Roy Ascott believed that cybernetics would not take over or destroy the creative process. Instead he thought that together they could be combined to create collaborative and interactive art. The idea of “art” transforms with each new idea and influences. The combination of ideas and practice forms a new style and type of art. The anti-art revolution would not of succeeded unless there was meaning and thought put into it. The fact that they commented on what art is relates to Jeffery Shaw’s comments on interface. If we comment on something that we use in a piece it makes the art stronger and more political. Fluxus’s movement really relates to the idea that Ascott discusses that things should always be in the process of development instead of being a finished product. They also believed that anyone could create a piece of art; this could be now easily done through cybernetics and the ability to have many people creating something. Overall the fact that cybernetics and the creative process work together would not damage art but only further develop a new type.
The tension in Marcel Duchamp’s piece, Large Glass, is a fight between the seduction of sexual attraction to the embrace and the fact that the figures seem machine like. It becomes a fight between humanistic and robotic love. The other thing that comes into play is the fact that we want to be part of the piece and yet we cannot become closer to it. We fight between the urge of wanted to be loved and the fact that we are kept at a distance. Duchamp’s piece also allows the viewers to interpret the piece how they please. They become more connected to the piece when they can personally decide the meaning of it. All artists, new media artist included, need to remember that viewers and participants will always interpret the meaning of the piece then how the artist imagined it. They have to be aware of the difficulty of prediction how the users will interact with the piece. The issues that arise with virtual worlds is that people can be immersed but they will never actually be in the alternative reality.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Dis-Embodied Re-Embodied Body
In Jeffery Shaw’s article, The Dis-Embodied Re-Embodied Body, he discusses the ideas of two bodies. These bodies are the real body which exists in real space and virtual body which is in virtual space. What this really means is that we are physically in our natural surroundings but we are mentally immersed into a virtual world.
An interface can be seen like the mediums in visual art. The way an artist utilizes the interface can create specific meaning. If the interface is used in a distracting manor it can detract the true meaning of the piece. If put together hastily it can also have the same impact. A distracting interface can interfere with the immersion into the virtual world. When a piece wants to comment on the technology involved, it might be beneficial to make an interface that reflects this. It can remind the participant of their real body instead of just what their virtual impact is.
I think a huge issue that arises with interactive art is the fact that the interface can become so technical and immersive that viewers forget that it is actually an art piece. The act of making art should still remain the same instead of referencing it when creating interactive pieces. Interactive art is innovative but Shaw believes that it should be still practice like traditional art.
An interface can be seen like the mediums in visual art. The way an artist utilizes the interface can create specific meaning. If the interface is used in a distracting manor it can detract the true meaning of the piece. If put together hastily it can also have the same impact. A distracting interface can interfere with the immersion into the virtual world. When a piece wants to comment on the technology involved, it might be beneficial to make an interface that reflects this. It can remind the participant of their real body instead of just what their virtual impact is.
I think a huge issue that arises with interactive art is the fact that the interface can become so technical and immersive that viewers forget that it is actually an art piece. The act of making art should still remain the same instead of referencing it when creating interactive pieces. Interactive art is innovative but Shaw believes that it should be still practice like traditional art.
Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments
Our installation does not speak directly about surveillance. We are using Microsoft’s Kinect to detect presence to trigger sounds. Our project is more focused on the ability to have fun, learn, and create something collaboratively. I believe that the interface empowers the user’s ability to learn and create. Personally, I think our project needs to be outside of a classroom because it is important to continue learning in everything we do. The public space becomes a learning environment. We are constantly growing as a human and I think it is important to bring enjoyment to learning.
If we were to create our piece into a portable device I think the meaning and interface would change a bit. It would no longer become a collaborative piece unless you were to transfer multiple users’ input into one piece. We could record how active someone is by recording how many steps they take in a day. They would create daily songs of the patterns from the speed and paths they take. The participants would be aware of the interface and this might lead to them being more conscious of the amount of daily activities they partake in. Another way of implementing this could be a portable art. We could bring learning and fun into places that need it the most such as a hospital. I think this would be a really neat thing to do because people do not realize how important being part of something is. Each person that has been part of this art piece has altered it in some way.
If we were to create our piece into a portable device I think the meaning and interface would change a bit. It would no longer become a collaborative piece unless you were to transfer multiple users’ input into one piece. We could record how active someone is by recording how many steps they take in a day. They would create daily songs of the patterns from the speed and paths they take. The participants would be aware of the interface and this might lead to them being more conscious of the amount of daily activities they partake in. Another way of implementing this could be a portable art. We could bring learning and fun into places that need it the most such as a hospital. I think this would be a really neat thing to do because people do not realize how important being part of something is. Each person that has been part of this art piece has altered it in some way.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Computer Vision for Artists and Designers: Pedagogic Tools and Techniques for Novice Programmers
Four Detection and Tracking Methods:
- Detecting Motion (frame differencing)
- Detecting Presence (background subtraction)
- Detection Through Brightness Thresholding (pixel brightness is compared to threshold value)
- Simple Object Tracking (locate & track brightest/darkest/coloured pixel)
There are three challenges with the current vision technology, and they are: lighting, quality, and distance. When using any type of camera, you need to have some type of light to produce any type of image. There are a few issues you can run into, such as participants wearing similar coloured clothing as the background. A few things a programmer could do, is having the participant stand in front of a light and then shine the light onto a screen in front of the camera. This way the participant’s silhouette is seen on the screen and it makes it easier for the camera to pick up the difference between light and dark. You can also create a controlled environment so that the camera does not pick up on any distractions.
The second challenge is quality. The quality of the camera is important; if it cannot pick up a lot of detail than you cannot do very precise measurements. Some ideas to help overcome this problem: a high quality camera, focus/zoom in on specific areas, use colour tracking, and infrared lights (to help reduce noise).
Cameras are limited in the distance that they can read. You need to limit where the participants can go, get a lens that has a large depth of view, and how much room they will need to perform. Physical interactions must be limited to a specific area or the camera will not read the movements.
- Detecting Motion (frame differencing)
- Detecting Presence (background subtraction)
- Detection Through Brightness Thresholding (pixel brightness is compared to threshold value)
- Simple Object Tracking (locate & track brightest/darkest/coloured pixel)
There are three challenges with the current vision technology, and they are: lighting, quality, and distance. When using any type of camera, you need to have some type of light to produce any type of image. There are a few issues you can run into, such as participants wearing similar coloured clothing as the background. A few things a programmer could do, is having the participant stand in front of a light and then shine the light onto a screen in front of the camera. This way the participant’s silhouette is seen on the screen and it makes it easier for the camera to pick up the difference between light and dark. You can also create a controlled environment so that the camera does not pick up on any distractions.
The second challenge is quality. The quality of the camera is important; if it cannot pick up a lot of detail than you cannot do very precise measurements. Some ideas to help overcome this problem: a high quality camera, focus/zoom in on specific areas, use colour tracking, and infrared lights (to help reduce noise).
Cameras are limited in the distance that they can read. You need to limit where the participants can go, get a lens that has a large depth of view, and how much room they will need to perform. Physical interactions must be limited to a specific area or the camera will not read the movements.
The History of the Interface in Interactive Art
Söke Dinkla uses examples from Myron Krueger, Jeffrey Shaw, David Rokeby, Lynn Hershman,Grahame Weinbren, and Ken Feindold to help establish her six categories of interactivity.
The Six categories of interactivity are:
Power and Play
Participation Vs. Interaction
Proximity and Manipulation
Strategies of Seduction
Nonlinear Narration
Remembering, Forgetting, and Reconstructing
“This may seem complicated, because Interactive uses the same technology it comments upon, meaning, there is a certain lack of distance. The situation of Interactive Art is therefore comparable with Video Art, which had to gain certain independence from the language of television.”
This quote speaks about how art needs to have a separation from the technology that helps create it. In relation to video art and television, video art needed to have some type of distance from television. Television has a long history of soap operas to cartoons; this might not be wanted in a piece of video art.
Any new media form of art work has a struggle to separate itself from the history attached to technology or iconography it uses. No matter what type of art you are doing you have to be away of the implication a certain object might have to your piece. Personally I created a found object piece from a book. Books have iconography but also a lot of meaning that can be implied to the piece that some might not want. An artist must be aware of what implication things can have on their piece, they can either play on the idea of them, or do something to distract away from those meanings.
Each form of art also struggles to separate itself from the technology that creates it. The photograph was supposed to be representing the truth; photographers often manipulate a photograph to display something that is no longer the truth. Artist can comment on the technology they use by pointing out the flaws.
The Six categories of interactivity are:
Power and Play
Participation Vs. Interaction
Proximity and Manipulation
Strategies of Seduction
Nonlinear Narration
Remembering, Forgetting, and Reconstructing
“This may seem complicated, because Interactive uses the same technology it comments upon, meaning, there is a certain lack of distance. The situation of Interactive Art is therefore comparable with Video Art, which had to gain certain independence from the language of television.”
This quote speaks about how art needs to have a separation from the technology that helps create it. In relation to video art and television, video art needed to have some type of distance from television. Television has a long history of soap operas to cartoons; this might not be wanted in a piece of video art.
Any new media form of art work has a struggle to separate itself from the history attached to technology or iconography it uses. No matter what type of art you are doing you have to be away of the implication a certain object might have to your piece. Personally I created a found object piece from a book. Books have iconography but also a lot of meaning that can be implied to the piece that some might not want. An artist must be aware of what implication things can have on their piece, they can either play on the idea of them, or do something to distract away from those meanings.
Each form of art also struggles to separate itself from the technology that creates it. The photograph was supposed to be representing the truth; photographers often manipulate a photograph to display something that is no longer the truth. Artist can comment on the technology they use by pointing out the flaws.
What Gaming can learn from Installation Art
Allan Kaprow created work to be played with not looked at. He wanted to get the audience to interact with the art and become co-creators instead of being just a spectator. Annet Dekker points out that audiences did not want to become part of the art and simply wanted to enjoy looking at it. Also the "The Happenings" did not allow participation freedom but was created to allow participants to be part of it. Some of the pieces had scripts or guidelines which the participants had to follow. This does not allow them to be fully immersed when they are constantly reminded they are performing. It also does not allowed them to shape the art in any form expect for what the artist has laid out for them.
The principals of interactivity in gaming has changed only a little since the earliest computer games. We still become immersed in the same ways, and we still relate to video games the same way as we did when they first developed. The only thing that has changed is how we interact and control games.
We no longer rely solely on joy sticks and button mashing to send messages to the programs and consoles. We now have touch screen (Nintendo DS), Motion tracking controllers (Nintendo Wii, & PlayStation Move), and motion tracking cameras (Xbox360 Kinect). This style of gaming involves physical interaction with the games which can lead to it being more immersive. These new forms of gaming are attracting new ages and genres of people. The issue is finding suitable games for each type of gamer. The new generation of gamers might be use to gaming without controllers but the older generation might seek comfort in holding something in their hand. Of course there will be resistance to change, but as we can see with the music industry, people will continue to hold on to the past ways but the majority will go with the latest technology.
Games have still not immersed people in all the senses, we cannot smell the places games can take us, nor can we feel the touch of objects we touch in the game. Interactive art like Davie’s Osmose, allowed the participant to alter the art by breathing. If games were to alter based on how we breathed or physically felt the more connected we would become with our character. The more realistic our experience becomes with the game the more immersed we are.
The principals of interactivity in gaming has changed only a little since the earliest computer games. We still become immersed in the same ways, and we still relate to video games the same way as we did when they first developed. The only thing that has changed is how we interact and control games.
We no longer rely solely on joy sticks and button mashing to send messages to the programs and consoles. We now have touch screen (Nintendo DS), Motion tracking controllers (Nintendo Wii, & PlayStation Move), and motion tracking cameras (Xbox360 Kinect). This style of gaming involves physical interaction with the games which can lead to it being more immersive. These new forms of gaming are attracting new ages and genres of people. The issue is finding suitable games for each type of gamer. The new generation of gamers might be use to gaming without controllers but the older generation might seek comfort in holding something in their hand. Of course there will be resistance to change, but as we can see with the music industry, people will continue to hold on to the past ways but the majority will go with the latest technology.
Games have still not immersed people in all the senses, we cannot smell the places games can take us, nor can we feel the touch of objects we touch in the game. Interactive art like Davie’s Osmose, allowed the participant to alter the art by breathing. If games were to alter based on how we breathed or physically felt the more connected we would become with our character. The more realistic our experience becomes with the game the more immersed we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
