Variations For (VFor) extracts an articulated motion sequence (e.g., dance moves) from the activity of its audience, displays the sequence, and then produces variations. The variations are created by independent Generator processes who reach agreements on what elements to change at each step. The changes are passed around a circle of Generators with the results displayed at each stage. Modifications continue to be made until all the Generators agree on a final pattern -- in effect developing a collaborative choreography. Subsequent audience input will affect the patterns, which will eventually decay to a steady state when no more input is received.
VFor encompasses its audience in an interactive system where they provide input and the piece provides new impetus to elicit further response. It responds to a variety of inputs. Crowds walking past without stopping can produce motions reminiscent of waves of grain. An accomplished improv dancer might find an inspiring partner. In between, viewers can see a machine that thinks for itself.
The four main components are:
Given the temporal and financial constraints, output devices for the initial development will be video displays. However real-world articulated robot arms will be integrated into a later version of the system.
Interaction is a two way street. However Interactive Art is often merely responsive on the part of the art object (for more detail see my blog entry: Artistic Rendering). The key to interaction is communication. And communication between multiple systems opens the door to higher level adaptive and collaborative human-machine behaviors.
Generally technologically based (read: video, electronic, and digital) art presents pretty pictures or sounds at the behest of an audience with little control over the ultimate behavior. Instead I would like to reconnect the 1970s Systems Art paradigm, seen especially in the work of Jack Burnham and (pre-[and-post]-Guggenheim) Hans Haacke, to the world of Art-Science-Technology collaboration. Burnham and Haacke saw the limits of Modernist reduction and sought a larger view in the behavior of systems themselves. Unfortunately, at just that time, art turned to impressive technical displays or retreated into the conceptual, and this exploration of underlying systems withered on the vine.
As Complexity Science, and particularly Artificial Life, have revived alternative approaches in the sciences I want to revive Systems in art, re-exposing the alternatives that were lost when techno-art turned to spectacle. To do this I make things which are not just entertainments but have some small lives of their own, in their own worlds.
On a personal level this piece will allow me to develop new technologies to further my integration of collaborative machines into the web of the world. Hopefully the ideas and techniques developed in VFor will then enable other workers to forge further afield.
The LACMA Art and Technology project, culminating in 1971, was the last large scale project which encouraged artists and technologists, not to speak of scientists, to interact and even collaborate in working with the fabric of post-modern society. I'm glad to see it is being revived.
The common attraction-repulsion response to artificial beings is based on desire and fear. First, the desire for absolute control over our environment; and second, the fear that it will control us. I label the former desire, The Illusion of Control -- because achieving total control is ultimately a futile endeavor. And the latter fear, The Frankenstein Complex -- because we easily forget that Dr. Frankenstein's creature became a Monster only after it was mistreated at the hands of humanity.
While fear, anger, and disgust are necessary for biological evolution, the only reason that our mechanical progeny continue to be subject to these emotions is that we have not thought to provide them with alternatives. By constructing artificial beings which are not subject to biologically driven imperatives we can instead, for instance, give them the wish to become virtuoso dance performers. With this we encourage them to become truly creative and collaborative beings on their own terms.
I believe that, rather than leaving it to the military-financial-complex, artists should be at the forefront of this research program.
Since the initial development is entirely in software it can be open-sourced and shared with workshop participants and the internet audience at large, some of whom may be inspired to become VFor collaborators.
The machine learning processes used in this project have not disseminated into the art world to any appreciable degree. Concepts from this work may inspire other workers to pursue similar projects, and specific modules can be adapted to other systems thus seeding new projects.
I estimate a six month, full-time, development cycle. At about one month each, the milestones are:
I ask for a full-time-equivalent artist's stipend of $3000 per month ($18,000) which should cover travel and incidental expenses. I would also ask for an additional $2000 per month ($12,000) to compensate possible collaborators, bringing the labor budget to $30,000.
I would especially appreciate help in finding collaborators with experience
in image processing, machine learning, robotics simulation, and animation software.
Depending on the size of the output monitors used,
the total hardware budget should be less than $10,000.
The total requested expenditure is: $40,000.
I would prefer to spread this work over a longer period,
perhaps working half time, giving each of the above components about a two
month duration. However the deliverables listed below are
estimated at a full-time-equivalent one-month-per-component rate:
| MILESTONE | START DATE | FUNDS NEEDED |
| Design | July 2014 | $5000 |
| Image recognition | August 2014 | $5000 |
| Pattern generation | September 2014 | $5000 |
| Output animation | October 2014 | $15000 (hardware purchase) |
| Integration | November 2014 | $5000 |
| The last 80% | December 2014 | $5000 |
I am harking back to an earlier aleatoric experimental thread in Los
Angeles' art history:
John Cage's, Variations IV at the Feigen Palmer
Gallery, 1965.
My small RoboCar Collective developed a, very limited, dance together over the period of about an hour using stochastic finite state automata to select "steps" at random and then share them with each other: Learning to Dance. This is the same technique I propose for VFor's pattern generators.
Some examples of my recent work can be found here: 2013 Kinetic Sculptures.
