fromCONCENTRATE

Sorta like this:

I received a link via email today (thanks Tom):

DIY DEMOCRACY – these guys have developed an iPhone App for… well… engaging in Democracy…

The ‘DIY DEMOCRACY’ App allows citizens to report back to government agencies when they encounter an ‘issue’ and it also gives immediate access to the written law – it even has a button to ‘challenge the law!

The logic of the App seems to be that, given the correct information, our elected government bodies will ‘fix’ society’s problems e.g. broken traffic lights

Here is some more from the App’s website (it’s currently only available for use in the US):

“FIX YOUR STATE”
“FIX YOUR CITY”
“DOCUMENT YOUR EVIDENCE”
“TAKE ACTION”
“SHARE YOUR ISSUES”
“CONTACT YOUR LEADERS”

The above are all really good ideas BTW – but really… with an App? – I’m a little skeptical…

In recent years, in-keeping with the web 2.0 ‘participation,’ ‘interactivity’ trends there have emerged a great number of websites and applications which seem to offer to act as ‘broker’ between disenfranchised citizens and political process.

In the UK, quite a few sites operate under the banner of the charity ‘MySociety.’

An example project is ‘FixMyStreet,’ a website which deals very sensibly with a constant problem – potholes – by putting pro-active citizens in the position of informal ‘monitors.’

If you spot a pothole then you can simply enter the location (postcode) into the site (or a geotagged photo if you like) and all of the necessary information is AUTOMAJICALLY reported to the SPECIFIC RELEVANT LOCAL AUTHORITY so that they can schedule a repair.

In crowdsourcing pothole reporting, FixMyStreet has a very modest and clear remit and I think the website works primarily because it takes a lot of the hassle out of the ‘civic duty’ of COMPLAINING.

The DIY DEMOCRACY App takes this notion of reporting ‘problems’ to a totally different extreme:

THE POWER OF CHANGE IS IN YOUR HAND

Its rhetoric is very seductive, and raises some questions:

Are all of societies inequalities and failings mere logistical ‘bugs’?

And, can we REALLY solve all of our POLITICAL issues by remote control?

There are a growing number of transparent democracy websites and below is a link to a comprehensive blogpost by Tom Steinberg (of MySociety) outlining various emerging trends and strands:

Nine is the number: The different flavours of transparency website in 2009

My Digital Media Research Masters Final Project will require a theoretical understanding of the alliances and interactions between law and digital technologies and it is my hope that this learning can be aided through discussion with both the designers, programmers and theorists resident in Culture Lab and also legal academics across at the Law School.

Tomorrow, at 2pm, I’ll be making a presentation to a PHD Research group at Newcastle Law School to introduce my research and thinking regarding areas where technology, art and law appear to intersect:

Title: Interfacing with Law

John O’Shea is working on an AHRC Research Project at Newcastle University’s Culture Lab proposing and prototyping new kinds of technological ‘interface’ between citizen and law.
The convergence of digital-media collaboration tools (such as wikis), G.P.S. enabled mobile devices, and ubiquitous social networking technologies present not only new challenges for legislation but also new possibilities for governments, corporations, communities and citizens to interact with legal frameworks.
John will present examples from his current avenues of research and open up a discussion regarding the implications of current technologies for citizens and the legal profession.

As well as discussing current examples of “Web 2.0″ technologically enabled initiatives between citizens, government and legislation I would also like to direct some focus onto instances where the two streams – technology and law  – seem to merge and hybridise instigating problematic scenarios brought about neither by citizen nor government BUT instead simply through the advancement and free proliferation of new technologies.

Real practical examples of these unanticipated pairings are often evidenced in the tabloid media:

Top: Recorded data in G.P.S. systems (potential evidence of wrong-doing) causing headaches for businesses and lawyers.
Below: Low unit cost of fingerprint scanners is enabling new, non governmental, identification schemes.
Bottom: To counter thieves, designers technologically ensure that mobile phone owners keep their device on their person at all times (again using G.P.S.)

In each of the three story examples, technological innovation is portrayed in an unswervingly positive light and, although each of these developments could have very obvious implications for the privacy of individuals involved, these concerns are not voiced.

In his ISEA2009 keynote, Clive Van Heerden of the Phillips Technology ‘Design Probes’ division discussed these kind of throwaway news articles and used the phrase ‘weak signals’ to liken them to a kind of cultural indicator.

This idea has parity with one of Marshall Mcluhan’s 1969 conceptions of the role of art and artists in relation to technology:

I think of art, at its most significant as a DEW line, a DISTANT EARLY WARNING system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it.

More info regarding DISTANT EARLY WARNING at this excellent site HERE!

On the 20th of February I made a presentation at Newcastle Life Centre’s ‘Dorkbot’ Event, which was hosted by Andy Lloyd. Here’s the blurb:

“John O’Shea is an artist and Co-Director of artist collective Re-Dock. Through the transference of digital-realm metaphors onto physical spaces, using simple material props, Re-Dock transform social spaces into information environments using cardboard cut-outs, sports equipment, old rope and balloons. After sharing some recent projects around concepts of ‘interfaces’ John will facilitate a discussion resulting in our collective mapping and extrapolation of technological trajectories for the coming decade!”

As outlined in previous posts I have developed a Mk 1 hardware element of a ’simple twisting interface’ based on the intuitive and inventive action familiar to anyone who has ever experienced, what is technically known as,  a cassette tape fuck-up.

I presented a working prototype for my internal assessment at Culture Lab on the 9th of December 2009, where I used the device in conjunction with an arduino board which was relaying the analog information to MAXmsp in order to trigger and control sample audio files.

Thoughts on interface:

Aspects of the Mk 1 hardware are not ideal.  The prototype device is not using a truly ‘continuous’ potentiometer (if such a thing were to exist) – it is using a standard potentiometer which has been butchered and hacked to go all of the way round. The problem is that this leaves a gap in the turn (the resistive element inside is ‘c’ shaped rather than a continuous ‘o’) and as a result of trying to work with this, the principles of code for the current Max patch are heavily compromised.

The demo MAX patch is very buggy and only worked intermittently during the presentation – it is clear that it needs much more rigorous development.

• For a Mk 2 it would be highly desirable to find a better solution than the modified potentiometer for sending ‘full twist’ analogue data to arduino.
• A new MAX patch could then be developed which uses ‘clean’ change in acceleration data rather than periodically polling for difference in values  (which is the clumbsy way the demo ‘worked’)

Thoughts on concept:

During the presentation I was asked ‘why exactly THIS twist?’ and ‘why THIS outcome?’

The action of twisting a pen or pencil in the reel of a cassette tape is something that the majority of the adult population will at some time have done – regardless of technological confidence.  The ‘twisting action’ is the result of some kind of inate human inventiveness which arises in an attempt to fix the tape.

I had begun working with this simple twist because the action is very satisfying, and I wanted to see what kinds of things could be done with the resulting data output that might have some kind of ‘intuitive’ relevance to the cultural associations of the object and so, conceptually speaking ‘feedback’ or echo…

This approach relates to aspects of our recent theoretical study where we considered J. J. Gibson’s ‘Theory of Affordances’ (1977. pp 67-82) in the context of designing for interaction.  Early in the article Gibson, talking about the origin of his theory quotes from ‘Principles of Gestalt Psychology’ (1935, Koffka.)

Each thing says what it is…

…the handle “wants to be grasped” and things “tell us what to do with them

Later though, in a footnote, Gibson warns about making naive assumptions about the simple consequences of our interaction:

THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE WHAT THEY ARE

If the affordances of a thing are perceived correctly, we say that it looks like what it is.  But we must, of course, learn to see what things really are – for example, that the innocent-looking leaf is really a nettle or that the helpful-sounding politician is really a demagogue.  And this can be very difficult.

Strategy:

It is very interesting to work simply from this one ‘action’ and to try and see how much ‘resolution’ there is within it.  In order to make a successful Mk 2 ’simple twisting interface’ I will take the following steps:

1. use bourns continuous potentiometer to make MAX patch work ‘properly’ for demonstration.  This potentiometer allows 10 full turns (based on an internal spiral) so this will allow full development of the patch – key is that I understand how to calibrate MAX and control samples using the device.
2. Make MAX patch work with Rotary Encoder (Encoder to Arduino – how? then Arduino to MAX – filter prior to debugged patch?)
3. Make processing piece using rotary encoder - Arduino to Processing-
4. Do something interesting!

Finally

What might be  interesting outcomes if this were to be a kind of instrument for triggering music tracks, for instance, rather than a mere demonstration of principle? (and art object?)

It might be interesting if:

• initial turning ie. too slow, too fast, speeding up corresponded to audible experience (akin to ’scrubbing’ the playhead)
• turning at a consistent speed for a set period (eg. 5 seconds) allowed the track to take over and play itself
• twisting fast toggled thru available tracks (in this way, more than one track could be played at a time and tracks could be cued using the scrubbing action.)

In November 2009, television news reports from the day of the fall of the Berlin Wall returned to our screens, 20 years on, like retinal after images. The Berlin Wall had not been a mere boundary marker but a globally visible, physical, manifestation of a global scale political impasse. The transgression and fall of the wall are now seen as emblematic of the groundswell political changes sweeping Eastern Bloc countries at that time.

In advance of our trip to Berlin for Transmediale, I want to consider some contemporary boundaries and how they manifest.

What (if anything) might contemporary boundaries be symbolic manifestations of?

A couple of months ago I saved a link to a ‘Virtual Berlin Wall’ project but now that I return to the link it directs me to the ‘Google’ web search home page – this anomaly takes this blog post off at a tangent…

Virtual Berlin wall launched to commemorate walls http://tinyurl.com/ydl2oqp 3:47 AM Nov 9th from web

There are three possible reasons for this unexpected outcome:

1. – it is simply a dead link and ‘Google’ is the ‘in browser’ default
2. – this is a smartass conceptual art joke
3. – the ‘error’ is some kind of freudigital slip

I choose to believe all three of the above reasons to be correct.

Google is a kind of global digital interfacing membrane, which applies top secret filtration algorithms in order to control, administer and record the exchange of information on the internet.

Today’s withdrawal of Google from the Chinese ‘market’ on grounds of ongoing state censorship is seen by political commentators as a gesture towards a western democratic moral and political highground.

Despite Google’s seeming omnipotence, the vast majority of internet users seem to perceive Google, less as an oppressive ‘wall’ rather, as a benevolent ‘gateway’. For many, Google is a symbol of free, easy access to information and, as such, Google is more analogous in popular consciousness to the Brandenburg Gate than the Berlin Wall.

Brandenburg Gate image used under licence from Wikimedia Commons.

Links:

Google and China: a cynical ploy or a principled stand? – Charlie Beckett, Director POLIS

Google and China: What’s the real story, and where does it go from here? – Mac Slocum. O’Reilly Radar

Prototype intuitive interface / proof of concept / instrument – successful?

Original drawing identified basic principle:

1. Twist pencil in tape reel
2. This action twists potentiometer
3. potentiometer relays DATA
4. Arduino board receives ANALOG data in 0 –> 5V
5. Arduino script translates ANALOG voltage to DIGITAL serial data
6. Serial data transfered via USB lead into MAXmsp patch
7. MAXmsp patch interprets data allowing user to triggers samples

Although I considered different configurations (eg. geering) the simplest approach for this test was to directly engage the modified ‘continuous’ potentiometer with the pen lid through the cassette reel.

AND this just felt really ‘RIGHT’!

When building the MAX patch I attempted to identify 3 ‘triggers’ that I wanted to isolate from the user input data:

• twisting
• not twisting
• twisting fast

I basically attempted to identify these 3 triggers using the METRO object to periodically (every 1 sec and every 200 milliseconds) read data coming into MAXmsp and then, using conditional statements eg. pictured, compare the previous two values to identify the rate of change.

I am aware that this is in no way the most sophisticated way of using MAX to interpret this rate-of-change / acceleration data but, this was the fastest way for me to prototype this and get a result with my fledgling knowledge of MAX.

Working on this piece has totally re-affirmed this statement:

simpler interface = more complex interaction

It is fascinating how much data is contained within such a simple single twisting action and there are really huge ramifications for my future ‘user interface’ work if I can develop my skills at using code and software to interpret and translate this data.

Download my ‘Echoes’ MAX patch here.

- PLEASE COMMENT! -

Cheap potentiometer only does part of a turn – need ‘continuous’ turn to realise piece.
Went shopping for continuous potentiometer – consumer approach – but was informed that such components don’t tend to be stocked – insufficient demand.

Assumption – scarcity means that ‘continuous potentiometer’ requires ’special’ technical facility.

Jamie – probably just something in there stopping it going all the way round…

Take apart – discovery – OBVIOUS! – ‘afraid to look under the hood’

Now – Arduino needs to communicate with MAX over SERIAL port – Short answer – NOT WORKING!

Joey provides workaround in shape ov OpenFrameworks application (have the feeling I’ll be using O.F. a lot more…)

During our DOING session 001 we did an initial experiment inputting analogue data into MAX using Arduino + Potentiometer.

Question – why? what is the relationship between ‘turning’ and ’sound’? What is interesting about this?

Sound and Turning

• potentiometers (pots) used on mixing desks

where else? – reels, wheels, disks (cassette –> music, cars –> noise

This hand gesture is familiar, a kind of latent physical memory.

• ad-hoc (twist ov the thumb, pen/pencil)
• improvised, inventive, intuitive
• twisting hand gesture directly linked to malfunction of cassette tape
• not CONTRIVED PHYSICALITY

…absence of a higher level interfacing tool creates a barrier to participation… (previous post)

The basic corkscrew twists into a cork and (with a bit of umph!) the cork is pulled out of the bottle, releasing wine.  The Wing Corkscrew (above) does exactly the same thing, but assisted by two levers either side, (mechanical advantage) our cork is removed with a little less umph!

Does my glass of wine taste different – better or worse – as a result of the bottle being opened with mechanical assistance?

Tools:

• Humans are animals that use tools.
• Tools extend capability.
• Extension is technology is (digital) media. McLuhan.

Interfaces:

• Between-ness.
• Physical Interface / Software Interface / Human Computer Interface
• HANDS-ON?

Instruments:

• Precision
• Potentially CREATIVE tools…
• Arduino (electronics, code, physics, physicality)
• MAXmsp (graphical, GUI, programming)
• OpenFrameworks (C++, more lower level code)

BUT, let’s remain focused on the wine (and how to get at it) not the corkscrew, crowbar, cannon or wateva…