Bodies in Space

How Thrilling, Sense Me, Move Me

Central Questioning

Why move the body? To control something. Thus, it is not a question of how a body should move but rather why should it move? If the answer is to contol something, what does the “controlling body” control? Either an object or environment.

Central to this question of control is a question of likeness. This is twofold: how closely does the controlled body approximate the controlling body and how closely does the physical extent of the controlling body approximate the corresponding simulated extend? Is one thing imitating another or are the markedly different? (Approximation refers to both behaviour and likeness).

The Body That Controls, Controlling the Body

The body controls as it is detected and performs standardized poses or actions. These map to the action or positioning of the controlled object or extent. This presents two realities: the reality constructed through the control of the physical body (“the simulation”) and the reality of the physical body in physical space (“the controlling”). Through engaging the simulation, our imagination places the physical body in the simulated context being controlled but presents a paradox of the controlling body still occupying itself physical context.

The final project proposes highlighting this paradox by displacing (and disassociating) the controlling and controlled “bodies” across different spaces. Four scenes are presented individually in four distinct and isolated spaces. In this, the performance of the controlling body is seen separately from the performance of the controlled body. When presented in isolation, the controlling body (the primary performance) is seen as both the means and ends, relying on the audience to identify the connection between.

1) The controlling body juxtaposed against the controlled body. There is no audience within this space. 2) A feed of the controlling body performing. 3) A controlled body that is unknown to the controlling body. 4) The outcome, or the controlled body.

 

On Heidegger’s ‘The Question Concerning Technology’

Networked Media

Heidegger argues that the essence of technology is an orientation with the natural world, called “enframing”, through which the “real” is revealed in a certain way. Enframing challenges and orders nature as a “standing reserve” of raw material, but is also dangerous by obscuring all other ways of revealing with its seemingly “destined” order. Heidegger concludes by arguing that art is a saving power within enframing. Art is an alternative mode of revealing the “real”, where nature is brought-forth through reflection, rather than being challenged or set-upon.

PDF of slides from in-class discussion

Forming the Simulated Body: Skeletons and Texture

Sense Me, Move Me

Skeleton

Skeleton code (P5)
A new skeleton is created by drawing lines between joints that are otherwise unconnected in our physical reality. The “controlling body” toggles these connections on and off by touching particular joints together. As the “controlled body” on screen does not reflect our physical/bodily constrains, it’s interesting to watch the movement of an individual without seeing the digital corresponding counterpart. In watching different individuals, they exhibited a tendency to create recognizable structures (a kite, a heart, a diamond). Additionally, whether the connections which constitute the “controlled body” on screen appeared symmetrical, the behaviour of the “controlling body” was frequency symmetrical: moving both arms simultaneously to touch the head or turning in both knees to connect with each other. Once the individual realized the ability to turn connections “on and off”, their movements became quick mechanical and robotic – hands became entities for touching, grouping the fingers into a monolith.

Some further design decisions to explore:

  • Does the speed in touching the joints together affect the type/quality of line? Are they thick when slow and thin when fast?
  • Do the connections take on different textures?
  • Do the lines fade overtime, which in turn causes repeated touching of the same joints? (A dance emerges through repetition?)
  • Can joints connect to objects in physical space?

Texture

Texture code (PDE + webcam)

Each frame, a single slice is extracted from a random position and displayed over an capture taken when the kinect is initialized. In this way, an image accumulated but it only becomes ‘complete’ or consistent by staying still/constant over a long period of time. The image is contanstly forming and slightly out of our control of the bodies captured within it. When the bodies moved quickly, they were less likely to be captured, but even if they were, it is only partially. In a sense, the body becomes made of “time”.

 

Refining the Playability of Pong

0004 Pong, Homemade Hardware, Tangible Interaction Workshop

In my initial version of ‘Many Games of Pong‘, the act of switching between controllers was so frustrating that it deterred players from doing so. This design used a 6-pin usb-to-serial adapter, which the user had to plug in “just right” before they even could play. The diagram below illustrates this initial schematic and systems.

This point of friction detracted from the key idea of players testing different controllers and de-standardizing the tools used to play games. As such, I’ve continued to develop the circuit with a focus on selecting and switching-between controllers.

The new circuit, illustrated above, uses an ESP8266 Wi-Fi chip microcontroller to eliminate wiring for sending data to the between the game and controllers. Additionally, a toggle switch, coupled with an LED, sets the state of whether or not a controller is actually connected to the game (as opposed to the hardwired connection). The server-side code keeps track of which controllers are connected and which player they’re associated with.

There’s a delay between pressing a button and seeing the effect on screen that’s still lingering, as well as the question of power. The video shows a wired connection from each controller to the computer, but that’s simply for power – not data transfer.

Code Updates

This iteration also focused on simplifying the code. My previous code for moving the paddle based on each controller was verbose and repetative. I’ve since rewritten the code to use switch cases which really simplified things.

Next Steps

The next step in the project is to create custom boards rather than use the Huzzah. Adafruit’s ESP8266 breakout board is a good reference for starting the schematic. Since some of the controllers use digital sensors (simple push buttons) while others rely on analog (photocell), the boards will be slightly different for each. Additionally, I’d like to put more time into the tangibility and tactile qualities of the sensors I use and have been hunting down various products.

Future References

Making ‘Making Legible’ Legible: Part 1

Making 'Making Legible' Legible, Networked Media

When looking at a large corpus of text, containing documents that were merged, split, duplicated and edited, how can dominate tendancies and thematic pre-occupations be extracted and identified? This project asserts that these latent relationships can only be unearthed by removing the constraining ‘document boundary’ but rather looks at the text though atomizing the content into sentences.

The new relationships across the corpus are found either through the lens of ‘content’ (the words and sentences themselves and their similar counterparts), or through the lens of ‘context’ (the words and sentences around other entities).

The shape of the project is still a bit nebulous, but the images and video recording below explain the conceptual underpins of where the project is headed.