[iDC] Embodiment is about action in context

Fri Sep 29 10:05:46 EDT 2006

Dear Omar,

I would love to learn more about Pask's "machines with underspecified
goals". Usman can probably help here? (see his project Paskian
Environments http://www.haque.co.uk/paskianenvironments.php ).

Re: learning. I am very interested in enactive learning/knowledge which is
acquired/conveyed through our bodies rather then through symbols (numbers,
words) and icons (images). The child development is often divided in three
stages of learning: enactive, iconic and symbolic. Alan Kay, Bill Verplank
and others argue that computer interfaces developed in the direction
opposite from that of the child development: first we had the symbolic stage
(DOS..), then the iconic stage (introduction of windows etc) and now we are
moving towards the enactive stage (tangible interfaces, ambient etc). I
think that enactive learning and interfaces offer a powerful way of
subverting behaviours and raising awareness/possibilities for new
interactions, relations, becomings …

In relation to R&Sie I had on my mind projects such as "I've heard about the
node" (http://www.new-territories.com/I'veheardabout.htm<http://www.new-territories.com/I%27veheardabout.htm>)
or "Silverelief
/ B-mu" ( http://www.new-territories.com/roche2002bis.htm.) The
architectural/urban form in these projects is in-formed by, or to use a
better term coupled to, human and environmental matter, in direct and
complex way.  Here, the idea of morphing which was/is important process in
blob architecture, leaves the screen and becomes an inorganic nature (?)
changing as the human-environment-... relationships change. The kinetics of
architectural form are unpredictable and dynamic, quasi-organic (in terms of
process). Here is R&Sie's description of the "I've heard about the node"  :
"The urban structure "I've heard about" is a habitable organism. It develops
by means of adaptive, transitory scenarios in which the operational mode is
uncertainty. It is written based on growth scripts, open algorithms, that
remain permeable not only to human expressions (expressions of
individuality, relational, conflictual and transactional modes, etc.), but
also to the most discrete data such as the chemical emissions of those who
inhabit it. This biostructure becomes the visible part of human
contingencies and their negotiation in real time. Due to its modes of
emergence, its fabrication cannot be delegated to a political power that
would deny its exchange procedures and design its contours in advance,
either through mnemonics or coercion." (Social Protocol – you can find the
whole text on the webpage above)

Also this project points out some of the ethical problems that we may
encounter when we try to build "An active architecture … that really
responded to human wish and …(which) attempts to sharpen to the maximum its
power of response and ability to respond to as many reasonable potentials as
possible." (Archigram 8, 1968.)

 I think R&Sie brought some fresh ideas into blob architecture, especially
compared to other architectural projects in which the form (shaped by rather
digital tools and algorithms, flows of people, random processes etc) is
frozen, and becomes static as soon as it has to leave the screen. During my
studies in architecture I worked with blob-digital forms (
http://www.zero-th.org/ProjectsKarmen.html see the bottom of the page) and
in my Laurea thesis I explored the use of digital tools in architectural
design, and the problem of the freezing of the morphing forms - which
particularly troubled me.  That was one reason for me to move towards
interaction design/art/environment where I could explore real dynamics of
urban space.

Why environmental design/psychology research and ecological approach to
phyisical and social spaces were lost once again in benefit of formalism?
 Hard questions …  but it is not surprising that we are looking back at that
work which needs to be further explored  (for example Familiar Stangers
project refers to Milgram's experiments).

Karmen

On 9/28/06, Khan, Omar <omarkhan at ap.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> Karmen and list,
>
> Karmen thanks for your very provocative post. I wanted to ask if you
> could elaborate a bit more on the R&Sie work that "have some excellent
> ideas of how to include the human-artifact-environment-... relationships
> into an architectural form"...
> Also, I am very interested in this idea of 'tools' for 'offline
> cognition'. The finger(s) versus the over-specialized app. I think Pask
> describes something similar when he talks about the design of "machines
> with underspecified goals". Both enable 'learning' through interaction
> (person-tool -environment) on the LEARNER's TERMS. We haven't really
> discussed the issue of human learning as a goal for situated
> technologies. And the learner's terms is such a nebulous prospect that
> designer inevitably eschew it. Perhaps "less information and More
> Awareness" provides a way into this issue? But how?
> Architecture as an unending work is not new. For one thing there was a
> moment in the 70's where architectural departments disassociated
> themselves from the term 'architecture' and became environmental design
> departments. Environmental psychologists were hired as well as a host of
> other 'design' experts. The reason was to move away from the
> objectification of the work of architecture and include in it the
> 'performance' of the work post-occupancy. This 'behavioral' turn
> resulted in the production of occupancy codes, accessibility codes,
> color codes etc. whose legacy is not at all commensurate with the
> ECOLOGY that karmen speaks about. What went wrong? What were the traps
> and how do we avoid them this time around?
>
> Omar
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: idc-bounces at bbs.thing.net [mailto:idc-bounces at bbs.thing.net] On
> > Behalf Of Karmen Franinovic
> > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:04 AM
> > To: idc
> > Subject: [iDC] Embodiment is about action in context
> >
> > Thank you all for inspiring discussions - they are moving so fast and
> > I share Anne's feelings described in her last post.  I finally
> > finished producing a new public installation Sky Hooks (together with
> > Yon Visell for Happy New Ears Festival - it runs until Oct. 8), and
> > found time to put some thoughts together.
> >
> > Usman says "How might the production itself of an architecture
> > *really* be "interactive" (in the sense that Maturana or Pask use the
> > word)? Surely such an architecture would never be "complete"? This is
> > why I find it quite interesting that Omar, too, is interested in the
> > notion of "performance": because performance is a work, the production
> > of which is very much the work as well."
> >
> > Architecture is never complete. It is just that (some) architects wish
> > it were, or just prefer to think it is. The building as a perfect form
> > standing there for centuries, millenniums ... I've disliked this idea
> of
> > architecture as something unchangeable and static, as a kind of
> > monument, an artistic/architectural trace in the city. Did blobs or
> > deconstructivism in architecture of the late '80 and '90s change that
> > "passivity" of the building? When built, is this architecture really
> > that much different from Kiesler's infinite house, or sculptural
> > monuments such as Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Of course, not all of the
> > work at the Non Standard Architectures exhibition that Brian mentioned
> > is focused on form as a frozen artistic expression (produced with the
> > digital tools). R&Sie, for example, have some excellent ideas of how
> > to include the human-artifact-environment-... relationships into an
> > architectural form.
> >
> > If we don't want a static form as the final outcome of architectural
> > design process, what is then that we are designing? What is that we
> > want to activate? Architecture, things, invisible matter, people ...?
> > Rather than dynamic/kinetic facades, I am interested in architecture
> > that produces movements and relations between all of these elements.
> > In this case, in addition to notion of performance, it might be useful
> > to talk about ECOLOGIES (sensorial, social, cultural ...) and
> > EMBODIMENT.
> >
> > I have been studying cognitive theories of embodiment for the past
> > year. The underlying idea is that embodiment is about ACTION IN
> > CONTEXT. These actions emerge from the relations between our
> > sensory-motor systems and environments that we inhabit (including
> > people). Interactive artefacts through their
> > sensors-mappings-actuators systems acquire agency similar to that of
> > living stuff. Embodiments (and fascination with things) are
> > interesting because of their capability to dynamically
> > PRODUCE/AFFECT/ENHANCE ACTION. They are tools, elements of an ecology
> > which makes us active (ethics of action can be different of course).
> > This action/perception loop (or enaction) is an individual/subjective
> > experience. I believe that this ACTION-ENABLING quality of things is
> > more interesting and should be stronger than our fears of return to
> > objectness/objectivity.
> >
> > The outsourcing that Trebor and others talked about is the process of
> > offloading cognitive work by using the external "hardware"
> > (environment) to remember - in embodied cognition this is called
> > "offline cognition". However in these theories the world is not full
> > of databases that help us remember, but is full of tools that make us
> > think and act : an example is the child learning how to count by using
> > his fingers. The primary problem that interactive tools such as
> > delicious or flickr aim at solving is also related to outsourcing, but
> > this time the amount of data is large and simply mapped. Flickr and
> > the finger are very different tools. The former is a super-specialized
> > tool for archiving photographs, while fingers are multipurpose and can
> > be used for counting, cooking, typing ...
> >
> > The world of interactive things is/could be an activating world, in
> > which artifacts are not only carriers of extremely complex physical or
> > digital information, but also tools that engage people in interaction
> > with the world. Also they are not automatic (see Jago Conde's
> > "Architecture of indeterminacy"). They are artifacts-tools whose
> > afforadances (J.J. Gibson, D. Norman) invite action and movement.
> >
> > Knowing something through words and images is efficient, but learning
> > through doing/experiencing creates deep changes (see for example child
> > development). The problem we have to deal with is that the market
> > is/will be using the same strategies of agency to engage users in
> > consumption.
> >
> > Embodied enactive theories rely on the hypothesis that all our
> > perception is action: in order to see I must move my eyes (see
> > F.Varela, A.Noe). Therefore, for a living being, to be passive in
> > physiological/neurological sense is an impossible task. Yet we can be
> > passive in our social, political, cultural ... lives. There are
> > different types/levels of activity and action, and perhaps a useful
> > way to separate them is by our intentionality towards and awareness of
> > an action. We are always functionally active, but how aware are we of
> > the consequences of our actions (or of what we think of as
> > non-action)?
> >
> > As Trebor said in his post on "The "electricity" of near future
> > participation", communication technologies such as the telegraph are
> > not sufficient to allow a better understanding of others. Proximity
> > and direct encounter play an important role in such communication.
> > Also they create inevitable tensions which are essential for
> > democratic behavior (see Chantal Mouffe's writings on radical
> > democracy).
> >
> > Challenging and criticizing existing behaviours by engaging in
> > interaction people who share a common/public space makes the relations
> > more obvious and problems more tangible.
> >
> > Can embodied interactive technologies/things, when applied to direct
> > physical contact with the world, raise the awareness about our actions
> > and everyday behaviours in urban space. How do we design things,
> > artifacts and spaces which are capable of affording, guiding,
> > challenging and subverting established behaviours/actions?  Can we
> > design tools, environments, bodies ... stuff that makes us question
> > established social and sensorial ecologies? More so than architecture,
> > art and interaction design are asking such questions through practice
> > (for example Jonah's project such as SearchEngine, Crank the web etc;
> > or the Static project by the Power and Design groups from the
> > Interactive Institute).
> >
> > To finish, I would argue for artifacts/architectures, networked and
> > interactive, which provide less information and MORE AWARNESS, which
> > may EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS rather then the system. As Anne Galloway, I
> > believe we can design things/interactions which "appreciate my role as
> > a human, as a woman, as a scholar, etc."  We can design
> > architectures/environments for participatory action and direct
> > encounters (and hidden tensions) in the city, and by doing so we might
> > raise awareness and responsibility of people's own individual actions.
> >
> > Karmen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> > (distributedcreativity.org)
> > iDC at bbs.thing.net
> > http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> >
> > List Archive:
> > http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20060929/c8989fa6/attachment-0002.html