maria

Here I post the actual processing sketch in case somebody would like to play more with it:

import hypermedia.video.*;

OpenCV opencv;

// contrast/brightness values
int contrast_value    = 0;
int brightness_value  = 0;

String body[] = {”anor.jpg”,”kats.png”, “xond.png”, “psil.png”};  // body table of images
String label[] = {”agit.jpg”, “impo.jpg”} ;                        // label table of images

PImage imgLabel, imgBody;  //  label and body image store
int lato;
int hato;
int pos=0;    // points and selects with body image from body table body[]
int pos2=0;  // points and selects with label image from label table label[]

int xbox=0;
int ybox=0;
int wbox=0;
int hbox=0;

void setup() {

size( 640, 480 );

opencv = new OpenCV( this );
opencv.capture( width, height );                   // open video stream
opencv.cascade( OpenCV.CASCADE_FRONTALFACE_ALT );  // load detection description, here-> front face detection : “haarcascade_frontalface_alt.xml”
// img = loadImage( “anor.jpg” );
//  imgLabel = loadImage( “agit.jpg” );
println(hbox);
println(”face detection good-4″);
// println(5%2);
//  img3 = loadImage( “impo.jpg” );
//  imgXX = loadImage( “impo.jpg” );
}

public void stop() {
opencv.stop();
super.stop();
}

void draw() {

// grab a new frame
// and convert to gray
opencv.read();
opencv.convert( GRAY );
opencv.contrast( contrast_value );
opencv.brightness( brightness_value );

opencv.read();
Rectangle[] faces = opencv.detect( 1.2, 2, OpenCV.HAAR_DO_CANNY_PRUNING, 40, 40 );

image( opencv.image(), 0, 0 );

// draw face area(s)
noFill();
stroke(0,0,0);

for( int i=0; i<faces.length; i++ ) {
//fill(204, 102, 0, 100);
rect(0,0,640,480);

rect( faces[i].x, faces[i].y, faces[i].width, faces[i].height );
xbox = faces[i].x;
ybox= faces[i].y;
wbox= faces[i].width;
hbox= faces[i].height;
//  print(”faces i x “);
//   println(faces[i].x);
//   print(”i “);
//   println(i);
//   print(”x “);
//   println(xbox);
//   print(”y “);
//   println(ybox);
//   print(”faces length “);
//   println(faces.length);
lato = (faces[i].width)/4;
hato = (faces[i].height)*4;
//  image (img2,0,0,faces[i].x,faces[i].y);

//missing rectangles
//  image (img, (faces[i].x-lato), (faces[i].y+faces[i].height), (faces[i].width+lato+lato), 400 );

if (i > 3) {
pos = i%4;
}
else {
pos = i ;
}
imgBody = loadImage( body[pos] );

if (i > 1) {
pos2 = i%2;
}
else {
pos2 = i ;
}
imgLabel = loadImage(label[pos2]);

image (imgBody, (faces[i].x-lato), (faces[i].y+faces[i].height), (faces[i].width+lato+lato), hato);
// image (img2, (faces[i].x+faces[i].width), (faces[i].y+lato), (faces[i].width), lato);
//image (img3, (faces[i].x), (faces[i].y-lato), (faces[i].width), lato);
image (imgLabel, (faces[i].x), (faces[i].width), (faces[i].width), lato); // hat
}
}

Self directing learning contract

Objectives:
•    Find ways to include the viewer in my work. The viewer to be the actual artwork.
•    Learn how to use Processing.
•    Learn to read and understand processing code language.
•    Take use of all the abilities a real time video offers
•    Find ways to improve my idea in full potential.

Resources and strategies
•    Web
•    Processing books
•    Alan

Proof of accomplishing
•    Everything to be prepared according to my time schedule
•    The project to have an aesthetic result that will back up the theoretical concept

Evaluation criteria
•    Viewers behaviour/participation
•    Class feedback
•    Ready by the 24th of march- minor project presentation
•    Improvement of my technical skills
•    How successful the event/ documentation will be
•    Ability to make my ideas understandable through my work
•    Not to be overstressed and be productive.
•    Personal satisfaction

Schedule timetable

23 of February- 1st of March: research on bodies, build collage photos
2 – 8 of March: complete Processing code to work perfectly
9- 15 of March: general experimentation and work on any changes needed
19-20 of March: make the events
21-23 of March: work on documentation material
24 of March: minor project presentation

Taking some space and time to reflect after finishing my project, I could say that the prevailing feeling is one of satisfaction. It maybe that not all of the experiments were successful but I guess this is a purpose of experiments. They helped me identify mistakes and things that I hadn’t thought carefully enough, and I think that I did manage to overcome them by the end. I enjoy my project but I think it is just the beginning of a whole new world that I feel I have to explore more in depth. I think that this project in terms of theoretical background is related very much with my previous projects. In one hand is interesting to observe how I manage to preserve my character and my concerns through out the year, but also being able to cope with new and so different information, at the same time becoming competent in combining the two.

Moreover I am very happy and proud that I managed to overcome my ‘technophobia’. I worked on Processing which seemed very difficult an the beginning. What I did doesn’t need a special effort for a programmer but for me was very hard. During the procedure of writing the code, I was first drawing everything on a paper and then measuring it with a ruler, translating it in numbers. However I enjoyed it a lot. Now I feel I discovered a new material that gives me thousand of potentials for further creation. This is the most important thing I gained from the minor project.

I think that I managed to bring the idea to its utmost potential, through the different experiments, stretching the limits of this algorithm. I also like a lot the aesthetic result of the experiment 4 video. Regarding forms and general structure I believe I managed to reveal my ideas through it. Moreover what I always try to achieve through my project is to leave some space for personal interpretation and thinking. I assume this project has plenty of that space.
In relation to the documentation, I am aware that there is always potential for further work. Because of the real time, is very important for the documentation to be very accurate, as the project can never be replicated. However, being more preoccupied with the performance itself, my attention was mainly focused in it and the reactions of the project subjects.

Another very important aspect is that I wanted to manage my stress and try to be relaxed and productive. I didn’t handle it well at all. My stressed controlled my life during these months. However this was a beneficial in terms of scheduling and keeping deadlines. I believe I managed time very well. I finished the technical and theoretical concept very early and that gave me time for further exploration that lead to a successful result.
Comparing to the timetable everything went as I had scheduled except the Processing code writing, which consumed more time than initially expected. The events were about two or three days late but that didn’t cause me any problem.
In general I am content with my role and the outcome of my project. There were days that I was so tired wanted to give up but other days that a small step was making me so happy. I guess that is always part of a creating process.

Intro – general idea.

•    The project concerns the construction and performance of an algorithm that negotiates with a procedure of redefining one’s image - and his/her relationship with it - playing around with physical characteristics as elements of identification from a digital mechanism.

•    The procedure of identification is followed by the attachment of a series of new, peculiar, characteristics to the subject via new body images re-enacting a psychological situation of re-discovering our physical and moreover mental perception of our ego.

•    It is possible during the process of recognition that the algorithm might present with a mistake. This is being challenged by the present project, in an attempt to comment upon the possible extentions of its application.
Working Technical Concept.

-Building the bodies:

Graham gave me a Neurological Atlas that had documented different permanent body disfigurements. This book was very inspiring to begin with. In most of the bodies I created, I used elements of photos from the Atlas. The photos were of the early 20th century so all of them were black and white. I liked this effect thinking that it would make a nice contrast with the full colored real-time video. I thought also to experiment with drawing bodies instead of using photos but the result wasn’t satisfying enough, so I used b&w photos.

-Building Processing code:
Building the processing code was more time consuming than expected. First of all I was informed from www.processing.org in order to understand all basic structure.  Moreover I consulted and researched processing books literature which enabled further familiarity.
(Ira Greenberg, Processing-Creative coding and computational art,  Casey Reas, Processing- A programming handbook for visual designers and artists and Danjel Shiffman, Learning Processing.)

I found on a web library called OpenCV, a face detection sketch. I started to intervene on it and built my own idea. I arranged the size of the body always being dependent on the face size. At the point I completed the sketch, I had achieved all people captured by the camera to have the same body. This was not satisfactory enough for my concept of the idea as I wanted every person to have its own character.
At this point Alan gave me great help where we built together a table arranging that every new person entering the video image will take a new different body. The code was built as x+1. That means that we have body 0, body 1, body 2, body 3 then person 1 will take body 0. In the case of a second person entering the image, then he will take body 0 and person 1 will take body1. When a third person enters the image, then he will take body 0, person 2 will take body 1 and person 1 will take body 2etc. This way a system is created. Each character is created in relation to the others surrounding him.
The most usual question later on was why I didn’t write the code in a way that will recognise specific characteristics of each person and assign a specific body connected to these characteristics.
That was because my conceptualisation was to emphasize how people look at you or the different roles that you choose to take when others look at you. That is why is preferable to make a system relating each person to another and leave it open instead of choosing and defining who will play each role.

Experiment 1:
Thursday 19 of March
10.00 – 13.00 main building

video

A video camera is pointing the stairs. The camera is connected to a computer that is placed on the floor above. The computer is applying the algorithm on the video received. At the same time the computer is connected to a projector, which projects the intervened video on the space between the two floors. The result is that people coming up the stairs are facing themselves, in a real time, with the body label attached.

The outcome of this experiment was initially disappointing but beneficial later as it helped me take the project in a further stage. I was disappointed because not a lot of people reacted in their manipulated image. Most of them were in a hurry running up the stairs and pay no attention to the installation. Some other pretended to be in hurry insistently looking at the floor. Very few of them seemed to enjoy it by smiling or playing in front of the video camera.
These reactions were unexpected for me and made me think of the reasons that people totally ignored it. What I understood is that what happened is exactly what I want to point out with my work. People are afraid of their image and needs a lot of courage to face themselves. It is even more difficult when this happens in a public space. It needs double effort to face themselves under other people’s sage. Wanting to catch their reaction to ‘the unexpected’, I chose to make the installation one morning inside a university on the stairs that people are passing by to go to their routine works. However this strategy proved wrong. I had to find another way to approach the viewers and give them their time and space to conciliate with these ideas and be more expressive.

The documentation happened with three different ways. First one was taking photos of the event, space and generally everything happening around me. The second one was videotaping the projection where the algorithm has been already used to change the actual video. The third was that the video camera used to capture and send image to the computer was also videotaping. In that way I have the initial video (without applied algorithm), which would be useful for recording reactions and people’s comments. However I didn’t managed to get a variety of comments as most of the people ignored it.

It is also worth mentioning that before being able to test my ideas I had to obtain permission from The Health and Safety department. The initial preferred place were the main stairs in Deptford Townhall. I didn’t get the permission for that so the main building was my second choice, which proved to be much better because it was more crowded.  Even though all these demands and restrictions caused me headache.

Experiment 2:
Deceiving the application.

The algorithm detects faces. On the same time performs mistakes during the recognition process in places that a face doesn’t exist. It can equalise a shadow or a drawing of a face to a real face. This experiment is an attempt to explore the extension and boundaries of the medium challenging it with various baits.

Experiment 3:
Applying the algorithm on the algorithm.

video

A video camera sends a video to the computer that applies the algorithm on it and then the new video is projected. A second camera that is connected to a second computer films the projection. In that way I manage to apply the algorithm on the algorithm.

I don’t know what I was expecting from this experiment but nothing really happened. At least I though it might give an interesting space effect. The first algorithm worked perfectly as usual. The second algorithm didn’t work at all except some moments that detected the whole projection (the video inside the video) as a face.

Experiment 4:
Saturday 21 of March
18.00 - 20.00
Chisenhale Dance Space, 64-84 Chisenhale Road, London, E3 5QZ .

http://www.vimeo.com/3824260

http://www.vimeo.com/3823424

This experiment is what followed experiment 1. Consequently to all the observations I had, I decided to find a way to make people act more freely and not be fixated within the limits of their fear of their image. The way the installation works is almost the same with experiment 1. A video camera is pointing to them, which sends the video capture to a computer that applies the algorithm and it is also connected to a projector that projects the intervened video exactly opposite to the viewers, replacing a mirror. The difference this time is that between the person and his digital double I placed a table with different materials on it. The table offered them colours, papers, scissors, balloons, clay, glue, children’s masks and already printed face characteristics as lips and eyes. This way, when the person comes to the phase that has to face himself he has a ‘shield of protection’ in front of him. Using these materials to intervene on their face and re-adjust it, a new game begins. First of all by playing this way they get their time to adjust to what they see, their new ‘self’’. Furthermore instead of asking them to rethink of their identity I provide them the material to built it. In addition they play with the medium itself trying to deceive it by hiding or replacing their real characteristics with the printed ones. In a way they try to avoid their face detection.

This procedure is deeply psychoanalytic. There was great interest in observing each person, and what element of his chooses to hide or to transform. Their new face image is related, connected to their new body the algorithm attaches to them. The experiment takes a performance quality and the viewer begins a dialog with the medium itself. Moreover the aesthetic result is very satisfying as the collage continues in different levels and layers. The outcome we (the rest of the spectators) observe is more solid and complete following a very personal process becoming symbolic.
The people that are participating in this experiment are all friends of mine who willingly responded to a call-mail that I forward around. They had no idea of the nature of the experiment before attending, in an attempt to preserve spontanouity. To this project participated Dina, Daniella, Marianna, Gareth, Vincent, Iker, Thomas, Angie, Nikos and Yannis.

My observation on this experiment is that the participants still had some difficulty to face their double. A very nice example is Thomas who is participating in the group video. In the beginning he seems feeling very uncomfortable trying to stay all the time behind all the rest of the participants. After 10 minutes playing all together and exchanging roles the rest of the group is tired and one by one exit the video image. In the contrary Thomas stays there on his own and continues his performance. What I mean by using Thomas’ example is that the whole procedure works ‘therapeutic’ in a way. Behind a masked face people free their real repressed feelings and get involved more easily to situations that are scared of. Working on his new identity he found the courage to stay in the whole procedure but on the same time he obtained satisfaction from that.

SocioPhilosophical Concept.

•    The way the algorithm functions suggests a process of individualisation since it points out specific elements of the entity subtracting it from the rest of its surroundings and its natural environment.

•    Parallel to this action, the algorithm unifies these characteristics of all the subjects since it, randomly, applies to each entity one of four specific body labels.

•    Two contradicting functions of the algorithm focus on each entity, individuality-regimentation, referring to attitudes of mass consumerism models of the west societies, where the consumer is provoked as unique, with personalised demands and is treated by personalised services that are scheduled upon massive, unifying policies. Example: advertising strategies. Ref: George Orwell -nineteen eighty four, panoptikon

•    Opposing to the “Objective body”, which is the image of our embodiment when we experience it as a physical object in space, the body/label that is attached works as a “phenomenal body”; as the conception of our embodiment, our bodily being in the world. Ref: Merleau – Ponty – Phenomenology of Perception.

The bodies / labels that are applied do not have any particular, ‘personalized’ attributes in advance.
They take different meaning on each person and they link directly to the one who ‘carries’ them.

•    Different procedures connected to our ego occur:

– The acknowledgment of our ego is related to the distance of the object. The object becomes visible only when it coexists with the ego. The suffering, distorted body’s image, as an object, carries fear, pain and revolt for the viewer that has to rethink and readjust his own image. He gets involved in a procedure of renegotiating with his image, and with what he looks like and moreover, or rethinking himself, of who he is.
This procedure is connected to Lacan’s “mirror stage” that occurs during childhood: “It illustrates the conflicting nature of the dual relationship”. The dual relationship refers to the relation between ego and body but also to the relationship between imaginary and real.
The real time projection functions as a mirror that attempts to connect, and at the same time to emphasize, the distance between this dualism.
– On the other hand, the idea of reconstructing his face includes elements of a singular narcissism. It is a transformation that seeks for a new identity through the eyes of the others. There seems to be an effect out of the social input.

•    An object that we see cannot be accurately described unless, during our description, references to the space that this experience takes place are made. The object cannot be defined by itself; it needs to be in the context of something else. In this case where the object is the phenomenal body visualised as sick is referring to the whole surrounding environment.

Visual References

Conclusion-resume.

- The projects aims to re-enact qualities and functions of sociophilosophical (already mentioned) experiences through the adoption of an algorithm; through the adoption of technical tools.

- In these terms the algorithm does not seek for replacing the actual everyday performance of such experiences but in creating a visionary approach of a figural research, which aims to reawaken a sense of wonder and fascination about our image and how we and others perceive it.

pad switches

- pentoville foam
- metal pipe
- 2 aluminium sheets
- electrical cable / old speaker cable
- masking tape

1.take a piece of “pentoville foam”, usually used to fill chairs or mattress, and make some holes in it.

2. cut small pieces of metal pipe and place them inside the holes. It is important that the metal pieces are shorter in height than the foam. This ensures that they do not connect the aluminum sheets until somebody steps on it.

3. take 2 aluminum sheets cut in the same size as the foam. Take two lengths of old speaker cable and stick an end of a each to a sheet of aluminum using tape.

4. Sandwich the foam between the two aluminum sheets ensuring that when you put pressure on the sheets that they are touching the metal pipes in the foam and when you release they are not.

5. swathe everything with masking tape as to keep it stable and protected.

Infrared house

- carton box
- sharp knife
- glue
- masking tape

1. use a carton box. In our coin laundry project we chose to use a washing powder box.

2. cut carefully with a sharp knife the exact shape of infrared ‘eyes’  from the one side and open a hole on the other side as a cable exit.

3 place the infrared sensor from the inside of the box and stick it carefully with masking tape.

4. stick back with glue the open box as to look new again.

Coin Laundry Orchestra was the biggest and most enjoyable project of autumn term. We were also the biggest group (5 members) which made our lives difficult until the point we found our balance in working together.

How the story begun:

We decided it would be better if everyone did some research on their own and when we would collect a variety of data, so that we would come up with an idea for data jam.
I began with mapping all 16 launderettes around east and north London. We conclude on 3 different around Old Street and Hoxton. Therefore we decided to focus on this area. Then I tried to collect some demographic information of the area to help us understand the individuals who use these coin laundries. I contacted the Shoreditch and Hackney councils in order to get the drainage and the architecture maps of the specific buildings. Both of the councils responded and were very helpful with my enquiries. But in order for me to receive the information required I had to provide a proof that the information required were for academic purposes only, and payment was to be received for every copy.

By this time our group was falling apart, after endless meetings with brainstorming, nobody was satisfied instead I would say we were more annoyed with each other. We decided that all these information we were collecting were of no use, so I stopped all council procedures.

For me it was more important to understand the people we were addressing better as to come up with an idea. We met one of the launderette owners, who gave us a very interesting interview. We decided to shape a questionnaire for the launderette users as to find out their habits and how they feel inside the launderette space. This would help us to form the subjective map of the launderette ecology and I found it very interesting to work on that. Our main aim was to intervene in this ecology, and it was of primary importance to understand it before deconstructing it. Therefore the next step was spending time inside the launderettes by washing our clothes as to feel and experience the procedure and giving questionnaires to people. Most of them were very open and willing to help.

At this point we had 3 or 4 main ideas but each one of us was constantly unsatisfied and disagreeing with the ideas. It was very difficult to be of the same mind because each of us has a different background so we could not find something that interested us at the same level. Precisely one week before the planned date of data jam we had a very frustrating meeting and everyone was very tired with the project so the atmosphere was very intense. And then Gareth and Marco came up with THE IDEA!!!

Coin Laundry Orchestra

We decided to build a sound installation inside the launderette space. The installation is triggered by people’s movements. We have 4 pads which are used as switchers and one infrared sensor. All these are assigned to 5 different layers of sounds. 4 of them are sounds from coin laundry converted with granular synthesis and one of them is interviews of coin laundry users. So when all sounds are played together they produce a melody and the interviews work as lyrics.

We built a circuit board where the switches are connected digital to an arduino board and the infrared sensor analogically. Infrared caused us a lot of troubles during the construction.
A MAX/Msp patch detects messages coming from the Arduino board and it translates it to MIDI signals of “on” and “off”.For the infrared sensor we needed to scale the value in a MIDI standard. The four switches and the Infrared sensor were sent to different MIDI channels.

We decided it would be better not to ask for permission from the owner. However, I felt the need to ask for a letter from Olga, in case anything would go wrong we could use the University as a back up.

Two days before the event new problems occurred. We discovered there were no electricity plugs inside the space. So we used an extension cable and asked from the barber shop next door to supply us with power, who demanded 25£ for just 2 hours!!!

The event

Using guerrilla advertising methods (stencils and flyers) we tried to promote the event. The more people the better the outcome. Except for the people who were actually doing their laundry, we manage to ‘fish’ a lot of the people who were passing by. Most of them were pretty excited. It was so fun looking at them interacting with the music. At the beginning people were shy or didn’t seem to understand exactly what was happening. There were still some who were totally indifferent to what was going on around them.

In the beginning I felt a bit ’scared’. Although we had tested everything in the laboratory, it was very different installing it in the actual space with everyone watching us with skepticism. I was afraid that patrons would be annoyed by our presence. All of my worries disappeared when I saw the first smile coming up from a man who was trying to get rhythm by his step. The feeling was more than ecstatic for me. Since that moment I felt encouraged that I suddenly got stimulated. Our presence there had a reason! I begun to talk to people, explaining and trying to invite as many as I could.
For me the best thing was when a whole family begun to play with our intervention. The children were running and jumping on the switches. At the end the children were bored but their parents were stuck and still playing around the space. For me it was a great feeling that we manage to interest so many people of different ages and backgrounds.Getting response is a great motivation for creation.

VIDEO

Theoretical background of our project:
We set out to experiment with people’s ingrained ideas of what is cultural normality within their Coin Laundry (C.L.)

A. With this in mind we intended to poke fun at the nature of the launderette using guerrilla methods.

B. Opposed to people’s rigid standards of the usual experience of laundry process. The financially motivated standards of a coin laundry are illustrated by the interview of C.L. owner whose main aim was to preserve a safe and secure environment.
Nothing unexpected can happen in such a space

C. We reconstructed and transformed media from the Coin Laundry in order to enable a commentary on itself, by using the original medium’s communication methods.
In our experiment we decided that:
- the washing machines were a medium; we used coin laundries sounds.
- the launderette space is a medium; the previously empty space was now obstructed by items enabling an exchange between the patron and the laundrette.

In these ways we succeed:

1. An individualistic turning away of mass mentality.
2. We manage to change the structure and consequently the aspects of dominant culture
3. To reawaken a sense of wonder and fascination about the surrounding environment. This stimulates personal interpretation and independent thinking.
4. To demonstrate contrast between standard and regular practices, attitudes and realities with in the launderette.
5. Provoke an interest in relations between usual practices and space environments.
(we did alter the environment, did attitudes change? THEY DID!)
6. We had fun!

Strategies we used.

INTERVENTION: We manage to have an interaction with an existing space affecting a group of people and altering their primary relationship.
VANDALISM: in terms of destruction and defacement of the usual practices and context (ecology) of the space.
APPROPRIATION: of the launderette space, the sounds of laundry machines and the interviews of people’s feelings. By using borrowed elements we create a new work.

My personal overview:

The final outcome was a great success for me. We managed to create something of interest to all of us and it was far different from my way of working. I am very proud of our project and I enjoyed it a lot. Moreover we had a very good feedback from the rest of the class.
However there are a lot of points where we could have worked differently.
The first point was that it took us too long to synchronise as a group, and that lead to limiting our time. We had actually only one week to work with a big project that had a lot of unplanned difficulties. So the result of that was to allocate the different stages of the project according to each ones field of expertise. That opposed to the actual idea of learning. In my personal learning contract my first aim is to understand and work with all technical things required. It didn’t exactly happen that way but I tried hard to familiarise myself with the electronics and the softwares we used and I want to thank Marco and Gareth a lot who were so patient with me, explaining over and over again all technical procedures and parameters.
Secondly, I was not satisfied with the quality of the documentation. Our videos were not representative of what was exactly happening, and are not explanatory enough. I feel that a good documentation is as important as the actual event.
despite our initial difficulties I am very satisfied with the way we worked as a group. Everybody worked hard and everyone contributed the best they could. Working with them was more than a pleasure and I will definitely look forward to collaborate with them again in the future. The whole experience was at least beneficial for me.

My objectives:

Find demographic information of the area around laundries.
Find demographic data of the clients of each laundry individual.
Learn how much energy each launderette consumes.
Find out how much water is wasted.
Find the most busy time of each one and differences between them.
Find out the most popular washing powder.
Map the Coin Laundry drainage system.
Copy the architectural maps of the buildings.
Learn how to read them.
Think how I can visualize all data.
Find common things between 3 laundries.
Find out where electricity cables end.
Form questionnaires for laundries users.
Write down of what other kind of business cover my area of interest.
Organize my area of interest as to participate in the intervention.
Think of art- strategies that can be applied on.

Resources and strategies I will use:

Talk to the owners.
Talk to the clients.
Contact councils (for drainage and architectural map)
Learn to connect all information.
Work and learn from rest of the group about technical aspect.
Learn to form a complete ecology.

Evaluation Criteria:

Work on a different type of intervention from what I used to until now (based on aesthetics )
Improve my technical skills and thinking.
To collaborate well inside a group.
How successful intervention- documantation will be.
Learn to work in public places.
Be ready and not be scared to face peoples reactions.
Ability to make my ideas understandable inside the group.
Feedback from rest of class
Groups effectiveness.

Debord writes in his theory of “derive” (it is translated as drift): “is not just a journey or a walk but a hasty passage from a variety of atmospheres of city”. It has mainly psychological and disorientational repercussions. From the beginning this itinerancy is like a “creation of situation” or like a “construction of atmospheres”. More or less is an experimental reshape of everyday life, deriving from pure, and instinct pleasure. Such an experience does not just reshape the relationship between the human and the city, but mostly the relationship between human and intersection of the city.

Debord underlines that “a city is not being defined only from economical or geographical factors, but also from the perception that its citizens have for it”.

The idea of derive suggests to let yourself free to the space, to the flow and to encounters that will come across. It is to walk aimless without thinking of anything. Just “go with the flow” of a city.

When I began my aimless walk I took the tube as to do it far away from my neighborhood. I thought it would be easier to feel aimless if I was in an unfamiliar part of the city. However inside the tube I thought that commuting with it is the most characteristic part of living in London. London’s tube is one of the biggest in the world and is being used by millions of people every day. That makes it a very dynamic space.

Moreover it has a lot of interchanges, and each station has a very different decoration. The decoration is even different between different lines. Some stations are really old and some others really new. Even the way you sit and the way your personal space is defined is different. All these are emotional triggers. So I decided to follow the flow of people running up and down escalators, waiting to platforms and get packed into the trains.

I decided to documantate my experience by taking a video of passengers’ feet. In that way I could show some of their feelings like being nervous, indifference, bored, excited, or in a rush. Furthermore, by looking through the video camera I managed to let myself free more easily and acting only by following my instinct.
In such an experience the time passes and the perception of space becomes unanticipated. I stayed inside the tube for 2.5 hours without realising and when I decided to stop I had no idea where I was.
Furthermore I lost my oyster card which I had just topped up and my university I.D. I think which show the extense of my aimlessness.

VIDEO

I felt this was an interesting project because I had to work more with myself. London is the most difficult city to allow oneself to be free and careless. In addition the feeling of realising my interacting with the space was very different experience. I would like to have somebody else taking video of me doing it. After all that I felt really exhausted.

Debord defined the term psycho-geography as the study of interactions between geographical space and emotional behavior of people. Psycho-geography is the phenomenon that brings out the action of “derive”.

Debord made the visional definition of the term psycho-geography with his collage “Naked City” where he cropped the map of Paris and combines the pieces with big red arrows. In that way he tries to show new spatial and time connections.

This project represents my attempt to visualise London’s tube psycho-geography.

After the first Linux Crash seminar we were asked to make a command line that does something ‘interesting’.
For me this was the most difficult project over the term. I didn’t manage to have any command line ready by the next week as we were supposed to. It took me more than a while to get  Linux way of thinking. After research on different Linux sites, blogs and forums I found different codes that when being combined make the following very simple command line.

cal 2012 > calendar.txt | cat calendar.txt | lpr

Willing to describe what this command does I have to explain each code seperately.

cal 2012: Cal displays a simple calendar. I choose to display 2012 calendar.

> : this symbol is to redirect output of ‘cal 2012′ to a different file.

calendar.txt : is the new file I made which I named it calendar and is in txt format

| : this symbol is called pipe and work between commands to send something directly to something else.

cat: is to display what the file calendar.txt has.

lpr: is the command for printing. so in my command line I ask to print what is in calendar.txt file.

The result is:

2012

January                               February                  March
S  M Tu  W Th  F  S           S  M Tu  W Th  F  S         S  M Tu  W Th  F  S
1  2  3  4  5  6  7            1  2  3  4                           1  2  3
8  9 10 11 12 13 14       5  6  7  8  9 10 11          4  5  6  7  8  9 10
15 16 17 18 19 20 21   12 13 14 15 16 17 18     11 12 13 14 15 16 17
22 23 24 25 26 27 28   19 20 21 22 23 24 25     18 19 20 21 22 23 24
29 30 31                          26 27 28 29                  25 26 27 28 29 30 31

April                                  May                                  June
S  M Tu  W Th  F  S          S  M Tu  W Th  F  S            S  M Tu  W Th  F  S
1  2  3  4  5  6  7               1  2  3  4  5                        1  2
8  9 10 11 12 13 14        6  7  8  9 10 11 12            3  4  5  6  7  8  9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21     13 14 15 16 17 18 19      10 11 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 27 28      20 21 22 23 24 25 26     17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30                               27 28 29 30 31              24 25 26 27 28 29 30

July                             August                                 September
S  M Tu  W Th  F  S        S  M Tu  W Th  F  S             S  M Tu  W Th  F  S
1  2  3  4  5  6  7              1  2  3  4                                                  1
8  9 10 11 12 13 14        5  6  7  8  9 10 11             2  3  4  5  6  7  8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21     12 13 14 15 16 17 18      9 10 11 12 13 14 15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28     19 20 21 22 23 24 25      16 17 18 19 20 21 22
29 30 31                         26 27 28 29 30 31          23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30

October                                   November                    December
S  M Tu  W Th  F  S          S  M Tu  W Th  F  S              S  M Tu  W Th  F  S
1  2  3  4  5  6                         1  2  3                                        1
7  8  9 10 11 12 13          4  5  6  7  8  9 10                2  3  4  5  6  7  8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20      11 12 13 14 15 16 17       9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27      18 19 20 21 22 23 24     16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 31                       25 26 27 28 29 30         23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

This command line is interesting only because I made it on my own which I first believed I would never be able to. It is also interesting because I can see that my birthday on 2012 will be on Wednesday!
I don’t feel that I pulled through this project but it made me search for things that I was not familiar with. I also became able to understand some basics on reading commands.