This set of studies explores the relationship that we as user have with digital devices. Currently, we are forced to be quite delicate with digital devices for a variety of reasons. Mostly, this is due to the fact that the devices are fragile and expensive. But I’m interested in wondering what would happen if this wasn’t the case. What if you could interact with things in an emotional way? What if the physical manifestation of an emotional outburst caused a meaningful response from a device or system? I’ve explored this elimination of the preciousness associated with a device within the 3 studies in the video above and listed below.
1: Punching: Signal from the Noise.
A nostalgic exploration referencing a time when you could punch a television or radio in order to improve reception.
2: Throwing: Force as Instrument
An experiential exploration that looks at the force of throwing as musical instrument.
3: Shaking: Directional Nudge
The most specific of the scenarios, the shaking interface uses a mobile phone to look at ways in which provocative messages could be sent directly (and anonymously) from one device to another through the use of proximity and a sharp, scolding directional gesture.
This video documents our presentation of Situated Technologies Pamphlet #5, A synchronicity: Design Fictions for Asynchronous Urban Computing by Julian Bleecker and Nicolas Nova for our Media History and Theory class.
4 Presenters
1 Section each
5 Talking points per section
2 Images per talking point
Every 1 minute, the presentation system selects, at random, 1 of the four speakers and 1 of his or her 5 talking points to discuss.
Each talking point will have 2 images displayed for 30 seconds each. Images will be selected at random from the 40 total images.
This continues until all of the talking points are covered. No talking points will be duplicated.
The intent behind mixing the order of talking points and the sequencing of images is to explore the potential for new connections to develop between the different presenters’ topics for discussion.
This idea of the distance a food has traveled is good but we’ve quickly realized that knowing this once you are in the kitchen is not very valuable since you’ve already bought it and brought it home. It needs to happen earlier in the process, before a purchase has been made.
Farm Coop with Dynamic Recipe Options
The idea here is that initial pink block knows what is in your bag from the farm coop. Once placed on the counter, recipes would be displayed and filtered based on what items from the bag are selected by placing them near the block.
We liked this idea of a system in which recipes are presented based on what you have available. However, as evidenced by my small apartment counter top, counter space is incredibly valuable during cooking. Updated displays need to exist as a different model that remains flexible and reactive to the cooking process.
Created in collaboration with Daniel Lara and Scott Liao, our SmashBot video is an investigation into a possible dynamic that could develop between us and the devices we use. The exploration looks at how a model of course correction could be used to manipulate the function and behavior of the objects we use. Imagine instead of fixing source code or updating firmware, you simply nudge, punch or smash a device in order to let it know that it is either doing something that it shouldn’t be doing or isn’t doing something it should be. Within this scenario, the relationship between us and our devices shifts dramatically form our current model of delicate use and precious protection.
This 1 week project came directly out of the combination of our 3 midterm projects. Scott Liao’s project is about multiplicity, Daniel Lara’s was about control and mine explored force as a model for interactions.
This is a series of gesture and networking possibilities that we are exploring with some object forms that we discovered on a research trip. We were engaged by these 12 identical pieces and curious as to what inspiration we could draw from their form. What opportunities are presented when holding, stacking, resting or combining many objects with this form?
The continuation, in physical + interactive form, of these earlier material explorations [01][02][03]
This is an exploration of interactions rooted in the results of the physical manifestations of emotional outburst initially inspired by a material intended for use in situations where protection and shock absorption are required. The explorations moved into a space that begins to ask questions about how we interact with technology and the ways that we treat the digital things around us with care. The visual forms are influenced by the forms of the material, developed for function but formally, are very engaging. The sounds are displayed live from within the object that is being smashed. The signal is affected and amplified in real time to create a more engaging sense of the internal results of the action inflicted upon the object.
The resulting interactions was found to be pleasing by many of the users. Some described it as fun and others said that the action and response was therapeutic for them.
Monday, February 8, 2010 5:30pm
On the roof of the Art Center’s Wind Tunnel
Coordinators: Haejin Lee, JihaHwang, Mikey “Mikey T” Tnasuttimonkol, Alex Braidwood
Event Outline
People text one of 5 moods into the system. Instructions for this were located on the website pointed to by the event promotional materials (poster, FaceBook event, and promo video).
The system collects the text message submissions and builds the queue in real time.
This queue of moods is then used, in the order they were received, to determine playback of a series of video.
When a video plays, the goal of the real space participants is to perform as if the presented video where their conductor.
The instruments used are up to the participant. Questioning the definition of “instrument” is also encouraged.
After a video finishes playing, the next video from the list of text messaged moods is selected.
Different moods text messaged into the system result in the playback of different conductor videos
Different moods text messaged into the system result in the playback of different conductor videos
The video summary of the process for controlling and utilizing the performance space can be viewed here.
The Event
Total Number of Participants: 23 Real Space, 14 Online
Total Number of text messages received and used to direct performance: 34 over the course of the 23 minute event
Live Event: Audio
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Every sole tells a story. By collecting images of the bottom of people’s shoes along with some additional information collected form the provided survey, this inquiry looks to investigate the roll that footwear plays in our determining when and where to walk.
I’m proposing a space where the performance is no longer a one-way transmission passively absorbed by a gang of viewers. Instead, each person becomes a participant, even if just by their presence, in the creation of an audio/visual experience. In this sense, the performer should be considered to be the algorithm – the system behind the scenes that is collecting, trimming, modifying and presented the content for output. The output, however, is determined by the decisions and actions of the participants within the space.
Using an Arduino, a proximity sensor, and an infared LED, I created this remote trigger to fire off my camera whenever the sensor determined that an object was within a few feet of the box.
Version 1: Maxbotix Ultrasonic Rangefinder
This one worked well indoors and gave a good long range however once outside, there seemed to be a lot of environment interference. The first on location test that we did for threshold investigation, the sensor was firing at not only proximity detection but also loud noises and vibrations.
Version 2: Sharp Infrared Proximity Sensor
Although the range of this sensor was much shorter, the results outdoors where much more accurate providing a greater amount of flexibility for the location in which we could use it. I was also able to get it to fire off both of my Nikon camera’s with the same burst using a small tripod and a mirror to deflect the IR LED’s signal.
On Friday October 19th, 2009 during the NOWCASTING conference at UCLA, Warren Sack proposed that computational languages should be studied not from within the sciences, but as language from within the digital humanities. This idea is intriguing and the development of new programming languages would benefit a great deal from this mode of thinking. Contemporary models for the majority of computational language development is still very much rooted in what should be considered “the original” ways of communicating with computers. Sure, some portions of logic and naming conventions are set in the traditions by which we understand thought processes. However, at a certain level, there tends to be a wide range of barriers unintentionally integrated into the various systems that prevent different types of thinkers with different aptitudes from being able to understand the constructs considered to be “inherent” within the incredibly short historical contexts of these “language” environments. At times these are the strengths of the systems for the initiated but this also is the aspect that prevents these structures from being fully integrated and understood as proper language. The presentation proposes that by studying programming structures in this way, those who develop programming languages and those who utilize them in order to create should be considered to be writers, essayists and storytellers. By embracing this model of studying programming languages as language to look at the past and evaluate in the future, new systems for the creation of the media through the exploration of computational process can become more accessible to a wider range of thinkers and makers.
As a non-programmer (or more accurately a “folk coder”) and someone who has played around with generative processes in a variety of media (see: www.formalplay.com) this also raises the question “how much emphasis should be placed on how something is built?” In written language, literature for example, the way in which a piece is written, the language used, is an integral part of a critique. But in this case the relationship of language and experience is much more clear. Once the system of “writing” is such that the “writing” and the “result” or 2 very separate elements, should how something was made be included, even in a small way, in the value or perception of what was made? This piece poses this question directly through the development of an audio and visual system in which the full meaning is most accessible when both the code that has created the piece and the piece itself are viewed. Information about the audio and visuals being displayed have been carefully crafted into the function names, variable names and comments for development of and integration into the final display.
In its original form, this piece is displayed full-screen on a large monitor with wireless headphones.
