Looking Outwards 5

Uncategorized — erica_lazrus @ 5:31 am

1) Matt Finke and Timo Weinhold’s Darmstadt unter Strom Panorama Projection

I remember seeing this in a lecture in one of my architecture studios and happened to stumble across it again today. I think that this is a really interesting interface between technological, 2d imaging and 3d architecture and space. The projections that I find most interesting are those towards the beginning and those about 5 or so minutes into the video, where the projections themselves actually begin to suggest the 3d space that exists within the building, behind the dominating facade. I think this is a really cool way to suggest a building’s experience through its facade alone, which sometimes does not give any indication on the space behind it. You’ll notice as you watch the video that it goes back and forth between the actual live projection and the digitized version of projection. I hate to say that the digitized version is much more suggestive than the live version and which that there was a way to bridge that gap in quality better.

2) 555 KUBIK: How it Would be, if a House Was Dreaming

This is another projection of a building facade that I think is much more successful. The suggestion of 3d is much more prominent and impressive in this project, only to be enhanced by the use of sound. The project is therefore very engaging to its viewers. One criticism would be that I wish it was a little more related to the building behind the facade; I didn’t feel like I was getting a sense of the space the same way I did with the first project. That being said however, I think the public space is extremely enhanced by the projection and that the facade does being to connect more with the people inside that public space.

3) LM3LAB’s AirStrike


This project is also related to the idea of using 2d to suggest 3d. It utilizes a 2d clear screen that appears to create holographic interactive images. This technology is neat because it is interactive, almost creating a “physical” image. It stands out from interactive projects that are purely projection onto a surface because of its holographic nature. I think that is it obvious from the video that certain images lend themselves more to the holographic effect than others, for instance the one at the very beginning of the video is quite impressive.


Uncategorized — erica_lazrus @ 4:17 am

I implemented a version of frogger involving hopping across lilypads to get to the other side of the water (instead of avoiding obstacles to get to the other side). Landing in the water causes the player to lose, getting to the other side safety causes the player to win. The player controls the frog’s leaps using a big red button implemented with an arduino. Once the game is over, the player can also restart the game by pressing the button.

Erica Lazrus – Looking Outwards 4

Uncategorized — erica_lazrus @ 10:02 pm

I think I forgot to do the last looking outwards so I found 6 projects for this time.

1) Niklas Roy’s “My Little Piece of Privacy”

Niklas Roy\'s \"My Little Piece of Privacy\"

This project involves using a surveillance to detect motion outside of a window and have a shade respond to that movement to prevent the passerby from looking in. I think the idea behind this is clever; it allows the person inside to have natural sunlight and scenery of the outside while maintaining some privacy. The practical implementation does not work so well in that the shade lags when responding to faster motion and has to overcome the obstacle of having two separately moving body at different sides of the window. However, I think the shade is successful in creating in unexpected interactive, entertaining experience in the midst of everyday life. As the video shows, those who are engaging with the shade appear to be highly amused by it. Further, as the shade grabs the attention of the passerby, even with the above mentioned problems, the person inside does experience a sense of privacy because they seem to “disappear” in the background of the interactive installation.

2) “A Goofy Movie – After Today LIVE”

\"A Goofy Moive – After Today LIVE\"

This is a live version of the song “After Today” from “A Goofy Movie”. I really enjoyed it one, because “A Goofy Movie” is awesome and two, because I thought the progress of how the video came to be made is really interested. It is based off of an animated movie, which, being animated, is based off of physical human interaction on the world. So in a sense, the makers of the video are translating information from a physical world to a virutal one and back into the physical one. Being the video aimed as being a close replica of the original with physical interaction, it still involved a lot of digital touching to get some of the scenes to look like. This is then almost a turn of the tables because the makers used digital technology to make the something human appear more animated when animation is usually attempting to use digital technology to make things appear more human.

3) Christopher Paretti’s Speed Dial

This project is an attempt to “use the phone as a gateway into something different, yet still very social, and enjoyable.” The artist created a miniature racetrack for slot cars that move based on noise and spit of a user into a phone. The idea is engaging for a user because it creates immediate feedback in a game setting in a new way; it is essentially using the phone like you would a joystick or any other type of controller. The difference is that you interface with the controller with your mouth instead of your fingers. I think this is project in that sense is fun for the user as a new, first-time experience, but I don’t think it necessarily will have the ability to entice people to use it again.

4) Noriaki Okada and Soyoung Park’s “Interactive Dolls”

\"Interactive Dolls\"

I like the concept of this project because it aims to use technology in a meaningful, educational way by creating interactive dolls to help children develop language and social skills. I think that this is a good application of physical computing because such dolls capture the imagination of the child by creating pseudo-human interactions in a fun, silly way. The main criticism I have of this project is that I think some work could be done to make the interactions and the phrases more realistic/applicable.

5/6) Nortd Lab’s “Cubit” and Daniel Hirschmann’s “Glowbits”

Both of these projects explore the idea of the visual image through pixel manipulation. “Cubit” does so by creating an interface that allows the user to physically manipulate pixels by eliminating the use of a mouse. This is an interesting approach because it makes the idea of the pixel seem more tangible and begins to give it life outside of the 2d virtual environment. However, I think this is somewhat hinders by the design of the object itself; it’s shape and screen interface still too clearly mimic that of a regular, everyday computer. I think it would be more interesting to find a way to creating such an experience a more “out of the box” setting.

“Glowbits” is an attempt to draw with pixels in 3d space. I think this concept is a really cool one to explore, as it also is a defiance of the typical 2d virtual environment, and further begins to give pixels physical attributes, in a sense. I think that the movement of the 3d “pixels” begins to speak to this idea of physicality and to a certain extent, gives you the ability to experience it from different views besides the frontal one (though the frontal one is obvious the point of most interest). However, I wish the 3d “pixels” themselves could be better experienced from multiple viewpoints (instead of just the rods holding them), as it still seems to have a sense of linearity that suggests more of a 2d surface.

Looking Outwards 2-Erica Lazrus

LookingOutwards — erica_lazrus @ 5:27 am

Maria Lorena Lehman, “Sensing Architecture” and “Ubiquitous Computing”

Lehman suggests the use of ubiquitous computing to create a smart architectural environment that responds to the user’s needs. She furthers explains that such a system “revolve around goal-orientated device cooperation, meaning that the user would need to actively give input to his environment for it to function smoothly. In this sense, the smart environment and the user together create the program for the environment, which begs the question, where is the role of the architect? The architect’s job is to blend the necessary program and a concept in a way that creates a meaningful experience for the user. If the architect no longer is responsible for program (as a programmer would be responsible to initializing the smart environment, and the user and the environment itself for maintaining it), would his role default to entirely be focused on concept? Or will it be expected of the architect to learn how to do such programming himself and bridge more disciplines?

dpr-barcelona, “Architecture in Your Hands”

“Architecture in Your Hands” is a new app that will change the way we store and interact with stored information about the world around us. It’s purpose is to create a “networked learning” focused on “enhancing immediacy, brevity, and simplicity”. A user will be able to learn through stored information while being on site, thereby creating more integrated and engaging learning environment that can be based on a combination of personal experience and critical knowledge. I think it is an important revolutionary way to get a more hands-on learning experience.

The Product, Digital Rube Goldberg Processor

I found this to be a really interesting modern Rube Goldberg machine, centering around our daily use of technology. It shows the inter-connectivity our physical beings in a virtual environment, where we are abstracted in a sense. The dynamic between physicality and virtual reality is understood through the tension between objective output and subjective understanding/interpretation of that output.

Looking Outwards – Erica Lazrus

LookingOutwards — erica_lazrus @ 8:30 pm

Kyle McDonald, People Staring At Computers

Kyle McDonald installed software on computers in Apple stores that took pictures of users staring at the computer screen. McDonald used the photographs to create a blog which “was designed to examine people’s relationship with computers”. I’m not sure it’s so successful in examining this relationship as is, but think it could be if it compared the facial expressions of the user against a screenshot of what the user was actually doing on the computer. The project is extremely controversial because it is now being investigated for computer fraud law, which involves accessing without authorization. Should such a project really be illegal?

Oliver Laric, 2000 Cliparts

Oliver Laric’s project involves a series of 2000 clipart people stitched together to make an animation. The poses of each of the figures relates and is only slightly modified from the figures both before and after it. In this way, the animation shows the relationship, similarities, and differences between people. Furthermore, the usage of clip art figures suggests human relationship to technology and self-representation through such a medium. Whatever is a similarity across the board of all the figures says something about the importance of that element when recreating a human image.

Christian Marclay, The Clock

Christian Marclay creates a film which also works as a clock. He stitched together clips from different movies, each clip showing a clock displaying the actual current time. This is an interesting project because it inverses the typical relationship between seeing a movie and keeping track of time. Usually going into a theater to watch a film tends to be very time-disorienting, suspending you in a place where time is not at the foreground (think of the times when you go into a theater when there is sunlight and re-emerging when it is dark out). However, “The Clock” reminds you every minute of the existence of time. Does this make the film less enjoyable? Does it make you consider the relationship between real time and the time in the movie? Is such a project a new type of art, different from regular cinema?

project13 pdf

Uncategorized — erica_lazrus @ 3:09 am


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
(c) 2019 CMU Electronic Media Studio II, Fall 2011, Section A | powered by WordPress with Barecity