Defamiliarization <3

I will begin with the questions I am interested in exploring: What is a generative work of art? How does it work? How does a generative process effect or change our current processes? Does a generative work of art display cognitive abilities from the machine’s side? Is the cognitive agency only present in human perception? The questions of a generative work of art are paramount to the very notion of interaction and digital aesthetics, for at present, most examples of a generative work of art are limited by the presets of a digital process that paradoxically are needed to give form to these objects. Thus, I am interested in exploring an autopoietic system that marries the analogue with the digital.

My strategy for speculation involves two experiments that utilize an organic generative process as a mechanism for modulating sound and light. Growing bacteria in Petri cultures, I will conduct light through the dishes and process the data using Arduino, Perl and open-source sound synthesis software like Pure Data to create sound outputs. The first experiment will measure the data based on the long-term growth of the bacteria cultures, where as the second experiment will utilize a modified light modulation device to rapidly induce movement in the experiment. The experiments I want to conduct, therefore, explore movement. Since the very basis of sound relies on the action of movement, utilizing sound as the output will attempt to provide continuity with the movement of the bacteria.

Why is the sound of bacteria growing so interesting? When Brian Massumi[1] defines the virtual, movement is the agent of co-existent paradoxes that provides for the affect to occur. I would like my project to explore the moment where the affect occurs in the human unconscious. This process, of course, operates on a subliminal, even invisible level. Bacteria exemplify an often invisible–yet present—organism, which its growth (generative process) is the very means of its existence. Foregrounding bacteria’s agency is an attempt at externalizing these invisible processes of movement. Moreover, I view sound as an inescapable sense that often requires little cognitive acquiesce for the body to respond; therefore, its very process is in keeping with operation of the affect. Grant it, sound does offer a great deal of ambiguity in the interface, but here, it will operate as a metaphor for the movement of the bacteria.

[1] Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation, (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2002), 31.

Experiment I

Experiment II

Feedback and Reflection:

I’ve received feedback on my project. Essentially, I thought I would use arduino to perl interface through light input on the bacteria. However, I think this might be a more complicated project. I need to focus on simplifying. Not sure how that’s going to occur. I wish I didn’t feel so confused everytime and that every decision was like the biggest undertaking.

I’m still unsure of what I am exactly doing. My idea initially inspired by the work of artist Saara Ekstrom. She makes these interventions with bacteria.

You can see pictures below.

When I see these, I think about the performative aspect occur with the bacteria. The human intervenes and the bacteria and grown in the style of the intervention. But, can these growth patterns be used to power something?

I think what I’ve learned the most about digital aesthetics is that computation and software is just a structure that comes from within us. It’s not something foreign or outside of us. It’s a cultural parameter as much as language. So, the Boolean logic we’ve embedded into the computer comes from out structure. What happens when we insert a logic from nature? Will it be asymmetrical? This is where my preoccupation with microorganisms is leading me.

I’ve also been looking at instruments that have their own autonomy. This is where I found the Windwuino. It’s a device that is played by the wind and programmed in Arduino.

Winwuino

So where does sound come in these two elements? Well, I want to make a machine that’s back end is supplied by the growth patterns of the bacteria. The front end interface has a sound element to it. The question is how do you create this?

Feedback and Reflection:

The feedback I received was that sound is very ambiguous. I can half agree with Graham, but I can’t help but think that I just don’t understand how to make a direction for myself. I work really well with structured

environments. I spoket to Graham about this and it’s up to me to make this structure. I’m not sure if I can overcome this because it goes back to the American learning environment.

I think it’s really frustrating to lack structure or have to build a project from scratch with a timetable—knowing that you may not have skills or the knowhow to execute. How do I develop this idea and make it executable? I feel it’s most important to think about the execution at this point.

Objective: Create “grown” instruments that perhaps suggests cognition beyond organic forms

Major Project:

Deleuze suggested that movement through vibration and resonance provided the ability to reveal the hidden sensations of the affect. I want my work to always be at the nexus of the affect. Working from the idea that everything has its own frequency, I would like to create an environment that can be played as well as play itself. In having the two present, I hope to create a work that expresses a more egalitarian relationship between performer, audience, and object.

Minor Project:

As a study for my sound environments, I would like to create instruments by growing electro-magnetic conductive material in certain shapes. By growing these materials, I will play with volume, acceleration and interface. I am open to making the playing process as analogue as possible, for often, objects of this kind rely on the computer to fill in the gap and insert relationships with sound, object, audience, and performer.

Possible Required Assets: Max MSP, Petri Dishes, Crystalline Material

Feedback and Reflection:

I received feedback on this from Graham that I was cloaking this project in theory. It’s a little hard for me to comprehend how to divorce the theory from what I want to do. I feel my entire training in art history looks at how theory and practice are in dialogue—that is, how a theory is worked through a piece of art and vice versa, so I’m not sure where to begin. Maybe just look at objects that I think offer interesting takes on sound and autonomous objects.

I know that one thing I am still grappling with is how to change ideas or even change an idea. Once I get excited about something, I normally just want to figure out how to create an idea. This stubbornness was previously alleviated by having to execute someone else’s idea, but this is slightly problematic at this point for me. I really have this propensity to work with sound because it scares me and yet in my head I just think it’s related to how we experience affect. I want to “debug” this. As someone who is creative, I kind of spent all my life experiencing things and being aware of things in a way that seems to be codified by the affect.The fact that there is an explanation makes me want to really understand this interaction experience. Am I too close to this idea?

Adjusting to Change, Pre-Project Execution

The day of the Chalkwell Park Datajam I was supposed to execute two projects: one was designed to change the dog’s movements at the park with the intervention of different animal scents, the second was intended to intervene with human’s physical movements. The former was not executed because I did not receive the materials in time–even though I paid extra to have the materials delivered early. This situation touches on a problem that I have had adjusting to the British system, and in some ways, a larger problem I have when I execute projects when they do not go according to plan. Normally, I dwell on these issues and allow it to ruin the rest of my experience or project. I dedicated limited energy to this setback. The ability to deal with a minor setback, in a sense, allowed me to set the tone for the rest of my project.

Trepidation and Execution of Project

The day of execution, I was concerned, again, that my project was a very simple intervention: using yellow maintenance tape and signs that would provide no other point than to manipulate people’s movement. Since it was not my idea, the pressure of ownership was alleviated, but it was still my gesture, so I kept second-guessing myself. Often, my proof of accomplishing something is in laborious, tedious details matched with hours of over-planning. I had neither of these procedures in place. Again, I could see myself wanting to turn to my old habits, so I settled to help Anita with her sound installation should my project lack interest or extra time.

I set up the installation. Below is a map where everywhere barrier was placed in the park. The yellow triangles are the markers.

Learning to Let the Children Run with the Project

I purposefully did not visit Chalkwell Park from the first visit so that the installations were free from over-planning. Within the first few hours, I had children and adults questioning my installation. Instead of answering them in a direct manner, I was as vague as possible because I didn’t want them to dismiss my actions as an “art project”. (Labeling something an art project can sometimes–in this context–make interventions less meaningful.)

Initially, I had children interested in the project, so I decided to let them help me execute it:

Soon, the skateboarders discovered my barriers and decided to utilize them in their sport.

Skate Boarders

Other children became curious and asked if they could break the barriers that I had put up; I acquiesced.

Children Breaking Barriers

The children were extremely enthusiastic with the project and decided to start putting the barriers up and breaking them down again. The final iteration of the project involved the kids using them to decorate their bikes and creating more barriers tied between each other’s bikes.

Decorating Bicycles

Contrary to the children’s reactions, most adults ignored the barriers or walked over them.

Key Learnings

The reactions to this project were quite surprising on my end. Having so many people not only interact but create new incarnations of my interventions were not expected. Because the execution was simple, I assumed that it would fail to grab anyone’s attention and be ignored. Executing this project with only small amounts of stress related to the project was perhaps even more eye-opening than the reactions from the public.

The only thing I could test in Telegraph Park were versions of my signs; the barrier tape has not come nor have the dog scents.  It was raining so bad that I could only put up two signs, but I did manage to see two people reading the signs. I need to make sure that I have a secure water-resistant way of constructing my barriers and securing my signs.

Below are some images from the test:

Only three of us showed up to do these test runs, proving that our group is so large and takes alot of coordination to get everyone together. I think it makes it even harder when we have no real leader to crack the whip and make everyone attend and collaborate; I do find this structure to be hard to deal with because I am so used to a structured, hierarchical process. In this sense, it’s hard to know what I’m learning when we have to deal with tension and coordination issues. I’ve discussed with the group and planning on handling the issue of animosity with one particular person in the group who doesn’t show up or participate in the group. It seems that they feel excluded, and I want them to feel more include and the group to be a little more comfortable and less tense when we meet in class. I am planning to this by myself so that the person does not feel attacked and that they have more room to express their issues.

At present, I am having having a hard time tracking down dog scents, so I am having to deal with buying them online. Until I can get them, I feel like I won’t be able to think of more substantial ideas.

However, I am making some headway with the one direction signs. I thought about making these from cardboard, but then I realized that I wanted the signs to be as believable as possible. Therefore, I looked into the cost of fabricating the signs, and they were way out of my price range.

So, I thought about how police lines and maintenance hazard barriers guide people. I found where I could purchase these–only online unfortunately.

I want to do these barriers that say the path is under construction and then a few feet away say that the grass is having maintenance done; in essence, each instruction thwarts the other instruction and confuses the visitor.

The last meeting was intense, but we (I mean Cliff) did come up with a simple, yet brilliant solution. It was obvious that we couldn’t do the ice cream man idea with this type of group because of the size and our commitment to remaining as process-oriented as possible. Cliff’s idea was to do the small interventions but for each person to execute someone else’s idea; this would alleviate the ownership of ideas and the stress/pressure associated with having to execute that one must own. We each would take the next week to formulate our iteration of someone else’s project and test it out on the Sunday at Telegraph Hill before the real execution of the project.

The projects that I am taking on are: one way systems and working with dog scents. We are focusing on creating the small interventions and then if we have time, we will work on a way of tying them together.

It is at this point that I am finally seeing our process getting somewhere. While it has been more stressful than I imagined, it’s refreshing that such a simple idea could bring together the group and the method.

Two days after our experimentation weekend Non-Group came together to share our experimentations and start to construct a process/larger ideas. There was heated discussion amongst the five us who had been attending all of the meetings, for two of our cohorts had not been attending the meetings, and so it felt like there was more of a group forming than this open forum of discussion and process. Basically, we came up with several loosely constructed ideas. The basics that came together were:

Microcosm Conservatory:

-Make a microcosm of the park in the Metal building
-Maps and pins used for data gathering
-Possibly visualize the park from google map views
-Used as a base of operations for other projects

Algothrithmic Interventions

-Small interventions that change the pattern of movement for the visitors;
Datavisualized as an algorithm.

-Intervention examples include:
-Friendship benches
-Sonic legislation
-Books on benches
-Blue poo
-Sound room
-Dog scents
-Speed limits for joggers
-Walkie talkies
-Toy Dogs

Batman light:

-Batman light that calls people's names to the park
-Interviewed at the Microcosm Conservatory for data
-Possibly get a database of phonebook to review the most common "uncommon
last names"

Because I am trying to take a backseat approach, I discussed with the group and decided that I would not try to talk in the presentation unless it was necessary. We received fairly favorable feedback on our ideas.

However, what was more apparent at issue was the size and seemingly uneven contributions from everyone in the group.  When we presented these ideas, two other individuals said that they were part of the group, but they had neither come to meetings not contributed to the process of the group. Essentially, the issue that we are having involves the coordination of such a large group and sets of personality. I think the 5 of us who had been working together had established a momentum. Therefore, it seems that adding these two additions may break the momentum. This is something that we definitely have to work out.

The first and most major thing that Non-Group decided was to allow for a few days of experimentation. I worked this out two ways: sound experiments in Fordham Park and attending the Cornelius Cardew Conference at the ICA.

I spent the first part of the process doing experiments in Fordham Park with sound recordings. (I can’t get transfer the recordings from my tape recorder.) My sound experiments consisted of recordings of texture and motion. I worked with rubbing and motioning metallic and plastic elements along trees and bushes. I also made recordings of walking along the park by following the paths through the park. The whole time I wore earplugs. I was thinking about doing something with making sound and not being able to hear it. I can feel my physicality when I walk better; it was an interesting experience.

As I mentioned above, the second and seemingly more fruitful piece of my weekend consisted of attending the Cornelius Cardew Conference at the ICA. The conference itself was not very interesting; it consisted of many Goldsmiths alumni rehashing old memories of Cardew. The only real concept that I got from this was that Cardew liked creating projects that utilized people’s incompetency as a strength.

Rather, it was the School Time Composition by sound collective Ultra-Red that proved more interesting. During the project we are asked to speak about certain topics or create certain engagements every hour. At the end of each hour, we are asked to contribute to the writing a “score” that articulates the last hour. The articulation of each hour can consist of images, sounds or writing.  I like the structure of creating these small talks or interventions and then having to articulate them into a larger object. In this sense, you always feel like the process is taking paramount over the creation of the object. I would like to maybe do a  workshop.

.

Many people went to Chalkwell to do their own forms of research. As I am trying to keep myself from over planning and “rehearsing” my project, I want to keep the environment of Chalkwell Park as foreign as possible which will make the process occur in a more “live” setting.

Whether out of a dream or sheer lack of ideas, the Non-Group formed. I was fortunate to be put with a group that was interested in exploring a process way of working. My cohorts include: Stephen, Manali, Anita, Cliff, Metin and Nan.

We met and decided that we were interested in giving each other time for pure speculation as opposed to jumping right into and idea. Below is our mission which we have shared with other groups. At this point in the process, we are inviting other groups to attend our meetings to help with the “free sharing” of ideas. This process is based in part on the action research document provided by Graham.

1. Methodology: CURIOSITY -> INTERACTION -> FEEDBACK
We started with the Look -> Think -> Act methodology from action
research and remolded it into the above. We're emphasising process over
product.

2. Pursuing personal curiosities
We're each going to start with what interests us most - sound, social
organisation, benches, piers, whatever - and experiment to find out more
without a definite objective in mind.

3. Free sharing and exchange of ideas
We'll document what we do and share it with the other groups, we're not
just open to people developing upon our findings and methods, we
positively encourage it - no permission required.  We might be in touch
if we discover things that we think will interest you.

4. An emerging intervention
Our intervention will come together by pursuing curiosities and then
feeding back to each other and to other groups.