paskian environments

This video is a little long but I thought it added a little perspective to the monster-machine dialogue. The Cybernetics "tutorial" is provided by Paul Pangaro.

"The Paskian model is much more difficult to implement, though far more productive, in particular because it relies on intrinsically more "intelligent"-type interactions, and because it requires a stronger foundational model of what an intelligent interaction is. We analogise it this way: when we meet new people, being intelligent does not necessarily mean we will like them; we tend instinctively to like people if they are amenable and affable rather than if they are intelligent. However, it is conversations with intelligent people (in whatever terms) that in the long term are most productive because they are generative. That is, they lead to new perspectives and actions."

I'm currently reading through Microman: Living and Growing with Computers which was written by Gordon Pask & Susan Curran in 1982. Obviously, technology has come a-l-o-n-g way since then but the discussion is still the same. I would argue that it is even more apparent today that computers are no longer merely tools but a species in their own right. Gone are the easy distinctions between living and non-living systems, between human intelligence and machine intelligence.

Just a little something to chew on.

03: interface and interaction

After observing Jean Pierre Gauthier's magical drawing creatures I finally decided to explore a hunch I've been kicking around. That is, I've begun to research puppetry as an approach to discussing narrative, interface and play as a physical and cultural construct. There are so many cultures that use puppetry as part of their traditions, to teach ancient narratives or to expose lessons that effect social change. I think I would be able to produce a substantial body of work which looks at puppet making and puppetry in a historical context and as myth and legend. As well as techniques and tools of the trade. I am also drawn to the intimate connection between the puppet and the puppet master. The puppets are extensions of the people who control and operate them. As an appendage, the puppet exerts a certain freedom for the puppet master, allowing them to act, create or play in ways that can skirt social conventions. This intimate interface between operator and operatee can be seen in custom made puppets which respond to the dexterity of their owners. There is also an intense relationship between the puppet and the audience. This interface is primarily sight and sound but also highly interactive. Puppets are approached and accepted by the audience not as mere machines but as personalities.

Puppetry is also explicitly spatial: it challenges accepted dichotomies between audiences and performers and it deals with the movements and actions of people and puppets in space. As you blend the audience and the stage, as children clamor to get near puppets, as marionettes walk down the street, they suggest a model of spatial design (and by extension architecture) that employs interaction to create spatial experience. I’d like to explore this line of thinking further through research and also through the vivisection. I think it could be really interesting to create a series of puppets which might:

1. Function differently for whoever is operating them based on sensory information.
2. Look at how a puppet might exist for a non-human—such as how the action of a door closing might direct puppet movement.

I'm sure this discussion will evolve and change as the research continues.

drawing machine

Jean Pierre Gauthier, Montreal : Uncertainty Markers
Marqueurs D' Incertitude

02: vivisection

Hasbro ™ My Little Pony Good Morning Sunshine
The first stage of the dissection processes—the removal and catalog of all the external components is finally completed. This preliminary vivisection revealed that most of the electronic components that run the toy are housed in a 4mm hard plastic shell. The power supply consists of 4 x 1.5V “AA” batteries. Pressure sensors on the back and rump are connected to play and demo circuit boards. Each sensor corresponds to a preset number of greetings, sounds, and pauses. The speaker is located on the rear of the toy and is connected to the main circuit board at the front of the toy. Wires running from a sensor in the head of the toy connect the head with the body. Front leg motion is generated by a series of plastic gears and springs. Head motion will be determined soon. Next steps will be to further investigate the interior circuitry and wiring.

on a side note: ACADIA 2007

02 October – 03 October. The Metabolic Network Sensory Workshop provided a hands-on approach to the concept of interactivity, modeling of dynamic systems, software craft, sensors and actuators, fabrication and textile arts. That last bit is ripped off from the ACADIA website but it's all true. We spent a very intense few days—unwinding, stretching, inserting, imagining, laser cutting and manipulating a tangle of ropes and fiberglass cable dangling from a rigging 20ft in the air at the Dalhousie School of Architecture.

After listening to the general vision proposed by the workshop leaders, I found myself gravitating towards the group led by architect and computer scientist Mette Ramsgard Thomsen. Her approach was biological in nature—suggesting that motors and actuators might be implanted or grafted within the overall rope matrix. She challenged us to visualize the overall installation moving, flexing and pulsing like an organism.

In this test version the servo motor and its corresponding lever is fastened to the rope with a makeshift cardboard buckle. Eventually, this approach led to an alternative acrylic harness for the servos which kept the motor suspended within the rope coils. Working with the servo motors led to a few key realizations, namely, that the motor's rotational abilities had to be amplified in order to maximize the overall effect to the rest of the matrix. Also, the servos themselves were limited to 180 degrees of rotation and weren't able to move the solid grey ropes. Because of this, the servos were situated within the ropes but actuated the light weight fiberglass cables and thinner membranes.

The eventual installation had four different apparatus which were responsible for actuating different areas of the overall matrix. The clam apparatus, the infinity apparatus, the swerving apparatus and the sway apparatus. The clam apparatus was designed to flex a bamboo rod which was connected to several circles of fibreglass cables. This mechanism created an instantaneous localized movement within the mesh of fibres. The infinity apparatus and the swerving apparatus were connected to one another to help form a servo bank which created slight sporadic horizontal movement through the installation. Together these mechanisms caused a less determinate, pull and push of the fibreglass cables. Finally, the sway apparatus was designed by Allan Macy and installed on the mezzanine level above the installation floor. A DC motor pulled ropes connected to the rigging which caused the suspended polls to sway back and forth.



Matt's clever demonstration of the clam apparatus (with me bossing him in the background).



Mathias Gmachl (from the design research studio Loop.ph, based in London) and Carole Collet (course director MA Textile Futures, Central Saint Martins College of Art, London) discuss the direction of the installation.




Each servo motor was attached to a micro-controller. We used Arduino boards attached to daughter boards for added flexibility. Each servo had to be programmed independently from the others. Although I'm not sure why this was the case. For a quicker alternative the servos were tested using a MAKE micro controller (hardware) and MAX MSP (software).

01: range of motion

Through out the vivisection I’ve also been looking closely at architectural works and theories inspired by my previously posted list of obsessions. I’ve also been trolling through pictures of my recent travels through Western Europe, Italy and Croatia. The work of John Hedjuk and the short stories of Argentinean writer Jorge Luis Borges are currently, at the forefront of my explorations. I am arrested by the cultural poetics in both of these works and I plan to incorporate the richness of narrative into my own approach as it progresses. I have just read Borges’ The Library of Babel from his collection of short stories entitled Labyrinth. For now, I am fascinated by Borges delicate description of the universe as a many tiered library of hexagonal galleries and interconnected air shafts. The library is “unlimited and cyclical. If an eternal traveler were to cross it in any direction, after centuries he would see that the same volumes were repeated in the same disorder (which, thus repeated, would be an order: the Order)”. I can’t help but imagine that this eternal traveler must be a machine or a program running repeatedly through the matrix of the library. I wonder what the web of this machine in continuous motion would look like after centuries of travel.

I’ve also been reading way too much Douglas Adams. I keep getting trapped in his fantastical world of machines, aliens and the ridiculously unexplained. I read Hitchhiker a while ago—but for now I’ve read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe and Life, the Universe and Everything. I think what I find so interesting about Adams is that his narratives seem to mimic my thought processes. I have a tendency to hop, skip and jump from one interest to another, dappling intensely for a while in areas only to be attracted by something “shiny” – another idea, or inspiration that can’t be ignored. The creative process is an intimate one, and I think the more we learn about how we work and think, the easier it becomes to create successfully. Adam manages to haul the reader back and forth across his narrative, sometimes violently, sometimes s-l-o-w-l-y, but you never forget that he is in control. The story makes sense despite itself. I hope to manifest some of this manipulated chaos in my own work. I want to explore my own idiosyncrasies through this final project.

getting up to speed: introducing PONY

I’ve almost completed the vivisection of my original pink cow/pony toy. For now I’ll refer to her as a pony for simplicity sake. The vivisection exercise was designed to introduce us to electronic processes and components, as well as to familiarize us more intimately with the materials, textures, forms and organization of the object at hand. The vivisection has been a painstaking process of cutting and drawing to reveal the automaton within. This pony doesn’t really serve a function beyond amusing small children—most likely, girls under 4. The pony has, however, become a point of departure for my thesis project. The notions of toy, play and interactivity have started to influence an idea for how we might play with our buildings as opposed to in them. When I first brought the pony out of her battered box I was amazed at her range of motion. She is able to prop herself up, lie down and rotate her head from one side to the other while blinking her eyes and laughing. She also has a litany of phrases, giggles and exclamations such as “oh-oh”. “Good morning, Mommy”. “I love you”. “Let’s play!” “Can I have a kiss?” “Yawn, good night!” and “Brush my hair please.” It appears when activated, pony will sit up, lie down, move her head or blink. When she moves, she makes baby sounds or says one of the seven expressions. I’ve included images and video of her talents. The pony also has several accessories: a pacifier, bottle and brush. If you feed her the bottle she'll make drinking sounds, if you press her foot she'll giggle and if you give her the pacifier she proceeds to fall asleep. Each time pony has completed an action and/or expression, you can pat her back, press her foot or re-insert the bottle or pacifier to reactivate her. At first I was repulsed by this strange little creature, but the more time I’ve spent analyzing her, the more I’ve grown attached. Once I remove her over-sized pink head and expose her inner mutant the more attractive she’ll become.