I propose, as an homage to Gordon Matta-Clark’s Fake Estates project, a survey of land plots in Pittsburgh that are under 20 feet. These plots are fascinating as they push and question the boundary between architecture and object scales, and begin to explore societal requirements that result in such spaces.

 

I have already begun researching this topic, and have found a series of these plots.

For my typology project, I plan to use Legos to explore people’s ideas of space travel. In short, I’m going to present different people with the same set of Lego pieces and ask them to build a spaceship. I am interested in both what they think (the ultimate structure they create) and how they think (their process of construction). I was inspired by the typologies we were shown in class where people were asked to create things, like Kim Dingle’s “The United Shapes of America.”

Why a spaceship?

I had a few criteria in mind when deciding what my prompt would be. I want it to be vague enough that people could use their own creativity, which is one of the joys of Lego. Showing a picture and telling them to “make this” would not only be less fun for them, but would probably yield less interesting and varied results. On the other hand, I don’t want to overdo the vagueness and make the participants feel pressured to generate artistically meaningful ideas themselves (ie. “build what love means to you” or “build whatever you want”). I think those results would also not be very interesting. Finally, I want the prompt to investigate a question I find meaningful. This one’s certainly subjective, but I kept it in mind anyway. I have to like this project after all.

I landed on “spaceship” because it’s a wonderfully overloaded term. Am I talking about a NASA rocket, a flying saucer, or a sci-fi warship? For any given person, chances are they already have a mental image of a “spaceship,” and it’s different from someone else’s. Space travel has been explored in the news and media in many different ways, and I want to see which of these emerge in people’s designs. How many will add some kind of weaponry? Will they be grounded in science? Will they resemble particular spaceships from franchises? I think this has the potential to be interesting.

Also, spaceships feel very “on brand” for Legos, which I always associated with STEM and sci-fi. It feels like an appropriate use of the medium. I also considered “robot” for the prompt, because it’s also sci-fi and has been widely explored in the media. But I thought it was a little too vague: people know robots can be anything from boxes on wheels to giant arms to realistic humanoids, so I expect many would either require further clarification or default to a sort of “boxy humanoid” that I don’t find very interesting.

What’s the procedure?

I will set up a building area on a table in an area with consistent lighting. The table will be covered in black (or possibly something space-patterned if I can find that) and have a pile of Legos. This set will include a lot of curvy, slanty, and smooth pieces, which are important to spaceships. There will be a camera on a tripod pointed at the building area, about 45 degrees downward and to the right side of the builder. When the participant arrives, I’ll ask them to build a spaceship in the building area (having already explained that I’d be recording them building with Legos). Then I’ll record video of them while they build. Once they finish, I’ll get a quick statement from them about what their process and what they were going for. Finally, I’ll transfer their spaceship to some sort of rotating tray, if I can, and record a video of it spinning around. Then I will disassemble it and start again with someone new.

What’s the display method?

So I’m not totally decided on this yet; we’ll see what kind of results I get. I’m hoping that the process of watching people build is interesting: maybe some people will sort out the Legos, some will go right into it and then have to backtrack, some will build larger sub-pieces and put those together, etc. If this is the case, then I think I’ll display these videos in a grid, sped up something like 10x, so you can watch the different building processes at the same time. Once each person finishes, we’ll stop on an image on their completed spaceship, so at the end you can see them all in a grid (before it loops back to the start). If this looks so busy that it’s disorienting, or if the building process turns out not to be interesting, I can just make a grid of the spinning spaceship videos.

One thing that would be very fun is to keep all of the Lego spaceships, and then display them together like a typology of sculptures. I think that would be the most interesting to look at, but it presents some challenges: I want everyone to have the same set of Legos. In other words, if the first participant uses up a lot of curvy pieces, I don’t want that to limit the next participant’s design. So if I’m not disassembling the ships, I’ll have to somehow replace the pieces that were just used between each trial? That seems logistically tricky, not to mention expensive (I’m shopping for the Legos now and already surprised how expensive some of the fancy stuff is). One potential option, then, is to do this virtually. Take lots of pictures of the spaceships, do photogrammetry on them, and put them in a digital outer space. I generally don’t love photogrammetry as a display method, but it may be appropriate here. Then again, this virtual version still looses the magical thingy-ness of actual Lego bricks.

I will continue to think about methods of display, and would love to discuss it with someone. One of the reasons I’m capturing video is because I’m still undecided on the display–a spinning video can become a set of images for photogrammetry, or series of progress images, or any number of things I may need.

How do you hold your pen?

In this project, I want to capture the different ways people hold their pens, and present them as a series of digital sculptures.

Writing is fun! Especially when a physical pen is involved. A pen with a nice, weighty, smooth feel is a magical object. It channels the fire from our brain and our heart, through our hand, onto a piece of paper (or equivalent).

We all hold our pens quite differently.  There are some patterns though. For example, the American Journal of Occupational Therapy found these four most popular grips. (I am a Lateral Tripod by the way.)

 

Design Agency Scriberia illustrated a few more.

This is how Taylor Swift holds her pen, in this Diet Coke ad at least.

Machine:

A photogrammetry process — 1) people come to a station and model for a few minutes holding a pen as I take photos of them, 2) photos get turned into 3d models digitally.

Media object:

An example

For my project, I want to record people’s mouths saying something to a person they love and make sculptures out of the change in shape of their lips. I will do this by tracing the lips of every frame of a video (or burst of photos), which will vary widely depending on what people say, the shape of the lips, and what language they speak, and then stacking those shapes on top of each other somehow to create a three-dimensional shape.

(I skipped some frames when sketching.)

(I would not use a material as thin as paper for the final sculpture.)

However, I am still unsure of the degree of automation that I want the machine to work at. I think the following two ideas are equally interesting but incredibly different and could create entirely different meanings behind the final typology.

Very Automatic. I record someone’s lips with the slow motion camera. I write a script in Processing that, when fed the recording, will break the video down into its frames, extract the shape of the lips in each frame with FaceOSC, and export the relative XY coordinates of each frame’s “lip shape” (landmarks) to a text file. I write a Blender script that, when fed the text file of 2D lip shapes, will sequentially layer the shapes along the Z axis, stitch the shapes together, and export an FBX file of the new 3D shape. At this point, I can either send the FBX to a 3D printer and end up with a small, smooth plastic sculpture; or, I continue to slice the model, cut the slices on the laser cutter, and end up with a sculpture like the photo below. Once I finish the scripts, I could easily make as many sculptures as I wanted (as time permits), at any size ranging from finger to forearm-size (relatively small).

Not Automatic. I stay as far away from technology as possible. I use a film camera void of a computer to take a burst of photos of lips speaking.

I develop the negatives in the darkroom and create large-ish prints on the enlarger (11 x 17 maybe?). I trace the shape of the lips in each photo with wire. I construct some sort of 3D body out of the layers of wire lips with more wire, metal, or some malleable but formidable “skeleton” material (chicken wire-esque). I cover it in paper mache.

(Not sure if this is Photoshopped or actual paper mache but this is essentially what I would do.)

Finally I paint it and glaze it. These could get really big, probably a couple feet tall, depending on how much the person says in the video. This technique is way more physically laborious than the first, so I don’t know if I could make more than three or four before the deadline.

I have a few other ideas of differing degrees of automation, but these are the two that I am super excited by. So much so that I really want to do both of them and need help deciding which (if either) works best for this project/this class.

Alternatively, while this would be a shit ton of work, my typology could instead be the differing degrees of automation on one set of lips (mine, saying my own sentence about someone I love). This typology would consist of similar 3D sculptures with the same set of lip shape data, but made with different sculpture materials; while the aforementioned typology would be sculptures of the same material, but of different lips, languages, and loves.

Please help me decide!

I’d like to use the eye tracker to reveal the sequence that people look at images. When looking at something, your eyes move around and quickly fixate on certain areas, allowing you to form the impression of the overall image in your head. The image that you “see” is really made up of the small areas that you’ve focused on, the remainder is filled in by your brain. I’m interested in the order in which people move their eyes over areas of an image, as well as the direction that their gaze flows as they look.

Eye tracking has been used primarily to determine the areas that people focus on in images, and studies have been conducted to better understand how aspects of images contribute towards where people look. In this example, cropping the composition changed how people’s eyes moved around the image.

There is also a famous study by Yarbus that showed that there’s a top-down effect on vision; people will look different places when they have different goals in mind.

I haven’t been able to find any studies that examine the sequence in which people look around an image. I’d like to see if there are differences between individuals, and perhaps how the image itself plays a role.

I’m going to show people a series of images (maybe 5) and ask them to look at each of them for some relatively short amount of time (maybe 30 sec). I’ll record the positions of their eyes over the course of the time in openFrameworks. After doing this, I’ll have eye position data for each of the images for however many people.

Next, it’s a question of presenting the fixation paths. I’m still not totally sure about this. I think I might reveal the area of the image that they fixated on and manipulate the “unseen” area to make it less prominent. There’s lots of interesting possibilities for how this might be done. I read a paper about a model of the representation of peripheral vision that creates  distorted waves of information.

It could be nice to apply this kind of transformation to the areas of the image that aren’t focused on. The final product might be a video that follows the fixation points around the image in the same timescale as they’re generated, with the fixation in focus and area around distorted. A bit like creating a long exposure of someone’s eye movements around an image.

For my typology machine, I’m going to look at my contact lenses!

I have worn contacts since I was 8 years old, so there’s plenty of questions I could come up with (for example, how many daily pairs have i worn in my entire life? What is the amount of packaging waste I’ve generated through this? Yikes.)

They’re a really cool material to play with – transparent, squishy, very different wet/dry textures, etc. For the purpose of this assignment, it’s an awesome opportunity to experiment – what can I capture about this material that I have never been able to see otherwise?

My machine will look at them between polarizing filters, using a DSLR, macro lens and light table.What kind of surface tensions are there on different pairs? How much does each lens differ from the next? (despite quality standards, there’s an occasional lens that is not the right shape. What does this look like?) What does an inside-out lens look like, compared to one that’s right-side-out? If I look at every pair I wear for a week, how does each day differ? Does a fresh lens look different from one I’ve been wearing all day?

It’s a pretty simple concept, which is fine by me and leaves opportunity for some fun discoveries & experimentation.

Beyond just using polarizing filters, what other things could I capture about my contact lenses? For example, is there some way to “see” how dirty they are at the end of the day? I’m open to suggestions and excited to get started.

ANTI-ASMR Typology Project

My plan for the typology project is to explore the phenomenon that has tried to be defined by many names but I am calling “Anti-ASMR” (as referenced to by some on the internet). It will take the form of a video compilation of terrible sounds, and possibly (if I have time) a compilation of people’s reaction to these sounds.

Names and definitions some people associate with this:

• Misophonia: (Not what I am studying, but related) is a disorder in which certain sounds trigger emotional or physiological responses that some might perceive as unreasonable given the circumstance. Those who have misophonia might describe it as when a sound “drives you crazy.” Their reactions can range from anger and annoyance to panic and the need to flee. Misophonia may cause a reaction to sounds such as dripping water, chewing, snapping gum, or repetitive noises, such as pencil tapping.
• Hyperacusis: (Not what I am studying, but related-ish) Not specific to a certain sound is a highly debilitating rare hearing disorder characterized by an increased sensitivity to certain frequencies and volume ranges of sound (a collapsed tolerance to usual environmental sound). A person with severe hyperacusis has difficulty tolerating everyday sounds, which become painful or loud. Hyperacusis is often associated with autism.
• Grima (Spanish term that is exactly what I’m exploring): Great article putting into words this feeling
  But although grima is most often associated with sounds, some participants said grima was triggered by the feel of certain objects – as foam rubber does for Schweiger. Some were objects associated with loud noises, but others were objects that don’t make noise, such as cork, velvet or sponges.

I think it is fascinating that we don’t have a word for this in English which is an obvious sign that this phenomenon lacks a lot of research. Most projects that I have seen that are similar to my idea (like this video) contain sounds that almost everyone finds somewhat annoying/disgusting. What sets this typology apart from others is the fact that most of these sounds except one or two don’t bother me personally at all. However, I know that many of these actions are largely despised among groups of people even though the subject is rarely talked about. I think I find it so fascinating because it is like we all have our own personal kryptonite of which we share with certain individuals (for example, my sister and I share a trigger but we don’t share it with our parents). Also, I think there’s something wonderful in the fact of discovering we are not alone in these weird repulsions many of us have. Therefore, I am planning to record a compilation of sounds and textures of mundane things that commonly give people a negative physical reaction in order to better study this phenomenon.

To do this I plan to record myself making many of these unpleasant sounds using both the binaural microphone for audio in order to simulate texture and the way humans hear such sounds and a DSLR camera to highlight the texture in the objects themselves. The actions will be filmed in a plain, ideally white, and, well lit area that has no background noise. Only the hands of the person performing the action will be shown. The objects and actions mentioned are gathered from sources from my personal social media, word of mouth, and from online sources such as Reddit.

Symptoms People Have Said They Experience:

• Shivers
• Goosebumps
• Have to bite their tongue
• Tongue swell up
• Gagging
• Repulsive reaction
• Feeling of “makes me want to turn inside out” “makes me feel like my teeth are going to fall out.” “My nerves are trying to burrow out of my body”
• Thinking about these triggers is enough to feel them

What Sounds/Textures I Plan to Record:

• Unpolished dry wooden spoons against dry skin
• Nail files on nails
• Styrofoam against Styrofoam
• Styrofoam against cardboard
• Styrofoam against Felt
• Scratching Styrofoam
• Scratching Vinyl/3D Folders
• Water bottle with ridges (especially when wet)
• Glossy photos (like for the dole show) scraped against nails
• Touching a blown up balloon with hands
• Silverware against teeth 
• Silverware against plate
• Silverware against unglazed ceramic
• Chewing Tin foil 
• Chewing wool
• Chewing cotton balls
• Fingers against the grain of velvet
• Sharpening Knives
• Teeth grinding
• Dry hands on Dry paper towels
• Chewing paper towel
• Erasing with pencil with just metal part

For this assignment I plan on measuring the population density of different rooms on campus. Such information would provide us with how crowded certain rooms are during the day and what rooms people tend to prefer at what times. This app also has applications in assisting people trying to find free rooms for studying.

The “machine” for this project would be a pressure plate that is configured at the entrance of a room in front of the door. When people walk into or out of the room, the pressure plate would detect the footstep of the person. The problem then arises as to whether the pressure denotes an ‘enter’ or ‘exit’ movement. Since most people walk with the back of their foot hitting the ground before the front, then the direction of pressure would indicate the type of movement.

This information would then be sent to a computer which would visualize the data. A translucent building schematic with red dots would indicate the presence of people in a room. While we would not know the exact location of these people in the room, we would still know the population density, which is useful for estimating which rooms are crowded at what times. Ultimately this resource can give students and staff an average indication as to when what rooms are free and/or have available working spaces, while also giving us information to multiple questions such as:

• Do people enter alone or in crowds?
• What times of the day are rooms most crowded? Most free?
• How long on average does a person spend in a room?
• Are people making frequent trips out of the room? Are they sitting in place for a long time?

The inspiration for this project was mostly from spy movies where they would use a translucent grid to track people with red dots (The above image is from a video game [Jedi Fallen Order] but has the same premise). The idea sounded really unique, and I wanted to see how well I could emulate this given just a computer and pressure plate.