Symbolik Blogger Week 5 – CDNM212 Jan 27nd 2005

“I recently saw an interesting piece of technology. The device is called a Wireless Phone Jack Modem. The device turns a regular power outlet into a phone line. It can be used for phone conversations or for data transfer. This device is only a hundred bucks & it allows for your computer to share resources using existing infrastructure (Power plug & phone line). It has been a long time coming since these technologies have been being discussed for years. Power lines are apparently a very efficient means of transferring data, though using power plugs to connect you to the internet has not yet taken off.”

Power companies still have not made strides to deliver data.  The product that prompted my writing the preceeding can be seen as a proof of concept for the average consumer that it is, or was possible.  It is very reminiscent of the innovative works of the old inventors such as Nicholais Teslah, Bell, Imhotem…

But it seems the ship has sailed on this technology.  Today everyone you see is connected wirelessly at comparable, or at reasonable, data transfer speeds.  But it is interesting to consider the oppurtunities that could have been.  For example data transfer over power lines offered a jump start into high speed using and existing infrastructure.  Here are some links that discuss the technology.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/bpl.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line_communication

http://cictr.ee.psu.edu/CICTRnews/Electricity-forum.htm

I still find this technology very interesting and informing.  I think we can learn alot from the missed opportunity, and who knows there may still be some promise to be yeilded from data transfer over poer lines.  One lesson is that cumbersome enities such as corporation, governments, etc…, are not able to think creativly enough to drive these technologies.  Further, it is often against corporate interest to roll out new technologies that will compete with their own products and patents.  I charge DIYers to explore, tinker, and develop to suit your own needs.  Albeit, you’d better know what you’re doing if you are tinkering with power, however i feel as DIY, as it relates to technology, expands and becomes more common, and as more tools such as http://www.instructables.com/, and http://makezine.com/ we the people will bend the expected uses of technologies to suit our needs, and not just those who want to profit off of us.

In fact, a page was found and I found some writer talking about technology, art, poetry… Sound familiar. Could it be that this eager poetically inclined tech blogger also took courses that looked oddly similar to courses that I had taken. Judging by the course codes.

I dusted off more and more of the cob-webbs from my mind, trying to remember when… I had written these blog posts… or even started this blog I was reading. Surely enough I did remember, vaguely.

Well we are in a time where our works remain online, on the record, and on file. Just this week my sister showed me some new Facebook functionality that allows a user to mark key points in time on a timeline, and visitors can go back and skim these important key points. its all pretty amazing… and scary! Especially in years to come when we’ve long forgotten what has been posted.

Anyhow, I am going to repost some of these older blogs on this active blog. I hope they are interesting.

Intitially, one may not recognize that ‘Ryan’ is in fact a documentary. Its mind bending animations seem more remenicent of a sci-fi flick than a somber and soberly themed documentary. The documentary depicts psychodelic glimspes into the gradual self destruction of Ryan Larkin. This phsychorealistic depiction is the key to the genious of this production. The animated technique twists what one may expect from a documentary piece by infusing carefully delivered representations of biography, emotion, and depictions of personal trauma.

Landreth, being the first figure represented in the film sets the tone in a telling dialogue where he justifies his damaged physical form, outlining traumas that had mangled his inner state. The fact that Landreth chose to reflect the inner state of the characters through their physical representation is what makes ‘Ryan’ monumental. Landreth, for example, as he is introduced in a dingy men’s room, is depicted as a man with a gaping hole in his head, revealing a webby mass of energy, flowers, and who knows what else, where his brain should be. Landreth points out parts of his scarred body. He explains some of the painful events and revelations that propelled him from being a comon human to a broken disfigured version of who he once was.

In the introduction to the documentary Landreth points to scars on his face and explains that these particular injuries were as a result of his, “… unbridled romantic world view [being] perminently shattered”. He then goes on to point out the further disfugurement suffered when, as he puts it, “[He] underwent a catastrophic loss of [the] ability to organize [his] finances in any meaningful way”. The bodily damages were pronounced and visible, furthermore, they looked surreal and unbelieveable. The injuries where an artists depiction of emotions that could not be expresses in a photorealistic mannor. Landreth then describes the torment caused by an earlier trauma, he says, “before all that, I took on a paralyzing, self defeating, all pervading dread of personnal failure”. The imagery accompanying this statement was stifling. Multicolored tenticles snapped around the man’s face, leaving him blind and helpless.

The introduction gave a perfect context to the psychorealistic approach that Landreth chose to tell this story. The set the stage and established a framework for the symbolic representations used in the documentary. This may be even more important since many features of this work seem far from standard to the genre. Upon completing his short, but necessary rant, Landreth strolls across a dreary cafeteria to introduce us to Ryan Larkin. In passing the vewer sees a number of other malfromed characters, mangled by life itself, however the only other character that we meet in the film is Ryan Larkin himself. Compared to Landreth, and most of the other secondary cast, Ryan Larkin is barely palpable. Only shreds of his physical are depicted, Landreth is carfully showing the sever inner traumas that Larkin endures. Larkin’s arms are like vines that wearily protrude from his thin torso. His head has barely enough substance to keep his hair from falling to the ground. His face being only about one third of that of Landreth was clearly consumed by is experience, and his life choices. This is unique phsychorealistic documentary style is in fact what makes ‘Ryan’ a classic in its genre.

It may be thought that an animated documentary may be a contradiction, being that many feel only photorealism can capture the essance of our history. ‘Ryan’ has shattered that myth. The film shows us that it it is sometimes possible to depict more using animation, and the surreal, than with photorealistic methods. How might one otherwise for example travel back in time, as was done in ‘Ryan’, to a time long passed, and place sometimes conflicting truths, forgotten histories, and hidden lessons out on display for the viewer to consider in a palatable way. Chris Landreth’s answer was Psychorealism. He, instead of only recounting stories of the past in a dry historical framework, Landreth pulls the spectator into the past, were Larkin is once again an upcomming Canadian prodigy. Chris Landreth revives that marvelous personnality that pulses through Larkin’s original works. Insteaded of only speaking of the feelings that torment our scarred characters, Landreth shows us in a highly stylized manor that is carefully infused with meaning.

Furthermore, Landreth has loaded ‘Ryan’ with a potent historical facts that may be largly lost in any other format. It the Phsychorealistic techniques employed seem to be a most appropriate way for an artist to document the artists own history. The film, in very tangible terms, highlighs a very important portion of the history Canadian animation. It catapults the viewer between times in the late 1960s, when hand drawn phsycho-realism had just been born, and a time when 3D modelling can depict the spirit of these times passed in a an incredible tribute to the psychorealistic style, that invokes the soul of the original inspiration. We are introduced some of Ryan Larkin’s triumphs and accomplishments, as Larkin describes the experience of devoloping ground breaking, award winning, animations for the Canadian National Film Borad. We also see his work represented in the documentary, and are introduced to some of the people Ryan Larkin held close to him. The documentary equally powerfully depicts some of the demons that have haunted Ryan larkin, some of which that continue to. Unlike with the photo-realistic techniques that we are used to in the documentary format, we can physically gage the change in the character’s form in realation to the trauma’s that are deipicted. We can also hear a loving chant, and see the arms periodically reaching out towards Ryan Larkin from his alcoholic beverage during the interview. All of this punctuates the facts, and does not detract from its authenticity as a documentary.

Although, animated documentaries have since been produced. They are by no means the norm. Of those that exist, such as ‘The Story of Stuff’, or ‘Waking Life’, very few use as dramatic and profound phsychorealistic technique as ‘Ryan’. Fewer yet use 3D modeling as their format. Maybe even more impressive is that this documentary is an artistic work that sheds light on the life, frustrations, and triumphs of an artist. Landreth has created art that advances, to some degree promotes, and teaches us about art. It would not be surprising if in the future, young artist continue his legacy and tell the story of art in this most compelling and approppriate format. Maybe one day someone will recount the life of Chris Landreth using cutting edge animation techniques of the day, while paying tribute to what he has done to redefine the documentary.

On the onset, I knew that I wanted to delve deeper into the world of augmented reality (AR).  I also knew that I had a firm base upon which to build using my poetic, as well as audio-visual, background as my compass and foundation.  At first I planned to use a mobile device in order to process the AR and facilitate the augmentation of the poetic audio-visual narrative.  I intended to use an android device running customized software to add media to the given scene.  Two weeks from the deadline, while reviewing the target date, and project requirements with my Professor, we realized a drastic and swift act of artistic prowess was in order.

I was introduced to snap dragon AR.  This software allows for AR markers to be associated with custom media.  One of the only downsides of the software is that it is Mac only.  Fortunately RyersonUniversitywas able to provide me with a Snap Dragon enabled machine and I was off.  Firstly, I need to explore how the software works.  I did initially find it glitchy when I was testing out the program.  The obvious, or most intuitive, way that one would connect a marker with media did not work.  I went to the instruction manual to resolve the matter.  Sure enough there was a secondary method.  Instead of connecting the media through Snap Dragon’s user interface, I was told that I could rename the materials and drop them into the Snap DragonARroot folder.  This workaround worked like a charm.  Connecting my Sony Eye webcam was for more painless than the aforementioned process.  I simply downloaded universal drivers to the proper location on the Mac and I was good to go.  I also found in researching Snap Dragon AR that it allows for the project implementer to record what the AR software is picking up through the camera, and it places the AR material in place of the marker in the recording.  In other words the implementer gets a video copy of what took place.  This would serve me well for documentation of The 4^th Dimension.

Now that I had a functional test I was in a good position.  That took some of the pressure off.  I could now focus on more of the creative and aesthetic aspects of the project.  In fact the testing phase helped propel the creative.  I used existing audio-visual, and poetic, materials as a place holder while testing.  I realized during this phase that I was on to something.  I decided that as well as designing a custom rhyme and accompanying video material, I would select appropriate materials from my repertoire to integrate into The 4^th Dimension.  I dug into my vaults and chose materials with strong poetic, and visual appeal.  The final draft pick came down to the following materials, “I Manifest”, “Choose Your Own Dementia”, “Dream Sequence”, and “Happy Earth Day”, which supported the self titled “The 4^th Dimension”.

I recorded the title track, “The 4^th Dimension” at one of my studios (Shef`s Kitchen), after describing the idea to the owner and engineer, Shef.  We then listened to a number of his beats and agreed upon the one that was used.  Although I had already written lyrics that were intended to speak to a range of areas of study within Ryerson University, due to the reworking of project, using Snap Dragon AR and given our timeline, I decided to rewrite the lyrics into one verse that makes mention to many faculties and disciplines of study within the school.  It took an evening to write and record.  The next day we filmed the supporting video material.  We also booked RCC “Studio C” in order to add green screen footage to the mix.  This video recording session took place on another date.  The green screen material captured was used in the video documentation of this project.

Also on the video production side of the project was the editing and retooling of the audio-visual materials.  This entailed selecting an adequate segment of the original video, editing it, and adding the cues and clues that would drive the user through the scavenger hunt.  It was relatively simple.  Script the words to drive the user.  Add them to the video in Premier CS4, re export the footage, and them convert them to MOV format, the only video format that Snap Dragon AR recognizes.  The process may not have been tremendously complex.  However, it took trial and error to get it just right.  It was also very time consuming.  One must ALWAYS pay for the desired goal.  In this case the currency was hours from one’s life.  Scripting writing, editing, file conversion and rendering take time.

How the physical structure and aesthetic came about also reflects an interesting series of events.  Weeks before my redesign of The 4^th Dimension I was visiting an old friend (a genius artist if I might add).  I saw the coolest thing I’d seen in a while sitting in the corner.  It may have been on a pile of garbage between radioactive materials, and other unidentified substances, that may friend was intending to jettison into space at some point, if my memory serves me correctly.  Sitting there at my friend Gee’s apartment was a giant iPhone.  It stood about 4.5 feet talk and was a great replication of the 3G series of iPhone.  Gee works at a popular phone company.  That’s where he acquired the structure.  He had harvested the screen out of the device and was about to throw away the remaining carcass.  I could not let this happen.  I through the giant shell into the back my car and took it home.

The next day I walk over to my studio space and saw the huge mass.  It was sitting there doing absolutely nothing.  It could do nothing, I was realizing all at once.  All it could do was take up space.  I was duped!  I was regretting my decision to bring the huge iPhone home.  Little did I know, this useless, though slick and realistic, iPhone would bind my final project together into a cohesive presence.

About a week later, after the project development meeting that redirected, and salvaged, The 4^th Dimension project.  I realized that my salvaged material was right on theme.  The iPhone is both a symbol of the media of our day, and more importantly, it is amongst the most popular ways of enabling augmented reality.  I didn’t have huge pile of garbage after all.  I was storing a huge, cumbersome, and clunky pile of conceptual gold.  The giant iPhone would turn out to define the project, but not with out its own toll.

The giant phone fell into my lap with relative easy.  But, as I have learned in the past, if it seems too easy, then it probably is.  There were a few issues that needed to be resolved.  Upon measuring the dimensions of the massive iPhone, I realized it wasn’t massive enough for the LCD screen that I needed to mount in it.  I had to figure out how to add depth to the structure, while maintaining the integrity and aesthetic appeal of the casing. 
I scavenged materials, and bought wood pegs that I would cut at an appropriate length to add the necessary depth.  After a day and a full night of measuring, cutting, and drilling, I was happy with the look.  The giant iPhone was equipped with the mounts that would support the LCD, and it maintained its slick aesthetic… and Symbolik was pleased.

*Development footage(side ways unfortunately do to conversion issue- will fix at later date)

Another important side of the project design was the signage which needed to be consistent, clean, and informative.  iPhone markersThe signage’s primary goal was to let the user know what to do while tying the entire project aesthetic together.  The iPhone would be my anchor.  Not only is it a culturally familiar character, it is also very firmly associated with augmented reality.  I found images online of the iconic device and used Photoshop to place the necessary augmented realty markers inside the screen area of the iPhone graphic.  I also added instructions to the layout and a few aesthetic touches for conceptual consistency.  Poster sized signs to inform the users were also created to enrich and simplify the experience.

Stepping through the phases of implementation of The 4^th Dimension was challenging yet enriching.  The project reinforced the importance of flexibility, discourse, and research.  If it were not for a flexible approach I may not have been able to redefine the project road map, and significantly change the implementation, while maintaining the core goals of the exercise, and still hit our target date.  I also attribute the ability to repurpose and recycle to flexibility.  The implementation was flexible enough to incorporate what we had access to in order to craft the desired experience.  Also, had it not been for drawing from the advice of my Professor I would not have been informed of the option to use Snap Dragon AR to achieve the goal.  It enabled me to focus on the broader concept, and to craft the experience, as opposed to reinventing tools that were already available.  Lastly, it took a good deal of research in order to pull this project off successfully.  I used Premiere and Photoshop skills that I had amassed over the years, but I also added my newly acquired knowledge of Snap Dragon AR to the arsenal.  I researched in order to develop lyrical, and conceptual materials, and to trouble shoot in order to successfully complete the work.  I was pleased with the results when the production was complete.  I was eager to show it in the 3^rd year Ryerson University new media exhibit.  I was even more pleased once I heard feedback from those who had experienced The 4^th Dimension.

Walking through each of the three rooms that housed the event was like stepping into an entirely new world all to itself. One room was dominated by sonically driven audio visual art. It featured tactile, and interactive works that spoke to a number of poignant societal issues, including sexuality, the environment, human compulsion, as well as exploring new ways of human interaction with machines, as well as with other humans. The room thundered with sound when some of the pieces were at their climax. Though each room, including that one, was sprinkled with just the right amount of variety to make for an interesting and compelling experience, this area resonated with a forward thinking personality that is indicative of new media artistry.

Another room was dimly lit, and contained somber pieces that questioned freedom, and beckoned the visitor to ponder death, pollution, and other serious, but very real topics. Each of these gloomy issues covered, however, seemed to somehow sprout hope through these works. The discussion being delivered through the creative, and inspired, works, was a conversion of what may be seen as negative into something else. The work exist because someone, namely the artist, cares about the topic, and wants to make an impact upon how we think about these issues. Both through the works themselves, and the spirit of the artists, who stood right by their art seemed to uplift the mood of the darkly lit space. As with each of the exhibit areas, in this room the visitor was free to speak with the artist about the work, the artists inspirations, and the underlining messages. It becomes apparent that this is one of the nuances of Fusion that makes it special, as well as unforgettable. It is very personal and grounded.

In yet another room, there were magical, and equally diverse works that also spoke to the personalities of the artists who designed them. There was a retrofitted, Xbox Kennect mofied turntable, a video enabled globe, multiple-user generated colour splashing software, an ecologically beneficial bicycle that tells the cycler how much they are helping the environment through biking, and much more.

The corridor that connected the pieces was home to equally outstanding material such as the Obama Keyboard which allows for the user to reconstruct US President Barrack Obama’s words using a keyboard that has his words dissected and spread out one one per key. It was amazing to see how people chose to construct sentences using the given words. Again, a very unique and creative work that is characteristic of the interactive nature of new media. Not far from that work was the Chat Lounge. A work that contained no software. No wires. No screen’s. It was the antitheses of what one may perceive to be new media, but there it was in this exhibit. The piece symbolized the push back against technology that exists in society. In that light, a new media exhibit is the perfect place for such a work, and it added a perspective that would be missed had it not been there.

The Fusion exhibit was a wonderful range of artistry. It was thought provoking and creative, while maintaining a very personal feel. Walking between the works of art, and between the spaces that housed the works was often to step between extremes, and to converse with those who care deeply about issues that one may not have even considered. Through their creative discourse artists highlight these topics and bring them to the forefront of our minds, to consider in knew ways, and to potentially alter how we think and what choices we make. The exhibit is a fresh look at a variety of ways we think as a society, and it puts Ryerson University’s new media talents in the lime light.

Using new media techniques, David Rokeby enables a space to tell its own story. I find this interesting, not only does his work tell a common but often untold tale. In particular Rokeby’s video installations, give a voice to that which would otherwise be mute. “Machine for Taking Time” (2001-2004), for example, in the Oaville gardens allows for the space to narrate its own history. This process gives life to the otherwise inatimate, while beautifying the location. David Rokeby uses evolved new media techniques to give new perspectiv. I am inspired by the work of Rokeby as I am also interested in enabling a space to tell its unique story using emmerging technologies. I am also interested in creating practical artworks that can be repurposed and resituated. Rokeby’s “Machine for Taking Time” did find itself reimplemented in 2007. My work “Fourth Dimension” will be site specific, but adaptable to different locations and scenarios. Each implementation will however be unique and original.“Gathering” 2004 is yet another video installation by Rokey that rerepresents visual material in a revolutionary way. In this work visual materials are processed and represented with new context. Although this is of great interest to me, it it’s the blurring of the line between audience and art that draws parallels to my work. Another example of a Rokeby work that is inspiring is “Taken” (Beijing 2002). Again visual materials are creatively presented while speaking to the true carateristics of the location. I also find the practical nature ofd the work impressive. Data that is collected in any of the aforementioned works can be repurposed and used to gain furether understanding of the place and how people interact and behave within the space. I am also inspired by the practical element of the Audio Diaries. A participant moving through the piece can gain new perspective on a location. It is also notable that the works can be implimented with incredible diversity. It can be manifest as a factual narrative or as a fictional account. One thing that remains constant is that Cardiff draws the participant into a location specific narrative that tears down the wall between art and observer.

David Rokeby’s work:
http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/installations.html

Janet Cardiff uses a more tradional media. However, she uses a nonetradional approach to her audio visual compositions. She actively develops site specific narratives that push the boundaries or audio visual story telling. In her work. In her series Audio Walks Cardiff delivers a narratives to observers who physically move through spaces in order to put the pieces of the story together. I find this inspiring, and more than just novel. The boundries of involvement between the observer and the art work are shifted. I will use Augment Reality in a way that also hazes the boundaries between observer and the work. Her material can be reimplemented and given new context that is unique to both location and content. In essence her general concept is a medium that allows for a variety of implementations. The range of themes is aparant in some of the titles of her works, while they maintain comon threads. They are narratives that often send the observer to another place, or to another time, and give new context to the location. Cardiff’s first Audio Walk, “Forest Walk” (1991) set the tone for the series. It was the prototype of an inreguing new way to enjoy site specific sonic experience. The participant is guided a series of locations where the narrative is continued. The work does in relation to her other works emphasize the range of content and technoques that the series can accommodate. In “Bathroom Stories” (1991) Cardiff experiments with layering audio that speaks to the specific location. In this case it is the bathroom. The narrative travels to different locations and times but is anchored in the fact that the locations are all bathrooms. Her technique of layering and connecting time and space in her compositions are remenicent of emmerging AR technology, where prerecorded data can give a location new context. Cardiff speaks to a phenomina that takes place upon participating in this type of work. A sort of sureal sensation is promoted through the participant observing the past in the present moment. In “Ghost Machine” (2005)Janet Cardiff moves the participant through a theater and her story evolves. I see this work as relevent and informative to 4thDimension project. It evolves how we participate in art though her work uses traditional tools in its implementation.

Janet Cardiff & George Bures Miller Website:
http://www.cardiffmiller.com/artworks/walks/index.html

Another influence upon my work is French film maker Claude Lanzman, whose seminal works including “Shoah” (1985) speak to collective memory and the importance of recorded history. Where as, Lanzmann’s notable work speaks to the Jewish holocaust, my work is a new media framework that allows for varied discourse. I am inspired by the film makers acts of perpetuating history within the social conscience. Lanzmann’s works are not site specific, yet I do see his content as enabling to site specific new media composition. For example, how may the a viewer be affected by watching a powerful depiction of Nazi Germany, or the extermination camps, were they to be watching the film in the very place that the history took place. It would seem Cardiff’s displacement phenomenon would certainly have a profound impact in this case. In this way history is revived, and a participant can experience a more tactile an informed perspective. By connecting emerging technologies, namely AR, with the testimonies of those who experienced and interacted with a given space, a more profound impact may be achieved. Again in “Tsahal” (1970)Lanzmann infuses a world that would be little known into the public conscience. In this work Lanzmann interviews Isreali soldiers and allows for them to reveal their own truths. This approach of reviving a time gels well with the site specific narrative that I am designing.

Wiki that describes Shoah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoah_(film)

Eduardo Kac adds another perspective to this discussion when he says:

“I see telepresence art as a way to produce an open and engaging experience that manifests the cultural changes brought about by remote control, remote vision, telekinesis, and real-time exchange of audiovisual information.”

In effect the mobile device that enables augmented reality also may act as a remote. It connects the art and the observer and tears down the barriers that traditionally exist between the art work and the viewer. In the case of 4th Dimension the narrative projects the participant into another time, in a way that is reminiscent of the work of Janet Cardiff. AR presents a suitable medium for enabling the evolution of audio visual art. David Rokeby’s work exemplifies some of the tools that visual artist may explore in this age of new media. He also speaks to the social content that may be explored. I do feel however that the work of Claude Lanzmann speaks powerfully to the non fictional historic narrative device. All of these artists, and many more have informed and inspired the direction and evolution of the 4th Dimension.

This piece is an audio-visual software composition. It will encompass aspects of new media production that I am experienced in, as well as areas that I am interested in exploring further. The more familiar part of the work is the audio-visual composition, as well as the narrative as a tool. These more familiar aspects will be enhanced with an area of new media that I more recently began to explore. That area being coding. I am excited to explore how these areas of my practice will evolve and intersect.

My Motivation:
I am making this work in order to continue my research into the narrative and how it is impacted by emerging technologies. This work is an evolution from my previous “Choose Your Own Dementia” work, where software enables a more fluid audio-visual experience based upon choice. Four Corners is also a step towards my forth year project intention. It is a natural progression given that it is solidly based upon new media practices that are at the core of much of my art. This work however moves away from the static and one dimensional narrative by allowing the user to drive the narrative based not just on isolated choices, but on their “state”, where they are situated. It opens the doors to an even more fluid and profound encounter with the narrative.

The onscreen character helps to ground and humanize a technologically mediated interaction. I am intrigued by the possibilities that may be uncovered through further exploration. In the case of this work I will move further than just to allow for user choice. I will allow for a character to respond uniquely based upon where the user points the device. AR by nature, when used in an artistic context, broadens the discussion as to the relationship between the user and the piece. The lines between the narrator and the audience is blurred.

How it Will be Done:
I will capture still image, video, and audio materials. Materials will be associated with locations in a space using either augmented reality markers, or physical coordinates. The captured materials will then be arranged to speak uniquely to the given location. This project is a combination of relatively entrenched new media practice and emerging technologies, namely augmented reality and mobile technologies. The most challenging aspect of this endeavor will be to program the device to respond to the environment and delivering and narrative that demonstrates the implications of the technology.

Conclusion:
I will create an AR driven narrative that will speak to emerging possibilities. By enabling a narrative with user specific information, such as location, a user can have a more personalized, and potentially a more personal, experience. They are enabled to drive the experience. An engaging audio-visual design will further augment the experience and advance a well needed discussion into the future of the narrative as it is impacted by emerging technologies. It is my aim to build upon m my experience and knowledge regarding today’s emerging technologies. I am also interested in how humans respond to these technologies.

There were a number of interesting ideas in “Why Things Matter” that caught my attention. Aside from the practical possibilities that are revealed through the paper, the work is also quite prophetic for its time. Today we see the evolution of “Things” connected, interwoven, and sharing data, and hstories, with other “Things”. We also see technology driving conversations and defining new perspectives for how we observe and interact with data, and the world at large. More and more data is becoming inseperable from that larger world and making it smaller. On one side, I find it intreging that if data is not apparent or detectable without technology, then that technology becomes one with a given experience. In a way this is comparable to “The Pigeon That Blogs”. The pigeon is democratized through her ability to go where humans cannot, to places that are invisible to humans and make visible the otherwise unseen. Though it is not the pigeon’s ability to fly alone that has earned her freedom, it is also technology.

The Pigeon That Blogs questions and draws attention to how we value members of society, human and otherwise. Contribution increases the value of an object, as does presence. If either of the two are not apparent, an member of society is inevitably undervalued. If societal member is seen as irrelevent, if it does not contribute in a recognized way, or if an “object” is not “present”, it is not valued. When important decisions are made, whether or not the deccision impacts the object, the object has no voice.

The Pigeon That Blogs represents a compelling look at the evolution of data, and the progression of the use of data. Looking at this concept informed a particular project idea I call “Time Travel”. In Time Travel, an observer can look at a particular thing in various states of being. For example we could see a sort of stop frame view of how a metal may erode over time, as opposed to excusivily viewing the shiny static imagery that we are used to in AR. Augmented Reality may unlock interesting possibilities for this project. Using augmented reality, one could look at an engine, for example, and see what erosion may take place in the future. Conversly, one may look at an older engine and see what it looked like upon its creation. In other words Time Travel will allow for the user to step into different points in time visually and audibly. When this technology is coupled with “smart parts”, meaning parts that are able to track their history, as is mentioned in Why Things Matter, it will enable parts to be swapped out and create a modular scene that would inform the observer of the greater Blogject’s parts. Time Travel will ideally store its own histories, both self diagnostic, maintainance, and otherwise. Why Things Matter outlines the transformative effects of objects taking this leap. I have seen very few AR objects that have anywhere near this level of sufistication. It is no trivial task, however this is the future that Bleecker predicted.

When Bleeker speaks to the Blogject, he drives home one particular point that I feel is very important. He outlines how individually present the Blogject is, and how its path, position, and history makes each blogging object valuable. As he puts it, “Blogjects have self-contained (embedded) histories of their encounters and experiences”. What was once invisible and valueless now is recognized. Bleeker goes on with the parallel, “Whereas once the pigeon was an urban varmint…the pigeon that blogs now attains first class citizen status”. Again in the realm of AR, we give presence to the invisible. “Choose Your Own 3Dementia” is the evolution of a previous project that I created called Choose Your Own Dementia. The latter is built on an AR framework whereas the original was 2D. The latter will also be more intelligent. It will not just know that you have selected left or right. It will know in real time the where abouts of objects in relation to the user, and will give the user approppriate feedback through an onscreen personality who delivers a personal experience. The user points to AR items throughout the space. Music/poetry is generated based on what the user points at. Choose Your Own 3Dimentia will focus on Augmented reality, but importantly is a character driven experience. This work also makes a statement upon another point that is detailed in The Pigeon That Blogs. That point is presence. Ironically the augmented personality is an apparition to the unaided eye. Technology gives form to the character as value is given to our blogging pigeon. I feel this is an important conceptual aspect of Choose Your Own 3Dementia.

Another idea that I have conceptualized is See through You. It uses AR to look into layers of an object, and to see varying aspects of a things’ composition. One can look at the composition of a given item, peeling away various layers of an object. The question naturally arises, is this object real, as much as it appears to be present. The user will however be looking at a real tangible object being peeled away at will. On another level, if See Through You or Time Travel could be used to make a health and awareness statement by showing adverse effects of human behaviour within the human, or other systems that are not readily visible, it may in this case have an effect somewhat similar to the iSee surviellance project. The exposing of the otherwise invisible may effect people’s actions.

In summary, I intend to delve into the world of augmented reality. I will choose between three projects, all of which will be revealing and informative in their own way. Choose Your Own 3Dimentia allows for user choice and character interaction. I am interested to explore how these factors will work together in an attempt to make a lasting impact on a user. See Through You, uses AR to question presence, or maybe reenforce a an unseen presence, while Time Travel allows for the user to experience a greater aspect of the life of what we consider static. It allows for the observer to see a larger narrative that is invisible to us without technology. See Through You is actually a relative of Time Travel. I would truly wish to one day see both present in one work, however each does maintain its own meaning when looked at seperatly. These projects push questions of how cutting edge technologies may be used as learning tools, and how characters and personnalities may assist in an instructional capacity. Why Things Matter braodened my perspective of data representation and sharing. The paper also introduced me to the “Blogject”, and their “peculiarities”. I do appreciate the implications that these concepts have had on my own ideas. The Pigeon That Blogs speaks to the usefulness and impact that a particulare object, or species, may have upon humans. It seems to me that Blogjects are empowered by technology. The idea speaks less to the traditional aspects of utility and more so to a contemperary new media perspective. The Pigeon That Blogs illustrates this distinction, transforming, as does luguage that blogs, into an upstanding member of society by becoming useful, and present, to the human eye.

Calvin, my classmate, set up his side while I got the client hardware setup on my side. We were on Skype, so we could not only speak through how the process was going. We could literally show each other. The setup didn’t take long at all. After all we’d set this network up a few times in class. The process had gotten drilled into both our brains and was now being further reenforced. I connected my Arduino via USB, and loaded the appropriate code. Now it was time for me to upload to the board. Error! What the….? Yes, was getting used to sometimes finicky nature of Arduino, com ports, breadboards, windows, the net, and of course Windows.

One thing I realize from experience is that even when something seems to be straight forward it may take a methodological approach to resolve some of the finer issues. I tried to plug in my second Arduino to see if Windows would detect it. Nothing. I then switched the USB port that the Arduino was plugged into. NOTHING! All my comm. Ports were still greyed out, meaning that it is not being properly recognized. OK, one more thing. I then unplugged the Arduino and turned off the software and restarted…. Bingo! I knew it was now working because I could see the com3 port as active in my Arduino software settings. I was then able to upload to the Arduino from my computer.

We were ready to go! Calvin started the network up on his side, so it was my time to connect. I started up Processing and pressed run. Not only did a graphical box appear displaying numbers between 0-255 that reflected the position of the potentiometer on Calvin’s end, I could see one of the lights brightly illuminated. Then all of a sudden I saw it jump from one value to another. Could it be working with such ease? Could it be this simple?

It got unsimple again real quick, when we started to debug, or to notice little details. Like what about the other light? Or, why was the network behaving so slowly? Upon inspection we realized that the connection seemed lightning fast for the first few seconds. As Calvin rotated the potentiometer the values changed immediately, but that only lasted temporarily. Moments later the system began to lag. We waited almost a minute at times to a change that had been made on the server side.

We ended up fiddling with the circuits and observing, and dissecting, various facets of the code and hardware. Calvin even switched computers. I went from wireless to plugged in directly to my router. I even ripped apart my breadboard in an attempt to ensure that the pins were working as planned without some loose wire confusing the issue. After almost two hours of tinkering, we declared… a sort of victory. We got the connection open and functional, and were able to transmit our intended data. We did have questions as to why there would be such latency after a prolonged connection. By prolonged I am talking 15 seconds before the latency became unbearable. We wondered how Skype could transmit immense quantities of video and audio data, while our simple code got choked up. We theorized as to why. Maybe it was a caching issue. Maybe Skype was hogging resources, or was it our hardware, or network conditions. This is the question that plagues us to this day.

OK, maybe I am being over dramatic, but the exercise was a fun and interesting one. We were able to connect our computers across town and manipulate physical things. We troubleshooted some of the problems, though others remained. In doing this exercise we strengthened out understanding of how networks are created and some of the issues that may be present. It also reenforced to me the amazing nature of the internet. Calvin could have been on the other side of the planet and our system would still have worked, albeit with even more latency I expect. This simple connection to me is the opening a door into numerous possibilities.