FIRST PRESENTATION

==Our future predictions:==

It is the last month of our master project. We have a great success. The project was a pure miracle. With our research we made a great concept and one great product.

Everybody had an important role in this.

Eliana thoroughly investigated all of the topics and she was our leader in “thinking”. Eventually all of her notes about our project turned into a book. Yes indeed, she wrote a book about our project and she published it. The objects that she invented were highly notable, and now she will participate in some important exhibitions throughout the world.

Viviana found a fine balance between art and science and her installation is a astonishing. It is educational, but it is made in a way that nobody from the scientific world could do it in that way. It is really something special, and useful. She will participate in some important exhibitions throughout the world with her instalation. She also gained many new skills that will be useful for her in the future.

Frido at the beginning was our visual researcher. He made documentary interviews about the objects, and made some fantastic photographs in which he was exploring the aesthetics, using unusual photographing angles, light, compositions and photoshop editing. But then he got completely into the whole matter and started designing his own digital house/apartment that is connected to the computer. It is – “AMAZING”!

Juan developed the concept of personalized machines. His ideas were innovative and ahead of our time. The final objects he build were visually very attractive and strong in philosophy behind them. With them, he will participate in some important exhibitions throughout the world. He also helped us to build a website for our project.

Stefan made some experiments with designing different objects for different purposes. He learned how to use some important programs for designing. At the end he made his own small cinema, or how he calls it “The immersive digital book”. The visitors of the master room enjoyed it very much. He was even selling popcorns in front of this cinema, and he made some good cash.

The final result of the research of the group is that we made one particular object that was ready for the market. We made a deal with a big company and make tons of money with selling that object. We also started our own company. We have a great final presentation and everybody from all of the universities really likes our final results. Maybe it is the best project of all projects for this year. The designs and results from the project are an important part of our portfolios and we easily found very good jobs.

==Some statements about Everyday Artifacts==

* We like artifacts that go with us and not things that we have to follow.

* We like living our lives everyday and using technology to be more present.

* We like nature in the way that we can feel we have the chance to be present.

* We like to feel alive and with a body.

* Artifacts and me, we both don´t like screens / …..post your comment!!!
* Artifacts and us, we don’t see screens as the ultimate result.

* We love physical movement and we love to discover things because we have tried them and not because we have the information.

* We love artifacts that make us feel relevant and not that make us feel we are obsolete human beings.

* We like to make that our actions and artifacts become meaningful.

* We like “user” creativity and not user usability.

* The best artifact is the one that helps you be present, that supplies significant experiences and not fast meaningless sensations. (Too much responsibility. If our plan is experimenting some of the stuff is going to be apparently meaningless)

* We are for sportive objects that invite you to move.

* We like artifacts that don´t reduce time, but make it meaningful.

* Anxiety is an error of machines that forget about time, anxiety is not our error.

* When you share with an object you share with a whole chain of people that are involved, therefore in a way this should be also a place for reciprocal communication.

Screenplay and Manifest by Stefan

Manifesto.

What is an object?
How big can it be?
Must it be visible? Touchable?
Many questions we simply take for granted.

We need to research about the aesthetics of the objects all over again. Brave, and detailed. We need to explore.

How do objects affect us? How does their shape affect us, written messages, colors, positions?

Do people become objects if objects define who they are? Clothes, jewelry, computers, gadgets, cars… all this objects define us when we look the surface alone. What about the inside. Emotional and mental qualities? What about emotional qualities of the objects? Mental qualities of objects. Digital and virtual qualities.

How do objects  become popular? With advertisement? Are the people who create them or use them the ones that make them popular. Can a great artist transfer his great charisma onto his onjects and in that way make them popular? Or is it just the idea that matters?

We need to explore, so that we can get to new conclusions, new ideas, new possibilities.

Research.

Screenplay

It is the last month of our master project. We have a great success. The project was a pure miracle. With our research we made a great concept and one great product.

Everybody had an important role in this.

Eliana thoroughly investigated all of the topics and she was our leader in … “thinking”. Eventually all of her notes about our project turned into a book. Yes indeed, she wrote a book about our project and she published it. The objects that she invented were highly notable, and now she

will participate in some important exhibitions throughout the world.

Viviana found a fine balance between art and science and her installation is a astonishing. It is educational, but it is made in a way that nobody from the scientific world could do it in that way. It is really something special, and useful. She will participate in some important exhibitions throughout the world with her instalation. She also gained many new skills that will be useful for her in the future.

Frido at the beginning was our visual researcher. He made documentary interviews about the objects, and made some fantastic photographs in which he was exploring the aesthetics, using unusual photographing angles, light, compositions and photoshop editing. But then he got completely into the whole matter and started designing his own digital house/apartment that is connected to the computer. It is – “VERY AMAZING”!

Huan developed the concept of personalized machines. His ideas were innovative and ahead of our time. The final objects he build were visually very attractive and strong in philosophy behind them. With them,  he will participate in some important exhibitions throughout the world. He also helped us to build a website for our project.

Stefan made some experiments with designing different objects for different purposes.  He learned how to use some important programs for designing. At the end he made his own small cinema, or how he calls it “The immersive digital book”. The visitors of the master room enjoyed it very much. He was even selling popcorns in front of this cinema, and he made some good cash.
The final result of the research of the group is that we made one particular object that was ready for the market. We made  a deal with a big company and make tons of money with selling that object. We also started our own company. We have  a great final presentation and everybody from all of the universities really likes our final results. Maybe it is the best project of all projects for this year. The designs and results from the project are an important part of our portfolios and we easily found very good jobs.

Impressions about so far progress

Fears…

Suggestion for the working model for the project

Each one of us has its own interests and ideas about objects so we do individual research and consultations with the group. We make long and important constructive discussions and we make careful notes. We set a time period for this researches and at a certain point we must have conclusions and a concept and from which we can have one final product. An object, a prototype that can be ready for the market (my example otomatone). It would give us the important motivation because we will have something touchable that will show all of the efforts of our work, and it could be this “common ground” that we are looking for.


Thoughts and Manifest by Juan

– Augmented Artifacts are not new.
– Hacking old artifacts to enhance their reputation and lifespan. 1+1=1.
– Experimentation leads to creativity.
– Being called a user is not an insult. A user controls, an abuser is controlled.
– Data is de main course.

Manifesto and screen play Eliana

Manifesto.

I like artifacts that go with me and not things that I have to follow.

I like living my life everyday and using technology to be more present.

I like nature in the way that I can feel I have the chance to be present.

I like to feel alive and with a body.

Artifacts and me, we both don´t like screens.

I love physical movement and I love to discover things because I have tried them and not because I have the information.

I love artifacts that make me feel relevant and not that make me feel I am an obsolete human being.

I like to make that my actions and artifacts become meaningful.

I like “user” creativity and not user usability.

The best artifact is the one that helps you be present , that supplies significant experiences and not fast meaningless sensations.

I am for sportive objects that invite you to move.

I like artifacts that don´t reduce time, but make it meaningful.

Space has been asimilated by digital media so that we live in a liquid geography, but time is still our anxiety.

Anxiety is an error of machines that forget about time, anxiety is not our error.

When you share with an object you share with a whole chain of people that are involved, therefore in a way this should be also a place for reciprocal communication.

How I see the perfect end of the project:

We will develop a concept that will take us to design  project involving  lifestyle or new understanding of things. In this I will focus in making objects that require physical activity to activate them. Juan pablo will focus in DIY of this same objects. Stefan will perhaps built a parallel dimention of how these objects may become a tangible story, a fiction that could be also recorded by frido and made into a playful propaganda of our new set of objects, toguether with workshops to built them with your personal requirements.

With this project, we would develop a wireless technology for energy that will lead us both to write scientific papers about it, sell products and travel doing workshops promoting the new DIY update.

From that I will start a bussiness that will be pioneer in my country about tourism and presence based slow technology design.

 

 References:

Slow Technology. In: Redström, Johan. Designing Everyday computational things. Göteborg University. 2001.  161 -191.

“A key issue in slow technology, as a desing philosophy, is that we should use slowness in learning, understanding and presence to give people time to think and reflect. Using such an object should not be time consuming, but time productive; we should get time for new reflective activities. It is not technology for compressing time to do give tasks, but technology supplying time for doing new things. I t is technology that is useless for fast and impressive demos; to see what it is takes time”. 167

About Process Art (in wiki)

 Process art is an artistic movement as well as a creative sentiment and world view where the end product of art and craft, the objet d’art, is not the principal focus. The ‘process’ in process art refers to the process of the formation of art: the gathering, sorting, collating, associating, and patterning. Process art is concerned with the actual doing; seeing the art as pure human expression. Process art often entails an inherent motivation, rationale, and intentionality. Therefore, art is viewed as a creative journey or process, rather than as a deliverable or end product.


Bruce Sterling On Artifacts, Machines, Products, Gizmos and Spimes

Passage taken from the Bruce Sterling book ‘Shaping things’. Concretely the chapter 2: Tomorrow composts today:

I’m using idiosyncratic terms that might become confusing outside this context of discussion So, I’m going to CAPITALIZE them: “Artifacts”, “MACHINES”, “PRODUCTS”, “GIZMOS”. “SPIME” is a flat-out neologism, but central to the thesis of this book so I’ll CAPITALIZE that too. This will emphasize that I’m talking about classes of objects in varying object-human relationships, rather than some particular Artifact, MACHINE, GIZMOS or SPIME.

By using this special terminology. I want to emphasize the continuing interplay between objects and people. I’m describing an infrastructure of human support irrevocably bound to and generated by the class of people who are necessary to create and maintain that infrastructure. It’s mentally easier to divide humans and objects than to understand them as a comprehensive and interdependent system: people are alive, objects are inert, people can think, objects just lie there. But this taxonomical division blinds us to the ways and means by which objects do change, and it obscures the areas of intervention where design can reshape things. Effective intervention takes place not in the human, not in the object, but in the realm of the technosocial.

So, by capital ‘A’ “Artifacts” I mean simple artificial objects made by hand, used by hand, and powered by muscle. Artifacts are created one at time, locally, by rules of thumb and folklore rather than through any abstract understanding of the principles of mechanics. People within an infrastructure of Artifacts are ‘Hunters and Farmers.

By “MACHINES” I mean complex, precisely proportioned artifacts with many integral moving parts that have tapped some non-human, non-animal power source. MACHINES require specialized support structures for engineering skills, distribution, and finance. People within an infrastructure of MACHINES are “Customers”.

So what’s the difference?

How does one draw the line between a technoculture of Artifacts and a technoculture of MACHINES?

I draw two lines of division the first line is the Line of No Return. The second is the Line of Empire.

We know there has been a revolution in technoculture when that technoculture cannot voluntarily return to the previous technocultural condition. A sailor can become a farmer, but if the sailors from the MACHINE era of iron and steam return to the earlier Artifact era of wood and sail, millions will starve to death. The technosociety will collapse, so it’s no longer an option. That’s the Line of No Return.

We know that this revolution has become the new status quo when even the fiercest proponents of the earlier technoculture cannot physically overwhelm and defeat the new one.

The new technocultures physical advent ages in shaping objects make it impregnable. The imperial technoculture can spew its object s and processes abroad, more or less at will.

Those who lack that productive capacity are forced into colonial or defensive postures. That’s the Line of Empire. I’m therefore inclined to date the advent of MACHINE technoculture to the eclipse of the Mongols in the 1500s.

Before that time an Artifact culture with bows and horses could blacken the earth with its rampaging hordes. After that date, the world is at the mercy of the West, as mechanization takes command.

By “PRODUCTS” I mean widely distributed, commercially available objects, anonymously and uniformly manufactured in massive quantities, using a planned division of labor, rapid non-artisanal, assembly-line techniques, operating over continental economies of scale, and sup-ported by highly reliable transportation, finance and information systems. People within an infrastructure of PRODUCTS are “Consumers”.

I would date the advent of PRODUCT technoculture to the period around World War One.

“GIZMOS” are highly unstable, user-alterable, baroquely multifeatured objects, commonly programmable, with a brief life span. GISMOS offer functionality so plentiful that it is cheaper to import features into the object than it is to simplify. GISMOS are commonly linked to network service providers; they are not stand-alone objects but interfaces. People within an infrastructure of GISMOS are “End-Users”.

Unlike Artifacts, MACHINES, and PRODUCTS, GIZMOS have enough functionality to actively nag people. Their deployment demands extensive, sustained interaction: upgrades. grooming, plug-ins, plug-outs, unsought messages, security threats, and so forth.
The GIZMO epoch begins in 1989.

SPIMES” are manufactured objects whose informational support is so overwhelmingly extensive and rich that they are regarded as material instantiations of an immaterial system. SPIMES begin and end as data. They are designed on screens, fabricated by digital means, and precisely tracked through space and time throughout their earthly sojourn.

SPIMES are sustainable, enhanceable, uniquely identifiable, and made of substances that can and will be folded back into the production stream of future SPIMES. Eminently data-mineable, SPIMES are the protagonists of an historical process.

People within an infrastructure of SPIMES are “Wranglers”.

I would date the dawn of to 2004, when the United States Department of Defense suddenly demanded that its thousands of suppliers attach Radio Frequency ID tags, or “arphids”, to military supplies. If this innovation turns out to be of genuine military advantage, and if it also spreads widely in commercial inventory systems, then a major transition will likely be at hand.

SPIMES are coming sooner or later, for SPIMES are here in primitive farms already. We can’t yet know if this is an import ant development, or just a visionary notion. The technical potential seems quite large, but how much design energy will these opportunities attract?

Who will dare to use these potentials as a means of technasocial intervention? Is there a Line of No Return and a Line of Empire? And if so, where are those Lines?

When will we realize that we need these structures in order to live—that we can’t surrender their advantages without awful consequence? And when will polities infested with SPIMES realize that they can lord it over those who refuse or fail to adapt them?

If I had to guess, I’d say 30 years. In 30 years, things properly understood as SPIMES will be all around us. Mind you, this is by no means an entirely happy prospect. It’s important to explicit acknowledge the downside of any technological transformation—to “think of the under-side firs”, to think in a precautionary way. In engaging with a technology so entirely friendly toward surveillance, spying privacy invasion and ruthless technical intrusion on previously unsoiled social spaces, we are playing with fire. Nothing new there—fire is two million years old. It helps to learn about fire and its remarkable affordances. Nat a lot is to be gained by simply flinging lit matches.

Design thinking and design action should be the proper antidotes to fatalistic handwringing when it comes to technology’s grim externalities and potentials for deliberate abuse. This book is for designers who want to be active agents in a technosocial world. I can’t make you into a moral angel (because I’m not one myself and have little interest in being one), but I might help you understand that the future can be yours to make.

Of course that’s not the end of the story. The story, if it’s successful, fails to end because we have created SPIMES and can manage them successfully. By handling challenges properly, we’ve enjoyed life without spoiling it for our descendants: as a culture, we’ve obtained more future. That would be the victory condition and the paint of writing books of this kind.

I’ll be spending most of the rest of this little book exploring what a SPIME might be, or become, and how people will interact with SPIMES. There are no such things as true SPIMES yet—these are still speculative, imaginary concepts. I will try to make the case that SPIMES are genuine prospects for genuine objects in the future, and worthy of designers’ attention. I hope to persuade you that clever young people had better get used to these ideas.

In other words, technocultures do not abolish one another in cleaner comprehensive ways. Instead, new capacities are layered onto older ones. The older technosocial order gradually loses its clarity, crumbles and melts away under the accumulating weight of the new.

The coming advent of SPIMES will not “abolish” the dominant technoculture we see today, which is the GIZMO, Artifacts, PRODUCTS, and MACHINES are still plentiful and flourish in today’s GIZMO world—but, influenced by the pressure from on high, they do tend to take an a pervasive flavor of GIZMO. Let’s see how.

Session Log 04-05-2011

We will write a manifesto as a set of guides in the approach to augmented artifacts. Words like ‘every day’ and ‘experimental’. We should make a critic (being it good or not) about artifacts and find a position. Find what we like and don’t like about Denis text.

We have some scenarios: public space, private space, social artifacts and cinema (Story telling).

What is an object is everything an object. How big can it be? Piano is an object? How many objects? is it relevant to the project the number?

“Object of desire”.
Betaville. Political transparency.

It is no object is Artifacts. Artifact is a subclass of objects.

Japanese artist not being afraid of commercializing their pieces of art. Eliana: what if at this state say I want to build a robot that laughs. I would be a stupid idea but as you developed it it gets interesting. Presentation matters.

We want to set up a room to start research and experimentation (private space).

–          Change the roll of every object.
–          Augmentation of irrelevant objects.

Downside: it is time consuming, money consuming, not movable.

Eliana says: “A professor had to make a vacuum cleaner, his approach was not redesigning the vacuum but get to the problem from the root: the problem was “their is dust in things”. His design response was the design of the curtains.”

Where objects come from? For some people they are brought to the supermarket by a stork

Frido: “The whole house is becoming a unique computer”. May be would be nice to make a project connecting Android to objects

References:
Day made of Glass.
Emophone.
Wahha Go Go.
Kentucky Fried Movie.
Fab (Book): personalization of machine, everyone builds his own machine. Personalization is not just changing color but building your own functions.
Ray Kurzweil.
Pecha Kucha: example 
Human Interface