cycle three: something that tingles ~
Posted: May 1, 2024 Filed under: Final Project | Tags: Cycle 3 Leave a comment »In this iteration, i begin with an intention to :
– scale up the what I have in cycle 2 (eg: the number of sensors/motors, and imagery?)
– check out the depth camera (will it be more satisfying than webcam tracking?)
– another score for audience participation based on the feedback from cycle 2
– some touches on space design with more bubble wraps..
Here are how those goes…
/scale up/
I added in more servo motors, this goes pretty smoothly, and the effects are instant — the number of servo wiggling gives it more of sense of a little creature.
I also attempted to add more flex/force sensor, but the data communication become very stuck, at times, Arduino is telling me that my board is disconnected, and the data does not go into Isadora smoothly at all. What I decide is: keep the sensors, and it is okay that the function is not going to be stable, at least it serves as a tactile tentacle for touching no matter it activates the visual or not.
I also tried to add a couple more imagery to have multiple scenes other than the oceanic scene I have been working with since the first cycle. I did make another 3 different imagery, but I feel that it kinda of become too much information packed there, and I cannot decide their sequence and relationship, so I decide leave them out for now and stick with my oceanic scene for the final cycle.
/depth cam?/
What I notice with the depth cam at first is that it keeps crashing Isadora, which is a bit frustrating, which propels me to work with it “lightly”. my initial intention of working with it is to see if it may serve better for body position tracking than webcam to animate the rope in my scene. But I also note that accurate tracking seems not matter too much in this work, so I just wanna see what’s the potential of depth cam. I think it does give a more accurate tracking, but the downside is that you have to be at a certain distance, and with the feet in the frame, so that the cam will start tracking your skeleton position, in this case it becomes less flexible than the eye++ actor. But what I find interesting with depth camera, is the white body-ghosty imagery it gives, so I ended up layering that on the video. And it works especially well with the dark environment.
Here are the final Isadora patches:
/audience participation/
This time the score I decide to play with is: two people at a time, explore it. The rest are observers who can give to verbal cue to the people who are exploring — “pause” and “reverse”. Everyone can move around, in proximity or distance at any time.
/space design/
I wrapped and crocheted more bubble wrapper creatures in the space, tangling them through the wire, wall, charger, whatever happen to be in that corner that day. It’s like a mycelium growing on whatever environment there is, leaking out of the constructed space.
Feedback from folks and future iterations?
I really appreciate everyone’s engagement with this work and the discussions. Several people touches on the feeling of “jellyfish”, “little creature”, “fragile”, “desire to touch with care”, “a bit creepy?”. I am interested in all those visceral responses. At the beginning of cycle one, I was really interested in this modulation of touch, especially at a subtle scale, which I then find it hard to incite with certain technology mechanism, but it is so delightful to hear that the way the material composed actually evoke that kind of touch I am looking for. I am also interested in what Alex mentioned about it being like an “visual ASMR”, which I am gonna look into further. how to make visual/audio tactile is something really intrigues me. Also, I think I mentioned earlier that an idea I am working with in my MFA research is “feral fringe”, which is more of a sensation-imagery that comes to me, and through making works around this idea, it’s actually helping me to approach closer to what “feral fringe” actually refers to for me. I noticed that a lot of choice I made in this work are very intuitive (more “feel so” than “think so”) – eg: in the corner, the position of the curtain, and the layered imagery, the tilted projector, etc. Hearing people’s pointing out those help me to delve further into: what is a palpable sense of “feral fringe” ~
Lawson: Cycle 3 “Wash Me Away and Birth Me Again”
Posted: December 14, 2023 Filed under: Nico Lawson, Uncategorized | Tags: Au23, Cycle 3, dance, Digital Performance, Isadora Leave a comment »Changes to the Physical Set Up
For cycle 3, knowing that I wanted to encourage people to physically engage with my installation, I replaced the bunched up canvas drop cloths with a 6 ft x 10 ft inflatable pool. I built up the bottom of pool with two folded wrestling mats. Building up the bottom of the pool made the pool more stable and reduced the volume of silk rose petals that I would need to fill the pool. Additionally, I wrapped the pool with a layer of blue drop cloths. This reduced the kitschy or flimsy look of the pool, increased the contrast of the rose petals, and allowed the blue of the projection to “feather” at the edges to make the water projection appear more realistic. To further encourage the audience to physically engage with the pool, I placed an extra strip of drop cloth on one side of the pool and set my own shoes on the mat as a visual indicator of how people should engage: take your shoes off and get in. This also served as a location to brush the rose petals off of your clothes if they stuck to you.
In addition to the pool, I also made slight adjustments to the lighting of the installation. I tilted and shutter cut three mid, incandescent lights. One light bounced off of the petals. Because the petals were asymmetrically mounded, this light gave the petals a wave like appearance as the animation moved over top of them. The other two shins were shutter cut just above the pool to light the participant’s body from stage left and stage right.
Changes to the Isadora Patch
During cycle 2, it was suggested that I add auditory elements to my project to support participant engagement with the installation. For this cycle, I added 3 elements to my project: a recording of running water, a recording of the poem that I read live during cycle 2, and a recording of an invitation to the audience.
The words of the poem can be found in my cycle 2 post.
The invitation:
“Welcome in. Take a rest. What can you release? What can the water carry away?”
I set the water recording to play upon opening the patch and to continue to run as long as the patch was open. I set the recordings of the poem and the invitation to alternate continuously with a 30 second pause between each loop.
Additionally, I made changes to the reflection scene of the patch. First, I re-designed the reflection. Rather than using the rotation feature of the projection to rotate the projected image from the webcam, I used the spinner actor and then zoomed in the projection map so it would fit into the pool. Rather than try to make the image hyper-realistic, I decided to amplify the distortion of the reflection by desaturating it and then using a colorizer actor to give the edges of the moving image a purple hue. I also made minor adjustments to the motion blur to play up the ghostliness of the emmanation.
Second, I sped up the trigger delay to 3 seconds and the deactivate scene trigger to 2 seconds. I made this change as a result of feedback from a peer that assisted me with my adjustments to the projection mapping. She stated that because the length of time of the fading up and down of reflection scene took so long to turn on and off and the reflection itself was so subtle that it was difficult to determine how her presence in the pool was triggering any change. I found the ghostliness of the final reflection to be incredibly satisfying.
Impact of Motion Lab Set Up
On the day of our class showing, I found that the presence of my installation in the context of other tactile and movement driven exhibits in the Motion Lab helped the handful of context-less visitors figure out how to engage with my space. When people entered the Motion Lab, they first encountered Natasha’s “Xylophone Hero” followed by Amy’s “seance” of voices and lightbulbs. I found that moving through these exhibits established an expectation that people could touch and manipulate my project and encouraged them engage to more fully with my project.
I also observed that the presence of the pool itself and the mat in front of it also encouraged full-body engagement with the project. I watched people “swim” and dance in the petals and describe a desire to lay down or to make snow angels in the petals. The presence of the petals in a physical object that visitors recognized appeared to frame and suggest the possibilities for interacting with the exhibit by making it clear that it was something that they could enter that would support their weight and movement. I also observed that hearing the water sounds in conjunction with my poem also suggested how the participants could interact with my work. Natasha observed that my descriptions of my movement in my poem help her to create her own dance in the pool sprinkling the rose petals and spinning around with them as she would in a pool.
The main hiccup that I observed was that viewers often would not stay very long in the pool once they realized that the petals were clinging to their clothes because of static electricity. This is something that I think I can overcome through the use of static guard or another measure to prevent static electricity from building up on the surface of the petals.
A note about sound…
My intention for this project is for it to serve as a space of quiet meditation through a pleasant sensory experience. However, as a person on the autism spectrum that is easily overwhelmed by a lot of light and noise, I found that I was overwhelmed by my auditory components in conjunction with the auditory components of the three other projects. For the purpose of a group showing, I wish that I had only added the water sound to my project and let viewers take in the sounds from Amy and CG’s works from my exhibit. I ended up severely overstimulated as the day went on and I wonder if this was the impact on other people with similar sensory disorders. This is something that I am taking into consideration as I think about my installation in January.
What would a cycle 4 look like?
I feel incredibly fortunate that this project will get a “cycle 4” as part of my MFA graduation project.
Two of my main considerations for the analog set up at Urban Arts Space are disguising and securing the web camera and creating lighting that will support the project using the gallery’s track system. My plan for hiding the web camera is to tape it to the side of the pool and then wrap it in the drop cloth. This will not make the camera completely invisible to the audience, but it will minimize it’s presence and make it less likely that the web cam could be knocked off or into the pool. As for the lighting, I intend make the back room dim and possibly use amber gels to create a warmer lighting environment to at least get the warmth of theatrical lighting. I may need to obtain floor lamps to get more side light without over brightening the space.
Arcvuken posed the question to me as to how I will communicate how to interact with the exhibit to visitors while I am not present in the gallery. For this, I am going to turn to my experience as neurodivergent person and my experience as an educator of neurodivergent students. I am going to explicitly state that visitors can touch and get into the pool and provide some suggested meditation practices that they can do while in the pool in placards on the walls. Commen sense isn’t common – sometimes it is better for everyone if you just say what you mean and want. I will be placing placards like this throughout the entire gallery for this reason to ensure that visitors – who are generally socialized not to touch anything in a gallery – that they are indeed permitted to physically interact with the space.
To address the overstimulation that I experienced in Motion Lab, I am also going to reduce the auditory components of my installation. I will definitely keep the water sound and play it through a sound shower, as I found that to be soothing. However, I think that I will provide a QR code link to recordings of the poems so that people can choose whether or not they want to listen and have more agency over their sensory experience.
Cycle 3: The Sound Station
Posted: December 11, 2023 Filed under: Arvcuken Noquisi, Final Project, Isadora | Tags: Au23, Cycle 3 Leave a comment »Hello again. My work culminates into cycle 3 as The Sound Station:
The MaxMSP granular synthesis patch runs on my laptop, while the Isadora video response runs on the ACCAD desktop – the MaxMSP patch sends OSC over to Isadora via Alex’s router (it took some finagling to get around the ACCAD desktop’s firewall, with some help from IT folks).
I used the Mira app on my iPad to create an interface to interact with the MaxMSP patch. This meant that I had the chance make the digital aspect of my work seem more inviting and encourage more experimentation. I faced a bit of a challenge, though, because some important MaxMSP objects do not actually appear on the Mira app on the iPad. I spent a lot of time rearranging and rewording parts of the Mira interface to avoid confusion from the user. Additionally I wrote out a little guide page to set on the table, in case people needed additional information to understand the interface and what they were “allowed” to do with it.
Video 1:
The Isadora video is responsive to the both the microphone input and the granular synthesis output. The microphone input alters the colors of the stylized webcam feed to parallel the loudness of the sound, going from red to green to blue with especially loud sounds. This helps the audience mentally connect the video feed to the sounds they are making. The granular synthesis output appears as the floating line in the middle of the screen: it elongates into a circle/oval with the loudness of the granular synthesis output, creating a dancing inversion of the webcam colors. I also threw a little slider in the iPad interface to change the color of the non mic-responsive half of the video, to direct audience focus toward the computer screen so that they recognize the relationship between the screen and the sounds they were making.
The video aspect of this project does personally feel a little arbitrary – I would definitely focus more on it for a potential cycle 4. I would need to make the video feed larger (on a bigger screen) and more responsive for it to actually have any impact on the audience. I feel like the audience focuses so much more on the instruments, microphone, and iPad interface to really necessitate the addition of the video feed, but I wanted to keep it as an aspect of my project just to illustrate the capacity MaxMSP and Isadora have to work together on separate devices.
Video 2:
Overall I wanted my project to incite playfulness and experimentation in its audience. I brought my flat guitar (“skinned” guitar), a kazoo, a can full of bottlecaps, a deck of cards, and miraculously found a rubber chicken in the classroom to contribute to the array of instruments I offered at The Sound Station. The curiosity and novelty of the objects serves the playfulness of the space.
Before our group critique we had one visitor go around for essentially one-on-one project presentations. I took a hands-off approach with this individual, partially because I didn’t want to be watching over their shoulder and telling them how to use my project correctly. While they found some entertainment engaging with my work, I felt like they were missing essential context that would have enabled more interaction with the granular synthesis and the instruments. In stark contrast, I tried to be very active in presenting my project to the larger group. I lead them to The Sound Station and showed them how to use the flat guitar, and joined in making sounds and moving the iPad controls with the whole group. This was a fascinating exploration of how group dynamics and human presence within a media system can enable greater activity. I served as an example for the audience to mirror, my actions and presence served as permission for everyone else to become more involved with the project. This definitely made me think more about what direction I would take this project in future cycles, if it were for group use versus personal use (since I plan on using the maxMSP patch for a solo musical performance). I wonder how I would have started this project differently if I did not think of it as a personal tool and instead as directly intended for group/cooperative play. I probably would have taken much more time to work on the user interface and removed the video feed entirely!
Cycle 3: Layering and Gesture: Collective Play
Posted: December 13, 2022 Filed under: Tamryn McDermott, Uncategorized | Tags: Cycle 3, Isadora 1 Comment »For this third iteration, I decided to set up three digital layers that provided space for play, collaboration, and digital/analog spaces to mingle. My initial idea was to consider how I could introduce the body/model into the space and suggest an opportunity for gestural drawing and experimentation both on physical paper and digitally. As you can see in the image below, participants were actively engaged in working on the paper, viewing what happening on the projection screen, and interacting with one another across these platforms and planes in space. A third layer not visible in the image below is a LIve Drawing actor in Isadora that comes into play in some of the videos below. I stuck with the TT Edge Detect actor in Isadora and played with a Motion Blur actor on the second layer so that the gestural movements would be emphasized.
Note the post-its on Alison’s back below. These were a great surprise as they were translated into digital space and were activated by her drawing and movement. They became a playful, unexpected surprise!
I really appreciated the feedback from this experience and want to share some of the useful comments I received as a record:
- Alison: I loved that Alison shared it was “confusing in a good way” and that she felt like it was a space where she could play for a long time. She identified that this experience was a social one and that it mattered that they were exploring together rather than a solo experience.
- Katie: Katie was curious about what would show up and explored in a playful and experimental way. She felt some disorientation with the screens and acknowledged that when Alex was using the live draw tool in the third layer, she didn’t realize that he was following her with the line. I loved that this was a surprise and realized that I didn’t share this as an option verbally well enough so she didn’t know what was drawing the line.
- Alex: Alex was one of the group that used the live draw tool and others commented that it felt separated from the group/collaborative experience of the other two layers. Alex used the tool to follow Katie’s movement and traced her gestures playfully. He commented that this was one of his favorite moments in the experience. He mentioned it was delightful to be drawn, when he was posing as a superhero and participants were layering attributes onto his body. There was also a moment when I said, “that’s suggestive” that was brought up and we discussed that play in this kind of space could bring in inappropriate imagery regardless if it was intended or not. What does it mean that this is possible in such a space? Consider this more. Think about the artifact on the paper after play, how could this be an opportunity for artifact creation/nostalgia/document.
- Mila: With each iteration, people discovered new things they can do. Drawing was only one of the tools, not the focus, drawing as a tool for something bigger. Love the jump rope action!
- Molly: How did we negotiate working together? This creates a space for emergent collaboration. What do we learn from emergent collaboration? How can we set up opportunities for this to happen? The live draw was sort of sneaky and she wondered if there was a way to bring this more into the space where other interactions were happening.
This feedback will help me work towards designing another iteration as a workshop for pre-service art teachers that I am working with in the spring semester. I am considering if I could stage this workshop in another space or if using the motion lab would be more impactful. If I set it up similarly in the lab, I would integrate the feedback to include some sort of floor anchors that are possibilities or weights connected to the ropes. I think I would also keep things open for play, but mention perspective, tools available, and gesture drawing to these students/participants who will be familiar with teaching these techniques to students in a K – 12 setting.
I have been exploring the possibility of using a cell phone mounted on the ceiling as the birds-eye-view camera and using NDI and a router to send through Isadora. I’ll work on this more in the spring semester as I move towards designing a mini-version for a gallery experience in Hopkins Hall Gallery as part of a research collective exhibition and also the workshop with the pre-service students. If I can get permission to host the workshop in the motion lab, I would love to bring these students into this space as my students this semester really appreciated the opportunity to learn about the motion lab and explore some of the possibilities in this unique space.