represent items such as photos, videos, audio and other types of digital files. Access to any copy of the original file, however, is not restricted to the buyer of the NFT. While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtain, NFTs are tracked on blockchains to provide the owner with a proof of&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ownership\">ownership<\/a>&nbsp;that is separate from&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Copyright\">copyright<\/a>. (Wikipedia)<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":730,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-125040","opera_digitale","type-opera_digitale","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public? - Castello di Rivoli<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public? - Castello di Rivoli\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Castello di Rivoli\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-10-20T21:24:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/opera_digitale\\\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/opera_digitale\\\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\\\/\",\"name\":\"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public? - Castello di Rivoli\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-10T09:34:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-10-20T21:24:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/opera_digitale\\\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/opera_digitale\\\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/opera_digitale\\\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Digital Cosmos\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/opera_digitale\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Castello di Rivoli\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.castellodirivoli.org\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public? - Castello di Rivoli","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public? - Castello di Rivoli","og_url":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/","og_site_name":"Castello di Rivoli","article_modified_time":"2022-10-20T21:24:09+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/","url":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/","name":"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public? - Castello di Rivoli","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-04-10T09:34:15+00:00","dateModified":"2022-10-20T21:24:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/leonardo-caffo-is-the-digital-audience-a-real-public\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Digital Cosmos","item":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/opera_digitale\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Leonardo Caffo. Is the digital audience a real public?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/","name":"Castello di Rivoli","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/opera_digitale\/125040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/opera_digitale"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/opera_digitale"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/730"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/opera_digitale\/125040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.castellodirivoli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}