Thursday, October 23. 2008ExperimentaDesign Amsterdam 2008
ExperimentaDesign Amsterdam 2008 from manystuff.org by manystuff
Related Links:
Posted by Christophe Guignard
in Architecture, Design, Territory
at
10:30
Defined tags for this entry: architects, architecture, conferences, design, design (products), territory, urbanism
Monday, September 08. 2008?Networked cities? session at LIFT Asia 2008(Special fav session at LIFT Asia 2008 this morning since this topic is linked to my own research, my quick notes). By Nicolas Nova Adam Greenfield’s talk “The Long Here, the Big Now… and other tales of the networked city” was the follow-up of his “The City is Here for You to Use“. Adam’s approach here was “not technical talk but affective”, about what does it feel to live in networked cities and less about technologies that would support it. The central idea of ubicomp: A world in which all the objects and surfaces of everyday life are able to sense, process, receive, display, store, transmit and take physical action upon information. Very common in Korea, it’s called “ubiquitous” or just “u-” such as u-Cheonggyecheong or New Songdo. However, this approach is often starting from technology and not human desire. Adam’s more interested in what it really feels like to live your life in such a place or how we can get a truer understanding of how people will experience the ubiquitous city. He claims that that we can begin to get an idea by looking at the ways people use their mobile devices and other contemporary digital artifacts. Hence his job of Design Director at Nokia. For example: a woman talking in a mobile phone walking around in a mall in Singapore, no longer responding to architecture around her but having a sort of “schizeogographic” walk (as formulated by Mark Shepard). There is hence “no sovereignty of the physical”. Same with people in Tokyo or Seoul’s metro: physically there but on the phone, they’re here physically but their commitment is in the virtual.
Adam think that the primarily conditions choice and action in the city are no longer physical but resides in the invisible and intangible overlay of networked information that enfolds it. The potential for this are the following: Of course, there are less happy consequences, these tech can be used to exclude, what Adam calls the “The Soft Wall”: networked mechanisms intended to actively deny, delay or degrade the free use of space. Defensible space is definitely part of it as Adam points out Steven Flusty’s categories to describe how spaces becomes: “stealthy, slippery, crusty, prickly, jittery and foggy”. The result is simply differential permissioning without effective recourse: some people have the right to have access to certain places and others don’t. When a networked device does that you have less recourse than when it’s a human with whom you can argue, talk, fight, etc. Effective recourse is something we take for granted that may disappear. We’ll see profound new patterns of interactions in the city:
The take away of this presentation is that networked cities will respond to the behavior of its residents and other users, in something like real time, underwriting the transition from browse urbanism to search urbanism. And Adam’s final word is that networked cities’s future is up to us, that is to say designers, consumers, and citizens. Jef Huang: “Interactive Cities” then built on Adam’s presentation by showing projects. To him, a fundamental design question is “How to fuse digital technologies into our cities to foster better communities?”. Jef wants to focus on how digital technology can augment physical architecture to do so. The premise is that the basic technology is really mature or reached a certain stage of maturity: mobile technology, facade tech, LEDs, etc. What is lacking is the was these technologies have been applied in the city. For instance, if you take a walk in any major city, the most obvious appearance of ubiquitous tech are surveillance cameras and media facades (that bombard citizen with ads). You can compare them to physical spam but there’s not spam filter, you can either go around it, close your eyes or wear sunglasses. You can compare the situation to the first times of the Web. When designing the networked cities, the point is to push the city towards the same path: more empowered and more social platforms. Jef’s then showed some projects along that line: Listening Walls (Carpenter Center, Cambridge, USA), the now famous Swisshouse physical/virtual wall project, Beijing Newscocoons (National Arts Museum of China, Beijing) which gives digital information, such as news or blogposts a sense of physicality through inflatable cocoons. Jef also showed a project he did for the Madrid’s answer to the Olympic bid for 2012: a real time/real scale urban traffic nodes. Another intriguing project is the “Seesaw connectivity”, which allows to learn a new language in airport through shared seesaw (one part in an airport and the other in another one). The bottom line of Jef’s talk is that fusing digital technologies into our cities to foster better communities should go beyond media façades and surveillance cams, allow empowerment (from passive to co-creator), enable social, interactive, tactile dimensions. Of course, it leads to some issues such as the status of the architecture (public? private?) and sustainability questions. The final presentation, by Soo-In Yang, called “Living City“, is about the fact that buildings have the capability to talk to one another. The presence of sensor is now disappearing into the woodwork and all kinds of data is transferred instantly and wirelessly—buildings will communicate information about their local conditions to a network of other buildings. His project, is an ecology of facades where individual buildings collect data, share it with others in their “social network” and sometimes take “collective action”. What he showed is a prototype facade that breathes in response to pollution, what he called “a full-scale building skin designed to open and close its gills in response to air quality”. The platform allows building to communicate with cities, with organizations, and with individuals about any topic related to data collected by sensors. He explained how this project enabled them to explore air as “public space and building facades as public space”. Yang’s work is very interesting as they design proof of concept, they indeed don’t want to rely only on virtual renderings and abstract ideas but installed different sensors on buildings in NYC. They could then collect and share the data from each wireless sensor network, allowing any participating building (the Empire State Building and the Van Alen Institute building) to talk to others and take action in response. In a sense they use the “city as a research lab“.
Related Links:
Posted by Patrick Keller
in Territory
at
07:44
Defined tags for this entry: architects, architecture, automation, conferences, science & technology, territory, theory, thinkers, urbanism
Robot session @ LIFT AsiaSaturday morning at LIFT Asia 2008, quick notes. By Nicolas Nova Frederic Kaplan began his talk by stating that the number of object we have at home is huge (nearly 3500), all of them have different “value profile”. he showed curves that capture the evolution of the experienced value of an object). See the curve below. A roomba for example follows a curve such as a corkscrew (c) whereas an Aibo, an entertainment robot, follows more a “notebook” curve: where value augment over time through the relationship with the owner(s). Frederic stated how we know how to deal with the mid to end part of the curve but not the beginning, namely how to create the first part of the robot-owner relationship, which is a crux question in general for robots/communicating objects designers. There are many reasons for that: in the west, it’s not easy in the occidental culture, to “raise” and talk a robot; most people try but stop, and show it only when friends come visit. So the robot is a pretty expensive gadget. After moving from Sony to the CRAFT laboratory, Frederic started moving form robot to interactive furnitures and became interested in how objects can be “robotized” and the fact that perhaps robots should not always look like robots. Since 1984, computers have not changed much (shapes, icons have been modified but still it’s always the same story). We changed the way we used computers (listen to music, watch photos, get the news, that was not what computers were intended for) but they did not change, so they thought it would be an idea to build a robotic computer as in the former Apple commercial. They therefore designed the Wizkid, an “expressive computer” which recognizes people, gestures proposing a new sort of interactivity with people. To some extent, he showed how you can have expressivity without any anthropomorphic robot (unlike the demo we had of the Speecys robot). Some use cases: As a conclusion, Frederic said that most people things that robots will look like objects but he claims that everyday objects can become robot and the next generation of computer interfaces will be robotic. People used to go to the machine to interact but now interactivity comes to you. Computers used to live in their own world, now they live in yours. Then Bruno Bonnell in his “from robota to homo robotus: revisiting Asimov’s laws of robotic” took up the floor and gave an insightful presentation about robot designers should revisit the definition of “robots” (and therefore Asimov’ laws). To him, there is a vocabulary problem when it comes to robots. In Czech, “robot” means “work” and it pervaded our representation of what is a robot, that is to say, a mechanic slave. Hence the laws of robotics for Asimov. These laws work well for military or industrial robots but what about leisure robots such as the Aibo, the roomba, iRobiq? We had the same problem with the word “computer”. it’s only since World War II that the word “computer” (from Latin computare, “to reckon,” “sum up”) been applied to machines. The Oxford English Dictionary still describes a computer as “a person employed to make calculations in an observatory, in surveying, etc.”. We moved that into machines and computers took over the successive activities: Systematic tasks, support creation tools, became and artistic Medium and finally an amplifier of imagination. And it’s the same with animals: it used to be food, then working forces, companions and finally friends. In addition, we don’t talk just about “animals”: there are ponies, dogs, etc. with a classification: animals, mammals, equids, horses. It would be possible to classify computers according to the same classification: order/family/genre/specy. So, what about robots? are the very different robots all the same? Couldn’t we classify them in a classification: a family of static robot, a family of moving robot, etc. So now, it’s no more “robot, robot, robot” but “Robots,Mover,Humanoide,IrobiQ”. What is important here is that all these robots in the classifications are recognized as having different features and characteristics. We start recognizing that they are all not the same species. By classifying (giving a name), you generate some different applications and can improve the quality of the product that you are designing. Putting names on things helps creating them. It allows to go beyond the limits of the robot vision: and it allows to reconcile the vision of having of both an anthropomorphic robot (like Speecys’ robot we saw first) and a different one (like Frederic’s Wizkid) since they are from two different “species”. After this classification, we can go into the evolution, how to branch out the future of robots. there could be the following path: mechanical slave, the alternative to human actions, the substitute of human care, the companions and finally the amplifier of human body and mind. Is it scifi or Reality ? Today or Tomorrow ? Is it possible technically? We don’t know but what is important is to start today and look ahead? An interesting path to do so is to move away from practical robots and investigate useless robots, as well as not being afraid of technical limitations (think about the guys who designed Pong at Atari). To the question “what does the robot do?”, the answer is simple: to create an emotional bond with humans (that would be recipe for a robot success). The important characteristics are therefore: fun, thrilling, etc. Which is very close to video games do: they creatine a emotional bond with the players because they are faithful to a reality, they are reliable, available, adaptable, and above all TRUSTFUL. In the same fashion, robots should be trustful. The bottom line is thus that we should forget the Asimov laws and invent the Tao of robotic where the “gameplay” is the key to accept them as part of our reality. Also, the funny part of the session was the first talk where Tomoaki Kasuga’s demonstration of his robot, which “charm point” is the hip (or something else as attested by the picture below), especially when dancing on stage. What Tomoaki showed is that expressivity (through dance, movement, the quality of the pieces) is very important for human-computer interaction.
Related Links:
Posted by Patrick Keller
in Culture & society
at
07:28
Defined tags for this entry: artificial reality, conferences, culture & society, devices, research, robotics, science & technology, scientists
Tuesday, August 12. 2008Maps, Information design & architectureAt the end of last month, I attended the International Symposium on Electronic Arts (ISEA), that was held in Singapore. Although the juried exhibition of art works didn’t involve that many works on the themes of The Mobile City, the ISEA seminar had quite a few sessions on media technology and the experience of place and space. Unfortunately, there were so many parallel sessions, that I can’t pretend to come even close to a overall wrap-up of the conference. So I will just pinpoint some of the themes and works that I found interesting in a few posts in the next few days or so. If there was one trend that struck me at ISEA, it was probably the idea of data visualization as a way of making abstract or invisible cultural processes more tangible. It wasn’t only the topic of some of the artist presentations, but also the core of Lev Manovich’s inspiring closing talk. The idea is that now that we have more content and metadata than ever (Lev Manovich: this is not the era of ‘new media’ any longer, but rather the era of ‘more media’), interesting cultural forms are emerging from aggregating, analyzing and visualizing this data. Examples range from from simple tag clouds that tell us what people are talking about on the web to visualization of traffic flows in the city and systems that monitor epidemic outbreaks. In business these mappings of aggregated data are called ‘dashboards’. Lev Manovich pointed out that companies have had these dashboards for some time, but that the cultural sector is only now catching up. Right now, these mappings are becoming a new cultural form in themselves. Just look at websites like Visual Complexity , CultureVis, Infosthetics and Information Esthetics.
While all of this is interesting in itself, of course the more interesting question is how to go beyond mere ‘dashboarding’ and mapping of flows? How can we turn these display of statistics in interesting pieced of public art? And how will these maps influence our experience of both the city and our social relationships? Some examples of this trend that were shown or referred to at ISEA: Arch-OS was presented by Mike Philips. It is a system that can collects all sorts of data from a building, varying from movement in the building by analyzing the images of cctv camera’s and internet traffic on the LAN to climate data. These data streams can then be used to drive different architectural features, varying from visuals on LED screens to a giant wall sized robot that moves through the open space of an atrium. An ‘Operating System’ for contemporary architecture (Arch-OS, ’software for buildings’) has been developed to manifest the life of a building and provide artists, engineers and scientists with a unique environment for developing transdisciplinary work and new public art.
Paul Thomas showed his i-500 project, an art work that is part of a new building for Curtin University’s new Minerals and Chemistry Research and Education Buildings. It uses the Arch-Os to analyze the work of the scientists in the building and translates their activity into a public art work that is an integral part of the building. Working in close collaboration with Woods Bagot Architects, as part of the architects project team, the i-500 project team are creating a public artwork to be incorporated into the fabric of the complex with the intention to encourage building users to communicate and collaborate. The i-500 will perform a vital and integral role in the development of scientific research in the fields of nanochemistry (atomic microscopy and computer modeling), applied chemistry, environmental science, hydrometallurgy, biotechnology, and forensic science. The artworks potential is to represent the visualisation of quantitative scientific research as part of the architectural environment.
Chris Bowman and Teresa Leung are researching what looked like a ‘grammar of gps visualization systems’.
Cabspotting traces San Francisco’s taxi cabs as they travel throughout the Bay Area. The patterns traced by each cab create a living and always-changing map of city life. This map hints at economic, social, and cultural trends that are otherwise invisible. The Exploratorium has invited artists and researchers to use this information to reveal these “Invisible Dynamics.
Cascade on Wheels is a visualization project that intends to express the quantity of cars we live with in big cities nowadays. The data set we worked on is the daily average of cars passing by streets, over a year. In this case, a section of the Madrid city center, during 2006. The averages are grouped down into four categories of car types. Light vehicles, taxis, trucks, and buses.
The project aggregated data from cell phones (obtained using Telecom Italia’s innovative Lochness platform), buses and taxis in Rome to better understand urban dynamics in real time. By revealing the pulse of the city, the project aims to show how technology can help individuals make more informed decisions about their environment. Related Links:
Posted by Patrick Keller
in Architecture, Interaction design, Science & technology, Territory
at
09:01
Defined tags for this entry: architecture, conferences, data, design, generative, information, interaction design, interface, mapping, media, mobility, science & technology, software, territory, urbanism
Monday, August 11. 2008The web & beyondThursday May 22 2008 I visited the CHI conference The Web and Beyond: Mobility in Amsterdam. Keynote speakers were: Adam Greenfield (Everyware); Jyri Engeström (Jaiku); Ben Cerveny (Playground foundation, Flickr); Christian Lindholm (Fjord, Nokia).
Greenfield starts by stating his affiliation with the urbanist tradition of Jane Jacobs and others, who see the city made up of bottom-up processes by ‘ordinary people’. He then described the current state of the city. The (American) city nowadays is characterized by repetition, deliberate attempts to make certain public spaces less attractive to dwell in, and a lot of junk space and privatized commons [although Martijns' recent post shows how these kind of spaces are re-appropriated by kids].
The result, Greenfield says, is a withdrawal of people into mobile phone’s private spaces. The challenge is to overcome these threats to urban life - “the crisis of the American city” - by refinding what constitutes the city in Jacobs’ tradition. Greenfield tries to find that answer in ubiquitous computing. Networked processors are already showing up in new places, on the level of bodies and on the level of the streets. These become social objects. They help create an “ambient informatics”: delivering information locally upon which you can act. This really becomes ambient when information processing dissolves into behavior. Greenfield gives an example of a woman he saw using her transit card in public transport by swinging her handbag in full speed in front of the reader, almost becoming a choreography. Architecture and building is becoming increasingly shaped by computation. It changes the city-scape. It changes mobility too. Objects become accessible, scriptable, queryable, and connected. All this changes the way we use cities from browsing to searching. We can now directly look for something and this search can be customized by recombining elements. Greenfield is somewhat critical of all kinds of informational mapping projects such as the Oakland crime map. People have started to how up at the precinct with such maps demanding more police presence! So are these maps really representing actual risks on the streets, or are they misleading? There are other things more likely to kill you than street crime. Greenfield goes on to talk about “the big now” and “the long here”. He talks about Twitter, and how it is used to become immersed in other places at the same time. This changes city life. Greenfield calls this “The Big Now”. But places are also accessible from multiple other places. Greenfield calls this “The Long Here”: you don’t enter a place, you enter a time. Another thing we should be critical of is “differential permissioning”, the way technologies are used to differentiate people into allowed access or denied access to certain places based on predefined characteristics (this is what Graham calls “the software sorted city”). What is happening to public space? Formerly, everyone had the right to use pavements, parks, etc. We’re moving away from guaranteed availability and access, to differential access. [But hasn’t urban space always been differentiated? For example the ghetto vs. the theater, each barring off groups of people that 'do not belong there'.] We have to keep in mind that cities are not all the same, but all have their own particularity. We also have to take into account unexpected emerging behavior. These “ambient informatics” objects may be hackable and even used for dangerous/bad ends. Greenfield ends with some “proposals for the real time city” that urban/media designers should leep in mind: 1. Create beautiful seams: read/write access to city 2. Underspecify: do not too much closure to space. 3. Understand changing city life: from flaneur to consumer to user. Related Links:
Posted by Patrick Keller
in Architecture, Territory
at
09:30
Defined tags for this entry: architecture, conferences, localized, mobility, territory, theory, thinkers, urbanism
Thursday, July 24. 2008A Recent History of Writing and Drawing
A Recent History of Writing and Drawing An exhibition that explores the evolving relationship between technologies of communication and their users 9 July - 31 August 2008 from manystuff.org by manystuff
Posted by Christophe Guignard
in Culture & society
at
13:04
Defined tags for this entry: communication, conferences, culture & society, design (graphic), design (interactions), exhibitions, robotics
Wednesday, July 23. 2008The Last HOPEI made the trek to a steamy hot NYC this weekend to attend one day of the three day Last HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth) conference at the Hotel Pennsylvania. There was too much going to adequately cover it here (or even take it all in), but a few things stood out. Steve Rambam’s eye opening talk on the death of privacy for example. For a solid three hours in front of a standing room only crowd he weaved back and forth between the Orwellian theme of how our privacy is being ripped from us by everyone from Google to Choicepoint and the theme that seemed even creepier to him, self contribution. Over and over he expressed disbelief at how willingly we post our personal details everywhere from Twitter to Facebook while thanking us all the while for making his job as a private investigator that much easier. What the marketers and government don’t actively take, we actively give. Naturally I twittered the whole thing. Cell phone tracking; artificial-intelligence-assisted reality mining; 3000 cameras per square mile in Manhattan; facial, activity, and even gait identification software; government outsourced investigative databases shielded from FOIA requests; UAV-based license plate scanners; beating anonymity by correlating multiple datasets; unanticipated database repurposing; and on and on… Finally I could twitter no more and left the venue hurriedly fashioning a tinfoil hat from a burger wrapper while consigning myself to doubling the dosage on my meds.
Moving beyond the privacy nightmare stuff, there was hardware hacking to be found everywhere at Last HOPE. Tables were covered with broken open electronic toys and electronic components and were surrounded by hackers with smoking soldering irons. Of the completed projects on display, one of my favorites was a something of a hybrid that projected a 3D image onto carefully placed strings. Called Wiremap, the project was built by Albert Hwang who carefully moved it from his living room to the Hotel Pennsylvania where it took him a full day to set up and re-calibrate. It is a fascinating piece that creates a convincing (if low res) three dimensional image by carefully processing a volumetric image into slices (using Processing) and then projecting those slices onto reflective white strings stretched into a precise angular array. The resolution of the system is limited by the fact that the strings have a physical width and that the projector is quite imperfect for the task. Relatively poor angular precision, rectilinear lens distortion, the lack of flat field optics, and the fact that the lens has a fairly narrow focal depth all conspire to limit the display resolution to 256 slices. However, despite the limitations you could move around the display and really get a sense for the object and it’s motion. The video I’m embedding below isn’t great but it should get the idea across. Finally, I just wanted to mention a couple of things about the “Crippling Crypto - The Debian OpenSSL Debacle” talk given by Appelbaum, Zovi and Nohl. Plenty has been written about the issue itself, so there is no point in regurgitating it here, but if you haven’t seen the diff of the before and after code change it’s worth taking a look. It is amazing that such a benign looking edit (at first, and probably second, glance it looks like someone just added a comment) could turn out to be the “worst bug in the history of Debian,” and probably SSH as well since it also relies on OpenSSL. As the presenters set out to recreate 524,288 weak keys for use in tracking them down and blacklisting them, they calculated it would take them five days on a single machine. So, instead, using Amazon’s S3, SQS, and 20 32 bit and 20 64 bit EC2 instances, they ran the entire job in four hours for a total cost of $24. Interestingly, they didn’t even have to supply their own image of Ubuntu with the un-patched code as it was still available from Amazon for use with EC2. I expect video for some of the talks will pop up here and there. In the meantime, if you are interested, these guys videotaped every session and made DVD’s. If you don’t already suffer from paranoiac delusions I would highly recommend Steve Rambam’s session (or, you can find an earlier version of the talk here). (from r-echos via : O’Reilly Radar)
« previous page
(Page 5 of 5, totaling 48 entries)
|
fabric | rblgThis blog is the survey website of fabric | ch - studio for architecture, interaction and research. We curate and reblog articles, researches, writings, exhibitions and projects that we notice and find interesting during our everyday practice and readings. Most articles concern the intertwined fields of architecture, territory, art, interaction design, thinking and science. From time to time, we also publish documentation about our own work and research, immersed among these related resources and inspirations. This website is used by fabric | ch as archive, references and resources. It is shared with all those interested in the same topics as we are, in the hope that they will also find valuable references and content in it.
QuicksearchCategoriesCalendar
Syndicate This BlogArchivesBlog Administration |