Week 8
Kate's Physical Computing Journal
Some Thoughts on the 8th week of Physical Computing....
It is a relief to have midterms over with. I'm glad that we were able to take a concept and bring it into being. It was amazing to see what a wide range of ideas came out of our class and out of the 1st year class as a whole. I really found it inspiring as well as a bit intimidating. I'm still trying to get a handle on BASIC but I pretty much know that my lack of understanding of it comes from a lack of time to really give to learning it. One part of me feels like it is a wonderful thing that I have learned so much in such a short time and the other part of me feels like I need more time to really take advantage of what I am learning and to learn it well. I hope it all doesn't fall out of my brain the minute I go home this winter!
Write a paper. Write a review
of your thoughts on physical interaction at this stage, and a discussion
of issues related to it that most interest you. Where do you begin? I
am a baby. I am learning to walk. I am taking my first steps. This is
what I have found so far.
I must preface this by saying that I am not going to write about servomotors
or bx-24's simply because the use of these objects is not the issue that
I am most interested in. This paper is my exploration of the use of physical
interaction in art pieces. It is also a very loose walk through my mind
during my short time at ITP; this is where my thoughts have been going,
this is where my highest level of interest is.
The first issue that has plagued me throughout this semester is how to
justify the use of technology in artwork. Sometimes I feel like people
who create art using technology rely much too much on the technology to
carry their work. I think the first question should be do I really need
this to express what I am trying to express. If the answer is yes, then
the use of technology is not a crutch but an integral part of a piece.
If the answer is no, then technology should not be used just to add shine
to an idea that is weaker for the addition.
Through my research I have found examples of both although I must say
that technology-laden works seem to be the norm. Perhaps it is because
we are at a developmental phase where our culture shrieks with joy at
the sight of anything new and slightly oblique. Maybe it is because we
are not being taught the history of interactivity or historical uses of
physical interaction. We believe we are the first, we make mistakes that
only the first ones could make yet we are ignorant in our beliefs we ignore
a wealth of history that could save us some trouble and further along
our process.
The second issue I have been dealing with is the lack of art and overabundance
of technology that we are being exposed to. Personally, I feel that ITP
advertised itself as a technology and art program yet it lacks any kind
of discussion about art, or truly free expression. I have to remain optimistic
about this and believe that what we are learning is a means to an end.
I hope that what we are doing is learning how to use tools so that in
the end we can create. To me a micro controller is not the art; it is
the tool. A wire is only a part. It is not the whole. I feel laden down
with ways to shape electrical current but with no real need to do so.
At the same time I can also feel things beginning to take shape. These
little steps that we have had to make, no matter how frustrating they
were, have brought about a new way of thinking for me. I came from a background
where sight was the only thing I could really use to convey my ideas.
I can now use touch, smell, sound, etc. It is as if a vast world was opened
up to me. In a way it is startling, there is so much possibility that
it is hard to narrow down the choices.
Through the research I have done I have found a few areas of interest
that I am leaning towards more then others (in terms of physical interaction).
The first area is Kinetics. What interests me most about the kinetic art
pieces that I have seen is their use of movement.
Arthur Ganson , a sculptor
who works with machinery has made beautiful pieces that allow for an almost
emotional interaction with the machines. What I take from his work is
a desire to cross the line between the idea of the machine as mechanical
to the idea of the machine as creation. Creation is life. It is something
that the viewer can experience.
I am also drawn to Tim Prentice's
kinetic work. I feel that his work is simple and at the same time extremely
moving. I do not mean to imply that his work was easy to create. I mean
that his work is simple in that it does not cause too much confusion for
its' viewers. This is another issue that I want to take into consideration
when I am creating my own work.
I am fascinated with artists that are using touch, breath, movement, gaze.
Etc. to cause interaction in their work. I do not really want to divide
these up into smaller parts because I feel that they all are dealing with
a similar idea. A person can become the power behind an art piece and
also a person can directly affect an art piece. Again there has to be
attention paid to why we are using the technology in the first place however
this use of the senses and also the mind gives an artist an unbelievable
amount of resources to draw open.
Because this paper is so short I will leave specific artists and artwork
out and talk more in generalizations. (Check future and former journal
entries for links to artists using these types of technologies in their
work.) Why should we use the senses to cause interaction? This is a very
basic question but I think it is a good one. From my point of view, some
of the best artwork is the artwork that has managed to have an impact
on the viewer/interacter. When a person is able to cause change in an
art piece they are becoming part of that art piece. In a way they become
a performer, they are at the center of the world, they are gods. It is
impossible to deny that people, in general, like to have control or power.
There is an implication of importance that comes along with the ability
to make something happen. Whether a user touches something, blows into
it, speaks to it or moves toward it, that user is integral to the piece
itself. They cannot help but take part in the piece. This is such a lovely
ability that we are given with these forms of expression. We can grab
a person's interest by making them feel important and then we have the
chance to show them what we are trying to express.
Another thing that is very interesting about the use of these types of
interactions is that they are natural. To touch something is a natural
response--to sit down, to laugh, to talk, these are all behaviors we use
everyday. An artist can take these behaviors and use them to benefit their
artwork. A normal behavior can bring a viewer into a completely different
reality. If designed well an art piece can be instruction free, easy to
use. There is much more room for the art when the instruction book can
be thrown away.
I would like to conclude by saying that this is a very limited view of
how physical interaction and art can be or should be used together, but
I have had to limit my thoughts by the size of this paper. The most important
thing that I think I have learned is that there are an abundance of answers
for every question and it is my job to be careful about what answer I
choose.
Pictures from midterm/curcuit drawings stolen from Yulia
|
Ghost
circuit:
|
Scooby Doo Circuit
|
 |
 |
 |
 |