In going through these readings, I found the ideas in Krueger’s Responsive Environments to be very compelling. The idea that this newly evolving field of responsive environments is one that is limited to certain fields is a bit ridiculous. He talks about how in the early stages, computer scientist were not taken seriously by the art community and vice versa. I think that this field is vastly changing our preconceived notions of design and how we view and interact with it that it needs a multidisciplinary approach in order to give it the richness that it is demanding. There is so much to master both technical and design wise that needs to go into these projects to make them successful. He also brings in the idea that “response is the medium”. He forgoes the notion that what the “artist” creates is a pure aesthetic form. Here the artist is designing the situation and all of the possibilities of what can happen. He is designing a system that can accept inputs and translate them into outputs through a continuous feedback loop with the interactive user. Here the interaction and response is valued beyond the pure aesthetic of how the system looks or how it appears when it reacts. Krueger’s projects began to think past a simple one to one reaction and response system and started to treat the screen as a virtual space in which an input can be free from the constraints on the real physical world. I think that this is an interesting notion. However, I do not totally agree with the letting go with the aesthetic of the system in lieu of a better response. I think that both should be considered equally. One will be more apt to interact with something if it is better designed or appealing to approach. This will make people more willing to use something or to begin to treat is past a simple novelty.
Man-computer symbiosis is a very interesting topic in that it involves the inter-relation of humans and machines. In a sci-fi sense, we could see this as cyborgs, which may or may not play a part in our future, but in a realistic sense there has been a rise in interactive computer systems and interfaces that help synthesize the actions of man and computer. Some examples would be ZeroN, developed at MIT and an interface developed by James Pattern, also MIT. These two examples involve an open communication between man and computer, each can send messages and receive messages simultaneously as well as interrupt each other’s actions. Although many systems have been developed, they are only the beginning of this type of interaction, making the future that much more enticing.
The most interesting parts of these readings was how the gap between computer and human interaction was invented back in the late 60’s and 70’s. The responsive environments of using sensors and making these sensors turn on and off sensory provoking electronics throughout the space is a great way to understand and explore architecture. Glow flow was first example of this and it allowed for basic interactions of human and computer by sensors on the floor relaying to a computer and then turning light around the room on. The example of Meta play which used multiple cameras, projectors, computer monitors and a type of touch tablet allowed for a free expression of art and interaction, it allowed users of the space to interact with the artist without distracting the artist as much as if they were in the same room as them. The people themselves became part of the art and also part of the medium as the artist was allowed to draw in real time as the public used the space. The artist through any and means of drawing was able to convince and persuade people to move in a way that they wanted to and if the public didn’t react in the way the artist wanted the artist could change on the fly how the drawing was made to try to manipulate the public in a way the artist wanted. The uses of sound and then using pressure sensors in the floor with a new configuration than the Glow flow allowing for a maze to be projected on the wall which allowed the user to feel as if they were in a digital maze was another look at how to create a new connection between user and machine. There were several more examples like these but they were all limited to technologies of the time and with today’s advances in computers and processing power we could probably re-create these with ease. The reading Man-Computer Symbiosis was interesting as it talked about the history of computer input devices and how the internet got its start. The discussions about what a computer is meant to do for us and how they will interact with our life is great to understand what people intended for computers and I believe that some of these hold true but in our society we have really linked computers to every aspect of our lives from not just helping us do complex things like extremely hard calculations but to entertain and to teach us. There are even examples of children who’s parents throw a computer at them to entertain them so that the parents can have free time or avoid the child so there is an ethical or moral discussion there that we could discuss for days and days. Anyway back to the inputs between user and machine the user inputs lets say a line of code and then tells the computer to check it this allows for the computer to tell the user without the user really having to think about it whether or not the code will work. This is the basics for how coding today works but before we had these languages (java, c, c#, c++) which allow people to use common commands and a common way of talking about computers as to create bigger and better programs and systems. The input of the user is directly related to the output of the machine. The interesting part about this is the discussion about how the human brain and computers might become one soon and it then opens up to something I have saw as problem from tv shows and other articles and history if we are integrated directly into computers how much will be enough what will be personal and what will be exposed? Think about it and if you have no idea what I am talking Transcendence the Johnny Depp movie.
The way men and computer communicate to each other plays crucial role in our living. computers have the sufficient intelligent to help us do whatever we want; we can use kinds of language to command the machines and they works based on our orders. While in the unexpected situations which they have never been programmed they encounter problems. The point is that computers should be able to read our minds directly and speak to us, instead of just obtaining our orders and commands.
Art is not about the context that the artist created, it is about the way he presents it and the way it communicates with the audience and affects them psychologically. Computers are using as a bridge between artist and people, the quality of transmission is important because it can changes the validity of context. Today the digital machines facilitate the communication between man and virtual reality. They create a virtual environment in which we can feel the physical presence.
It is in fact not easy to believe how rapidly technology has found such a big influence in our lives during a few decades. At the same time, it is finding its way to fit into our lives in new ways other than productivity, efficiency and entertainment. Technology design practice is now moving towards designing experiences rather than items. In this scenario, technology is not anymore a means for facilitating our activities but is actually conditioning our behavior. In many situations, there is indeed the danger of dissociation with the real world. It is very common that people have lost their ability to communicate and be social with the ones that they are not familiar with. Times that people find themselves in awkward social moments that they want to escape to the world of their devices are countless. I think what is important here is to question the authority of computation to decide how you behave in real life. This study might be interrelated with interactivity and responsiveness in design that is attempting to use computers to open up new spaces to help people improvise new kinds of activity. It is in fact defining its goal in designing spaces for human communications. In this sense, it seems appropriate to research the act of communication in a new way. As discussed by “Krueger”, the concept of people getting together in the artificial reality is critical. One might think of What is suggested now that we are interactive in a way that people never could be? Is interactive technology offering improvement in communication or it is simply moving human to rely more and more on technology itself? The answer can find its root in kinds of suppositions that are underlying the existing pattern in the design of technology and finding alternative ways that embody different assumptions as discussed by computer scientists such as “Pheobe Sengers”. When it comes to interactive design, I think it is important to keep in mind the different influences proposed by designing the communication between people and things rather than communication between people with each other which could be both diminished and enhanced by means of interactivity.
Reading the article Man-Computer Symbiosis is just like reading a prediction from decades ago. I was thinking about ipad when it mentioned input and output should be the same surface, and the thought of “this is siri!” appearing in my mind when it suggested the speech production and recognition. Is it means in some way, we are already live in the era of man-computer symbiosis today? Hence, the question “Do we really need the ubiquitous computer dominates our daily life?”comes. It also reminded me the cyborg thing we have discussed last semester, and in some way the “man-computer symbiosis” is exactly cyborg.
In the second article Responsive Environments, it is focus in the “real time” programmed interaction. In fact we are interacting with our natural environment everyday when we try to step on the fallen autumn leaves to make it sounds crispy or throw a piece of ice into the frozen pond but those interaction aren’t predicable because the nature isn’t programmed. How we translate the human’s behaviour into patterns and design a correspond interaction would be the challenge, and I feel it makes sense when the author addressed the responsive environment should not be evaluated by its contents: the sound is not equal to music, the graphic is not equal to drawing either. A good example is a successful game is not only because its music and graphic. Games, apps and responsive environments are more than simple a piece of art.
“More than a piece of art or machine” is my feeling after reading the article Architecture Machine. I don’t think we do need a machine to create painting, sculpture, music or poem. Art is a reflection of human demand and desire, so do architecture. Furthermore, architecture is more complicated than fine art because it also has function to response humans physical and psychological needs. If we don’t need a machine to produce poems and paintings, why do we need a machine to read our design methodology to create architecture (and there are rarely aura in the machine produced architecture)?
Symbiosis is a close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit from each other. The most intriguing thing about Man-Computer Symbiosis is how in order to be most successful, man and computer must be cohesive with one another in making decisions and solving complex problems. “The hope is that, in not too many years, human brains and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly, and that the resulting partnership will think as no human brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today,”( J.C.R. Licklider.)
After reading this article a question arises, do the computers that we use on an everyday basis help us think in a way that no human brain has ever thought before? It is difficult to say because on some occasions the idea that is in a sketchbook becomes limited to the users computing capabilities. This is not symbiosis because there is not a mutual relationship between man and the computer. On the other hand, being able to effectively utilize the computer can definitely work in the designers favor. Parametric design comes into mind when thinking about these concepts. Before computers, parametric design consisted of long lists of calculations manually computed. With the advance of programs like Grasshopper and Dynamo, controlling the parameters of a design can be simulated and analyzed on an entirely different level than ever before.
Before reading the articles I could never believe that computer-aided approach have had these spectrum of historical and creative arguments. Although we are living in an age which carries many desires of the past, an illustration from Kreuger will be always new for me, “Meaning is the product of interaction between the observer and the system, the content of which is in a state of flux, of endless change and transformation.” His powerful insight, in my opinion, mostly rooted in his emphasize on experience which lead him also to limited experience that presents a novel sense.
The only aspect which I think was absent in the authors’ predictions and suggestions was the ability of our time which have the capabilities to produce social computational projects. As another illustration, today, we have various forms of projects that are using collective intelligence or are reflecting crowd’s participation into the project.
Now I am curious to know if the thinkers of 60s could understand and describe human-computer symbiosis or the comprehensive concept of computer-aided versus computerized, what are our thinkers today thinking about? Or what should I present to the future? I hope we do not try to promote the real ten-minute war. Before reading more I must explore lots of interactive art projects to find out different aspects of this kind of art same as the systematic exploration of Krueger‘s experimentations.
Next generation of technology will speak to us, understand us, and perceive our behavior. Such an intimate technology ends up with things like technophilia, techno-romance, technodrama, affinity, etc.
The experience is controlled by a composition which anticipants the participants’ action and flirts with his expectation. Flirt here is the best verb. Just think of Siri on I phone 4s and further versions.
Contemplative mood of the environment. Is delay a good simulation for contemplation?
In order to respond intelligently the computer should perceive as much as possible about the participant’s behavior. This idea may cause a very to the point simulation for contemplation. The more information to perceive, the more delay are caused by contemplation.
The hope is that, in not too many years, human brains and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly, in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today. But what if their cooperation would be destructive? In other words what if they run noticeably different ideas on certain thing? The question probably would be who is the absolute power? If there is no defined power or authority how it could be a symbiosis? And if not how would be the struggle or the challenging dialectic?
The problem is to provide an interesting personality for the environment. Where is the environment, I think till now we were able to personalize our virtual environment? Beginning from smart phone themes or desktop background as simple examples to how we program and manage our devices to work as more complicated issues.
The environment with sub environment. The “environment” as a term here is really close to “place” as a term in architecture. Providing a responsive space as it is mentioned here which is better to be “responsive place” is not the goal. However here the discourse is on responsive place being produced or modified by machine or at least also by machine, because throughout history places are made and remade by humans and interaction of them. This game is recommended to have another new player.
The rules of the modelled space can be totally arbitrary and physically impossible, e.g. Approach seeking to model impossible activities or better to say new possibilities in the aforementioned virtual place (environment). Place would be information, if data is environment.
A game between the compute and the participant. Man-computer symbiosis may be the further step. Next would be the artificial intelligence and If the other next step is the consultant intelligence for men the last would be defining the balance of power between these two holder of intelligence.
At the end, I recommend these movies.
Monitory report by Steven Spielberg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPB4EadWxw8
Abre Los Ojos (open your eyes) by Alejandro Amendebar (Or the Hollywood version “Vanilla Sky”)
Abre Los Ojos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtnPuB0x3U
Vanilla Sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k09OX40NLUw
in the last couple of years say (2011) i saw a promotional video from Corning about all the fascinating developments and breakthrough innovations that were happening at their glass laboratories. at the time i found them jaw dropping but now i am even more amazed to know that the same concepts and technologies were already being speculated about in 1977. In the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkHpNnXLB0) the speculation about incorporating displays and responsive elements everywhere, from the bathroom mirror to replace blueprints is a positive one (if you don’t mind being connected and reachable in one way or another 24/7 – 365 or the never ending stream of information).
in Man-Computer Symbiosis, its quite a complicated idea of man asking the questions and the computer calculating all possible variables + producing answers. someone once told me that the future of knowledge is not about the answer itself but about how to ask the right questions. today, computers still require human input and to a degree human supervision; however, it is theorized that soon technology will take a leap towards artificial intelligence or as people like to refer to it (The Singularity) in which case we will see if we remain in control or if we develop a human exterminating intelligence a la Skynet (terminator). another thing that comes to mind is the idea of Roko’s Basilisk in which a sentient artificial intelligence that will appear sometime in the future punishes or rewards the people that didn’t or did help create it in the first place. link: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko’s_basilisk
machines that replace architects!, i share the same thinking of Walter Gropius on the idea that designers are born and not trained. even though a person can learn how to gather and process information (or the lack of it), he/she can not learn the intuition, the gut feeling that a solution is the best fitting for a problem. machines (and software) are aids to the architect and i don’t think they will ever replace the person in the profession since its cornerstones (curiosity, ingenuity and intuition) are precisely what define us as human.
