This was inspired by livestreaming, and how viewers give likes during the livestream. On very popular livestreams, there would be a flood of likes.
I used BRFv4 face tracker, and it gives a flood of "likes" only when a person is smiling. The smile is detected if the ratio (of the mouth length: mouth to nose) is greater than around 1. Position of the head changes the heart color, depth of the face changes the size of the heart. The hearts are bound to the face, so that when the person smiles the hearts cover the face like a mask.
There is only one viewer/person "watching", and they leave likes on their own video. For me, this action feels comforting (self love/self care?), but also superficial.
I noticed that the ratio between the mouth corners, and the nose to mouth is close to a equilateral triangle. I made the ratio a certain threshold to recongize a smile. I later realized that it doesn't work as well if the person is tilting their head up or down.
ADA is an analog interactive installation by KARINA SMIGLA-BOBINSKI that creates art. ADA refers to Ada Lovelace who created the first prototype computer in the 19th century. The white room is the hardware, ADA the software, and the visitors are giving the input to ADA to create art. I like the aspect of play, and input from the user. The structure of ADA reminds me of a micro organism. Karina Smigla-Bobinski mentions that the art created by ADA resembles nanotech.
For this assignment, I thought about a swinging motion to represent the seconds. This led me to choose the lucky cat as the base for my clock. Every second the arm moves back and forth, every minute a coin drops, every hour all the coins combine into a spot on the calico lucky cat. I created a constructor function for the coins to make it more efficient. I had plans for more complex movement/transitions, but spent most of my time debugging the coin constructor. Some movements I wished I could of done: natural coin drop/coin flips when dropped, every hour the spots fade in (rather than just appear).
This piece is based off a childhood memory: I planted a seed in a pot, later my grandma re-potted the pot with a flower, I got confused by how fast the seed grew and yanked the flower out. I spent a lot of time testing out the colors/composition and kept simple motions/animations. I'm happy with how the sequence turned out, it's very straightforward.
At first, I was confused with the frames/frame rates/speed/time etc.. I increased the number of frames and percentframes to make it longer (it seems to work? but made things way more difficult later on). I used if statements with certain frame sections to make it sequential (a lot of hardcoding). I wish I made the code more efficient and used more easing functions to show more emotion. For example, having the eyes follow the plant, or the eye enlarging. Also having the plant leaves/petals move with gravity.
Draft in Google drawings using the circles and arcs. Testing colors and positions.
Robbie Barrat created house plant generated sketches using their electrical signals and an arduino. I like how it references nature and generates a aesthetic, unique, and simple sketch. After you attach the electrodes on the leaves, you use voltage readers to read/graph the voltage. "Use template.pde as a base program for your artwork; while in the draw loop, you can get the value of the plant anytime through the variable plantValue (which is a float)." There isn't enough examples of this piece to understand the effective complexity. I think that it is has balanced disorder from the uniqueness of the plants, and I assume that other plants will have vaguely related looking sketches based on the same algorithm.
Question 1A. Something you like which exhibits effective complexity. Where does your selection sit between total order and total randomness.
Snake scales are closer to total order. A snake morph is a genetic mutation that makes a snake look different than commonly expected (visual indicators). Some morphs can be predicted since most follow the punnet square rule (ie dominant, recessive, het). However, not all morphs are consistent/can be predicted since they can be spread out across different genes and we don't know which gene causes which morph. Hence, there are many combinations (python has like 100+ morphs). Some morphs can have repeated patterns, random blobs, scaleless snakes.
The blacktailed cribo is a simple example, but other snakes have many many morphs that can be hard to predict. Most morphs are discovered by people breeding snakes, so a lot of morphs have not been discovered yet.
false water cobra
hypomelanistic false water cobra
lavender false water cobra
Question 1B. Problem of Authenticity.
The argument is that if the computer expresses itself that the artist can not anticipate, does it's randomness still qualify for the artist's expression? I believe that it is still the artist's expression. The artist created the code and system for the computer to execute.I see computers as a tool for randomization and computation (like how paint, pens, etc are tools).
For this piece, I started with a nested for loop to create a grid of lines. In order to replicate the rotations and clustered holes/missing lines, I learned about Perlin noise. It was challenging for me to understand Perlin noise; the main thing I got was that it was a "natural ordered, harmonic succession of numbers". (it's more smooth, therefore can create "clusters"?) I spent a lot of time on the trigonometry of the lines given the random angle. Then I tested out Perlin noise syntax to see what worked/not. I used a x-offset for random rotation, and another x-offset2 for clustered holes (different offset maps it to different parts of the noise wave). I used a random conditional statement to determine whether it was horizontal or vertical grain (they used different line equations; the sin and cos were switched). Then I added a noiseSeed() to generate different results every time it is clicked.
I found it difficult to replicate the rotation of the lines. My lines stay close to the grain, while Molnar's lines are more varied. I tried to test different numbers, but the lines ended up too varied and lost the "grain" effect. Molnar's rotation of the lines made the clustered holes stand out more. I admire Molnar's calculated randomness.(also she created this before before perlin noise was created)
Tabita Cargnel calculated the movement of playing the violin and translated to a interactive piece where you move your limbs and "dance" to play the violin.
It's interesting to me because I played the violin for around 10 years, and although it is very technical, I've never seen it broken down/displayed like this. It's also interesting to recreate something very human, with technology, and how they map certain body parts to mechanical parts. In addition, it's not completely mechanical, there is still a human aspect to it; the mechanics are just aiding the experience.
I found the installation piece great because it utilizes the whole body to play the violin. (as I mentioned earlier, mapping different body parts to an object, that is unconventional) It also is very inviting and much more easier to play using this installation piece (which is funny to me, because when you learn to play the violin, it takes weeks, even months to play a nice sounding note). The way this is set up, it is more user friendly for the public, and there is no wrong way to play/dance/interact with it (while on the other hand violin is very strict with its technique).
The artist spent a lot of time understanding and calculating the mechanics of the violin. In addition, they were considerate of making this intimidating instrument "user/public" friendly. Re-imagining the violin. I like how the installation piece is fitted for one person, so it still has that solo/personal quality for the violin. Maybe for a suggestion, I'm curious how it would look like scaled up to a whole room. Rather than it be for one person, it is for a whole group of people (like a duet, or quartet, or even string orchestra). I imagine that it will look like a spider web where people crawl through, which sounds very interesting.
Tabita's recent works surround interactive installations, and bridge the gap between art and technology to "create honest and sometimes very literal pieces of work." (from her website) She was trained as a musician, which shows in some of her sound/music related works. She also studies robotics in college. It seems like her interest and music and technology inspires some of her pieces.
0. The Critical Engineer considers Engineering to be the most transformative language of our time, shaping the way we move, communicate and think. It is the work of the Critical Engineer to study and exploit this language, exposing its influence.
In my interpretation of this tenant, it explains that Engineering is evolving and a huge influence and part of human nature (or the Critical Engineer). I found it interesting because it compares Engineering to a "language" which is a form of communication and expression (it is a human quality term). This tenant claims that Engineering is the most transformative language, pretty much stating that the human nature/curiosity to explore and create new things is very strong. It highlights the interaction between the human, and the tool/creation the human is using (like cars, or even shows to walk in). It also brings up the increasing public knowledge of new technology (like how Leone Battista Alberti challenged the past views of art which prompted the pre-renaissance which allowed the public to be more involved and knowledgeable in art). I think that this tenant shows how humans are technology are closely woven together, and as humans progress, so does Engineering (there is always a human quality).
I noticed that the ratio between the mouth corners, and the nose to mouth is close to a equilateral triangle. I made the ratio a certain threshold to recongize a smile. I later realized that it doesn't work as well if the person is tilting their head up or down.
(sketch)
