|
More nuggets from the RCA show. This time from Design Products' edgy and inspiring Platform 13, headed by the very talented Onkar Kular and Sebastien Noel.
Jen Hui Liao's Self-Portrait Machine is a device that takes a picture of the sitter and draws it but with the model's help. The wrists of the individual are tied to the machine and it is his or her hands that are guided to draw the lines that will eventually form the portrait. The project started with the observation that nearly everything that surrounds us has been created by machines. Our personal identities are represented by the products of the man-machine relationship. The Self-Portrait Machine encapsulates this man-machine relationship. By co-operating with the machine, a self-portrait is generated. It is self-drawn but from an external viewpoint through controlled movement and limited possibility. Our choice of how we are represented is limited to what the machine will allow.
The project aims to explore the cooperation process of human & machine. The designer explains: I found some the relationship between human and machine are amazing and could be horrible (like this one that shows how we human invent machines then put human inside to it to manufacture goods), The final object - A machine is a miniature of what I understand through the process of research, and the aim of the machine is to let people have a chance to feel the condensed process of how we generate our self identity from external point of view as from the society, which is a big machine we all in. P.S. the website of Self-Portrait Machine will be on line soon, it will show more about the background research and the building process of it. I'll update this post as soon as the website is up. Videos of the machine in action.
The Royal College of Art Show is open every day from 11amd to 8pm until July 5, 2009. |
|
A couple of projects displayed at RCA Design Interactions's show are heading towards some new and extremely interesting directions this year.
Toys, by Tommaso Lanza, was initially inspired by the fall of American energy company Enron. The scandal that shocked America so deeply it was turned into a musical and a documentary film. By December 31, 2000, Enron's stock was priced at $83.13 and its market capitalization exceeded $60 billion, 70 times earnings and six times book value, an indication of the stock market's high expectations about its future prospects. The company was also rated the most innovative large company in America in Fortune's Most Admired Companies survey. Almost a year later, plagued by its questionable business model, clumsy accounting, financing maneuvers, and failure to hide any further its critical state of affairs, Enron's stock price fell to $0.61. The day Enron filed for bankruptcy, employees were told to pack up their belongings and were given 30 minutes to vacate the building Lanza's project brings us to 2005. A fictitious company he calls ENT International has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. It progressively closes or sells all of its international operations.
The quick collapse of the company led to a fire-sale of most of ENT's assets. In the months following the Chapter 11 filing, the liquidation team split the enormous sale across a number of auction dealers. Lanza created a photographic essay of some of the items surfaced by the bankruptcy auction, some of them perfectly mundane (executive chairs, workstations, gold balls and clubs, luxury cars, a range of sat nav, etc.), others fictitious. They are listed in the catalogue of an auction that dealt with low to mid-valued items and leftovers from previous auctions; despite the low-key of the sale, the dealers got their hands on a few items which were sold at much higher prices than originally expected thanks to their unique nature.
The unabridged reprint of the SMA auction catalogue brings page after page a series of clues about the arcane and at times scandalous inner workings of a large corporation. It brings the keen observer one step closer to unravelling the secrets behind one the biggest bankruptcies in recent times. The Royal College of Art Show is open every day from 11amd to 8pm until July 5, 2009. |
|
In sensory deprivation experiments of the 1950s, college students lay on a cot in an empty cubicle nearly 24 hours a day, leaving only to eat and use the bathroom. They wore translucent goggles that let in light but prevented them from seeing any shapes or patterns, and they were fitted with cotton gloves and cardboard cuffs to restrict the sense of touch. The hum of an air conditioner and pillows wrapped around their heads blocked out auditory stimulation. The subjects eventually became bored, restless, disoriented, had difficulty concentrating, and their performance on problem-solving tests progressively deteriorated the longer they were isolated in the cubicle. After they left the isolation chamber, the perceptions of many were temporarily distorted, and their brain-wave patterns, which had slowed down during the experiment, took several hours to return to normal. Solitary confinement is not only regarded as a severe form of punishment in prisons but is also a popular form of torture because the way it leaves no visible trace. On the other hand, it has been observed that too much arousal can produce stress and impair a person's mental and physical abilities. Hence, the use and even commercialization of floatation tank for relaxation and therapy.
One of my favourite projects at the Design Interactions Summer show was ExtraRoom by Gunnar Green (in collaboration with Bernhard Hopfengaertner). Directly influenced by the 50s and '60s experiments, ExtraRoom puts the sensory deprivation practice in a near futuristic scenario, when mind reading technologies are in common use and thoughts are not private anymore. What would happen if your thoughts became directly accessible to others? What would happen to your innermost desires and believes? Would you still be you? Military, carceral and therapeutic rooms would be adapted for the civilian realm. These extra rooms would be added to buildings as effective means for its inhabitants to (re-)gain self control, defend their inner thoughts and find a space for mental adjustment to the outside world.
The image above shows the 'food dispenser". The subject would suck nutrients from it: normal meals would indeed be too rich in stimuli (shape, textures, ordering on the plate, smell, etc.). Besides, their elimination would erase any sense of time. The rest of the room would be totally bland and white, with only a toilet. It is soundproof and features no window. The architecture of the room with its surfaces that are never horizontal nor vertical induces mental unrest. It has been observed that deprivation rooms increase the receptivity to propaganda. After 36 hours spent in the room, the mind of its inhabitant would be ready to receive desirable messages through speakers. The input would be repeated several times until the appropriate psychological alteration has been reached. The door will then open. The person can now go back to their normal life. More details in the video: The Royal College of Art Show is open every day from 11amd to 8pm until July 5, 2009. |
|
Been slacking a bit with my reports on the work in progress show i saw wow! months ago at the Royal College of Art in London. As you might guess i'll keep on focusing on the works from the students of the Design Interactions department. Meet Cesar Harada! Together with , Hiromi Ozaki, Martin Gautron, Nasser Moustakim, Adrien Lecuru, Valérie Pirson and the help of a whole range of collaborators and experts, Cesar is currently busy developing the Open Sailing project, a floating architecture that evolves like a living organism, a laboratory for techno-social experiments. The aim of Open Sailing is not to fashion new kinds of entertainment for your holidays but to propose a way to cope with impending natural and man-made disaster, while stimulating people's ingenuity, fostering hyper-connectivity and sense of solidarity. To make the project all the more relevant, a map has been compiled that visualizes areas of looming crisis: overpopulation, tsunami risk, violent conflict, nuclear fallout, pandemics, global warming, etc. No place on Earth appears to be safe. Except maybe a few large spots above the ocean. And that's the area where Open_Sailing villagers would drift and live. Each village unit is made of comfortable shelters surrounded by ocean farming modules : reconfigurable, sustainable, pluggable, organic and instinctive. The Open_Sailing_01 is about 50 m in diameter, for 6 persons. Open_Sailing aims to ask questions about the way we currently inhabit our planet. Can we reach a harmonious dynamic state of interdependence with each other and the earth? Is this the next step for civilization? Will we disassociate our concept of progress with rigid infrastructure and metropolis?
The prototype Open_Sailing_01, currently under construction, will set sail in May 2009, attempting to drift from London to the Netherlands. If the first journey goes well, Open_Sailing_02 will embark on a trip around the Mediterranean with enhanced fleet operating and hardware system, then Open_Sailing_03 will head to the Azores Islands (Portugal). Finally Open_Sailing_04 will set sail from The Azores and drift to Brazil.
I was fascinated by the mix of Archigram-esque vision, the gutsy ambition behind the idea, the sheer beauty of the installation at the London show, and that hint of micronation ambition i thought i could smell (but how wrong i was!) around the project. So, as usual, i had to ask a few questions... Why 2012? Does it have to come so soon? Do you want to spoil the London Olympics euphoria? Ollie: We're not particularly in the market for disrupting athletics events! Instead of seeing this doom and gloom as something negative, we have taken the fears and used them as design constraints, designing for the apocalypse. By compiling a list of the fears surrounding 2012, and overlaying these onto a series of maps, we have created a series of safe_zones where you can be assured to be free of pandemics, earthquakes, tsunamis, pole shifts, nuclear disasters, violent conflicts, etc. The recurrent safest places are in the middle of oceans : open_sailing aims to make the ability to live there comfortably a reality. Cesar: I hope the open_sailing is going to continue long after 2012, and actually by 2012 we may have a series of serious prototypes ready for a real sport challenge, steading an ocean for good for example!
Is it a project you plan to pursue as your final project at RCA? Can we expect to see a more advanced version of it come June? Cesar: This is just the beginning of the project. The bigger picture is to develop technologies and everyday life solutions for a future International Ocean Station. We have an International Space Station, we need an International Ocean Station, there is so much to discover about the blue planet! At the 25th of June 2009 at the Royal College of Art SHOW in London, we want to show prototypes of the tested shelter, energetic modules, aquaculture facilities etc. We are working on the design of the prototype at the center for the study and practice of survival technics in Lorient France. In April we are building it, in May we will depart from London river Thames and attempt to drift across the north sea escorted by a regular boat for safety. Follow us on the blog. We are still looking for scientists, partners, sponsors, funders : please contact anyone you think could be interested by this project. I suspect that your project might have given way to feedbacks, questions and reflections during the work in progress show/ How did people react to your project so far? Abigail: One big difficulty we've had so far is creating an explanation of what the project's about, simply because there are so many different parts to it. There are a lot of people working on this project, a lot of new ideas. Some people seem to have misinterpreted Open_Sailing as being some kind of crazy 'Apocalypse Boat,' but it's not like that at all. This is a very real, very exciting project where we're developing a lot of innovative technology. Non-sustainable living; overpopulation; global warming... The way we've been doing life so far could do with a rethink, don't you agree?
Cesar: Most people are very excited by the idea to live on the sea, most of them think it is impossible. The people who started to dig and understand a little bit more about our project were fascinated, there are so many different perspectives! The Open_Sailing is a floating laboratory in the first place, we are attempting to address many issues in "labs":
Abigail: Instinctive_architecture behaves a bit like a sunflower. It opens out when there's lots of light and nutrients, and closes in on itself when weather is bad, stretches to move quickly. Cesar: There is a lot to do, we address many real problems and people are interested because we are developing all these hardware and software technologies open-source. Can you describe and explain the vessel prototype you were showing at the RCA work in progress exhibition a few weeks ago? Cesar: What we showed was a 1/20 model, one open_sailing "family" facility, for 4 to 6 people. From afar, it looks like a "floating bunker" surrounded by a large ocean farm (~50m diameter), lines of algae, inflatable fish nets, plankton basins, floating gardens, underwater sea-shells pods, energy_animals...
I know you'd rather shun the reference to art but have you heard about the floating cities of Tomas Saraceno? Cesar: I don't shun the work of Tomas Saraceno at all, I think it is beautiful and visionary. We are sharing a very similar perspective about the transformation of the society with technology. We are trying to make the open_sailing exist as soon as possible, so we'd rather show shorter term objectives and use a simpler vocabulary to appeal both general public and partners. Please find more details in the pdf on our website. Have you thought about the status of Open Sailing villages, would they have some sort of sovereign independence similar to one of the micronations? Abigail: That's a really interesting question. In short, we're not interested in establishing any sort of sovereignty. We don't have a political agenda. Cesar: We are trying to avoid problems. Sovereignty is a problem, as it implies that you're being recognised by other states, we are people, we are not a competitive group, our perspective is more practical. Maybe our status is closer to the one of the International Space Station... Ollie: We're a floating socio-technological experiment. We're part of many disciplines (art, architecture, science, etc) but not really bound by any. We're an international team, and we don't feel allegiance to any country or political stance - at least within the framework of this project. Cesar: When you develop a technology, you can't predict how people will use and modify it. We don't want to determine how Open_Sailing is used by other people, that's the openness of it, or a form of respect, an invitation. There must be something more advanced than "nation". Nation is constitution, hierarchy, pride, it is slow, inefficient - we don't have the time to be a nation! Hiromi: We have a sort of operating system, the "swarm search engine", it is an object oriented politic computer program, managing in real-time weather, available resources (food, water, energy etc.), people's desires and fears (threats, attractors), moving the fleet into its optimum geographical positions and proposes a general arrangement of the structure. Ollie: A country by definition has an intrinsic value - in the form of minerals, farming space, infrastructure, buildings, etc. Open_Sailing doesn't. Open_Sailing is more like an organism. The whole thing is alive - it moves, it reacts to its environment, it evolves, it grows. The people onboard are its source of energy - if you take the people away, it would be like starving an animal of food. In this way we're different to a country, we are neutral and don't want to become involved with unnecessary legal issues... for now. Thanks a lot for your time Cesar, Ollie, Hiromi and Abigail! All images Cesar Harada. |
|
Wanting to Be You is a suit that allows one ardent fan to distinguish themselves from the crowd at film premieres. The suit is comprised of a projector, speakers and a light system, controlled by an portable media player. The suits emits hysterical screams louder than the standard fan collective. As the target star approaches confessed messages are projected. When the wearer gets the attention from the object of their devotion, the suit rejoices by bursting into a climatic display The work was exhibited a few weeks ago at the work in progress show of the Royal College of Art in London. Given my recent obsession with everything Demis Roussos, i couldn't help but imagine myself wearing it for his next gig and i asked Ross Cairns, student at the Design Interactions department, to explain us what the suit was about exactly.
Why did you chose to engage with the (sub-)culture of fandom? Did any particular story or person triggered this interest? I must admit my real interest came when I discovered the story of Mark Boardman. He's an ardent celebrity spotter with over 4000 autographs, his own celebrity testimonials and now if your not on the A-List, he's not interested. His website alone is true expression of devotion, I love it. But this suit isn't for him. Possibly he has surpassed the status of 'fan'. Through his connection to fame he has become an object of fame. I started hanging out at London's Leicester Square during film premiers as I was so intrigued by fandom - that strange mix between aspiration and devotion - that i think we all have in us. The way people interact at premiers is amazing. Like the frenzied girls I stood between who were passionately screaming after every second word whilst arguing over the tactical advantages of where they stood. Or, every passer by who asked who the celebrities were when really only 10% of fans there could really see anything.
Have you ever tested the suit yourself? With what outcome? Do you really think you can find a true and dedicated fan of some celebrity who will be brave enough to wear it? It's great to play around with - but it's not ready yet! As for myself, possibly I'm a little too introverted and stand-offish to use it, but the extroversion it causes to the wearer is enjoyable. Whether my fan who will wear this is truly dedicated to a celebrity remains to be seen. But my aim is to make them seem more truly dedicated than anyone else. Of course even if I were able to exceed my ambitions it may be tactfully ignored by the film stars. But as a vehicle of expression I'm interested to see any reaction from other fans. Has the idea of 'being a fan' anything to do with standing out from other fans? Or isn't it more part of being in a group of shouting and like-minded people? I think both. By being a fan you express an interest to be part of a collective. This could be apparent in that fans further back in the crowd scream, cheer and shout even when they can't see what is happening. But at the same time you use your fanaticism to define yourself and distinguish yourself from others. This could be a bit emotive and sincere, like placards people bring to express affection. Ultimately if the aim is to grab attention at premier, it is competitive. Do you plan to keep on working on the project and bring it any further? Yes certainly, there's a lot to be done. In the show was my initial study of how to realise the technicalities. Now I'm in the process of designing a more robust suit. Then, hopefully, I'm off to catch a premier or two. Thanks Ross! |
|
It's been a bumpy 2 weeks period of non-stop trips and commitments, my reports of several of the events i've attended recently are somewhat chaotic and delayed. Apologies for that. Back to the work in progress show i visited a couple of weeks ago at the Royal College of Art in London. I mentioned The Toaster Project, now's the turn of another project by a student of the Design Interactions department: the shrewd and speculative Golden Institute, by Sascha Pohflepp.
The Golden Institute for Energy is a think tank from an alternative reality where Jimmy Carter, instead of losing the 1981 presidential election, had defeated his Republican opponent Ronald Reagan. According to this scenario, a think thank would have been formed to pursue Carter's energy policies (Carter it might be reminded had created the United States Department of Energy to respond to the 1973 energy crisis.) Located in Golden, Colorado, the think thank focused heavily on devising alternative sources of power for the United States. What would have happened if Carter had been able to pursue his environmentally-friendly policy? If money and resources had been poured into geo-engineering rather than into space programs?
An independent corporation but equipped with virtually unlimited government funding, Golden quickly grew to be the earthbound equivalent of NASA, promising a future of national wealth through an abundance of energy. Research and development programs ranged in scale from manipulating the planet and its climate to the national economy and consumer products.
Their proposals ranged from planetary-scale geoengineering like manipulating the rotation of the Earth or the abolition of night (or even 'better' hacking planet Earth so that nights would be much longer in the Soviet Union than in the States) to domestic experiments like the declaration of Nevada into giant lightning-field. The strategists carefully designed the experiments and observed the reaction of the local population. For example the way that Las Vegas embraced the weather, offering Lightning Bingo or the lightning rod-trailer parks that were set up by people hoping to make a fortune through electricity. Further projects were centered around the car as an object which uniquely embodies energy and many American values.
The Institute's senior strategist was the prolific Douglas 'Doug' Arnd who regularly put forward his grand visions and became somewhat of a public figure. Often called megalomaniac by his contemporaries, the projects that Arnd and his colleagues at Golden pursued had significant impact on the 1980s and beyond in this alternative past. Originating in research about the relationship of technology and idealism in Silicon Valley, this project takes the technique of future scenarios and attempts to turn it towards the past. This appears to be an interesting experiment, not only because technology-related art and design usually focus on the future. It also offers the opportunity of imagining what the present and its challenges would be like if different decisions had been made in the past. For example a radical focus on the promises of renewable energy instead of Reagan's choice for defense and communication technologies.
It also implies that securing our future might require similar devices and asks how a Western society like the US could be transformed into one that regards the pursuit of alternative sources of energy as a visionary yet profitable endeavor. The vast scale of some proposals echo the Cold War, but are in fact surprisingly similar to what environmentalists like Saul Griffith are demanding today in order to combat global warming.
Lastly, the project reflects on the method of scenario-making itself, which was in fact invented by think tank RAND Corporation and Herman Kahn, and the way that designers are increasingly employing it today to forecast technological futures. All images courtesy Sascha Pohflepp. Related: Christina Hemauer's and Roman Keller's video and installation work, A Moral Equivalent of War: A Curiosity, a Museum Piece and an Example of a Road not Taken (2006-7) as mentioned in Ecological Strategies in Today's Art (part 1.) |
