Turlif Vilbrandt: Digital materialisation, fabrication, low cost desk top systems, transformative social systems, replicable and replaceable systems, linked to environmental issues linked to nano-tech and nano-fabrication, toxicity, sustainable solutions, survey of related work, hardware ad software links, heterogeneous representations, open source, open standards, on the fly production, just in time delivery
Questions/Discussion:-who is your user and what assumptions do you make in designing the sofrtware?
-how does the fabriction machine work? – which aspects of the DF process are Yours and original and appropriate for you to submit as part of your PhD write up? – what is the most important academic/scholarly argument and contribution you will make with this phd project?
Halina Gottlieb: an exploration of physical interfaces such as toys that help children move through museums with a personalised focus; introduction of a number of Interactive Institute projects invented by Halina, to show the spaces beyond paintings, discussion of the role of the creator in collaborative interactive installations, emphasis on the role of the artist and cultural worker within an interactive experience design model, et al.
Questions: Chris: Can you talk us through the connection between these installations made for the Interactive Institute and your own PhD themes?
Discussion of the originating impulse and processes of managing the original ideas within larger collaborative
Cathy asked about the role of gender in the workshops – the numbers of boys and girls interacting and the ways in which in other art forms such as dance the gender balance leads to very important cultural valuations of the system
Sara mentions ZKM and also the San Jose Science Museum as two museums that might offer useful frameworks for comparison; how are you mapping out the comparative contexts in order to place your work? The arguments about the role of artists and designers working in this context are well made- but perhaps you need to develop a section on the specific benefits of your work in this context? Also a mention of Ron Wakkary’s writings on interpretive tools for museums.
Clilly mentions the timescales of the projects and means for following through and measuring outputs. . .
Discussion of comparative models. . .
Babak asked about the possibilities of crossing paths for specific navigation systems. .
Leslie asked for an academic framing of the work, to place the case studies in a scholarly context
Halina discussed the case study analysis as the methodology for the work
Lizbeth asked for a summary of the original scholarly contribution to be made by the project. Discussion. Agreement that the work is leading in interesting directions, and now needs shoring up to summarise the scholarly contributions and forms of deliverables for the final submission.
Halina Gottlieb (middle)
Keywords of the Day: Interactivity, Site specificity, novel interfaces, learning journeys, learning contracts, toys as interfaces, smart-toys, intelligent agents Morning: The Journey of the PhD continues…
Bobby Byrne warms up the group physically. . .
Leslie Hill warms up the group mentally, following on from yesterday’s public speaking exercises with a new focus on writing skills. . .
Alison Williams: An exploration of how the physical environment affects the ways people are creative; environmental architecture, affordances, physical determinism, direct & indirect effect, can the physical environment directly impact what we do? Or is cultural mediation also important?
Environmental features or events and intervening variables, creativity syntax, triggers for creative behaviours- space syntax and creativity syntax (Alison’s original idea in development)/pattern languages and emergent structures for understanding these. . .
Questions: David – How disappointing at first was it that what you searched for in the journey didn’t come through, and how did you shift gears?
Sara discusses the discourses of positivist notions of creativity and individuality and the failure of some of these theories in social situations. . . suggests that it might be helpful to tie these ideas about social and creative impulses: the transcendence of moments and social media/experience etc., examinations in social transcendence…
Alison replies with reference to Sheridan Tatsuno’s work on group creativity in this domain.
Esther discusses the links to flow theory and raises issues about space/no-space locations.
Alison discusses the differences between her social/real space approaches and the virtual domain (not addressed in this paper)
Turlif asks about the process planned for mapping creative footprints.
Alison discusses her plan: the emergence of new ideas from interviews, common threads from statements made and wider sampling planned for the next phase (also discusses the importance of the multiple diagrams that are informing and modelling the study.
Taey: Virtual Nomads, online spaces, mapping, charting territories of identity and individuality, temporality, space, chiaorscuro, the aim of getting lost, nomadic travels in real and cyberspace, the flaneur and flaneuse, gender studies and feminist theory, urban experience and narrative, exile, diaspora, physicality versus virtuality, snap grid mapping and invisible space
Feedback: Sara enjoyed the prose style and the pleasurable mode of the writing; asked questions about layering of knowledges across cultures including aboriginal cultures and post-colonial theory
Taey discusses the struggle between representation using contexualisatons from French theory and feminist theory, to the need for an Asian or non-Western framework for analysis. Taey discusses of the role of the non-Western artist as a mover through the narrative environment that is also real space and mappable emotionally, cognitively and geographically. Alison questions the artist as stalker – is this not totally unethical? Taey responds: in the first work by this artist, there was a detective hired to stalk the artist, so this was a set up, a way of addressing the tracing of self and a mode of pretence, role play, etc. So this is a creative act for me, not an ethical issue about real invasion of privacy and space.
Online dialogue visualisation software, chat, usenet or conversation visualisation software was created in university research labs.Electronic expressions and sociable media, limits of online environments, sociable media approaches, the structured and unstructured conversations and popular exchanges, language analysis tools, computed processes, avatars and monikers, abstract or synthetic imagery, participation frameworks, facilitation, text synthesis, scalability and community need, horizontal structures of the conversation map with discreet conversation spaces, visualisations in synchronous and asynchronous modes, tone and feel of conversations evolve in the neural network, et al. -Jason asks about the relationship between the emerging and responding trends in data analysis-Sara discusses the various means of visualising search engine outputs, key thinkers in this field, key words as tags in these structures, etc.-Ron asks about the virtual environments and systems-sara shows the system and gives examples of the OS and its wearable tech and playful/performative aspects-Camille asks about the social software in performance context-Turlif asks about the neural network and measuring methods-Sara discusses the emotional registers and measures/categories/frameworks for analysis of these issues in each conversation- assigning of patterns to each set of characteristics; explains that she did not build or train the neural net but worked with colleagues, explaining what was needed and collaborating with the aim of including the emotional brain behind the software and using simpler expressions, as ‘stupid AI’.