I’m learning a lot in grad school. Some of the lessons that I’m learning are consistent with my goals and aspirations, some are lessons about realigning my expectations with reality, and some are unexpected discoveries about the nature of a discipline’s approach. As an interdisciplinary student my coursework is a purposeful patchwork from multiple departments and schools. This approach means that I’m fortunate to see the world through multiple lenses, and it also means that at times I’m a servant to many masters. In my case, I’ve seen the approach of the school of Art (in my second semester I took a media and sculpture course), AME (this stands for Arts, Media + Engineering), and the school of Theatre and Film.
In thinking and talking about why we make art/sculpture/programs it seems like I’ve continually run into similar questions. Questions that are rooted in the desire to find meaning, direction, or justification for the art. While one might think of this as more ideological exercise than useful discussion, I think there’s value in the wrestling with questions of motivation and function. “Why” and “for what” help to focus the creator in the process of finding the path for a particular project. To that end I think there are six statements that I’ve heard time and again in talking with other makers, performers, designers, and the like.
Six Statements of focus:
- The act of creation is about
- The aesthetic experience is
- The function of the object/art/program is
- The proof is in
- Value is derived from
- The meaning of the object/art/program
How a discipline finishes the above statements can help to illustrate how their practitioners are encouraged to think of the world, and their contribution to their particular field. As a disclaimer, I don’t think think any of the following observations are good or bad. These are my observations about how new and developing artists in these respective fields are encouraged to think about their work, and the process of making their work.
The Artist / Sculptor’s Method
- The act of creation is about is the exploration.
- The aesthetic experience is both in the artist’s method and in the viewer’s observation.
- The function of the object/art/program is inconsequential; the suggestion of an function is just as powerful.
- The proof is in the critique of the work by an outside artist who is successful.
- Value is derived from the act of creating something new; if the art is successful or not is in some ways inconsequential so long as the artist is being pushed to deepen his/her methods and unique style.
- The meaning of the object/art/program can be explicit, implied, or absent; this is the maker’s choice, and they are in no way bound to create a piece that has specific meaning.
In many ways this approach is about concisely making Art with a capital A, while trying to imagine that you’re only creating art with ironic italics. There’s something of an identity crisis in this approach that almost feeds off the expectation that an audience may willingly accept impenetrable art as a sign that it must be intellectually advanced. Discussions in this environment tend to start from a place of process rather than working backwards from the indented experience. For example, my class often spent more time talking about what we were currently engaged in doing, rather than exploring what we wanted the audience to experience in seeing our work. Here it feels like the answers are hidden, and that part of the artist experience is finding solutions on your own. Ironically there’s a very Ryandian kind of perspective to this field. A kind of rugged individualism that covets the secrets to other people’s magic tricks. There is also a quiet acceptance that good work may take a lot of time, or it may take very little. Sometimes the artist just has to spend 14 hours sanding, and that’s just a part of the work. There is some kind of hipster-zen clarity about the world that can be read as detachment or general disregard for the world.
The Programmer’s Method
- The act of creation is about novelty and newness.
- The aesthetic experience is secondary to the methodology in the programming.
- The function of the object/art/program even if inconsequential must be based on logical rules.
- The proof is in the procedural methodology; further, the proof is in the object / program’s reliable operation.
- Value is derived from efficiencies and brevity (of the code).
- The meaning of the object/art/program is allowed to be absent, or so abstract as to be invisible.
The programmers approach is built on rules. The starting point for a creative work might be an interest in continuing to explore a particular procedure, or the curiosity about how to accomplish a particular end. Some works are born out the necessity of a project or contract. More than anything, I’ve noticed that this perspective is always grounded in the procedural steps for accomplishing a particular task. An effective program requires an understanding of the necessary pieces to accomplish a particular end. It also often requires a bit of creative problem solving in order to ensure that one isn’t stopped by hurdles.
Depending on the project, the programmer may or may not start with the aesthetic of the finished product. In many cases, before the programmer can start to address how a particular system looks, s/he first must think about how to ensure that the system is consistently producing the intended results. Unlike the Artist’s method, the programmer relies on the experience of others who have had similar experiences. Before reinventing the wheel, the programmer first tries to establish how someone else has solved the same problem – what was the most elegant solution requiring the fewest system resources. What trade-offs need to be made in order to ensure consistent, stable operation? More importantly, the programmer lives in a world characterized as a race. Lots of other programmers are all working to solve the same problem, for the same pay-day. “Perfect” comes in a distant second from “done,” and while the goal is to always have elegant solutions, having a solution always trumps not having one.
The Media (Theatrical) Designer’s Method
- The act of creation is about conveying a message or feeling.
- The aesthetic experience is primary to the work, and should have a purposeful relationship to the world of the production.
- The function of the object/art/program is help tell the story of the production or performance.
- The proof is in observer and the actor’s relationship with the media.
- Value is derived from the purposeful connection or disconnection of the art / program / work to the world that it exists inside of the play or performance.
- The meaning of the object/art/program can be abstract or didactic so long as it is purposeful.
The media designer is in an interesting position in the theatre. Somewhere between lights, set, and sound is the realm of the media designer. Designer’s for the theatre are often bound by the world of the play and how their work supports the larger thematic and idiomatic conventions of the script. More importantly, the media designer’s work must live in the same world as the performance. The media may be comprised of contrasting images or ideas, it might be in aesthetic dissonance with the world or it may be in harmony, but it always lives in the same place as the performance. This work must also consciously consider the role and placement of the audience, the relationship between the media and the performers, and the amount of liveness required for a particular performance.
Between the artist and the programmer, the media designer sometimes relies on the magic of implied causation (when the actor performs a particular gesture a technician presses a button to cue the shift in the media giving the audience the illusion of a direct relationship between the actor and the media), but may also need to create a system of direct causation (the actor or dancer is actually the impetus for changes in the media). Like the programmer, the media designer is also in a sort of race. The countdown to opening night is always an element of the design process. While “done” still trumps “perfect” this question takes on a different kind of dynamic for the media designer. “Done” might be something that happens during the second or third night of tech, and ideally “perfect” happens before opening.
One of the courses I’m talking this semester is a Media Design course. ASU structures it’s courses into three classifications, A, B, and C Sessions. A Sessions course run during the frist half of the semester (the first quarter), B Session courses run the second half the of the semester (the second quarter), and C Session courses run the full length of the semester. The course is a B session course, and is just getting ramped up. The first project is structured around the need that designers frequently face in building assets that are in specific to known period of time. Copy art is one of the many skills that a good media designer needs tucked up his/her sleeve, and this assignment makes a strong case for learning that process. The project directions and results can be found below:
For this project, please download the zipped folder of 4 images from the BB Assignmentssection. In this folder, you will find two images of daguerrotypes and two images shotwith Kodak Ektachrome film. Please follow the steps below to complete the project.
- Examine the provided images closely. Research additional images that are also created in this format. Try to identify what features are inartistic to the image. How do these processes effect what subjects can / should be captured with this media?
- Identify another medium that you will reproduce. Kodachrome? PixelVision? Silent movie stock? Repeat the above process for this additional medium.
- Keeping in mind what you’ve learned about the interactions between subject and format, shoot 1 to three photographs that you will transform into faux versions of these three media.
- You may neat tot spend some time researching photoshop tutorials online.
- In the case of your self-chose third medium, please track your process, introducing why / how you chose this medium, how / where you researched it,why you think it would be useful, and the steps that yo have taken in the transformation (create a mini-tutorial).
Recreate a Daguerreotype
Recreate an Ektachrome
Recreating the GameBoy Camera with Photoshop and After Effects
Here’s the look I’m trying to emulate:
After looking at the footage closely, here’s what I was looking to make sure that I emulated:
- Image Size: 320 x 280
- Limitation of the sensor / look and feel of the footage
- Frame Rate
Here’s the quick and dirty break down of the process:
- Use After Effects to export an image sequence
- Open Photoshop and create a new Photoshop action (start recording)
- Convert the image to Grayscale
- Posterize the image with Levels
- Use the Mezzotint filter – short lines
- Use the Mosaic filter – 2 pixels
- Start the batch process and export the images to another source folder
- Import image sequence to After Effects
- Set the frame rate to 10
- Output the Final
Want to Following along? Here’s a quick tutorial about using After Effects and Photoshop to achieve this effect:
Here’s where the process gets us:
With this imagined bar of the future in mind, we also wanted to consider what kind of diagnostic systems might need to be in place in order to help customers decide what drink might be right for them. Out of my conversations with Boyd we came up with a station called the De-Objectifier. The goal of the De-Objectifier is to help patrons see what kind of involuntary systems are at play at any given moment in their bodies. The focus of this station is heart rate and it’s relationship to arousal states in the subject. While it’s easy to claim that one is impartial and objective at all times, monitoring one’s physiology might suggest otherwise. Here the purpose of the station is to show patrons how their own internal systems make being objective harder than it may initially seem. A subject is asked to wear a heart monitor. The data from the heart monitor is used to a calibrate a program to establish a resting heart rate and an arousal threshold for the individual. The subject is then asked to view photographs of various models. As the subject’s heart rate increases beyond the set threshold the clothing on the model becomes increasingly transparent. At the same time an admonishing message is displayed in front of the subject. The goal is to maintain a low level of arousal and to by extension to master one physiological aspect linked to objectivity.
So how does the De-objectifier work?! The De-objectifier is built on a combination of tools and code that work together to create the experience for the user. The heart monitor itself is built from a pulse sensor and an Arduino Uno. (If you’re interested in making your own heart rate monitor look here.) The original developers of this product made a very simple processing sketch that allows you to visualize the heart rate data passed out of the Uno. While I am slowly learning how to program in Processing it is certainly not an environment where I’m at my best. In order to work in an programming space that allowed me to code faster I decided that I needed a way to pass the data out of the Processing sketch to another program. Open Sound Control is a messaging protocol that’s being used more and more often in theatrical contexts, and it seemed like this project might be a perfect time to learn a little bit more about OSC. To pass data over OSC I amended the heart rate processing sketch and used the Processing OSC Library written by Andreas Schlegel to broadcast the data to another application.
Couples at the De-Objectifier were some of the best participants to observe. Frequently one would begin the process, and at some point become embarrassed during the experience. Interestingly, the person wearing the heart rate monitor often exhibited few visible signs of anxiety. The direct user was often fixated on the screen wearing a gaze of concentration and disconnection. The non-sensored partner would often attempt to goad the participant by using phrases like “oh, that’s what you like huh?” or ” you better not be looking at him / her.” The direct user would often not visible respond to these cues, instead focusing on changing their heart rate. Couples nearly always convinced their partner to also engage in the experience, almost in a “you try it, I dare you” kind of way.
Groups of friends were also equally interesting. In these situations one person would start the experience and a friend would approach and ask about what was happening. A response that I frequently heard from participants to the question “what are you doing?” was “Finding out I’m a bad person.” It didn’t surprise users that their heart rate was changed by the images presented to them, it did surprise many of them to see how long it took to return to a resting heart rate as the experience went on.
By in large participants had the fastest return to resting rate times for the images with admonishing messages about sex. Participants took the longest to recover to resting rates when exposed to admonishing messages about race. Here participants were likely to offer excuses for their inability to return to resting rate by saying things like “I think I just like this guy’s picture better.”
Families were also very interesting to watch. Mothers were the most likely family member to go first with the experience, and were the most patient when being goaded by family members. Fathers were the least likely to participate in the actual experience.
Generally participants were surprised to see that actual heart rate data was being reported. Many thought that data was being manipulated by the operator.
Programming for Arduino – Arduino