fromCONCENTRATE

Designed as part of my response to Newcastle City Council’s ‘Interpretive Signage’ brief, which aimed at taking heritage information into the digital realm, the ‘Information Free Zone’ raises the questions “How much information do we need?” & “Where exactly can we go to get away from it?”

An ‘Information Free Zone’ would restrict “the use of the electromagnetic spectrum for wireless telegraphy (to include WIFI, SMS, Bluetooth etc)” and I proposed that the zone be applied to an already peaceful space next to the City’s Cathedral – Amen Corner – and went ahead and notified the public of this ominous change:

If the ‘Information Free Zone’ were to be applied in the UK public sphere, an important question would need to be addressed:

• Does the zone impose an ‘information embargo’ through the use of electromagnetic signal jamming technology?
• Or is the zone subscribed to by citizens (in a similar way to the quiet coach on a train.)

(A technologically imposed ‘Infromation Free Zone’ would likely be in contravention of the 2006 Wireless Telegraphy Act.)

Early responses from the public were mixed – here are some examples:

• I was shocked to see it!
• It is needed in buses and in parks
• It would be a pain
• I can’t see how it’s possible
• Is it not a breach of human rights?
• Everywhere should have one!
• We’ll need a few…
• I go fishing to switch off!

(part of statement by Stelarc during his visit to Culture Lab on the 19th of March.)

Technology = ‘prosthesis’ – not ‘literal’ artificial body parts – legs / hearts / breast implants – but objects which extend and transmit an individual’s conception of self in a way which is more than mere metaphor.

Of course – another strategy for making information/data and concepts more ‘tangible’ or ‘graspable’ when exhibiting in the public realm, is to re-present the information using a ‘loaded’ material, (as this example from a Liverpool Museum demonstrates…)

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.

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!

# Do you know what year the house you live in was built? How would you find out? Are you interested? Why/why not?

The house here in Newcastle? I rent it – I really couldn’t care less about it. The house in Huddersfield? – that is my parent’s house, where I grew up – I don’t know exactly what year it was built, probably the end of the 1960’s. It’s the end house in a row and it faces a small wood. Apparently they were built as show-houses for the Highland’s council estate (which is behind). There aren’t any people living in the street now, who were there at the beginning, so if I needed to find out more then I think I would have to start at the library, although, thinking about it, if I actually cared – rather than performing some superficial research – I’d be more interested in speaking to people who were there at that time. I’d probably call into a couple of the local shops and pubs/clubs and just find out who might know something – start from there.

# Do you know your own family history? How would you find out? Are you interested? Why/why not?

I know some ‘history’ about my family. I also know that my Grandmother (on my Mother’s side) and my Grandfather (on my Father’s side) both know an incredible amount – going back many generations. If I wanted to find out specific information, then I would ask them but I don’t have a desire to record their knowledge. I’m interested in the stories and details that they have chosen to share with me.

# Do you use any technologies which investigate history? Which ones and how do you use them?

No – I don’t think that I do.

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.)

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! -

(This is my FIRST blog post at Culture Lab, on my new research blog.)
(And, this is the ONLY blog post I’ll be writing in the FIRST-PERSON.) (I HOPE.)

(This is a very important question.)
(This is the question I need to be asking every day.)

In terms of my exploration of (digital) culture I WANT to start from HOPE.
Deep down, I am an OPTIMIST / ROMANTIC / IDEALIST.
I am excited by (the emergence of) incredible, technologically facilitated, opportunities for NEW social / cultural / democratic models presented by:
-    myriad, normalised, de-centralised, social network platforms
-    oft-cited ’second-life’ virtual environments
-    democratiZation ov knowledge: wikis, blogs, information-revolution FREECULTURE and tha open-source
-    digital RE-PRODUC-ABILITY, de-author(IZ)ed cultural production, unprecedented free sharing ov IDEAS

AND, specifically, I am interested in the manifestation of these new modes in the realm of ART making.

(BUT)

(I am also prone to FEAR.)
(Everyone is prone to FEAR)
(I’m a former luddite and my favourite film is ‘The Terminator’)
(Sometimes, I get out ov bed the wrong-side, and I start from FEAR.)

Plenty of reasons to FEAR:
-    new social spheres will replicate and accelerate old (visible and invisible) power-structure-hierarchies, cliques and violence – RESULT – increased GLOBAL SCALE social / cultural /political /economic ISOLATION, EXPLOITATION and ‘CYBER-BULLYING’
-    ALSO, inhuman horrors will be made easier by perceptual DETACHMENT from source through technological EXTENSION.
-    Challenge to existing 20th Century Copyright methods, PATENTS and INDUSTRY triggers an unprecedented backlash against SHARING (peer-to-peer prosecutions, chilling effect etc.)
-    access to technologies and cultural production remains SPECIALIZED whilst elites chat at conferences about ACCESSIBILITY…
-    open transparent culture = ZERO PRIVACY (Discuss.)  Potential for OSTRACISM, BLACKMAIL, MUD-THROWIN’ and CENSURE is immense and FACEBOOK is just the beginning.

(At the suggestion of my tutor – Jamie Allen – I simply wanted to put these out there.)
(In my next post I will discuss my own strategies for balancing HOPE against FEAR)
(comments / suggestions / responses welcome :-)

(And YES, I am aware of the ‘FEAR—>LOVE’ blackboard scene from Donnie Darko (below) – thanks!)