cycle 3 : playful practices : katie O
Posted: December 14, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »For cycle 3, I chose to continue adding elements of interactive and participation into the work. I created a control panel where participants could change the settings of the image being projected, such as zoom, spin, shimmer, kaleidoscope, and others. I also implemented some textures from my previous work that would add different imagery into the space. The last element I added was my canon 70D camera on a tripod, which I set to a long exposure setting and people could take photos of the space if they wanted. This was in relationship to previous cycles, which included a handheld camera, a phone using NDI watcher, faux Fresnel lenses, a tucked away pico projector and camera feedback loop in micro scale, and emergency blankets.
Part of me wondered if the set up would be too chaotic and if there were too many options in the space. Seeing as this was a very process-oriented course, I decided to keep all the elements out as the idea of pairing down could come in later iterations. It does make me think about my work and how my process tends to involve laying many options out and then slowly scaling back as needed.
I’m excited by how this work has a wide mix of digital elements, software systems, physical interactions, and tangible items. The Isadora patch is surprisingly less complex than I imagined it would be, as it contains a video watcher and an NDI watcher and a movie player. The complexity comes through the triple head set up and matrix connection, and then the rest is left to what choices are being made in the space.
I was considering what aspects of the space participants truly get to interact with. It seems at times that interactive art lets you experience your body’s movements causing change in the space, but distance between participants and the technology itself is still a large divide. In this set up, especially since this group is trained to work with technology, I wanted to let them have their hands on as much tech as possible in addition to experiencing the result. This idea manifested as the participants got to hold the cameras projecting the live feed, they were able to push the button that took photos, and they had the chance to be at the computer and choose which filters to add to the projected images.
While watching participants interact with the space in cycle 3, I noticed how I was beginning to feel drawn to this type of work as a pedogeological method, or as a process in creative making. This differed from my original intention which was thinking of it as an installation or interactive performance. There was a clear sense of curiosity and playfulness in the interactivity of participants, which left me feeling like there was no sense of a wrong choice in what they were drawn to. Instead, it seemed that they followed their instinctual interests and felt free to change their interaction whenever they wanted. As an instructor, I’m inspired by bell hooks theory that learning comes from a place of deep joy, which occurs when you are genuinely interested in what you’re doing. Education can be a place of creating space for students to follow their curiosities, which I felt emerged from this cycle.
I was surprised, considering my previous concerns, in the feedback following this cycle that some people wished for more elements to interact with. After I heard that comment, I thought about my experience in Other World, and realized that it never felt like too much, and that I wasn’t too worried if I didn’t interact with every element. I like the idea of letting ideas flow easily in and out of my process and being able to try something and let it go or realize that may support my work at another time even if it’s not today.
I feel much more confident in this work after cycle 3. It didn’t fully resonate that I was able to fully set up this space alone – not that I always want to work alone, but that I feel a deeper sense of understanding as I cultivated the ability to set it up on my own. I’m very grateful for Alex’s patience and interest in teaching, and his genuine commitment to helping students achieve their goals.
cycle 2 -simultaneous seeing : the digital self is real
Posted: November 22, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »Cycle 2 Documentation
11.22.2022
Katie O’Loughlin
For cycle two, I worked on creating a malleable environment that was affected by the choices people made within the space. I continued to play with feedback loops, although they weren’t the main focus anymore because of the variety of other choices that could be made. I also continued to think about the impact and effect of seeing and being seen, of framing a body other than your own, and of experiencing the digital image of your body as something less familiar, although not necessarily less real.
In the space, there were three cameras all attached to live feed video being projected in the space. One camera was being projected onto the large flat scrim via a capture card, one was being projected onto the large, curved scrim via NDI watcher, and one was hidden behind the curtains and projecting directly through a pico projector onto a small box. I implemented the pico projector in the corner of the space to play with scale. Where it was located, it would hide the person from the rest of the play space, giving a break from what could be chaotic experimentation.
The main area was carved into a circular-ish space with two curtains pulled around the curved track. The back scrim and one of the circle scrims had the two different live feeds playing on them. People were allowed to pick up both cameras and choose how to frame the room and the people in it. In the middle of the space there was a table with a magnifying glass, some shiny emergency blankets, and some plastic Fresnel lenses that warped and focused objects/people as you looked through them. These items were objects for the participants to play with to filter the images on the screens and change how they were viewing the space.
This cycle definitely didn’t have an end goal – there was nothing I was secretly trying to get the participants to realize. My research is invested in shifting perspective and understanding how perception affects experience. I am curious about how humans can be many things at once, including perceived as many things at once. I find myself invested in discovering how to hold multiple truths at once. As I watched the participants maneuver through the space, filter the images, and choose different framings, I was really interested in seeing the similarities and differences between the image on the screen, and the person I was seeing right in front of me. All of this work is really making me consider how integrated our digital lives are in society right now, and how we have a lot of agency in how we present ourselves, and others, to the world on digital platforms.
How does how we frame ourselves and our world affect other’s perceptions as they look into our world? What does real and fake mean in this day and age? If our digital selves are a representation of our identity, what is the impact on our own perception of self? How much choice do we get in how other people see us, or experience us? How carefully are we holding the idea that how we perceive someone else changes our reality of them, which in turn may change theirs as well?
I like giving participants agency in this work, to make choices and hold their own responsibility. As I do work with the digital body, I continue to be aware of the power structures, hierarchies, and delicate spaces that arise easily within this topic. One of the aspects of this cycle that I found really enjoyable was to see how all the participants interacted with each other much more than cycle one, and how I got to see the interconnectedness between choices and how that impacted the space as a whole.
cycle 1: infinite seeing : feedback loops
Posted: October 31, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »Cycle 1 Documentation: Katie O’Loughlin
10.27.2022
This first cycle took place in the Motion Lab and was my first experiment with multiple feedback loops happening simultaneously. Originally, I had wanted to try a double feedback loop, which had the scrims in a circle, two cameras facing each other, and two projectors above each camera. But, as it goes, one hand-held camera capture card decided to quit working, and I was left with only one hand-held camera, eliminating the possibility of that idea. I mentally scrolled through the resources I did have, and ones I felt confident working with on my own, which included the single hand-held cam, a top-down cam, a top-down projector, and the regularly used circle and front projectors.
So, instead of facing feedback loops, I put the front projector on a standard loop, and then the top-down camera and projector on their own loop that was projected onto a white sheet laid out on the floor. In addition to the floor, I also projected the top-down feed onto a hanging scrim in the space, which was at a 90-degree angle to the front scrim. My goal was partially met, as there were two feedback loops happening, but as they were not facing each other they weren’t picking up the other loop within their own, which was what I was curious about.
The top-down set up was a unique feedback loop, as the frame of the projector was shooting down, and the frame of the camera was turned at a 90-degree angle and shooting down. Instead of that feedback loop being a replica, it ended up being a rotated loop.
Once people entered the room, it was interesting to see how they interacted with the loops, as they could clearly see their own impact on the image. There was a definite sense of play in their interaction, which I want to hold onto if possible. I manipulated the front projector’s image in Isadora once everyone had landed in the space, mostly by rotating the image and zooming it in/out. The rotation of the image caused a spiral in the loop which would turn into a square at a certain angle. I enjoyed the idea that both the person in the space and the person behind the computer could choose to change the image.
I mentioned to Alex that I was realizing just how impactful lighting is for this work, as it will totally blow out an image’s loop if angled or intensified in a specific way. After I said this, he suggested I turn off all the lights and the front projector, as the front projector was at a way higher resolution than the down projector, because the whole top-down set up was getting lost in comparison. When I did, the light from the down projector was enough light to create the feedback loop on the floor, and at a way brighter contrast making it easier to see the results of the loop.
As people began to play with that loop, we realized that they were creating an analog version of the loop because the camera would catch the movement, create a loop, and then continue to see its own loop even after the person moved away from the camera. It created an amoeba-looking shape that would stay for a while and then eventually burst into static before it lost the loop.
I was intrigued with this result, as the top-down was my back-up plan that I wasn’t too excited about. And because I had it turned on with the other loop, that continuous feedback was getting blown out by the surrounding light. Once we could see it clearer, the loop got longer and more complex and we could see the reaction to our body’s movement on the scrim.
One piece of feedback I received was that there were many “frames” within the experience. Looking at the space, both hanging scrims were rectangles, the cloth on the ground was a square, and the loops were also looping the rectangular frame within themselves. The camera had its rectangular viewfinder open, and the scrims were at a 90-degree angle from each other. I appreciated the idea that it felt like everything was a camera frame, as how we are seen through a camera is a facet of my research. That being said, I’m glad it was pointed out because I’m not sure I want such a square space. I wished I could have played with the circle projectors and scrims but will try to implement them into cycle two.
I’m glad I showed what I did because new aspects of the feedback loop showed up. It gave me a bit more motivation to move forward into the next cycle. My goals for cycle two are to set up the wireless router and get the NDI Watcher working through my phone and Isadora. That way, people can play with a moving camera around in the feedback loop.
PP2 – QuakenShake – Katie O
Posted: October 25, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »For Pressure Project Two, the assignment was to choose a moment that was culturally impactful for you and tell its story 99% through sound. I chose to do some research on the 1964 earthquake that hit Alaska, which my mom lived through, and pair it with the recent 2018 earthquake that hit right outside of Anchorage. I found clips from the news sources that covered both earthquakes and bounced back and forth between the two as they described the details of the quake and the impact it had on the land and the community.
I put up a variety of photos from both events that were collaged together, showing the buildings and roads that had been destroyed. I felt curious about how distant humanity has become to natural disaster events as we see many of them in the media but do not necessarily experience them ourselves. I remember not thinking that hard about the 1964 earthquake while my mom described her experience, but once I lived through the 2018 earthquake, I began to see the 1964 in a different light. My empathy grew.
Although the recordings were of two different news sources, the audience said they couldn’t necessarily tell until closer to the end that it was bouncing between the two different earthquake experiences. I’m guessing a visual would have supported that side of it, but the audience seemed to eventually put it together with just the image of the old cars and grainy quality.
I received feedback that, although I mentioned my mom and I story at the beginning of the experience, they would have liked to hear more and possibly end it with our story as well. I had plans and notes to give more information, but to be honest and human, I couldn’t quite handle being on a microphone that day. I can also feel a sensitivity to feedback in class right now, which I’m hoping will shift as I continue to get to know the class better. I knew I would be able to hold critique of the piece, but I did not feel confident I could hold critique of my own voice, and I wasn’t sure how deep the group would go that day.
I’m glad we did this project. I like sound and don’t give it the time I wish I would, so I’m glad I was pushed into it. I think we covered some important aspects of experience while creating and participating in this project.
Stars Kaleid – PP1
Posted: September 9, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »For this pressure project, I wanted to take the time to play with the actor kaleidoscope++, practice triggering randomness and scene jumping, work on how to grow and expand an image smoothly and add videos into the patch.
Unfortunately, about 2 of the hours I spent working with my personal video I didn’t end up using because Isadora didn’t like the codec and I didn’t realize it in time. Isadora eventually just started freezing and not registering the video, and occasionally crashing.
After I gave up on trying to keep working on the video issues, I returned to the scenes where I had played with different shapes to create textures and images. Because I liked how the video gave the kaleidoscope a lot of movement, I added wave generators to the shape and crop actors to give the same kind of effect.
Even though there were hair pulling moments and I had to ditch some of my work, I still enjoyed the process of just connecting different actors and trying different number patterns to see how it affected the image. I ended up playing so much with the star that when I was asked how I did it, I couldn’t remember.
Right now, Isadora feels endless and limitless and intimidating. I’m grateful for this project just to give me time with the software in a low stakes way so I can experiment and begin to feel more confident. Keeping a clean interface seems to help my brain out as I’m working, so my goal is to not get into the habit of connecting actors every which way.
As I was building this patch, I was dreaming of how the body could be incorporated. I was imagining sketches and snapshots of hands, eyes, ribs showing up in the kaleidoscope as it transitioned randomly. For the next time, I will probably not use as much randomness. I liked it, but I craved a little more structure towards the end. Working with the kaleidoscope also got me imagining infinity loops, so I’m hoping to play with something like that in the future.
Bump: Tara Burns – The Pressure is On PP1
Posted: September 1, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized 1 Comment »This pressure project showed both an intrigue with certain actors that wanted to be explored, and a knack for abstract storytelling. As I was watching it, it felt like Tara was playing and enjoying what the program can do. Although I’m sure it wasn’t all kick and giggles, there was an ease about how the design traveling through its timeline. I liked the use of color and liveness, and I found a few new actors that I want to learn about.
I appreciated what she said about desired randomness… or randomness in a way you want it. How do you make specific randomness?