Richard Osbourne

28 11 2007


Richard Osbourne gave us tutorials on our project, and it was one of the best focused discussions I’ve had. He even gave us a title for our work, “The Rules of the Game,” especially since we’ll be using the theories of Foucault for our framework.

The suggestions he gave us were:

Set up a number of rules for the collaboration…then break them.

To incorporate the idea of the Panopticon (the eye of power). This is about how we edit ourselves knowing that someone is watching us.

To watch The Rules of the Game by Renoir.


His idea was actually to post the rules when we do the installation. This is fabulous idea. As it reflects the unspoken code of relationships and how we break it and transform it.

Mosh and I decided to come up with the rules…much to discuss.

1W11-2 Circuitry and Interactivity

24 11 2007



Mosh and I made our first circuit together in preparation for the Arduino board. Leon Baker, a PHD student, taught our class the basics. It’s pretty simple, but to be honest, we have our work cut out for us if we want interactivity. The basic board was simple (a set of wires that one has to meticulously follow.) But the programming of the chip is the tricky part. Once we learn that, we may be able to trigger whatever response we want from the work.



It seems that the deeper we get, the more we need to know…

1W11-1 Bill Viola and Acoustics

21 11 2007


Bill Viola talked about how intertwined sound and image are. He mentioned how video was born through the development of radio technology and cited frequency as the base element of the video image as waves are to sound (158). He argued that technically, image is sound. And this inspired me to use the principles he mapped out about acoustics on the video images for Collisions.I’ll be approaching manipulation and the confrontation of Moshe’s video through the principles of acoustics as outlined by Bill Viola below (156-157):

Refraction: The bending of soundwaves due to a change in speed as they pass through different media, such as two layers of air of different temperatures. At Queen Victoria’s funeral in London in 1901, rounds of artillery were fired and, although not heard in the surrounding countryside, the loud roar of cannons suddenly materialized 90 miles away.

Diffraction: Sound turning a corner, when the edge of a barrier generates a new series of waves. We hear invisible persons talking on the other side of a high wall.

Reflection: The rebounding of soundwaves off a surface, the angle at which they bounce off being equal to the angle at which they arrive. With multiple surfaces this becomes an echo, and it is then possible to hear one’s own voice, possibly multiple times, as it existed at a previous point in time. One can sing with one’s self. Multiple regular reflections produce the conditions of reverberation,
where a sound can be repeated over and over on top of itself, the past becoming indistinguishable from the present.

Interference: Two sounds collide with each other, the wavefronts of each alternately reinforcing and inhibiting themselves. In a large hall the sound of a loud instrument suddenly drops to a barely audible whisper at a certain location in the room.

Resonance: Soundwaves reinforce themselves, either by the addition of an identical sound or when the material properties or spatial dimensions match the physical shape of the soundwaves themselves. A singer’s voice becomes louder, gaining energy when released into a small enclosure, or an object produces a specific tone when struck. The shape and materials of an object represent a frozen sound potential.

Sympathetic Vibration, related to resonance and possibly the most evocative of all: When a bell is struck another one across the room begins vibrating, giving off the same sound.
Bill Viola, Reasons for Knocking at an Empty House, 1994

1W10-2 Final Proposal

19 11 2007




1W10-1 Experiment # 1: Collaborative Exchange of Work 1

12 11 2007

Mosh and I decided to make our first experiment into our MADA presentation. Realized that I work in layers. Several cycles take place. The first edit, I lay down my video. The second time I view it, I push the video. I allow the idea that I initially had to come out further, imprinting it into the image. And the third time, I begin to see how to further develop the idea. How to make things longer and simpler through elongation of pacing. It’s also where I see how the idea will grow…the development stage.

I have been experimenting with compositing and how using different layers with different keys creates the shifting almost transforming image that I want.

Another part of the experiment was the sound. Had ideas to further connect disparate sound to the image to bring meaning. Like the ideas of Eisenstein on combining a different object’s sound with the image to create new meaning. When sound and image coincide perfectly (like how we did it frame by frame) is something we should explore more. Mosh had the idea of putting the electricity sound on the video. I had the idea of matching it with the combination/collision between the two frames.

Interesting stuff. More experiments to be done. Still have to figure out how to speak more…

Another realization was that the ideas come as chunks, either from him or from me. Here, we began to create using the new process. He edits his side of the frame with pieces and elements of mine and the same with me. We took turns at the editing table, almost like jamming with a friend. It’s a tedious process, but it helps in putting the idea down, especially when you get an image in your head and its the most frustrating thing to put it into words.

The action-reflection works. You put the idea (create it) then you begin to understand what you’re doing, saying, feeling. The idea becomes clear. Like the disruption idea that I did with mosh’s video on my face. The thought in my mind is that I have to create more. So that I get this shit out of me. Sometimes I feel like my head will explode (an ugly sight). Must put it down and stop trying to get all intellectual with it, because sometimes, I don’t logically understand it, but it makes sense. I’ve got to stop thinking…do first…think later.

1W9-2 Pure Data and Interactivity

9 11 2007



Had a workshop this week with Ed Kelly on Pure Data. Above is a picture of the possible outline of the work we may do. Two adjacent walls with a third one, which is Moshe’s idea of how to sort of combine the two.

We found that we can perhaps trigger the work so that the interactions come through the presence of the viewer. Possibly triggering the third wall into creating a combined image of the two. Sort of like the audience arrives, becoming the conduit for the interaction.

The development is still in its early stages. Mosh had a suggestion to perhaps create the interactivity depending on where the audience stands. Sort of like, with whom they relate to more. He suggested some sort of grid as pictured below to sort of map out where the people are. Great possibilities for interaction. But to make it work, the images have to be quite simple…otherwise it could get very confusing.

I had another idea, which was touch. That things are triggered when the audience touches the screen (either his or mine). I saw a sort of ripple effect happening on my screen, sort of like the audiences hand will trigger a portal into the other person’s world. Ofcourse, there is the issue of whether the audience will be encouraged to touch the work (especially since that issually a big no no). Mosh though feels that this could end up just being a novelty and people won’t really get/absorb the work. Notably, a pit fall of all interactive work. So we must keep this in mind.

Tim also suggested to us to buy an Arduino Board if we really want it interactive. We must decide soon and look into learning this…

1W9-1 Proposal Revised Draft

7 11 2007



%d bloggers like this: