The following comments are a response to the Spotlight conceptual statement.

“…we want the culprit to feel like a deer in the headlights…” It seems like this feeling you suggest could stem from a couple of origins, including:

  1. General discomfort with being a center of attention; fear of exposure.
  2. The surprise of discovering one has intruded into a space where one is an outsider and unwelcome.
  3. The ambiguity about power relationships with what are obviously machines: the discomfort of being accused of human supremacy; a discomfort with the idea of robots asserting authority.
  4. A general anxiety about being spurned or rejected by a clique.

A key distinction is whether the visitor ends up feeling highlighted because of what they did versus who they are. If I quietly walk into the space and it suddens becomes hostile, I may think it is simply because I am human and being ‘othered’ by the machines.

“The feeling we are trying to convey to the audience is one of respect for the robot’s show.” That seems more like a lesson than a feeling.

“We want the human viewers to feel like they are supposed to watch politely.” As-is, this is essentially your prompting of the interaction instructions.

These can both be deconstructed. The underlying feelings driving respect and politeness could be a sense of equality (i.e. the spotlight as peer); the desire to adhere to the social and class conventions of a theater (which may already apply by virtue of location); a fear of reprisal; a genuine pleasure in the show.

I’m guessing that communicating ‘frustration’ will be difficult, and likely seem comical; we are conditioned to our dominance over machines, it would take quite a bit of empathy-building for us to accept their frustration.

This makes me wonder how you can leverage the fear of the other visitors to your ends. If the other visitors can be induced to disapproval that would magnify the effect of the spotlight.

A perennial question with a robotic piece is the locus of agency. You’ve presented this as an autonomous intelligence, and that might be emphasized if there is a clear change of kinetic language between watching the show and glaring at the visitor. But this seems like something to remember as the form evolves since our preconceptions are likely to be that spotlights are wielded by humans.

Clarification questions

  1. Is the spotlight directing the performers, or simply following the flow of action from performer to performer?
  2. Are the performing robots actively trying to attract the attention of the spotlight, or simply putting on a show for their audience?
  3. Does the intended audience of the performers include the humans? Or is this a kind of robot one-on-one show (e.g. busking, or even robot lap dance)?
  4. What’s the content of the show? Is it in a visual language of robots for robots, or a kind of story-telling for anyone?
  5. Are the performers an ensemble, or separate sequential performances?
  6. How is the spotlight responding to the show apart from its attention? I.e., it is purely passive, or does it laugh and sigh along with the action?
  7. Does the robot show have an end, or is this a kind of eternal machine performance?
  8. What happens if the visitors are just very quiet and don’t move into the center? This is not altogether unlikely, given the ‘theater’ setting.
  9. At what point does the spotlight break its ‘eye contact’?
  10. Is the visitor solitary? If not, what happens if multiple humans are simultaneously active?
  11. Is the spotlight seem ‘of a kind’ with the performers? What’s the visual language of ‘performer’ versus ‘spectator’ here? Do they seem to come from the same place, or are they deliberately different?

Follow-ups

  1. The architecture of the space will have a lot of effect on the intended outcome; please now draw a floorplan to scale.
  2. Detailed technical inventory. You are competing with the other group for existing hardware, we need a solid reckoning of what we need to build or buy.