CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE OBJECTI ION · 2011. 2. 22. · __CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE OBJECTI_ION __BY...
Transcript of CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE OBJECTI ION · 2011. 2. 22. · __CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE OBJECTI_ION __BY...
__CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE
OBJECTI_ION
__BY MÓNICA ARIAS
Major Studio: Interactivity
Instructor Sabine Seymour
February 22, 2011
__THE WHAT & THE WHY
Always motivated by human behavior, the artificial vs. the natural, and interaction
vs. interactivity, Monica Arias has been suggesting a shift in the way technology is
perceived and used, and how it is imperative to take it back to what it was: a tool to help
us. Throughout her projects it is noticeable she tries to keep the more humane aspect of
things. That is why she thought, why should this project be any different in that part, if
her overall main statement is to use technology as a response to a human condition?
But to better understand human behavior, we need to first comprehend the role
of technology as a major part in our lives. We are constituted through our relationship
with things. Technology now dictates the possibilities in the world.
“Nature is no longer the ultimate horizon of our experience… In effect, for us,
the artificial is now the horizon and medium of human experience”.
Clive Dilnot, Design for this Century lecture
Everything is driven by technology, and everything is being designed with
technology in mind. But when did we forget that artifacts were first created as tools to
help us? How can we be sure if we're still in control of the artificial and not the other way
around? Is this part of our disassociation with our inner selves? We are certainly more
on line everyday, and less outside.
“Artifacts help objectify the self in at least three major ways. They do so first by
demonstrating the ownerʼs power, vital erotic energy, and place in the social hierarchy.
Second, objects reveal the continuity of the self through time, by providing foci of
involvement in the present, mementos and souvenirs of the past, and signposts to future
goals. Third, objects give concrete evidence of oneʼs place in a social network as
symbols (literally, the joining together) of valued relationships. In these three ways things
stabilize our sense of who we are; they give a permanent shape to out views of
ourselves that otherwise would quickly dissolve in the flux of consciousness”.
“Why we need things”, by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi 1, In “History from Things”
In this excerpt from Csikszentmihalyi, the author Monica Arias highlights one of
the biggest monsters of modern society: how the things we possess define us.
Nowadays, what you have makes you who you are, and ranks you inside the social
hierarchy. Weʼre constantly using objects to portray our inner-selves.
Abraham Maslow touched upon these issues in his book A Theory of Human
Motivation 2 (1943) when he introduced the Hierarchy of Needs (Fig. 1). After the basic
physiological and safety needs, and right before the last stage of self-actualization, he
stated the most relevant ones: need of belonging and the need of esteem. It is both
fascinating and interesting to the author how these needs of belonging, of being liked
and approved, of earning the esteem of the people around us, come right before our final
goal.
Fig. 1. Maslowʼs hierarchy of needs
Since our self-opinions depend on how others perceive us, we use things to help
reinforce our opinions on ourselves, to increase not only our status but also our own
sense of security.
But why do we really need an object to give us power, to look better, or even to
remember a special occasion? This is where the author asks the question: what if
objects do not need us in return? We donʼt need objects to keep our minds in order; we
need to start replacing objects with symbols and detach ourselves from belongings. Just
like technology, objects need to go back to what they were at the beginning: tools; tools
that are used only when necessary, without carrying around extra baggage.
__ THE HOW
In the pursuit of learning how to integrate new materials and technologies into
electronics and physical computation, the author signed up for a collaboration studio
called Soft Circuits. Experimenting has always been in her interests and this collab gives
her room to do so. For the period of a week, she explored more deeply the possibilities
of working with materials people never thought could be part of technology (such as
textile, thread, paper, and ink), and of course, how to incorporate all these into one
meaningful interface (Fig. 2-5). All these new things and the excitement of being very
experimental, inspired her to be playful with soft technology, without leaving behind
giving it a reason of existence, her overall purpose of humanizing it. During this week of
material exploration, one could say she engaged in hands-on research, as she learned
to pay attention to the aesthetic value of the projects, and how to troubleshoot while
working with unpredictable materials, like the ones used in soft technology.
Fig. 2. Soft switch built with soft technology
Fig. 3. PlugMeIn TV built with soft technology
Fig. 4. Reverse LightBox
Fig. 5. Tree of Hearts
__ THE PREDECENTS
• Zane Berzina, E-Static Shadows 3
Fig. 6-7. Zane Berzina, E-Static Shadows
The installation seeks to register the amount and intensity of the charges
exposed to the sensory electronic textile membrane. It then translates them into audio-
visual patterns on the surface of the cloth. Berzina with this project proposes not only a
reflection on the energy resources of our planet, but also portrays the human body as a
generator of energy.
• Gary Hustwit, Objectified 4
Fig. 8. Poster for the film Objectified
This documentary looks to understand our relationship with and through objects.
The film conveys the creative processes of product designers, and how these artifacts
have an impact on our daily lives. “What can we learn about who we are, and who we
want to be, from the objects with which we surround ourselves?”
• Roman Ondák, Performance 4: Measuring the Universe (2007) 5
Fig. 9. Measuring the Universe, at the MoMA
This project started in large white empty gallery at the Museum of Modern Art
(MoMA) in New York City. During the exhibition, designated staff would mark on the
walls visitorʼs names, heights and dates of attendance. With this, the artist seeks to
break the barriers between art object and observant, inviting the audience to participate
in the piece. The interaction this exhibition generates makes it relevant. The
collaboration process between strangers creates a final masterpiece to expose one final
concept: human need to understand the scale of the world.
• Kristin Neidlinger, GER: Galvanic Extimacy Responder 6
Fig. 10. Kristin Neidlingerʼs GER
This garment visually displays the wearerʼs emotional state through a Galvanized
Skin Response (GSR) tracking how the body responds to stimulus, displaying red or blue
depending on the mood of the wearer.
• Juliette Sallin, Touch_Me 7
Fig. 11. Touch_Me interactive carpet
This interactive carpet animates when it senses the presence of a person. Using
soft technology elements, such as shape memory wires and textile pressure sensors,
the carpet moves when walking on it.
• Meg Grant, Secret Keeper Gloves 8
Fig. 12. Secret Keeper Gloves
These gloves use the top of mind interaction of telling a secret. When you put
your hands together it activates the microphone that records your secret, and when
placed on the ear it plays it back. The take-away of this project would be its simple
interaction that comes natural when using these gloves.
• Maggie Orth, Petal Pusher 9
Fig. 13. Orthʼs Petal Pusher
This interactive textile lighting was built using only soft circuitry, without leaving
behind the aesthetic value of the piece.
__ THE CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE
OBJECT_ION
Objects donʼt need us. They are independent, and desire no more than
themselves. So why are we so eager to possess them? Why do we need them? Can we
demonstrate this need through an interface? Can technology help us disconnect/detach
ourselves from our necessity to have them?
The authorʼs first conceptual prototype consists of a textile/paper wall and a pair
of gloves. While the user wears the gloves, and tries to touch/feel the texture on the
reactive wall, this one will move away from the touch. No matter how much the user tries
to reach it, the “object” will keep rejecting the contact.
Fig. 14. First rough sketch of OBJECT_ION
__ THE BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Maslow, A.H., A Theory of Human Motivation, (1943), Psychological Review
50(4): 370-96.
2. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Why We Need Things, (1993), in Lubar, S. and
Kingery, W.D., History from Things, pp. 20-29.
3. Berzina, Z., E-Static Shadows, (2009)
http://www.zaneberzina.com/e-staticshadows.htm
(Accessed February 19, 2011).
4. Objectified, Directed by Gary Hustwit, (March 2009)
http://www.zaneberzina.com/e-staticshadows.htm
(Accessed February 19, 2011).
5. Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), Performance 4: Roman Ondák, June 24–September 14, 2009 http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/980 (Accessed February 19, 2011).
6. Neidlinger, K., GER: Galvanic Extimacy Responder, (2010)
http://fashioningtechnology.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ger-galvanic-extimacy
April 13, 2010, (Accessed February 19, 2011).
7. Sallin, J., Touch_Me, (2010)
http://fashioningtechnology.ning.com/profiles/blogs/touchme-interactive-
carpet, May 10, 2010, (Accessed February 19, 2011).
8. Grant, M., Secret Keeper Gloves, (2011)
http://fashioningtechnology.ning.com/profiles/blogs/secret-keeper-gloves,
January 25, 2010, (Accessed February 19, 2011).
9. Orth, M., Petal Pusher, (2009)
http://www.ifmachines.com/, (Accessed February 19, 2011).