Joy… it’s a student blog.

Hmmm as the time draws near for the deadline for studio, so has the realisation that our idea isn’t working as easily as we had initially planned We were trying to work with Quartz Composer, however we were unable to link the camera from one computer to the other computer’s screen. Trying to find a way around this, attempts were made at using iChat to make it seem as though we’d figured it out. This didn’t work so well however, as you can’t do a three way chat.

As it stands, we’re going to make the frames for the screens, pre-film some footage, hire out/make some touch pads, use Luke’s old hacked keyboard, and do a wizard of oz style prototype. Perhaps separating the screens a little more so it’s not so obvious what’s actually going on. The pre-filmed footage will be used as a screen saver and will play until someone stands on the touch pad. This will then activate the camera to display the footage of a person in front of the other screen.

We have a little time to work out any glitches…

outlook = good.

The official name of our project for studio is:

“You are the Art!“

on a side note… our project has nothing to do with mirrors.

Initial idea…

The concept behind our project “You are the art“, is to make people feel as though they are the artwork in an art gallery setting. The way in which we intend to do this is by filming a person looking at a camera and then displaying this image in a screen which other people can look at. It will then appear as though the viewer, is actually being looked at by someone, as if they in fact are on display and not the other way around. The use of more than one (three) screens means that everyone infront of the camera/screen will be on display to someone else.

Technology…

3 screens/computers (iMacs). 3 cameras (built in to the iMacs). 3 frames (to hide that they are computers). Our project uses cameras to take video footage of people entering the provided space in a gallery style setting. The screens will be positioned on a corridor style wall with a small amount of space between each one. People are able to see others looking at them, posing the question, “who is really on display?”

The broader context…

As talked about in an earlier blog- “selection -part one…“, the existing projects that I chose to compare and also contrast our project’s idea to are:

“Come to Pieces”/ “Miroir pour Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” – created by Camille Utterback and Adam Chapman, and

“Surface Tension” – created by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer.

Similarities/ Differences…

The concept behind Utterback and Chapmans piece, come to pieces, is to allow viewers/ users of the piece to visually experience seeing themselves as art, but in a completely different way to what they would have previously.

The installation uses custom video software to film people from 4 different cameras, and display the footage in a single contained image. It is as though the video feed of the person is distorted to show multiple images from different angles, in one single display. The concept is similar to looking in a mirror, but the image you see as a result, is a compilation of the 4 feeds displayed in the shell of the “you”, you would expect to see. In this sense, the installation’s intention is to get people to think about the way in which they are perceived and what they look like to others.

This concept is similar to our piece, where we intend to give our viewers/participants the chance to experience what it would feel like to be in an artwork; to make them think about what people see and feel when they are put on display. As for the technology specs, we would be using multiple displays as well as a number of different camera feeds as opposed to the single display with multiple cameras. Also, our installation incorporates more than one participant as there are more than one screen and camera to interact with. As what you see is not yourself, our project also incorporates ubiquitous/pervasive computing aspects. You see someone else looking back at you, not yourself, however are unable to distinguish that your actions in front of one screen is being bounced to another screen for viewing by someone else.

The Come to Pieces exhibit allows participants of the space, to interact and have some fun with the images that are displayed back to them. Similarly, the intent of our project is also for fun to be had. If people catch-on to the fact that the the video feed they see is coming from one of the other two and likewise from the others, they have the opportunity to communicate with each other.

In the Surface Tension exhibit, there is a single large display of an eye. When people walk in front of this display, the eye appears to follow them. To achieve this, a series of animated pictures are used, to make up the impression of an eye actually following the person in front of it. To detect the person’s presence, and appear as though the eye is actually following the user, video-tracking software is used. This is then linked up to the display to give the impression that the video feed on the screen is actually in real time.

Once again, this exhibit challenges the user/gallery visitor to think about what is actually on display; is it the display itself or is it in fact themselves. This is the concept that our exhibit also hopes to portray.

The most obvious difference between Lozano-Hemmer’s work and our own, is that although in our piece, it is our intention to portray the feeling to the participant that they are being watched, the way in which we will do this, means that the person in our screens is unable to follow their(the participant’s) movements. In this sense, our exhibit will simply be like two people [seemingly] examining each others worlds rather than looking at each other.

Summary…

Our project is intended to make the viewer feel as though they are on display without them knowing how, or what exactly is going on. The other projects mentioned in this entry have touched upon this, but not quite fulfilled the criterior for “ubiquitous” computing. Come to pieces offers users an experience where they are able to see themselves from different angles all at once, whereas Surface Tension makes the viewer feel uneasy because someone is constantly watching them. Having looked at and incorporated different aspects from these two artworks, into our design, we feel that in “You are the Art” we are creating a different/unique installation to what has gone before.

["You are the art" is an installation being created by Luke Gittins, Kevin Pamenter, Sarah Whelband, and Joy Christensen for the University of QLD]

Our groups idea is to make an art gallery visitor feel as though they are an artwork being looked at, instead of the normal “they look at an artwork”.

From my original research into already existing ubiquitous computing installations or artworks, there is only one that stands out for being similar to our project in any way, and this is the “Come to pieces” installation, created by Camille Utterback and Adam Chapman.

As is the case in our proposed installation, this piece uses footage taken of people visiting the gallery space, and allows them to see the footage taken. This piece takes four different video feeds from various angles to capture more than the normal style of viewing such that you would see when looking in a mirror for example. Instead “Come to pieces”, or as it is also known, “Miroir pour Les Demoiselles d’Avignon”, allows the visitor a view of themselves or others in a way that they would not normally experience. It is for this reason that I  have chosen to compare and contrast our proposed installation with  “Come to pieces”. This project however, does not justify exactly the type of feeling that we would like our viewers to experience from our installation.

Taking a further look into the world of ubiquitous computing, another almost daunting project found its way onto the computer screen. Surface Tension (Video) is an installation that, is ubiquitous to the point that you know how you are interacting, but there is no real way to control the situation or the fact that you are interacting. There is a screen with an eye on it. As you walk in front of the screen, the eye follows you, watching your every move using motion tracking software.

Therefore the idea/project that I have chosen to compare and contrast our proposed installation with, is the “come to pieces” piece from the original research, while making reference to the “surface tension” piece also for support and alternative ideas, because our project is a combination of aspects from each of these installations.

… I can see that our group will have a full working prototype of our project. We will have 2 imac screens, and make use of both the iSight cameras, and will feed each video feed back to the other screen. This prototype is to make sure we can get the coding working and the project is not too high to reach for our group.

 Focussing on motion tracking/capture in flash and the likes.

Coincidence? This semester in Studio, it’s all about UBIcomp (ubiquitous computing), and creating a ubicomp installation to be put into the ipswich art gallery’s “new media” space. The current exhibit ties in relatively well, and is a real example of where our studies could effectively take us. Art Experimenta is the current theme/work on show which encompasses works that are technologically based to create what we call art. The most eye catching exhibit for myself, was the (unsure of the name) installation of artifacts on a circular table, with a downlight above it casting shadows. When touched, an artifact will produce a shadow of the motion they would perform were it active. For example, a watering can when touched will show a shadow of a stream of water coming out of the spout.

Although I found this uninspiring for myself, the notion of the ‘waterfall house’ piece was inspired. All that is shown on the projector screen is a house in a normal neighbourhood, with gushing water coming from the windows and door etc onto the street like a house was placed over a waterfall. The other exhibit that stood out for me, was the video of the cars parking and the pedestrians walking across the zebra crossings, guided by the hands. The hands help the cars not to crash into other cars, and stop all accidents from occurring.

The exhibits definately produce inspiration for new works of the same nature.

Today’s lecture was really mostly about the way in which we can visualise our thoughts and ideas so that others can understand the direction in which we are heading for our projects. The main point to note was about:

• SKETCHING

Sketching is an extremely useful way of explaining our thought processes visually. They are only rough conceptual designs, but are enough to put a theoretical idea that holds no shape or form, onto paper in a physical form so others can understand.

• INFORMANCE/ role play

Acting out the interactions that are to take place. Similar to when we had to act out where the words would be on the screen and how they would move around [information visualisation 2006]. This gives a better understanding of the sequence of events that take place within the project.

Once our groups were formed, we got into discussions about project ideas and the general direction we wanted to head in. My group was assigned a “variation on mirrors” theme.

some general points that i noted while we were reading over all of the (23) ideas were:

• people were to have their photo or real-time video taken upon entering the gallery
• use of screens – tv or compute, as the means of displaying the work
• space constraints
• ubiquitous computing needs to be thought about more thoroughly
• some ideas contained ethical concerns – aging people’s photo’s, changing their facial features, taking photo’s without permission

Ideas we kind of threw together, guided by other peoples thoughts are listed.

1. On the wall of the gallery, there are a sequence of screens that will be made to look like windows of a viewing platform (like in a zoo -to look at animals in the glass enclosures). Imagine what it would be like to be in an enclosure and have people looking at you, pointing, discussing etc. These are the images that will be shown on the screens. The people actually stopping and looking at you throught the screen would be triggered when you are in front of a picture. When you simply walk past, the images displayed on the screens will be of groups of people walking past.
2. As people enter the gallery, their photos will be taken, or real time video feeds. When they enter into the space, they will see a series of artworks (displayed on screens) that are all of the person, but in an altered way. Each piece would have had a different effect or filter added to it, to alter it’s appearance. For example, one might be a sin city style, one would be a water colour painting, another might be a cartoon version moving as the user does. *Think more on these effects*
3. There was also the idea of having a movement driven piece, where the user, by their movement, or lack of, makes the artwork come to life or even just be displayed. There are some issues with this idea, dealing with the constraints of the space we are using – public, and cannot be limited to only one user/viewer at one time.