fromCONCENTRATE

(for info regarding this, see previous post.)

My first assignment of the DOING module (Simple Twisting Interface) introduced me to questions regarding the potential ‘resolution’ of information within a simple and intuitive twisting gesture – in that case turning a potentiometer and triggering audio samples within a MAXmsp patch.

For my second assignment of the DOING module (presentated 17/3/2010) I had an idea, which would work in a conceptually opposite direction:

I have begun to outline concerns regarding tokenistic ‘one click’ digital engagement with legal and political frameworks thru handheld devices and the web (see previous posts.)  Further to this, I am also alert and suspicious of the current ‘mania’ regarding the use of gesture, touch and interaction with digital technology and especially in relation to the new breed of ’smart phones,’ and home physical computing (iPhone, Nintendo Wii etc.)

And, since the title of the project brief was ‘Mirrors,’ I decided to work on something which could bring to the fore this fascination with our own (seemingly) reflected action.

I had an idea to develop some kind of application which could reflect and make apparent the (pathetic) nature of a users contribution.  This application would require a constant interaction in order to provide a very limited and basic feedback.

My idea was to use Processing to create a sketch for a potential iPhone application which would do NOTHING UNLESS SHAKEN.  On shaking the device, a looped video file will play but then, if the user stops shaking, the video will pause.  Since the video is set to loop after only a few seconds this constant user effort will return a very limited response.

In terms of the media file, I wanted something silly and banal and I decided to use a video of someone playing the maracas.  A suitable media file, which I found in the incredible Prelinger Archives and sampled in order to produce the loop, can be viewed here:  http://www.archive.org/details/Havana-Madri_2

Below is my sketch – which is extremely simple – embedding the video and overlaying an image of an iPhone.  Mouse movement over the sketch is used for the purpose of the sketch as an analogous ‘demo’ signal in place of actual, physical iPhone ’shaking.’

//SKETCH ‘Constant Agitation’ – John O’Shea
//DM MRes. / Culture Lab / 17-3-2010

import processing.video.*;

Movie video;
PImage img;

void setup(){
size(400, 400);
frameRate(10);
img = loadImage(“iPhone_template_400_400_240_160.png”);

video = new Movie(this, “MaracusLOOP169QVGAzoomed.mov”);
video.loop();
}

// callback function (below) seemed to result in undesired flickering
//so used ‘if’ function within ‘draw’

//void movieEvent(Movie m) {
// m.read();
//image(video,140,40);

void draw(){

//call video
if (video.available()){
video.read();
}

//video image positioned at desired location
image(video,40,40);

//boolean statement below checks for mouse movement
if (pmouseX == mouseX && pmouseY == mouseY){
video.speed(0);
}else{
video.speed(1);
}

//overlay image inserted at the very end so that it is on top
image(img, 0,0);
}

The complete file (with required media components) can also be downloaded here.

In Lev Manovich’s Interaction as an Aesthetic Event – a text describing mobile phone evolution up to 2005 – he outlines a notion of technological interaction as theatre.*

One thing which this brings to my mind, is a memorable early scene in The Matrix (Neo’s first encounter with the elusive Morpheus) where a Nokia phone is taken out of a parcel box and, without stimulation, the mouthpiece of the device springs forth, giving a physical expression to the already heightened sense of ‘drama’ in this particular moment.

Whilst searching for a YouTube clip of the scene, I stumbled across a comment left on another video (specifically related to that Nokia phone) which gives further clues to the nature of this seductive and overwhelming effect:

lndac02 (3 months ago)
I still have mine, its a design classic. I used to feel like neo ever time I clicked the slider down to take a call. it is a cool phone and always will be.

Below, a fan remix video highlights this juxtaposition of cellphone interaction and drama in The Matrix; mobile ringtones precede heroic violence against an oppressive infrastructure; telephones are presented as both gateways and exits for drama and escape. (Watch it all – it’s great!)

Another YouTube video (below) makes audible, the ominous electro-magnetic interference which often preceded the shrill personalised ringtones of the late nineties – further emphasising another way in which these mobile devices engender dramatic tension.*  (Inadvertently?) the video also has some kind of intense rhythmic machine-like banging in the background.

So! – Don’t be annoyed next time someone picks up a call at an inappropriate time – REMEMBER! – In our, highly-networked, global society, ALL PHONES are the BAT-PHONE: Each and every one of us must, at all times, be ready and willing to be called upon and to act in the role of protagonist, centre ov the stage.***

* refers to: Brenda Laurel, Computers as Theatre (1991)
**iPhone users still experience this nostalgia-tinged interference phenomena if they go anywhere near an old telly.
***It does appear to be the case that we are all subconsciously sleepwalking towards the belief that we are NOT IN FACT MERELY RECEIVING A PHONECALL but instead, that we are at a pivotal point of the most important drama ever to manifest and potentially we are making THE crucial connection which might ultimately FREE (not only our individual self, but also) the whole of humankind from our collective technological enslavement.

Stare into the abyss and the abyss stares into you* **

Colleagues in Digital Media introduced me to something called chatroulette the other day: Basically, chatroulettte, if you haven’t heard, is a website where two webcams are visible onscreen – yours – and that of a randomly selected ’stranger’.  You are presented with a different random stranger for chat each time you hit the NEXT button (and the stranger can do this also).

• What is the nature of the ‘interaction’ going on within this web phenomena?

I (like several thousand others around the world) have been taking a look and trying and figure out ‘HEY! WHAT’s UP MAN?’

Once your webcam is enabled (an amazingly fast two-click no-login procedure) ’strangers’ appear, right there, in your browser.  And a typical experience is illustrated below:

What seems to continually happen is that someone – the ’stranger’ – appears on screen, vacantly staring, and then clicks away.

There was a seemingly never-ending stream of glassy expressions (and quite a lot of male genitals – so be warned!)

A rough estimate of the spread of users when I was on the site (9pm – 12am 11-03-2010) would be:

With all of these strangers staring for a brief moment and then clicking NEXT, it was quite a strange (primal and hostile) experience – I decided I had to try and disrupt this, so I did a simple drawing of a human male character…

By moving the drawing in front of the screen, I found it was possible to engage the stranger – often eliciting a smile:

I took this simple interaction a stage further, by introducing a second drawing with a ‘thumbs-up’ once the stranger was engaged:

Many individuals returned the ‘thumbs-up’ salute – international archetype for ‘hey!’ – and then I returned to the original drawing.

I found, at this stage that the stranger was often willing to chat – they typed into the chat panel and then I removed the drawings and showed my ‘real’ self.  The guy above is a good example – he told me that he lives in Indiana, in the U.S. and was on chatroulette looking for naked girls but, every time, they clicked away :-(

He was happy to chat with me though – as were other people: a teenager in Brazil; an older guy in Chile; a guy my age in Texas; a Jordanian girl in Dallas; some teenage guys in France.  Many people talked about the same things: ‘boredom’ and wanting an ‘encounter.’

I made a short screengrab movie of these interactions below and the illustrations are also available to download as PDF and for printing and trying out yourself. (Let me know how it goes!)

Unfortunately the original video was taken down by YouTube because it contained nudity – but there is another edit below which has been censored.

Stare into the abyss and the abyss stares into you* **

*(with his dick in his hand)

**(for 2 seconds)

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