My Own Little Universe

3D drawing using the Kinect. I tracked the closest point to the Kinect plus two other relatively close points using openFrameworks. Each point has a different color and 5 particles each that draw in the 3D space with some physics. The code is here. Zooming in, through, and around the thing is fun.

my own little universe

my own little universe

my own little universe

my own little universe

Remix

Nothing is original, everything is derivative in some form. That is what our readings this week would have us believe and accept. For the most part I agree with this. I’ve used samples from recordings, videos from YouTube, photos from the internet, open source code from generous programmers, and whatever else I can get my hands on in my own work when needed. I also have countless influences, people and sources I didn’t directly appropriate from, but probably comprise a bigger part of my artistry then those that I directly lifted from. As a trained jazz musician I was steeped in the idea that we have to study and absorb what came before us. I learned from transcribing solos off of records, practicing phrases I liked, and doing all the other things necessary to learn a language. Clark Terry once famously summed it up in the phrase: imitate, assimilate, innovate.

However, having said all of that, I have to admit I had a little bit of a problem with Kirby Ferguson’s assertion that this is actually the only way we create. In his TED talk he proposed that all creation comes from without, i.e., we either lift something directly or we may have heard/saw something in the past, forgotten about it, and then later on used it in one of our own creations thinking that it was a totally new and original piece of art. I understand Kirby is trying to open up people’s minds to a new paradigm, a paradigm I obviously subscribe to very much, but his version feels like it is almost going all the way to the other side of the spectrum. Creation can happen in so many different ways, it is really hard to quantify and I usually have a difficult time with sweeping generalizations. But let’s set aside the question of defining creation, Kirby’s talk is lacking one crucial thing to me. It’s missing how. You can steal, absorb, reuse, remix, rewrite, channel, plagiarize, etc., but how you put it all together is the real question. It’s the ‘idea’ that is interesting to me. The idea is the creative spark, it comes with a little bit of excitement, and provides motion, but then the hard work starts, putting it all together… creatively. One can steal all the best ideas in the world consciously or unconsciously, but they still have to come together in some slightly novel way, and with some force that moves people’s emotions.

Jonathan Lethem touched on this some in his “The Ecstasy of Influence.” He says “Art that matters to us, which moves the heart, or revives the soul, or delights the senses, or offers courage for living, however we choose to describe the experience, is received as a gift is received.” This particularly resonated with me. Isn’t this what art is really about, connecting with and moving other people? It’s not possessive, it’s giving and sharing. I think the real question we should be asking ourselves is not where what i’m doing is coming from, or whether i’m creating something original or not, but am I moving myself, am I moving others? If we are able to accomplish that, then definitions and all the like will all become secondary.

Glitches – Week 1

This was some corruption I found in QuickTime by accident. It’s a screen shot of a movie I made in Max, you can see the original non-corrupted video here: http://vimeo.com/49390640

Screen Shot 2012-09-13 at 11.30.28 AM

Every few seconds that lower right video panel would glitch with that color. Took forever to get it with the camera.

IMG_1509

One way I like thinking of glitch is finding the beauty in things that are supposed to be “broken.”

IMG_1499

This is a databend I did by splicing the U.S. constitution with a picture of Syrian rebels. You can see a Quartz Composer treated version of this here.

Syrian Constitution

I was plugging my computer into my speakers and this sound starting happening.

AaronSherwood · Found Glitch 1

 

On physical interaction…

According to The Art of Interactive Design physical interaction is communication. It’s not just a switch turning something on and off. Nor is it fancy user interface design. It’s a dynamic process that can be broken down into three basic divisions: listening, thinking, and speaking. In the scope of physical computing this can be thought of as input, processing, and output. In terms of our class discussion last week this would seem to place implicit interaction over explicit, gestural over tangible, since explicit/tangible interaction was defined as deliberately turning a switch on or off. This line is not always so clear though. Each situation requires it’s own solution, as the author of A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design alludes to.

He posits that tools are designed to meet a human need. The tool should fit both the problem and the capabilities of the user. In this light implicit/gestural interaction is not necessarily better than explicit/tangible. For example, let’s say I’m an OK piano player, I can play some chords, but playing a melody in one hand while playing chords in the other hand is beyond me. I want to be able to play a melody and have a computer analyze what i’m playing and then provide the backing chords while I play. Playing the melody is explicit, i’m choosing which notes to play, what rhythm, etc., but there is also the aforementioned communication going on too. The computer listens to what I play, thinks about it, and responds appropriately. The tool fits my capabilities, and meets my needs.

The same author also urges us to consider the entire range of human expression when designing interactivity. Computers usually observe such a small fraction of what humans are capable of. We can move and sense and feel and act in nearly countless subtle variations. A really excellent interactive device will be designed with this in mind.

So, taking all of the above into consideration, “good” interactive design could be defined as having the following characteristics:

  • it enables communication, specifically through listening (input), thinking (processing the input), and speaking (output)
  • it considers the user’s capabilities & needs; including making the result of their actions clearly recognizable
  • it address a specific situation, problem, or goal
  • it takes into account the whole range of human expression, i.e. listening more subtly and thus responding more naturally