Purple Rain (Assessment 2)-

Artist statement:

Focused on repetition and variation of mass production, I looked at the way in which knitting, although repeats the same steps or code can turn out differently once a stitch is dropped or added, adding variation to the piece. My sketch adds to the motion of repetition, repeating the same action, yet set to random in order to get the variation of colour, size and position of each ball.

My idea came from trying to get a ball to bounce by adding gravity and speed while my other idea focused on creating multiple balls that would continuously travel down the screen, off and start again. Trying to mash two codes together proved difficult, as one idea wanted one thing and one wanted another. I stuck with creating repetition and variation of the balls floating down the screen, off and starting again. This adds to the effect of variation through the balls being set to random in order to capture the repeated task of the balls travelling down the screen.

The particular sketch explores the idea of floating bubbles which are translucent to show the amount of balls and variation being used. The repetition is visibly displayed in this sketch.

Code Used:

//This sketch uses a class, used to make multiple balls act on their own.

int numBalls=180; //This is the number of balls used which are put into the array

ball [] balls = new ball [numBalls];   //this is the array where all the balls are put in.

void setup(){

//noFill();

noStroke();

size(800,600);

for (int x=0;x<balls.length;x++){ //The determines the position of balls in the array

balls[x]= new ball(); //creates a new ball using class

}

}

void draw(){

background(255); //clear the screen each frame

for (int x=0;x<balls.length;x++){ // objects in the array follow the fuctions below

balls[x].ballsdraw();  // Each ball placed in the ball array is called on from the method ballsdraw()

balls[x].move();  // move each ball in the array using the method move();

}

}

class ball{  //Class used to create each object before being put into the array

int x; // elements of each object in the class

int y;

int speed;

int size;

color c;

ball(){ //this is the ‘constructor’ – called to create a new ball or object

x = (int)random(width);

y = (int)random(width);

size = (int)random(80,100);

speed = (int)random(8,10);

c = color((int)random(130),(int)random(25),(int)random(180),(int)random(120));

}

// below are methods – like functions used for each and all of the objects of the class

void ballsdraw(){   // Called every frame to draw a ball

fill(c);

ellipse(x,y,size,size);

}

void move(){  //this function moves the balls down the screen- When it reaches the bottom it moves across the screen (right) // then it resets all the values

if (y+size/4 < height){

y += speed;

} else if (x-size/4 < width)  {

x += speed;

y += speed;

} else {

x = (int)random(width);

size = (int)random(80,100);

y = 0-size/2;

speed = (int)random(8,10);

}

}

}

References- Code used:

A simple bouncing ball- OpenProcessing. 2015. A simple bouncing ball- OpenProcessing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.openprocessing.org/sketch/67284. [Accessed 28 September 2015].

Parallax bubbles- OpenProcessing. 2015. Parallax bubbles- OpenProcessing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.openprocessing.org/sketch/163034. [Accessed 28 September 2015].

Week 5: Processing 1/Introduction

Well this week was beyond frustrating! The concept of code is completely foreign to me.

We focused on using simple coding techniques taken from processing.org tutorials and implemented them into our downloaded processing application.

This was made by manipulating the sizing and fill- as well as colours in order to get a transparency/ loop effect. You could also change the thickness of the particular lines. #meda102issoconfusing

• With the particular visual artworks below, we were able to change the (int) to random- in order to get a different effect every time we re-ran the program. This included the size of the circles as well as the colour schemes and gradual gradation of colour.

Week 4: Abstraction/ Iterations

Where is the art work? (instructions, execution, finished product, all, or none?). Which is most likely to be understood as a commodity?

I believe the artwork is in the finished product, its about the way in which the person perceived the information in order to get the desired outcome. Without the instructions however the outcome won’t be achieved so the instructions in itself is the commodity.

Would you say that his art is accessible?

Sol LeWitt himself made instructions in order for people to design his exact artworks, so he has made his art accessible to anyone- however only a select amount of people can actually follow the instructions 100% in order to replicate the artwork. Sol LeWitt made certificates which he signed off on, deeming the artwork to be ‘artwork’ and correct according to his instructions. So although he made it accessible to everyone- not everyone can achieve the artwork.

Do you think Lewitt hopes for variation in the execution of each set of instructions? Does he control the variation?

I think Lewitt trys to control the variation with his instructions and the ability to certify people on the artwork however there will alway be variation or human influences, thats the beauty of the artwork- the human implications when conducting it.

Is there such a thing as a wrong execution?

Lewitt seems to think so, however i say otherwise, its the way the instructions are written and the way the person perceives those instructions. As long as the main elements are there i don’t think it matters.

Could his instructions be understood as a system? What would that imply?

A coding system could be configured from this as a basic algorithm. This means it could be replicated on a computer.

How does he write the instructions? Do you think he creates the drawings first, then turns them into instructions?

I think he creates before he writes the instructions, it is said that he draws from the previous artwork and implements it into the next.

Is it easy to write instructions to create aesthetically engaging artworks? if not, why not?

I think its hard to write instructions because you have to think about the audience and the way in which they might perceive it. The way you might think it could be conducted could be read completely differently by someone else.

How would you go about creating instructions that result in aesthetically engaging artworks?

You would try to simplify the instructions as much as possible, grabbing the key elements of the artwork.

How is knitting different to programming?

Knitting is different because there’s room for human error. You drop stitches and pick stitches up whereas in programming, you start with 15 stitches you end with 15 stitches. there is no variation unless you program the computer to do that.

How is knitting similar to programming?

Knitting follows a set of instructions, it is repetitive and essentially there won’t be any variation- it is ultimately the same procedure over and over and over again.

Hole in Space…No space in time

Galloway and Rabinowitz, Hole in Space, 1980.

November 1980, a public communication Sculpture was constructed by Galloway and Rabinowitz named ‘Hole in Space’[1]. One sculpture set in New York and one in Los Angeles, television like images were projected onto glass connected via a satellite feed allowing the public to not only see each other but also talk and hear each other as if there were both in the same place and not miles apart. ‘The first evening was about discovery; the second evening was populated by word-of-mouth and long distance telephone calls – that evening television news put the word out in both cities; the third evening was a mass televisual convergence of family’s members and trans-continental lovers; some family members had not seen each other in decades.’ [2]

This was the beginning of a revolution, a revolution that many people were initially confused about. When watchingExcerpts from A Hole in Space — the mother of all video chats’ [3], We see the reactions of people in NYC and LA with the idea that the projected image was just that, an image. Until the people in the image decided to speak, followed by an uproar of people laughing and smiling, realizing that the people there were talking to were in fact in NYC/LA. The barrier of distance within communication now dissolved due to the revolutionary ‘Hole in space,’ similar to our version of Skype and Facetime today.

Galloway and Rabinowitz’s main aim for the sculpture was to show that ‘size and bandwidth matter[4] when comparing how people’s emotions are effected during communication. The people of NYC and LA didn’t care about the setting they were in when they discovered the ‘street portal’ but became emotional on seeing and meeting with family friends in order to talk etc., this example shows us that people were enthusiastic to connect with each other even in an urban set environment[5] thus acknowledging that distance in communication was once a problem, which ceased to exist. John Ewing even suggests that ‘the technology breaks down the isolation of strangers, creating a tentative community.’[6]

Both Galloway and Rabinowitz used a ‘satellite feed’ to create the connection between places. By communicating at ‘earth stations,’ radio signals are sent up via ‘uplinks’ which are then sent back via ‘downlinks.’ This particular sculpture however used ‘feeder links’ in order to send signals from the uplink station which was in NYC, projected to the downlink station or ‘hub’ in LA and vice versa[7], both connected to a telephone line in order to receive the projected image and sound. Through this particular transmission, the different states were able to translate back and forth with each other via telecast over satellite images projected from connected video cameras.

Through the breaking down of social communication, we can see that the particular code used (in this case the telecast via satellite) changed the way in which people communicated to each other in different settings. They no longer had to worry about the emotional attachments of someone moving across to different states and countries, because communication was made possible through satellite connection, this is evident through the use of Galloway and Rabinowitz setting up the social sculpture/artwork with no instructions on how to use it for the public, because they wanted to create a emotional response, through this procedure family and friends bridged the gap on communication through distance, they were amazed and emotional, talking about intimate details of their life to each other in different states in the middle of busy sidewalks in NYC/LA.

The possibilities from here on out were endless, when introducing this to the public, many wanted to create a similar technology in which people could use daily, not just for the 3 days which created a public need for this type of technology. By breaking down the barrier of distance through technology, people were able to connect with people across state and country not having to worry about travelling, although this effected transport, with longer journeys made easy through this technology. People were often missed more, because although they could see, hear and speak to one other, they could still not be physically with them, which forced many to travel the distance anyway to be with there with their loved ones.

[1] Media Art Net (2004): Galloway, Kit; Rabinowitz, Sherrie: Hole in Space. http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/hole-in-space/. Retrieved. 2015-08-15.

[2] ECI-HQ. (1975-2000): KIT GALLOWAY & SHERRIE RABINOWITZ OVERVIEW OF A QUARTER CENTURY OF PIONEERING ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENTS 1975-2000 . http://www.ecafe.com/museum/history/ksoverview2.html. Retrieved. 2015-08-15.

[3] Larry Press. (2008): Excerpts from A Hole in Space — the mother of all video chats. 15 March. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMVtE1QjaU. Retrieved. 2015-08-15

[4] Iphia Ryerson. 2011. Hole In Space 1980: Installation by Kit Galloway and Sherrie Rabinowitz. [ONLINE] Available at: https://iphiahenry.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/hole-in-space-1980-installation-by-kit-galloway-and-sherrie-rabinowitz/. [Accessed 16 August 15].

[5] Foth, M, 2011. A street scape portal. From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen Engagement, [Online]. ‘Hole in space’ and ‘Hole in the earth’, 412. Available at: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=pT-PyZEoVykC&pg=PA412&lpg=PA412&dq=how+did+they+make+the+hole+in+space+1980&source=bl&ots=2XMPnqbTda&sig=LvY_DU5LbBrXTXmGqMDWxiv_DvY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwA2oVChMI5KGRtPysxwIVYcamCh0Kcgg-#v=onepage&q=how%20did%20they%20make%20the%20hole%20in%20space%201980&f=false [Accessed 16 August 2015].

[6] John Ewing . 2010. How Virtual Street Corners Fits with History of Art-Telecom Projects. [ONLINE] Available at: http://mediashift.org/idealab/2010/03/how-virtual-street-corners-fits-with-history-of-art-telecom-projects067/. [Accessed 16 August 15].

[7] FCC Satellite Learning center. 2014. How do satellites work? . [ONLINE] Available at: https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/kidszone/satellite/kidz/how_sats_work.html. [Accessed 16 August 15].

Week 3: Wall drawing 16 by Sol LeWitt Experiment

Our group decided that we would do bands of lines that were 30cm wide. We could then do however many or however little lines within the 30cm width as we wanted. Our bands of lines, then became diagonal, horizontal and vertical all staying 30cm wide. The instructions we interpreted could however intercept at any time. Resulting in a creative and mismatched structure that we can see in these photos.

The way the instructions were set out confused our group entirely. The instructions we thought were vague and extremely open to interpretation, which changed our understanding of what needed to be done.

Improved instructions: 30cm wide bands, one vertical, one horizontal and one diagonal right, all intercepting in the middle. (Each band has thin lines opposite to the way the band has been drawn, resulting in lines all in the same direction inside the bands)

Week 2: Experimenting with sending an image via code

Describe how your encoding process work.

We were given an instrument in order to come up with a coding process similar to week 1’s morse code in order to send a picture to one another. We came up with a coordinate grid code, in which we would make certain sounds to give us the x coordinate and different sounds to give us the y coordinate. We also had a third sound for when we were starting to send the next coordinate.

Detail the rationale for the way you designed the code. For example, what elements have you chosen to encode (e.g. lines, shapes, points, directions, distances, units etc.) and why.

We chose to encode lines, we did this by repeating similar coordinates in order for us to understand that a line needed to be drawn and joined. This helped ease the process, providing us with a image which was identical to the one being sent.

Describe your transmission process. For example, what are the protocols you establish when transmitting the fax?

We established that we have to send sets of coordinates, for example (3,4), (4,5),(4,5), (6,5). The double up of (4,5) meant that those coordinates had to be joined. The third sound also helped us determine when they were starting a new line/ set of coordinates.

What works particularly well in transmitting the information?

Definitely working with more than one person. It helps share the load of what we were hearing in time to plot the coordinates and join the line. Also ensuring that we know how our encoding process works.

What doesn’t work at all?

I think trying to plot and listen at the same time proved hard especially when joining the dots. We waited until the end so we didn’t have a confusing mess coordinated.

What more is needed to make the transmission work?

In the encoding process we could of used curved lines in order to get the shape of the shoe to resemble a little more however it didn’t really matter.

Week 1- Experimenting with code through encoding and decoding

1. Write down the processes you went through to send and receive messages.    As a group we had to determine what external things may have effected the process e.g Light from outside because we were using light (Flash from our phone), the group receiving the message also had to understand the message. We used Morse code because it was easier to transmit and understand. The small quick flashes were used to resemble dots and the long flashes dashes. We then moved our arm up and down for a new letter and in a circle for a new word.
2. What worked well?  Big arm actions, being quiet and focused with the light that we used to transmit the message.
1. What was difficult? The other team found it hard to distinguish between dots and dashes and when the next letter and word had ended because they were looking and were trying to encode the message as we went.
1. What would you have done to make the transition work better?

Big arm actions, My phone also died- so we shouldn’t become fully dependent on technology.