Author: Nuri Atymtay

A. Blind man’s buff  – Nuri Atymtay – Rudi Cossovich

B. My previous project was called “Perfumaker” and the interactive part of it was that you envision a scenery, push a button and it gives you an outcome in a form of a scent. My personal midterm project had lots of intakes from the group project since it was a box, just like the previous, however this time it was a locker for safeguarding. However, this idea has changed into something else with a helmet playing a big role to get to the safe and open it first in a way reminding “spy game”. Furthermore this project had a major switch when we dropped the locker and made it only a game of catching light with a helmet. But, we had to change the helmet’s purpose completely again after the User Testing Session after we discovered a lot of flaws. We have re-created and made improvement to the game of “Blind man’s buff” by making it hard to win. 

C. The whole idea of the “Blind man’s buff” is revolved around the fact that a person “it” is searching for people and has a blindfold which is why we needed something for the head. Therefore, helmet was a perfect decision for that and we could modify it easily as well as apply more sensors to it as it can handle more or less weight. We at first wanted to use three distance sensors to help the “it” find player easily but that would make it too easy for the “it” to find people so we only made it in the front instead. At first we had resistors from the previous project of LED lights to catch the light, we removed it and kept the buzzer only so the it informs the “it” that a player is around. We also had a button to start the previous game, however it made no sense for the “it” to have it since the game will start right away when he puts on the blindfold and the helmet. The material that we made it out from was cardboard which is extremely easy to work with. 

D. The most challenging part of the whole project was making the helmet. This was due to the fact that we needed bigger surface for the forehead area so that we could attach the distance sensors and the buzzer. Moreover, we were thinking of attaching the circuit to the helmet too, but it was as quickly rejected as it was thought of since it is too dangerous especially when it is wearable device. I personally contributed more to the production and physical work and my partner was responsible for the coding. In addition, I came up with the back story or the concept of the project as being “Blind man’s buff” game. The User Testing has opened our eyes on how impossibly complicated was the idea of the previous project, especially, when it came to the set of the project that was supposed to be a dark room.

int SENSOR_PIN = A0; int SENSOR_PIN2 = A1; int sensorVal1; int sensorVal2; int startTime; const int buttonPin = 2; int buttonState = 0; void setup() { pinMode(SENSOR_PIN, INPUT); // Set sensor pin as an INPUT pin pinMode(SENSOR_PIN2, INPUT ); pinMode(buttonPin, INPUT); Serial.begin(9600); } void loop() { sensorVal1 = analogRead(SENSOR_PIN); sensorVal2 = analogRead(SENSOR_PIN2); buttonState = digitalRead(buttonPin); //if (buttonState == HIGH) { if (sensorVal1 >= 900 or sensorVal2 >= 900){ tone(8, 440, 600); startTime = millis(); } else{ if (millis()-startTime < 14000 && millis()-startTime > 2000){ tone(8, 300, 300); delay(1400); } else if (millis()-startTime > 14000 && millis()-startTime < 22000){ tone(8, 800, 2000); delay(2600); } } //} }

 

E. In conclusion, the idea of our project was to create an interactive game that makes it challenging for the players to win the game.

F. ANNEX.

 

 

Our Interactive Artifact.

The idea that we have come up with was surrounding the fictional story of “Veldt” and the artifact itself was focused on recreating scents based on different words that a user inputs. There are machines that can make scents, however, in my opinion, the most relevant or similar artifact that reminds me of ours is the “The EyeWriter” shown during our lectures which reads eye movements and can help patients who can’t go outside draw or without leaving their house and our project is kind of like that but with a smell instead of vision or arms. People who are unable to go outside or just move to a different position can use this device to have the experience of being in the place they want to be by associating it with a smell.  It aligns with the artifact discussed in the “research” phase of the project because the device we propose takes inputs, thinks, and then gives a certain output. 

Sketches.

1. Sketch 1

2. Sketch 2: updated version 

We first thought of making the tubes that the liquid scent comes out of to come off of the top, however, then we thought that it wouldn’t work and that it’s better to hide the tubes inside of the device. Therefore, we placed another box called it “mixing box” where all the scents go and get mixed up into the final scent. 

Success & Failure. 

The successful side of the artifact is that it is tangible and realistic and can be practical if someone created the appropriate code with functions. Failure might be the design, we haven’t thought of ways of adding more scents to the machine even though we have mentioned during the performance that the scent liquids can be swapped and just like the printer’s colors can be bought and changed. 

Contribution. 

I was more focused on the performance part where I wrote the script and came up with some scenarios as well as fans and tubes were my personal contributions inspired by Mark Rober’s “shark bait “. The pumps would be peristaltic pumping the liquid scent at the same time so the final scent will be created with multiple scents simultaneously.

3. Our project group

Teamwork.

Communication within the team was difficult at first however by the deadline week we met twice and finished the artifact as well as come up with some scenarios for the performance. 

4. Process of creating the artifact.

Script. 

Intro: 

Nuri: the name of our interactive artifact is Perfumaker and as the name suggests it creates scents based on input words. It was inspired by Veldt’s fiction story where the room can recreate scenes centered around human senses one of them being smell, e.g smell of the grass when George steps into the room. 

Main: 

Scenario: 

Narrator: “tired worker comes back from work” 

Actor 1. Tired worker: “I wish I could smell the breeze of the sea” 

Narrator: “ liquid scent is going to follow the arrows, then the smell comes out from the side.” 

Narrator: “Girls coming back from school wanting to relax in nature. So they decide to have a picnic inside the house.” 

*acting* “smell of fresh air and flowers”

Narrator: “Girls enjoyed the picnic in nature without leaving the house”

Actor 1: I’m so tired of homework I wish we could relax somehow

Actor 2: let’s do a picnic at home 

Actor 1: but I wanna be outside it’s not the same without the smell of the nature

Actor 3: we can’t it’s raining outside 

Actor 2: we can use the Perfumaker 

Actor 3: that’s a great idea we can recreate the smell of plants!

Actor 1: yes!! And the fresh air! 

Actor 2: let me turn on the Bluetooth 

Brings the Perfumaker and turns it on. 

5. Our performance recording

Another Group’s Performance. 

A performance that caught my eye was the last group’s box which embodied the main idea of the fictional story “the ones who walked away from Omelas”. Although not practical it still holds great moral and philosophical ideas. The artifact that they made was incredibly interactive not in the sense of its use, but the construction and its function with a flower blooming and hiding when someone puts it on and takes it off. The only improvement that I would suggest is thinking about better delivery of the purpose and the idea of the artifact. 

3 IMAGINATIVE ARTIFACTS

Mimesis momentum. Extended reality world with hologram view that can give you sequences of outcomes that can come from a particular decision and gives you pros and cons of a decision you have to make considering your personal characteristics like personality, preference, etc. Let’s imagine you have to choose a major, but you are contemplating between two or more options; this VR will show what your life will likely look like if you choose to be a doctor or a lawyer by visualization. Some people are prone to visual representation over story-oriented, but this way, you can not only see what your decision will look like in imitation environments but also situational interaction. It is inspired by “Portal 2.0” by Raven Kwok, one of the interactive art projects discussed previously where you could interact with the “wall”. The issues that arise from this artifact would be people relying on this device more than themselves and getting dependent.  

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas:

Walking ShOe. The artifact I am putting forward is a costume connected to your entire body, including the nerve system that can control your motion. The central part is the shoe you will wear, and the rest is wired to your body, including your hands, fingers, neck, and legs, to control your every movement. After programming the device to a certain amount of commands, like sitting all day with no ability to stand up or running errands all day without the ability to rest, it will seem like a torture device. However, the main goal of the artifact is to “shoew” the person the experience of the other. In our case, the life of the boy trapped in the basement. Without the ability to move or stand up, people who come to see him will get to experience him and come to the realisation of how horrible and disgusting their actions were, to find some humanity in them to finally understand their deed and, hopefully, set the child free. A similar technology that already exists in our world is the wearable device “gloves that play piano” by Thad Starner and Caitlyn Seim, George Tech researchers that have come up with the gloves that can work with the brain and transfer knowledge to human hands/fingers through vibrations which are also referred to as “passive haptic learning”. The interaction artifact’s main problem is its misusage for foul purposes. 

The Plague:

Clonachine. The clonachine is basically a machine that makes an exact copy of yourself or anyone and anything. It is a straightforward artifact that has been exploited throughout sci-fi, and it has potential with the use of biology and science. Although it would be a fantastic and revolutionizing invention, it carries certain moral issues when it comes to making a living, breathing thing. Moreover, the most similar and, in my view, ultimate interactive project is “Dolly”, the first ever clone produced by Ian Wilmut. However, my suggestion is more of a lifeless/emotionless artifact that can replicate all human behaviour, almost like an AI with skin and bones. Perhaps, if cloning was a thing in the world of “the Plague”, maybe humankind could adapt their genes to resist the infection. 

How I define interaction

Interaction is a mutual process that involves two or more subject and/or object. As mentioned in the readings, interaction can take on many meanings, but generally, it relies on our five senses: touch, smell, vision, taste and hearing. According to “What exactly is Interactivity?”, degree of interaction can simplify our understanding of interactivity, “In other words, we might speak of interactivity as high, moderate, low, or even zero”(6).

So far, I’ve given a basic definition of interaction so we can differentiate it, but how do we define it in a more complex situation? Here comes the part where I will give examples of two “supposedly” interactive projects that do and do not align with my interpretation of interaction, depending on their interactive degree.

The first project that I’ll be discussing as non- or low-level interactivity is Sisyphus – Construction, Deconstruction, Power and Resistance by Kachi Chan

The second art project is Portal 2.0 by Raven Kwok, which I consider a high-level interaction project. 

Sisyphus gives us a work which illustrates the power struggle between the inferior and superior, where small robots are building something, and the big robot is destroying what they’ve built. This is given by a circular motion of constant and repeated process of two robots reacting to each other’s actions. There’s no other outcome or time for thinking because it feels like the “supposed” interactive activity is jumping to the “speaking” part without the “listening” or “thinking” part. This might seem too blunt of an explanation; however, the whole point of interaction is two entities responding to each other’s actions differently with not reactive but proactive outcomes. Therefore, I struggle to find this art project interactive.

 

Let’s consider the second project, which corresponds to what interactivity stands for because the outcome is different every time, not to mention the fact that there’s live, direct interaction with the human being. The portal is not only reacting to human behaviour but also processing/thinking and then speaking/giving the output. In addition, it even gives various responses to whom it’s interacting through audio, visuals and continuous movements. And there’s quite a difference between the same constant movement exemplified in the first project and numerous.