Sunday, March 2, 2008

Thesis Critique

I chose these two project as a thesis critique related to my thesis project
One is 2007 Spring thesis(Cousteau by Terence Arjo) and the other one is called Dune 4.0 and 4.1.
These two projects are the references that I am working with right now and it was really good to read because it helps me to have dlearer ideas in my project as well as it gives me a good approach such as mechanical part and similar concept I can develop from.
After analyzing these two projects, I came up with several questions for my project.

1. Where can I put my work to give users the most effective experience?
2. What type of application qualities does this project have?
3. How can I organize the inputs and outputs of the underlying circuitry?
4. What is the good definition of ultimate interaction?
5. How clear is the meaning conveyed in my project “Loyalty?
6. How can I go one step further as a developed project?

Cousteau by Terence Arjo (2007 Spring thesis in ITP)

This was a very interesting thesis that I found in the archives of ITP. I think this is a very good reference for my thesis project. When I tried to write about my project in my thesis, I was concerned about finding good references which were similar or have the same type of merits because my project was artwork and not a technology invention. After reading this thesis, I found that there were many similarities in the development of this project. This Thesis, Cousteau written by Terence Arjo was inspired by aquatic life and the movements of sea grass swaying in the ocean current. In this thesis project the background research and references consists of Sensell and Dune 4.0 which are also good references for my project. The research consisted of taking Dune 4.0’s ideas and taking advantage of two weaknesses of Sensacell. He found that developing his project into modular units (1) and independent units (2) that are able to communicate with other modules would greatly extend the size and scope of his project with little limitations.
By using these two weaknesses he was able to successfully come up with non-repetitive movements for his sea-creatures, but something more random. I felt that the Cousteau project was successful in conveying his concepts by using simple modular and scalable designs in his portrayal of the randomly moving sea-creatures. The only part I felt that the project didn’t quite deliver was the visual aesthetics and the natural or organic type of responses by the sea-creatures. It was also mentioned in Cousteau’s thesis about his focusing on two inputs and one output. This would ensure that he would have a controlled outcome to a specific input. By limiting the inputs and outputs of this project he could make interaction more subtle and finesse. In conclusion I felt that Cousteau was successful in creating and delivering on the concept of modularity and mechanical response to inputs (stimuli), but failed to create any sort of meaningful interaction between the project and the user. Because he limited his inputs and outputs, he was not able to deliver on the many varieties of inputs and outputs that make user participation more interactive. And because aesthetics were not the priority in this project, sea-creatures that inspired this project were depicted by small metal rods that move back and forth and side to side. I think aesthetics integrated with technology promotes interaction and thus promotes the type of desired expression, and in this case it is my opinion that the Cousteau project lacks the type of aesthetics that promote interaction.

Dune 4.0 by Roosegaarde

When I found this article, I thought it was the perfect reference for my thesis as well.
I am not only fascinated by his work but also by his way of thinking that infuses art and technology. Even though this is not a published article (actually this was an interview), there were good definitions about interactivity, and it helps me to have clear definitions about ultimate interaction that was difficult to explain in my personal statement.

In very similar ways to my project and my concepts, the Dune 4.0 project researches on the human aspects of interactivity. His art projects are tied to architecture and technology, and also with interaction and user participation. In terms of interaction, he mentioned that the main ingredient is the human interaction itself. While watching how people react on his work, he realized that:

“Sometimes, even though I set the user scenarios in the project, the real users appreciated their own point of view and felt differently by interacting with the artwork.”

In similar view to Roosegaarde’s realization, my project invites the observer to participate and interact with the artwork and also this project takes interaction one step further by making his artwork mediate between people’s behavior. In one instance people’s behavior such as clapping and shouting provokes a reaction from the artwork. It shows advanced interaction between the artwork and the participant and turns the participant into a performer of sorts. These types of advanced interaction possibilities provide the framework new types of application that might be extended to my projects.

My project “Loyalty,” in an interesting way goes maybe a half step towards advanced interaction in letting the participant become the main character of the set scenario.
It was also mentioned in interview that in its best case the artwork becomes a mediator between people and becomes a place for communication by human interaction.

In my artwork, I would like for my project to be a mediator that convey a certain message or concept and also something that can be used to communicate by free human interaction. Finally, I hope that people can find their own loyalty to my project.

No comments: