Physical Comupting
I was interested in Rosin, Co and Madea's articles on physical computing as compared to O'Sullivan's article on sensors. Several years ago I was asked by the Engineering department at George Mason University to create a work for a conference they were having. The asked me to use a robot which would show off the work of their doctoral students. The idea of physical computing came up quite a bit for me as I had to wrestle with how to make the robot execute a series of movements in the same spatial patterns while dancers moved around it. The process was quite interesting as I looked at the abilities of several robots and decided to go with one that looked like a Shop Vac. It had sensors all around it and could be make to follow an object or avoid an object or it could be programmed to move a certain distance along a path. I chose the latter because I could choreograph the dance around the robot that way. O'Sullivan talks about the difficulty of programming as compared to having a conversation. I would like to add to that creating a dance. One must listen, hear and resond as O' Sullivan mentions in a conversation but must create those systems in a program. The challenge of making a dance is that everything must happen exactly as it is rehearsed or there will be problems.
The day of the show everything went well except for one thing. The dancers were moving to the music but the robot did not have that instruction. The sound operator was behind a wall and had to be given a cue by the programmer that the robot had started. The sound operator was late and the dancers were behind the robot instead of with the robot. They did not change the choreography but had to move around the robot instead of with it. I was not surprised to read in Maeda's article that Morio Shinoda thought that working with technology was a "bitch". The whole process was scary. The robot almost ran into some people who did not move. I guess they trusted the technology more than I did. The dancers almost tripped over the robot on several occasions. The floor was very hard and the robot was very expensive. It is something I can do without.
Interactive system
I am interested in a system that allows the audience in a theater to control many of the elements in the performance. Many years ago I saw a performance where the sound was controled by the presence of shadows over an image, if I were able to place the same kind of image over the audience every movement they made would create a sound score or trigger an event when I decided they could. The audience would move arms mostly to trigger events but it could also be designed so that the slightest movement would trigger events.The audience would have to know or figure out that they were controling the events and that way they could manipulate the rules. I would need a camera system that would be able to see the audience so they could interact. For instance the audience could trigger a menu that would determine the next dance or change the order of sections of a dance or watch a video about a section of a dance. I think of it like going to an exhibit in a museum and watching a video or learning something about the artist.
Physical Computing
The Krueger article is fascinating to me because it made me excited about my own work. I would love to create the ultimate VR environment where people can communicate even if they are at different places in the world as in his VideoPlace project. When reading about his Psychic Space, I thought it might be a fun project to do a similar piece with a physical space. I would like to create a MAZE that is contained in a 10’x10’ area, but that has walls that constantly appear and disappear to create the illusion of an infinite labyrinth. I think the psychology of using a real space might produce some interesting results. (In a related project, University of Tsukuba is working on floors that move to simulate a bigger space than the one you are in.
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/081104/Shifty_tiles_bring_walking_to_VR_Brief_081104.html) This is a tool that is an extra step in making the input controls with technology a bit more transparent.
I was also particularly fond of Maeda’s essay on pragmatism and Co’s essay on the role of nature in technology. They both emphasize the idea of using technology for more than simple processing of information. Bringing the ambiguity and unpredictable features of nature is not only interesting, but required if we want to have the computer be a better participant in the performances of the future. They both also speak on the idea of the computer being an element in real physical space (rather than just viewing visuals on a screen), which is also worth considering when thinking about technology and performance.
Also related to performance and robots: Please read this months Wired article on robots in theater.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/posts.html?pg=3
Re: Manovich, Dinkla, and Kay
Indeed, the next level IS the full virtual reality effect using all the senses. Stahl Stenslie has researched and created hardware in that direction:
http://www.stenslie.net/stahl/ (There is an English link on the pages)...and yes, the applications noted here are a little more risque so cover those innocent children's eyes that are looking at your screen.
GUI
The article by Soke Dinkla From participation to interaction was particularly interesting to me because for the first time I could see a path to my project. I also enjoyed seeing the relationship of Kaprow to Cage and how they intersect with art and technology. I have done a lot of site-specific improvisation and been a part of events that were like Happenings so I understood them from a sensory point of view but this article makes them seem relevant to where I am now. The last line “The artistic material of interactive art is the automatized dialogue between program and user.” (Dinkla 289) really solidified my understanding of what I am attempting with a live video game. I kept thinking that the user(audience) would drive the performance but this cannot be for several reasons. The audience would not know how to respond unless given explicit instructions like at a Happening. If one show up to a traditional theater and expects to observe, the expectation itself would prevent them from initiating anything. As I have learned with Liz Lerman one can trick the audience into participating getting them to do what they are already doing and making a game out of it. Simply tell them they do not have to participate and tell them to sit down. They would have to stand up in order to not participate in the game but would be interacting none-the-less.
After reading the Alan Kay article I could not help but think of my first computer, an Atari 400. http://oldcomputers.net/atari400.html I was so hopeful that I would learn all about computers, become a programmer and get rich. The computer played video games and was more powerful than the Atari 2600 and had better graphics but one had to program using BASIC. I only ever learned to program a few things. I could make text scroll up and down the screen in patterns and I could make text flash on and off. The interface was quite challenging and so was the programming language but then again I was only about 12 years old and did not have any instruction and I hated math. Thinking back to my first windows machine and the OS Windows 95 there was a huge change in what the computer did and how one used it. Finally, I was using programs to accomplish tasks instead of attempting to write programs and there was the Internet which meant that I could seek lots more information than what was on my local drive. One of the best GUI that I know of is in the game You Don’t Know Jack. It uses the principals that Kay discusses in terms of doing, hitting a button to buzz in, with images, after reading the question and deciding on the correct answer, makes symbols, either you are correct or incorrect and you are punished or rewarded.
The relationship between robots and humans
Current culture is fascinated by the ever-growing presence of robots in and among us. Vivian Sobchack refers to Ballard’s narrative about fetishes with robotics. This fetish indeed has been a common story theme that has been written about over and over again. The movie Millenium Man (based one of Isaac Asimov’s stories), He, She and It (by Marge Piercy), Blade Runner, and other similar stories discuss the relationship between robots and humans. What is the robot’s place in our society and how intimate do we become with them? There are many aspects of this question to explore.
One of the most important questions to ask is whether or not it is even beneficial to encourage closer relationships between people and robots. For example, with the world full of lonely people, are robots safe companions? Multiple research studies (Beck & Katcher, 1996; Katcher & Wilkins, 1993) have concluded that pets are good for the well being of elderly. Due to logistics of animal ownership in some apartments or homes and the possibility of accidental neglect of live pets, some researchers have been looking for pet alternatives. Kahn, Friedman, and Hagman (2002) investigated the effects of giving a robotic dog like Sony’s AIBO (
http://www.sony.net/Products/aibo/index.html) to elderly people living alone as well as to children. Interestingly enough, the effects on the two age groups were different. Although there were positive effects on the elderly (decreased loneliness), the same research discussed the negative implications of youth forming relationships with robots since the lesson of responsibility and obligation (moral value) is lost with mechanical pets. Other types of relationships include romantic ones, such as the one Asimov covered in the movie Millenium Man, but I will leave it to the books and movies to do a more entertaining job of discussing these interesting and complicated issues.
If we accept that we are going to have relationships with robots, how do we facilitate this bond? One of the barriers to full acceptance of the robot is its physical appearance. The more mechanical the robot appears/sounds/acts, the more difficult it is for people to form an attachment. So do we just make them more life-like or humanoid to take away this obstacle to full acceptance? Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori addresses this issue in his theory known as the ‘Uncanny Valley.’ (a.k.a the Creepy Factor) This theory attempts to describe how people respond to the level of realism in a robot’s appearance. If it looks like a robot, then we are okay with that, but as it looks more human, we begin to get “creeped out” as we approach the “dead man” look. Then, as the model moves past that, looking more and more lifelike, we begin to again feel more comfortable with the appearance. Here is the famous graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Wpdms_fh_uncanny_valley_3.jpgSo let us say we are successful in creating a robot whose appearance promotes comfortable interaction (the peaks of the valley): now what? One aspect of humanity that has always set us apart from machines is the creative process. What happens with robots and the body and performance…our triangular focus! What role do robots play in creative expression and performance? Please view this performance by robots:
Qrio:
http://www.plyojump.com/movies/qrio/qrio_fandance.wmv(To see other videos of Qrio:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QRIO/videoclip/index_nf.html)
One of the inspiring things about performance is the agility and strength of the live dancer. Robotic dancers, on the other hand, are amazing right now because of the intelligence of the scientist who made it. Unfortunately, unlike our persistent appreciation for human agility, we become easily desensitized to the robot’s ability over time. As we see in the movies, cutting-edge realistic computer effects rapidly become the standard, and anything less is disappointing. Unlike the movies, live performance is just beginning to integrate with robotics, and we are still more comfortable with the left-hand side of the Uncanny Valley.
For example, the “ballroom robot” is very obviously plastic and shiny:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/06/07/robots.ballroom/The Uncanny Valley concept does not just apply to visual appearance, but also to how the robot moves and communicates. The effects on movement and performance have been graphed below, and as you can see (and imagine), a moving human-like dead person walking towards you would indeed be pretty scary.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Moriuncannyvalley.gifTo see the progress on life-like physical robots, see Professor Hiroshi Ishiguro Repliee Q1Expo.
http://www.ed.ams.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/development/Humanoid/ReplieeQ2/ReplieeQ2_eng.htmWhat does this mean for the future of performance art? When we get bored with the advances of robotic motion and life-like appearance, are we going to use them or reject them? Will robots be a standard prop in the performances of tomorrow? Will they replace us? Will dancers become puppeteers of these stronger and more agile robotic performers, or will humans still yearn to see the human form in action? Will the audience be happy with a synthetic score created and performed by robots?
Some other interesting thoughts for discussion:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Final_Fantasy_TSW_DVD.jpgFinal Fantasy (a 3D movie with life-like characters) had many reviews that basically stated that we are not able to fool the viewer with computer graphics yet. If this is the case, it will take longer before we can do it physically. Nevertheless, robots are looking more real and will be able to fool us one day. Do we allow them to be part of our existence, or will robots be banned to going in circles vacuuming our floors?
On the more technological innovations front:See Darpa 2005 – Stanford’s Stanley is one of the first cars to be able to navigate a desert with human intervention.
http://www.grandchallenge.org/Artificial Intelligence “AS” performance:
The DARPA challenge was not just a test of AI, but also a performance where an audience was observing the story. Year one (2004) was a comedy of errors (none of the cars went more than 8 miles on the 142 mile path), and year two (2005) was a feel-good story. In addition, the $2 million dollar prize made it very similar to many game shows people spend hours watching.
Issues from the 2004 “performance” that will help us avoid common mistakes when we create our performance:
Palos Verdes High School reason for 2004 failure: Software contained decimal point error. Slammed into 2-foot-tall cement barrier at 22 mph. Knocked barrier over.
Team CajunBot reason for 2004 failure: On-off switch located on side of vehicle. Bumped into a wall on way out of start area. Turned self off.
Read about other issues from the 2004 challenge:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/start.html?pg=15(Read the full article about the 2004 challenge.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/robot_pr.html)
My only wish was that this was advertised a little bit more. Instead of watching people kick each other off islands, here is an opportunity to get the world (especially kids) excited about the sciences. But we will leave this for another blog space to discuss this wish…
Stelarc
When thinking about interactivity (especially after talking about robotics) AND the idea of telepresence, it is important that we mention Stelarc. Peter was fortunate to have taken a class with him that I hope Peter will expound on or discuss in class. The project in particular that I wish to link you to is his Parasite project:
http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/parasite/“We shouldn’t have a Frankensteinian fear of incorporating technology into the body.” - Stelarc
Email
In this reading, I was most interested in Manovich’s discussion on Distance and Aura. Specifically, I want to address Virilio’s “Big Optics” essay. Although I do not agree fully with his theory that distance is destroyed by telecommunication technology, I do agree that communication does need to be re-examined. For example, email is a tool that has taken away the “time for critical reflection necessary to arrive at a correct decision.” This has been a change in the way we communicate, and many rules have developed around it. For example, one rule is to never argue over email due to the inability to show that you are also listening. Other rules include NO YELLING by using all caps.
Realistic Robotics
How much like a human does a robot need to be in order for us to ignore non-human qualities? We are perfectly happy seeing movies at 24FPS and accepting the illusion of realistic movement so wouldn't a robot simply need to approximate certain humanistic signs before becoming anthropomorphized to an acceptible level. Like those machines that pull the shopping baskets at target would we be happy if our robot just went where we wanted via remote control. Maybe what we want is a robot that is easily manipulated to carry our groceries, download and play movies on demand, play satallite radio, give directions, give definitions, call people, email and have a flashlight.
Robots
The Cog Project document explains commonly held beliefs about human behavior and where they are incorrect in relation to building humanoid robots. The authors show the difficulty of creating a human computer because the computer operates from a central computing processor and the human operates by way of several interdependent systems. They state that there is no monolithic whole to use as a guide with human behavior. They understand that human behavior is learned incrementally and want to apply that system of learning to robots.
What is evident is that life is more complex than reason. As I read the article it became clear why it took billions of years for life systems to evolve. Everything is connected and independent and can only survive if its needs are fulfilled. Their approach while commendable is unfathomable to me even once they achieve their goal of human like behaviors, responses, and interactions it is not a human which has needs.
This is an example of a robotics, school of drama and computer science working together on a humanoid robot.
http://www.roboceptionist.com/behind_scenes.htm
http://roboceptionist.blogspot.com/
Boris
Robot Art
I am not sure if I am suppose to do a small blog since I am doing a bigger one after our talk this week, but I thought I would do it just in case. Especially because this blog can give you a better idea of the type of work I want to do or that I am doing.
http://accad.osu.edu/~ayoungs/rearm.html - One of my favorite pieces as of date by our very own OSU faculty.
http://accad.osu.edu/~rinaldo/ - We spoke of this already (specifically his Autopoiesis piece), but since this is also what I like I thought I would include it again.
http://www.raaf.org/ - great environmental robot type work (make sure to look at her CO2 robot-"Grower")
One Trees
I have to admit that the idea of becoming part robotic like the Bionic Man has appealed to me in the past. Sobchack's article has made me contemplate the reality of such a wish. Her article also made me think about cloning and the advantages and disadvantages of that science.
Multiplicity, a movie where Michael Keaton gets cloned to be at different places at the same time is the train of thought that I was entertaining. It reminded me of one of my favorite artists. Her project One Trees at onetrees.org investigates the idea of cloning by using trees. It also acts as an environmental recorder (as the 1000 clones were planted in different locations around San Francisco.) During the life of the trees, you are able to see the environmental effects of their unique location. She also brought the idea to the web using Artificial Life concepts to simulate the same idea by using CO2 sensors and digital trees.
Link: Onetrees.org
Gaming
My interests lie in video games and live performance. There is a new catagory of video games called serious games www.seriousgames.org in which games are used for something other than entertainment. These games are used mostly by the military for training but also used by health care professionals, police and firefighter training, political canvasing and other ways. Where is the line between the symbolic interaction and the real interaction? I once made audio tapes of myself being whatever I wanted to be and it helped me to not be so shy. Be hearing my own voice give me advice I could llisten better and I trusted the speaker. I find the same kind of symbolic interaction in video games. Often especially in the beginning of a game you are led through the lanugage of the game and how to interact in that world. Online chat or video Chat is similar in that you invent a personality and can interact with real people in real time.
I really liked the Kaprow readings because unlike the intellectual thoughts of Wilson in his article "Light and Dark Visions" Kaprow just does the thing that he sets out to do. Like Chris Burden the study is in the act of doing and to learn what it is he does, you have to do the thing rather than talk about it. http://www.crownpoint.com/artists/burden/burden.html
Vivian Sobchack clearly sees the difference between the body and technology having a prosthetic leg and an open mind. Her rant against JG Baudrillard for his erotic fantasies with metal is different from gaming. She states that one is a gamer to escape the body but one cannot escape the body only distract the mind. I believe that what games do is distract the mind from survival issues and create an experience similar to arriving in a foreign land.
Eduardo Kac's A-positive
Let me know what you think of this dialogue or "performance" or is it ???:
http://www.ekac.org/apositive.htmlWould Vivian Sobchack cringe?
Its me...Steven G.
Hello,
I put my profile up.
I also thought I would mention a few interesting things about last week even though I think we are suppose to begin blogging about next week.
I think Annie mentioned the art process in creating a game like THE SIMS. Although Electronic Arts does not currently have a show at MOMA (in time), Pixar does with original art from the studio:
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2005/pixar.htmlAlso, while we are still thinking about Stephen Wilson: I highly recommend his book INFORMATION ARTS (MIT Press 2003)...if you do not want to buy the book, some of the links while researching content for the book can be found at:
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~infoarts/links/wilson.artlinks2.html
