LeonardoNet weblog

15/6/2006

Keynotes for CCID Symposium announced

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 9:42 am

There will be two keynotes for the symposium: Professor Jay Bolter of Georgia Tech and Professor Andrew Feenberg of Simon Fraser University. Their details follow:

Andrew Feenberg is the Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Technology, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Canada. He is author of Critical Theory of Technology (OUP 1991), Alternative Modernity (UCP, 1995), and Questioning Technology (Routledge, 1999). For more information see http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/.

.Jay David Bolter is a Professor in the School of Literature, Communication and Culture and holds the Wesley Chair in New Media and is author with Diane Gromala of Windows and Mirrors, published by MIT Press (2003), in they explore the significance of digital art for the digital design community at large. For more information see http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~bolter/.

25/5/2006

Call for papers: The First International Symposium on Culture, Creativity and Interaction Design

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:21 am

The First International Symposium on
Culture, Creativity and Interaction Design
 (
CCID 2006)

Culture Creativity and Interaction Design is a new forum for researchers working at the boundaries of the arts, humanities and interaction design.

Advances in interactive technologies have blurred the line between arts, humanities and sciences research and dialogue between these different disciplines is emerging. Recent work from the humanities and arts has been used to constructively critique interaction design theory and practice. Digital media is making radical changes in how art is created, distributed and perceived. Studies of experience of new media are providing insights into the potential of interactivity in contemporary arts and culture.

The symposium seeks to strengthen the dialogue among the diverse disciplines contributing to culture, creativity and interaction design research and will provide a forum for interdisciplinary analysis and experiences of digital media. It will focus on the role of technology in enhancing culture and creativity. It will seek critical and reflective approaches to the design and analysis of interactive technology.

Submissions in the form of papers and posters are invited. But in addition, exhibits of interactive media, performance or art are also encouraged.

Topics include but are not limited to:
Arts-HCI; New media and genres; Technology and experience; Enhancing creativity; Performing arts; Identity politics; Critical theory; Experience-centred design, place space and interactivity. In addition we welcome reports on experiences of working across arts-science boundaries. 

Time and Place
Tuesday 12th September Queen Mary, University of London, UK
In the stunning Octagon, an 8-sided triple-height Victorian Library.
The symposium is co-located with the BCS International HCI Conference. 

Important dates

Deadlines for extended abstracts:  30th June 2006
Notification to authors:                  28th July  2006             

Submissions Process

The selection of contributions will be based on extended abstracts which should be about 500-800  words.  Abstracts will be reviewed by a programme committee and accepted abstracts will be published in the symposium proceedings. Contributions should be sent in word or pdf format to:

Rachel Dare,  r.dare@psychology.york.ac.uk

(CCID is supported by the EPSRC Leonardo Network http://www.leonardonet.org/index.php)

4th Leonardo Workshop on 20th June

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:19 am

Below is the programme for the 4th Leonardo Workshop on 20th June 2006 at University College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC).  
 
The workshop will feature an exciting and inspirational session with design strategist Chris Vanstone and creative designer Mickael Charbonnel of Human Beans (www.humanbeans.net).  Here’s what Chris and Mickael will do: “After an introduction to our work with Snack Chat and the inspirational HB-iTV the audience will explore new project territories through our “Focus Group”, a workshop performed for the first time in Berlin as part of our solo exhibition “SPAM”.”
 
Programme for the Day
 
10: 30   Arrive and Coffee
11:00    Inspiration Hunt: Visits in small groups to special exhibitions at either
                 (i) British Library (News media: Front Page)
                  http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/whatson/whatson.html
                 (ii) British Museum (Michaelangelo: Closer to the Master)                 http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/michelangelo/index.htm
12:30    Report back and Lunch
13.30    Human Beans
16:30    End of Session drinks

As before, the event is free and includes refreshments throughout the day.  However travel expenses and any overnight accommodation are not covered. For further enquiries contact Peter Wright on pcw@cs.york.ac.uk, or to book a place contact on r.dare@psychology.york.ac.uk ASAP.

20/9/2005

HCI @ FACT – from Dave England

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 12:01 pm

I’d like to invite LeonardoNet participants to the following event in Liverpool. Please contact Marta to book a place via ruperez@fact.co.uk.

You can get a preview at http://www.hci-fun.org.uk/demo.html which is still under construction so any bug and usability reports would be welcomed.

Regards

Dave England.

HCI @ FACT

*Josh Nimoy*: Icon==Function

4 October 2005, 18:00 – 20:30, The Box
FREE (pre-booking required)

The HCI (Human Computer Interaction) project is a collaboration between FACT and the School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences at Liverpool John Moore¹s University that seeks to explore issues of computer usability. Artists Josh Nimoy (US), Simon Poulter (UK) and Caen Botto
(Argentina) have been commissioned to propose experiments, based on scientific principles of human-computer interaction, that analyze how a variety of different users, from different backgrounds and levels of technological training, interact with Œthe machine¹.

Josh Nimoy will be presenting Icon==Function, a series of interactive game-like audio-visual environments that analyzes the relationship between the functionality of user interfaces, and their iconographic facades. The body of work attempts to eliminate the divide between the outer and inner parts of ³the machine.²

Caen Botto and Simon Poulter will also be present to inform us about their projects up to date.

www.hci-fun.org.uk

Made possible by a Partnerships for Public Awareness grant from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Marta Ruperez
Curator

FACT (Foundation for Art & Creative Technology)
88 Wood Street
Liverpool, L1 4DQ

http://www.fact.co.uk

18/9/2005

Workshop Three, Lancaster, November 2005

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 1:22 pm

The date has been set for the next workshop in the LeonardoNet series. This one is hosted by Jenn Sheridan and .:ThePooch:., along with Alan Dix, of Lancaster University’s Computing Department. It takes place over two days: 23rd and 24th November. Please put this in your diaries now.

There will be at least two components:
1) a scrapheap challenge – something Lancaster has conducted a fair few times now to good effect and which involves designing and building (or at least prototyping) something from scratch in a day or so. For Alan’s account of one, see Research on the Scrapheap.
2) a report from each artwork group with a flavour of their process and progress so far. Members of each group will be contacted with further details about this soon.

Again, there is no charge for this event, but there will be the cost of accommodation. I shall ask our hosts for recommendations for dependable and affordable places to stay near the campus and circulate these to anyone expressing an interest.

Further details of how to sign up, etc will be posted soon. Meanwhile, do contact me with any other queries. Looking forward to seeing you there.

Ann

20/7/2005

Other News this July

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 9:34 am

A date for your diary: the next workshop is provisionally to take place in late November in Lancaster. Dates for the two-day workshop are likely to be late November, but this will be confirmed in the next few weeks.

Our assistant administrator Sally has had to resign so do continue to get in touch with me if you have any questions or comments.

See the post below for the decision about artwork bids. If you led on a bid and you haven’t heard from Janet this week, then the email went astray. Let me know on ann@leonardonet.org.

Funding of Artworks – All the Bids go through…

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 9:21 am

When the committee met we felt that if at all possible we would like to
fund all of the bids. We achieved this but at the cost of trimming a few
budgets: we hope that this will not be too limiting. We observed that a
number of projects could benefit from extending involvement to other nodes
or combining their efforts with one of the other projects and we encourage
people to do this. Will the lead people on each proposal please contact
their collaborators to pass on the news

Threshold: £1100
SIAS: £1100
Slow Time: £1000
IDE Art: £1100
Hyperphysical: £1500
Audio photo desk: £2000
Literary Fridge: £2000
Phone in post: £500
Squirrel: £1500

All have been given up to £500 for travel on top of this.

Pete Wright

14/6/2005

Artwork – the ideas

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 8:45 am

Threshold – An idea proposal for interactive multimedia installation
Chengzhi Peng – Stephen Walker – Nadia Mounajjed, School of Architecture – University of Sheffield

We suggest building an interactive installation for the Leonardo international conference (summer 2006). The proposed artwork will act as a ‘threshold’ for the conference and will provide an interactive experience for the conference’ users/visitors. The artwork will add a digital/virtual layer over the real/material site and will provide a framework for creative exchange and productive interaction between the user’s bodies and the architectural context.

The installation work will be designed to capture aspects of interactivity, which can be later analysed to inform interaction design. We would like to bring in interactivity on the level of the body’s everyday experiences in architectural spaces. Depending on the venue of the final Leonardo International Conference, the chosen site will inspire and define the generating design ideas behind the artwork. Not only will the installation be site-specific, but it will also try to re-present/ re-interpret the functionality of an event; the work will question the ‘conferencing activity’ as an ephemeral event offering a unique experience. In conferences, people gather round a topic in a particular site to exchange and discuss ideas. After this, users may not meet up again—very rarely would the same experience be repeated and even in this case then probably in a different architectural or cultural context.
A possible application of the concepts suggested earlier can be explored by observing the users performance as they interact with their shadows in space or the acoustics of their footsteps, for example. We can develop an interface to transform the shadow of the users or to augment the echoes of moving bodies in space. Such work would stimulate interaction between the body and its shadow, reflections or echoes.
We are seeking collaboration from other members of the Leonardo network particularly on the interfacing aspect of the artwork. The previous proposal is mainly based on our research but it has also been inspired by the FACT discussion and is still open to other suggestions and revisions. However, we can generally provide design ideas and conceptual background for the artwork particularly in relation to real and interactive experiences of users in architectural spaces.

The Obstreperous Shadow
John Mateer, University of York

Imagine walking in a hallway with a bright lighting. Your shadow is cast on a wall to your left and all seems normal — the shadow moves as you do. Suddenly, the shadow seems to take on a life of its own, perhaps staggering and falling down drunk or racing ahead, turning back and thumbing its nose at you. You no longer control the shadow.

In actual fact you are not casting a shadow at all; a synthetic shadow is created using Video Augmented Environment technology. A camera captures your motion, feeding it to a computer which calculates your shadow profile and outputs it to a data projector which completes the effect.

Project Goals:
- to create a naturalistic presentation of a shadow that challenges people’s perceptions of reality
- to create a fun, surprising interactive installation

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Social Interactive Ambient Soundscapes
Nick Bryan-Kinns, QMUL

This piece explores the tensions between interaction and ambience, and personal and social. Usually we think of ambient music as a personal, passive experience which we immerse ourselves in to relax, free of any interaction. This piece asks the question: what does it feel like when we are surrounded by an evolving, low tempo, relaxing soundscape which cocoons and envelopes us, yet we co-create this with others around us. The basic idea is that several people in a space contribute short musical motifs which are used in the generation of an evolving ambient soundscape and which can be edited by others in the space.

People in the space contribute musical motifs through some small artefacts which also provide feedback on others’ contributions to the music – the key is that the artefact acts not only as a way of capturing motifs, but also as a way of sensing and possibly changing others’ motifs. For example, people could use a tennis ball sized object to create motifs through their pattern of squeezing, and feedback on others’ contributions could be provided through heat, vibration, or light – illuminating when others contribute motifs, or even replicating their motifs through vibration. Or, people may contribute motifs by drawing on a small display which also showed others’ motifs and allowed them to be edited.

The motifs people contribute are collected in a central repository which uses them to generatively produce an ambient soundscape audio-visually projected across the whole physical space. When little or no contributions are present, the repository will evolve the soundscape based on previous contributions – in this way themes will re-emerge from previous interaction.

It is envisaged that the piece would be installed in a social space such as a café or bar where a range of people come and go in informal, ad-hoc ways. The piece would then raise questions about how people manage their social interaction through the musical space, what new forms of interaction emerge, how identity is managed and whether identity of contribution is perceptible in the evolving soundscape, the relationship between

Slow time
Alan Dix – Lancaster University

This is partly a proposal for potential installations that explore our own perceptions of time, partly a set of lenses that can be applied to other pieces either post hoc or as an intimate part of their design. Issues of time have long been a part of research in human computer interaction and also permeate other aspects of life from timelines of sport to artistic retrospectives.

In a Newtonian/Cartesian framework time is the matrix in which we live and act, in an Einsteinian/relativistic framework time is our own threads tying the fabric of reality through our constant crossings and re-crossings at our shared moments of here and now.

We live in a world of CD sampling at kilohertz (KHz), radio waves at megahertz (MHz) and PCs running at gigahertz (GHz). In the blink of an eye the computer clock counts to a billion and 97.6 million waves of Radio 1 pass through my body; don’t they tickle so?

Counter to this world of speed and imperceptibly fast motion, this proposal is to investigate slow time including the imperceptibly slow.

We move our hands and eyes and walk in timescales of seconds indeed foot bridge designers try to avoid resonance at 1Hz, the average walking pace … unfortunately the Millennium Thames Bridge designer forgot that the side to side rocking as we walk happens every other pace 1/2 Hz.

When we sit down to do something or eat a meal, we may be stationary for 20 minutes, or an hour – a few thousand seconds – a millihertz phenomena. And the life of man is three score years and ten, a mere two and a third billion seconds; like most buildings our time on earth is a nanohertz phenomena. Pushing back beyond our lifetimes, the oldest buildings stretch a mere few hundred times longer and human kind itself back 60 thousand years – taking us into the picohertz, whilst dinosaurs and younger rock strata ripple in the femtohertz. Finally the earth itself and the very universe pass in a few billions of years – a blip upon the cosmic silence in the attohertz band.
More at: http://www.hcibook.com/alan/projects/slow-time/

Framework for Interactive Art
Wibke Hott, FACT,
David England, John Wai, LMU

The aim of our proposal is to provide a place or framework where interactive art can take place and be discussed and debated.

It should be a place where the tensions and similarities between interactive art, HCI and design can be explored.

It will be web-based to allow the uploading of thoughts, materials, annotations and ideas.

The website will support debate and discussion about interactive artworks (either provided or linked to) via
• Having Games and battles with avatars
• Taking sides and roles in debates
• Voting and judging on artworks
• History of ideas competing between the different disciplines

An artist will be invited to derive the concept for the framework and respond to LeonardoNet node members’ needs in the design. The framework should evolve with the network. Other partners are invited to shadow the dialogues and discussions on the website for meta-analysis. Software from existing sites, e.g. www.hci-fun.org.uk and www.culturecastles.co.uk will be re-used to form the basis of the new website.

Initial ideas for the website include
• A re-mixing place where existing ideas from HCI, art and design are presented as a historical matrix of examples which can be used to generate a new digital piece.
• An artscape – derived from voting and linking on artworks which presents a visualisation of selected artworks which have been categorised by visitors along a number of different dimensions.

LeonardoNet members are invited to suggest other facilities they wish to see on the site. The central aim should be to promote the aims of the Network in an interactive and collaborative way.

Creating collaborative hyper-physical interfaces for communal engagement (POI)
Jennifer G. Sheridan Lancaster University
Alan Dix Lancaster University
Nicolas Villar Lancaster University
Nick Bryan-Kinns Queen Mary, University of London
Alice Bayliss University of Leeds
Matt Cooper The Mob Lancaster
Pete B Planet Angel London

We propose to develop hyper-physical interfaces for collaborative and communal engagement particularly for “playful arenas” and experimental, real-world environments such as nightclubs. Our work will build on our previous investigation of how to take a traditional set of poi that clubbers often dance with in trance and techno clubs and augment them with sensor technology in order to allow the shapes, patterns and movements made by the participant to become visualised elsewhere in the club space. We will create a collaborative performance piece using these interfaces and we will perform this piece “in the wild”. Our ultimate goal is to allow anyone with a willingness to interact to be able to create their own DIY performance using these interfaces.
This project requires expertise in the areas of HCI, performance studies, music technology, computer science, graphic design and CSCW as well as a pool of skilled poi users, VJs and clubgoers. We believe that we have found this network of people through Leonardo. Because of the nature of this work, we expect that our findings will extend beyond the use of poi to include collaborative physical music and visual interfaces in general.

Phones in the post
The opportunity to collaborate in a project that combines moments from the lives of every node in an aural (and possibly visual) artwork. It will involve a mobile phone, a lot of envelopes and an element of surprise. For this reason, not a lot is being said here, but it will be fun and despite this cryptic introduction (which was much the one given at the workshop in Liverpool), several node members have signed up to take part. Join us.

The Literary Fridge
Mark Blythe, Suresh Mandahar, University of York
Joe Cutting,
Marie Jefsioutine, University of Central England

The smart fridge in the Centre for Usable Home Technology’s Responsive Home is currently configured so that Alex, a talking gesturing character helps pick recipes appropriate for the fridge inside it. A touch screen allows the user to interact and access information. This kind of application has been criticized as a rationalization of the kitchen and work practices within it. This project would aim to make a smart fridge that would focus not on tasks but art and entertainment. We would like to make a literary fridge which can – read a book of the week and enable users to make digital fridge poetry.

There are many commercially available text to voice simulations with voices that are easy to listen to similar to the one that Alex uses. Licenses to use them are however expensive. It would be interesting to explore the possibility of setting a free text to voice system to read from one of the free online libraries. The Gutenberg project makes almost every classical literary work freely available. If the fridge could be set to read a particular novel then it could make it into a free audio books. Free text to voice systems are not as attractive to listen to as Alex but they may be tolerable and the investigating would be an interesting proof of concept. This might be particularly useful to the blind and older people with failing eyesight.

Fridge poetry kits, have been popular for the last couple of years. There are various sets containing differing vocabularies – romantic, Shakespearean, erotic etc…. There has been a lot of work done in artificial intelligence on machine poetry and these usually involve the development of algorithms to choose words or phrases from particular databases. This would not be necessary for the development of a fridge poetry kit. Again, free online libraries could be used to access out of copyright literature. In the nineteen sixties William Burroughs pioneered the “cut up” technique. He would take clippings from newspapers, novels, his own journals and manuscripts and assemble them at random in order to create new fragmented texts. If a number of different online sources could be searched for particular words the cut up technique could be used to generate new texts. If the user could determine which texts were to be sampled from this might form the basis for a compelling and fun interaction. The poem below resulted from word searches in online collections of the works of Shakespeare, Byron and Shelly for the word egg:

To pay him a fresh visit, with a dish
For breakfast, of eggs coffee and fish.
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg shell.
But what am I about?
If my grandmother sucks eggs, was it I who taught her?

Shelley was placed last although, Byron was searched first, because it read better that way. If a user could edit the results of searches in this way they could produce fridge poetry that they might want to display on the fridge and dedicate to family members.

Proposal for a community audio-object installation
David Frohlich, University of Surrey
Mark Blythe & John Robinson, University of York
Stephen Barr, The Govan Initiative

The audio-photo desk recognises printed photographs that are placed on it and plays associated sound files of commentary, ambient sound or music (Frohlich, Clancy, Robinson & Costanzo 2004). By creating audioprints as different elements of a story, users can create different versions of the story in the performance of an interactive narrative. Sian Lindley and Andrew Monk have conducted a number of user studies with the desk and noted that there is fun to be had in doing this for sharing personal photographic material. They call this activity DJing with photos (Lindley & Monk 2004).

This work might be extended to community storytelling, by creating a public work of art based on oral history materials. If the material related to the history of some community location or activity, the desk might provide a novel and compelling way of reviewing and playing back oral history fragments, and engaging the local community through a public installation. With a small modification to the existing software, printed photographs could be supplemented with physical objects having associated sounds, so that historic artefacts could also be used in the playback or performance. This would create audio objects as well as audio-photos. Members of the public could approach the working installation to play and mix various images, objects and sounds as they pleased, creating new mixes in conversation with each other. The conversation itself might provoke new memories and stories to be told by the audience. These could themselves be captured by the system, resulting in new material for later exhibition.

A context for this exploration has been offered by the Govern Initiative in Glasgow. They commission re-generation projects and are interested in capturing stories of Glasgow life and stimulating community activities and conversation. In partnership with Hewlett Packard they are setting up community centres equipped with state of the art computing facilities, and these could be used to create oral history materials with local people. The project would focus on collecting artefacts, sounds, music and stories relating to the Fairfield Shipyard in Glasgow, to whom many people were connected in the past. A multimedia artist would be hired to gather these materials and assemble them in a form which is suitable for the audiophoto desk. Hewlett Packard have also agreed to donate a new PC and webcam for the audio object installation itself. This could be exhibited in a new Digital Media Centre about to open in the city.

Frohlich D.M., Clancy T., Robinson J. & Costanzo E. (2004) The audiophoto desk. Proceedings of 2AD: Second International Conference on Appliance Design (p139).
Lindley S.E. & Monk A. (2004). DJing with photos. Proceedings of HCI 2004 (2), 178-180. Leeds: Research Press.

“You’ve got a lovely smile”: a compliment kiosk
Joe Cutting

Basic Idea

Concepts behind the idea

• All media have constraints. How do we feel if a media constrains us to behave in certain ways?
• The emotional power of simple communications like text messages and email.

Can we artificially engineer these feelings?

So we could…
• build a kiosk
• which can be placed in bars, arts festivals and other public spaces

Rough Outline

1) The user is presented with a selection of pictures of previous users of the kiosk and asked to choose one person to send a compliment to.

2) They then choose what they would like to make a compliment about

3) And then choose an exact compliment to send

4) The kiosk then sends the compliment as a text message to the chosen person

NEW MESSAGE
Someone in the FACT
bar thinks you have
beautiful hair

(Note for safety reasons the message is not traceable back to an original sender)

5) The user then has their picture taken by a camera attached to the kiosk

6) They then enter their mobile number which for safety reasons is never revealed to other users. Their picture is then added to the initial choosing screen.

Possibilities and Options

The idea outlined above should really be seen as just a starting point. After discussion with other members of the network here are some directions that the project might move in.

Reactions
One of the biggest questions in a unconventional piece like this is “How do people react to it?” It would be very interesting to do some research on this. Although this could be done by observation the kiosk also stores the phone numbers of all users so a simple study could be done just by ringing people up.

Conversation
I’m told that there’s a large body of work on “compliment theory” which maintains that a real compliment is a two way process with the response being as important as the original act. We could look at whether it is possible for people to respond to their compliment. At the very least we could collect any text message response they make to it on the kiosk.

Random vs Predictable
In conversation with other group members there seemed to be two different schools of thought regarding whether we should try and make is kiosk more or less random and unpredictable. The first school favoured ideas such as searching the internet for random people’s details and sending them a compliment or sending a different message from the one that was selected. The other school felt that although we are surrounded by supposedly rational and predictable technology such as computers and email the actual experience of these things is random and unpredictable. They felt that it would be good to try and make something, like a telephone, where although users don’t understand the technology they do understand the complete functionality and there are few surprises.

Internet
The possibility of putting something like this on the internet was discussed. This is technically possible but would change the nature of the piece considerably. We could reach a greater number of people but the knowledge that someone in the immediate vicinity had sent the message would be lost. There may also be safety concerns and difficulty stopping people putting up “dodgy” pictures of themselves….

Opportunities for help and collaboration

At the moment this project is looking for collaborators who can help with the practical aspects of making it happen. Here are some of the areas where help would be appreciated

Graphics and 3D Design
The physical kiosk needs to be designed and built. Similarly the software needs to be designed both from a graphical and interaction perspective.

HCI
This is a novel system that users will have to operate unaided. There are a number of HCI challenges in looking at how users understand what the system will do and how to encourage them to use it.

Language and Poetry
Although the system will not let users enter free text compliments this does not mean that the compliments themselves have to be like the ones in the example screens. It would be great to have something more creative and poetical.

Social Studies
As has been mentioned there is a large body of work looking at compliments and responses. There is a lot of scope of studies and research into how people react to a system like this and how the system can be engineered to produce particular results.

Art and publicity
It is envisaged that this system will be installed in art festivals and other public spaces. If you know of an event or space which it could be installed in and could help with practicalities this would be very useful.

Technical
I am able to handle the technical issues of the kiosk myself but if further technical help were available we may be able to look at extending the functionality of the basic system or even producing several different versions. If anyone has technical equipment they can donate this would be very helpful and reduce the budget.

‘IDE Art’ (Integrated Development Environment Art)
Proposed by Chris Newell and Stuart Andrews, University of Hull
Supported by Janet Finlay, LMU

We propose to engineer a small series of 3 stand-alone audio-visual exhibits.

The work will be presented as looped soundtracks to accompany 3 original artworks in frames. These original works will be output onto canvas to be hung on a wall or on a display board at a conference. A sound system will be hidden behind the canvas and the sound will play as spectators approach the piece. The first impression will be the familiar image of the computer interface (Windows) in the curious context of an art gallery and on canvas. On closer examination it will be revealed that the interface design (produced in a Microsoft interface design tool, hence the title) is a non functional commentary on the process captured on the soundtrack. The soundtrack is based on conversations within the Leonardo workshop groups and nodes. The extent to which these conversations might be ordered, edited and captured will be explored during the project.
Of most significance is that the work should be eye and ear catching and should stimulate new conversations in a workshop or conference poster setting.
The concept is to freeze action-led, dynamic, interactive processes and to represent these as a static display in its own right. This is reflected in the captured conversations and the captured screen, both of which are effectively secured in the frame that surrounds them. It may be that in drawing directly on the experience of several nodal groups, this project may contribute to a ‘brand’ that marks aspirations and frustrations which are being addressed within Leonardo-net.

Crossing Boundaries
The work is designed to act as a waving flag to draw in users and inspire comment and perhaps unease. The premise of using an engineering tool to produce art and propaganda may lead to new negotiations of understanding. Specifically, the artwork is intended to unsettle any secure definitions of place and so will provide a marginal space in which to consider opportunities for collaboration. This will create an opportunity to explore the layers of collaboration that can exist within such a boundary space and the ways in which such layers can begin to combine together.

The work will raise a series of issues for reflection and these may include the following:

• By existing through both sounds and images, the artwork will sit between more conventional forms of display and this sense of juxtaposition will increase as visitors approach the work.
• Passers-by may begin to take up a position of being spectators and perhaps even members of an audience (Fiske), before moving away and perhaps returning to more secure territory.
• The piece will invite spectators to become aware of listening and observing space and, further, of their contribution to making and writing space.
• The piece will encourage spectators to recognise that writing space marks a commitment to and an interpretation of the work. This may lead spectators to reflect

• on the work and to begin to identify new spaces for connections and debate that contribute to the audio context for the work.
• As more spectators arrive, it may become apparent that earlier spectators have become part of the space of the work. Although the work may begin as stand alone elements, by the end of an installation, it may be far more difficult to draw any clear lines of separation between the artwork and conversations in the conference/workshop at which it is displayed.
• Early investigations will involve exploring the borders of the artwork itself and techniques of disrupting everyday life as part of the work itself. The project involves a suspension of space and elements of space. This will create opportunities to suspend apparent distinctions between science/art, object/art and sound/vision.

Collaboration
In the last two years, there have been an increasing number of conversations across subject boundaries in the Scarborough School of Arts (SSA). These have related both to co-teaching of modules and to research and practice, specifically through the School of Arts Seminar Series. These connections have begun to address the benefits and the difficulties of working on the borders of subject specialisms. The Leonardo Net Proposal offers an opportunity to develop this investigation of conversation with colleagues in other institutions. Indeed, the project itself will enable conversations from this collaboration to be replayed and reformed in the display of the final artwork.

We would hope to address multiple themes and conversations emergent within the Leonardo group.
1. Conversation and its relationship to the process of designing an engineered artefact.
2. Confronting the popular notion that art is about galleries and frames and that the computer interface is about ‘Windows’ and frames. The computer interface as organised rectangles/art as organised rectangles
3. The computer interface as art divorced from function
4. The computer interface as agitprop. We may need to be rude and rail against the rectangle.
5. Issues relating to capturing the design process (through the use of audio recordings)

The chair project
Sal Fiore, University of Wolverhampton

The project began with an exploration into blind experiences through reading of autobiographical narratives. This marked a first phase of appropriation where I sought to better understand something about blind experience. I then sought to interpret my new understanding in a short fictional narrative and it is around this second phase of appropriation that the idea of the interactive chair emerged. It emerged, not through the identification of a need for such a chair, but because the idea of it provoked many fascinating questions. For instance, I wondered about the ambiguity of such a ‘lively’ object for both blind and sighted people, what sort of meanings this otherwise mundane and everyday yet potentially highly symbolic object would have for people and how interacting with such an object could challenge our experiences of a place and affect our interactions. For example, I was intrigued by the idea that the chair could make ‘invisible’ people evident for a blind person by signalling their approach in a secret way and curious about the changing meanings such an object could embody if installed in different places and contexts.

From this point, a third phase of appropriation took place. This time, Mikey Ball, an amateur sketch artist based in Birmingham, took my story and appropriated it into a storyboard. He realised the characters, objects and interactions in imagery and gave his own interpretation to the experiences represented. When he presented this storyboard to me, it changed my own understanding of the story and the chair and enabled me to construct new meanings around the object. These phases have already raised interest with papers presented at HOIT 2005 and Include 2005.

The next step in this project is to begin addressing how the chair might look, feel and sound (the formal characteristics). There is no technological determinism here, but instead an emphasis on opening possibilities with respect to the contributions already brought by others, as in the previous phases of appropriation.

Relevance to Leonardo.Net
I hope with this project to progress through further stages of appropriation to realise the construction and installation of the chair. The object as yet has no fixed form or technical engineering. These two phases will need to take place through appropriation by other individuals who would like to bring their specialised interpretation to the making of the chair (e.g. graphic design, modelling, electronics). There is freedom in this endeavour: the only requirement is a respect towards the appropriations made before. Each phase should in this way (as with the phases before) represent a new opportunity to re examine our own understandings of the subject-matter, where each appropriation is unique and an opportunity for reflection by both the designer and others involved in the process, to find new meanings and possibilities within the emerging objects.

The process of designing the chair will represent the first half of the project. The second half will be realised when the chair is installed and interacted with. The purpose of this installation will not be to demonstrate the ‘artwork’ but to create conditions for people (blind and sighted) to experience and appropriate it.

The prospect of the installation invokes further routes of enquiry: How will the vibrating chair make people feel? How will the chair’s meaning change in different places for different people? What new stories will be created? How will people appropriate the chair? Will we better understand blind experience through making this object real? Installing the chair, however, would not be just about trying to answer some of these questions, as much as to open up new questions. We would hope to suggest a possibility for understanding the ambiguity of invisible things and ultimately better understand experiences of designing in a pragmatic way.

To sign up for any idea, please contact the first name on the list associated with the idea, our administrator. See below for more information on the artwork criteria and other related artwork postings.

14/5/2005

Dolls and Computers at trAce

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:51 pm

At trAce’s Incubation conference, last year, Sue Thomas ran a workshop which invited people to use dolls, parts of computers and natural materials to make small maquettes of themselves in relation to their machines. There are photos at:
http://travelsinvirtuality.typepad.com/photos/incubation3/index.html
.

5/5/2005

Architecture, Cinema and Rope… Leonardo Network “Touchpoints” Workshop, May 19th…

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 9:41 pm

Leonardo Network “Touchpoints” Workshop, May 19th…
…at the Foundation for Art & Creative Technology (FACT), Liverpool (www.fact.co.uk) in partnership with Liverpool John Moores University.

Touchpoints… The 2nd Leonardo workshop, in Liverpool on 19th May, puts centre-stage the artworks that we have committed to develop as part of the network project. How do we make them compelling as examples of technology, interaction and art? Bring your ideas… and hear how others are addressing the challenge.

This workshop provides opportunity to meet like-minded Leonardo Network members with whom joint working might be possible. Added to which, FACT’s rich environment offers its own forms of engagement: in particular, architecture, cinema and rope.

Architecture? There will be time to look round FACT, a rather striking building and ‘the UK’s leading organisation for the commissioning and presentation of film, video and new media art forms’, and visit the current installation by Vito Acconci – poet, performer and architect who has spent more than 35 years exploring the relationship between the body and public space. Early work featuring intimate interactions is contrasted with his recent architectural designs.

Cinema? For those who prefer their culture more ‘popular’, there is the opening of “Stars Wars, Episode 3″, at the FACT main cinema. The workshop ends in time for the 6.15pm showing (and even allows for a swift drink beforehand too). Check out, also, the screen in the foyer that relays live images of the cinema audience watching the film.

Rope? FACT stands on Wood Street opposite Ropewalks Square, an area where ropes were traditionally woven by workers along the length of the street. ‘Rope-making’ has been adopted as the official metaphor of the workshop.

Please find a (rough) schedule of the day, and location information below, with details of the bidding process to follow (you don’t have to be there on 19th to bid). NB. Do circulate this to colleagues and inform Sally Rainbird at [spr6@york.ac.uk] by 12th May if anyone else is planning to attend. There is no charge for the workshop, but we do need numbers for catering.

……… Schedule…………….

There will be an informal meal on the night before the event for anyone who wants to be included (please email me on [annl@blueyonder.co.uk] to join in) and overnighting management group members are intending to stay at the Travelodge Liverpool Central (see http://www.travelodge.co.uk/ for details) should you wish to book in here too.

Touchpoint workshop

10. 00 Registration and breakfast
10.29 Ropes
10.30 Introductory exercises
11.00 Touchpoints Talk 1: Ideas from .:thePOOCH:.
11.20 Touchpoints Talk 2: Vito Acconci, Interactions
11.40 Tour of FACT – a cinema, art gallery, resource for artists and overall interesting building.
12.15 Bidding process briefing
12.35 Developing ideas briefing
12.40 Pitches

1.00 Lunch – including a demo from Liverpool John Moores

2.00 Further pitches
2.30 Capturing ideas
2.45 Ideas marketplace
3.30 Revised and new pitches

4.00 Tea

4.30 Closing discussions
5.00 What next?
5.30 End/Drink

6.15 Star Wars (opening on 19th – you may want to book ahead – see: www.fact.co.uk/whatson/detail/?infoID=8623275732333722599) or further drinks.

………Location information……………..

Getting to FACT: 88 Wood Street, Liverpool, L1 4DQ

For a detailed map see http://www.fact.co.uk/main/visit/how_to_find_us/?group=4&parent=43&link_id=43#map

FACT is in Liverpool city centre within walking distance of the main rail and bus stations.

From Lime Street station (with St. George’s Hall directly in front of you) turn left and walk along Lime Street for 50 metres until you reach the end of the station. Cross Lime Street at the lights by the Crown Hotel to Elliot Street Bus station.

Follow pedestrianised Elliot Street by taking the steps down from the bus station. Continue past Clayton Square shopping Centre (on your left) and Tesco Metro (on your right) until you reach Church Street (a large shopping street). Turn left when you reach Church Street continue to the end (about 50 metres) and cross Hanover Street to Bold Street via the traffic lights.

Follow Bold Street up the slight hill for 200 metres, at about 100 metres Bold Street ceases to be a pedestrians only zone, continue until you see RopeWalks Square on your right, by the fruit stall. FACT is across RopeWalks Square on Wood Street.

24/4/2005

Booking Details for 19th May 2005 – Touchpoints

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 8:14 am

The 2nd Leonardo Network workshop “Touchpoints” will be hosted by FACT & Liverpool John Moores University
Liverpool, 19th May 2005

Dear colleague,
You are invited to the second workshop of the EPSRC-funded Leonardo network entitled ‘Touchpoints’. The workshop will be held on 19th May at FACT (Foundation for Art and Creative Technology) in Liverpool in association with Liverpool John Moores University and hosted by Wibke Hott and David England.

At this workshop we want to begin the process of identifying opportunities for research collaboration between network members, and to allow people to form groups (’Cells’) to bid for Leonardo funds to support the development of up to five artworks. All LeonardoNet members are encouraged to take part but places are limited so book early, we may have to limit numbers to 4 representatives per node.

Will node leaders please ensure that anyone at their nodes interested in Leonardo has received this call.
For more information about the artwork projects see other documents on this weblog.

Costs of room hire, lunch and refreshments will be met by the network, but participants will have to pay for their own transport and accommodation as required.

If you would like to attend, please email me (peter.wright@cs.york.ac.uk) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and further details will be provided.

For those arriving on the evening before the workshop, I will organise somewhere to go for dinner.

Peter Wright

6/4/2005

CRITICAL COMPUTING — Between Sense and Sensibility – 21-25th August

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:35 am

Sent to the HCI-Lit mailing list by Olav W. Bertelsen, here is another event of interest. Note the deadline is imminent for submissions.

CRITICAL COMPUTING — Between Sense and Sensibility

The Fourth Decennial Aarhus Conference,
Aarhus, Denmark, 21-25 August 2005
http://www.aarhus2005.org

New full paper deadline: 18 April 2005 ========================================================

OUR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION SYSTEM IS OPEN

Continuing the tradition from the conferences in 1975, 1985 and 1995, it is the aim of the fourth Aarhus conference to provide a forum for the exploration and development of new perspectives for critical computing.

As information technology reaches out from the workplace to virtually all aspects of human life, the scope of critical IT research expands from a focus on designing computer support for quality of working life to new frontiers. These frontiers include the home, leisure time, citizen services, public spaces as well as the workplace. We face new challenges for technology support and new pitfalls regarding the ways in which people sense and form meaningful environments.

Critical Computing is a multi-disciplinary conference in participatory design, interaction design, CSCW, social computing, digital art and entertainment addressed from a variety of disciplines like computer science, sociology, psychology, ethnography, architecture, and aesthetics.

Submission deadlines:
Full papers, Panels, Workshops: April 18, 2005
Short Paper, Demonstrations, Doctoral Colloquium: June 12, 2005

More details at: http://www.aarhus2005.org.

Educating the Innovator: Interdisciplinary Education across Science and Art – 19th/20th April, Glasgow

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:32 am

Saoirse Higgins asked me to post this where everyone could see it, because, as she rightly says, it’s relevant.

Educating the Innovator: Interdisciplinary Education across Science and Art

19th /20th April: Centre for Contemporary Art, Glasgow
http://www.cca-glasgow.com

A Glasgow School of Art, Digital Design Studio/CCA event.

Sponsored by NESTA and Scottish Enterprise.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” Albert Einstein

A daylong event to discuss and explore the issues surrounding the notion of interdisciplinary art and science education.

Invited scientists, artists and designers contribute their views, talk about their work and give us an insight into how they were inspired to pursue their current field.

Booking through the CCA office – £1 booking fee. t: 0141 352 4900

19th April
Venue: CCA 4

9.30 – 10.00am Registration-coffee/tea
10.00 -10.15am Saoirse Higgins, Digital Design Studio, Glasgow School of Art.
(B.Des Ind. Design, M.A (RCA) Interactive media, M.Sc Media Art and Sciences MIT)
and Paul Miller, Digital Design Studio, Glasgow School of Art
(B.A Computing and A.I, PhD biological and computational motor control)
Introduction to the day
10.15 -10.45am Stephen Draper, Senior Lecturer Psychology, Glasgow University
(B.Sc Physics. M.Sc Computer Science, PhD A.I)
‘Art and science; pure and applied’
10.45 – 11.15am Richard Brown (Richard is on the EPIS entrepreneurial scheme hosted at Edinburgh University, Scotland; B. Sc in Computers & Cybernetics, M.A Fine Art)
‘Art as experimental science – creativity, innovation and wonder’
11.15 – 11.45am Louise Valentine, Acting Course Director, Master of Design, University of Dundee.
(B.A Product Design, PhD Rhetoric in design)
‘The Language of Interdisciplinary teams’
11.45 – 12.15pm Jussi Angesleva, Assistant professor, University of Arts, Berlin,
(Senior concept designer ART+COM, Berlin; M.A Audio Visual media culture, M.A (RCA) Interaction Design)
‘Design, Technology and the Tower of Babel’
12.15 – 1.30pm lunch
1.30pm- 2.00pm Amanda Parkes, PhD candidate Tangible Media Group, Media lab MIT.
(B.Sc Engineering product design, B.A Art History, M.Sc media Arts and Sciences MIT)
‘Kinetics and kinesthesia: education through experience’
2.00pm – 2.30pm Jon Rogers, Lecturer Innovative Product Design – an interdisciplinary course between engineering and design, University of Dundee.
(PhD neural computation/visual perception)
‘Stealth Learning’
2.30pm – 3.00pm Susan Stuart, Senior lecturer in Philosophy, Humanities Advanced Technology and Information Institute, University of Glasgow.
(B. A Philosophy, M. A Philosophy of Language and Kant, PhD AI)
‘Philosophy: the rules for everyone’s game’
3.00pm – 3.30pm break – tea/coffee
3.30pm – 4.00pm Carol Strohecker, Formerly Senior Research Scientist, Media Lab Europe Director, Everyday Learning research group.
(M.Sc MIT, PhD Media arts and Sciences, MIT)
‘Constructive uses of computational technologies can naturally combine arts and sciences while providing a pluralistic learning model for higher education’
4.00pm– 4.30pm John Gerrard, Digital media artist + artist in resident at Ars Electronica Futurelab
(B. A Fine Art, M. A Fine Art, M.Sc Multimedia Systems)
‘The New Studio: Art, Technology and Developing Models of Collaboration’
4.30pm– 5.00pm Dr. Linda Doyle, Lecturer, Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland.
(Leader Network & Telecommunications Research Group (NTRG) and Disruptive Design Team (DDT); strand leader SFI funded Centre for Telecommunications Value-chain driven Research; B. Sc Electrical Engineering, University College Cork, M.Sc Ph.D Trinity College Dublin)
Engineering Art: creating the perfect feedback loop’
5.00pm – 5.30pm Anna Hill, Digital media space artist and Director, Space Synapse Ltd.
(B.A Fine Art, M.A (RCA) Fine Art)
Communicating with space; the reincarnation of remote experiences into the social domain’
5.30pm – 5.45pm wrap up

6.00pm – 7.00pm reception in the Café
Music by Art – Science – Sound
Martin Naef (a.k.a. Navisto – www.navisto.ch) and Gert van Santen (from Wave World fame – www.waveworld.tv) will lay the electronic ambient foundation for the after-event reception, with Ilona Kocsis adding the human touch through her eclectic flute playing. Sequenced synths, spacy percussion, and a good dose of live playing – don’t miss this exclusive, one-off event at the CCA!

20th April- Day 2:
Venue: conference room CCA

10.30am – 12.30pm Round table discussion with speakers and invited guests on
Interdisciplinary Education across Science and Art’
Chaired by Dr. Paul Miller
Breakfast will be provided.
12.30pm – 12.45pm wrap up

For more event information contact Saoirse Higgins or Paul Miller: artsci@gsa.ac.uk

1/4/2005

Shaleph on “What is Art?” and “What kind of collaboration could we artistically produce?”

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 5:50 pm

Only Shaleph O’Neill at Napier was brave enough to attempt to answer the two questions I posed to kickstart a discussion on the Leonardo-Net list about the issues raised at the first workshop. His response was worth putting somewhere less ephemeral than email, especially as it makes recommendations for the next workshop. Should anyone now feel inspired to take on his points, please use the comment facility.

1.what is art?

The problem with this question is that nearly the whole of 20th century art practice was centered around it, in that the pre-conceptions of what art is i.e. established traditions became challenged and subsequently over run to the point where what was considered to be art was the very nature of challenging what ever ideas about art that had gone before. So challenging preconceived ideas about art is still very central to art practice. Similarly there is the role of the artist as shaman or outsider, whose place in the culture in which s/he lives is to reflect on the culture that surrounds her. I think this notion of reflective practice is central to what we are exploring here.

I think, and people may disagree with me here, that the kind of computer technology we are dealing with here represents a new medium for artist/ performers. The BIG problem as I see it is that only people who have particular skill sets know how to make things with them. Artists engage with their materials bringing ideas to it and deriving ideas from it in a playful reflective way. I think sometimes it is difficult for artists to engage in this way with such new media (particularly media that requires a lot of coding, perhaps).

2. What kind of collaboration could we artistically produce?

For us what our art is will be determined by our engagement with the material. Therefore I would strongly propose having perhaps one workshop (maybe even the next one, be good to do this early so we can reflect on it) that is based around some kind of system as material. This would have to take place in a media lab that has interesting existing equipment/resources. I think the motion capture equipment is a really interesting avenue to pursue. Some of the themes I remember coming out were about space, place, performance and embodiment. In just about all the art that I can think of the body is central to either its production or the forms of its representation. Starting with the body and its relationship to these new technologised spaces I think is a very interesting idea.

It would be good to have some equipment available with some experts who know how to manipulate it, quickly. We could work collaboratively during a workshop conducting artistic experiments (trying things out and reflecting on them). This would be an interesting exercise for everyone. It would also be an excellent opportunity to document what goes on during this process. Much of this documentation will undoubtedly feed into our creative processes also providing material for others within the group to produce other art works.

19/3/2005

Date for Second Workshop: 19th May 2005

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 8:46 am

I’m pleased to announce that the next Leonardo workshop will be held in Liverpool, hosted at FACT (Foundation for Art & Creative Technology) in partnership with John Moores University and the wider network.

It will take place on Thursday 19th May 2005. This invitation is to everyone at every node (booking information will follow soon), so if you are interested in what the theory and practice of the arts and humanities can contribute to the design of interactive technologies, put this date in your diary. There is no charge to attend.

Features will include:
* the chance to make connections across institutions and disciplines
* the development of bidding groups for artworks – we have a modest amount of money to fund the development of some interactive art as part of the project
* the absence of long ppt presentations

More features will be announced soon…

So, please note the date and tell your colleagues. We will start booking for the event after Easter, but wanted to let you know asap.

For more general details, have a look at the bidding information below and visit the main Leonardo website: http://www.leonardonet.org/research.php

6/3/2005

The Art Projects – Bidding Information

Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:53 am

The Leonardo Network has funds to develop an artwork that is relevant to the goals of the workshop. This is how to win some of it.

It is likely there will be multiple projects, reflecting the varied interests of the node members. Each project will be undertaken by a group of network members that we are calling a cell. Cells made up of network members can put in bids for funding. There is approximately £10,000 to be divided for use by cells in developing artworks. Additional funds to support visits between network institutions are available so your bid need not include costs for travel.

An eligible cell is made up by people from:

  • more than one institution;
  • more than one research discipline.
  • The principles

  • Artworks will tell a technology story, reflect a concept and simultaneously be interactive ‘artworks’.
  • Artworks will involve all node partners in some way.
  • (See also Wibke’s and Ian’s summaries from the first workshop. for inspiration. These are up on the blog.)

    The bidding process:
    The next Leonardo workshop will begin the process of cell formation and bidding. In addition to artwork cells, we will support research cells. Such cells are eligible for funds to support visits between institutions but will not be eligible to bid for the money set aside for the artwork. Those of you who do not wish to be involved in developing an artwork may wish to form a research cell.

    For the next workshop:

  • Assemble your thoughts and ideas. Make sure that everyone in your node knows about this opportunity and how to form cells. (They should also sign up to the Leonardo-net mailing list at: leonardo-net@jiscmail.ac.uk)
  • Talk to other people and look for collaborators that will make you into a cell.

    Then:

  • Attend the next workshop. There will be time for discussion of collaboration, so that people can find out what is being mooted and join with others to develop their ideas. Establish your cell and how you are going to collaborate on your proposal. If you cannot attend, watch out for summaries of the ideas to come out of the event on 19th May.
  • After the workshop, submit your proposal by the deadline (30th June), naming collaborators and their institutions and making the case for the intended artwork, in up to two pages of A4.
  • Money will be allocated to the successful projects, with the expectation that there will be around five funded. You should know if you are funded by mid July.
  • Develop your artwork and join in a discussion of the appropriate way of displaying them all.
  • Exhibit/display artworks.

    The book to come out of the network will use the stories of the artworks as a basis for different sections, augmented by commentaries from research cells. You will be involved in writing your project up.

    Judging how to allocate money for artworks:
    The management group will examine the proposals for artworks and decide how to apportion the available money. (Members of the management group can be involved in the bidding process for artwork funding, but each member must bow out for discussion of their own bid.) They will use the following criteria:

  • The aim is to support as many projects as possible. If there are five projects approved, each will receive in the region of one fifth of the total amount (i.e. about £2000), unless any cell requests a lower figure. A higher bid will only be considered in its entirety if there are lower bids, so budgets should be prepared accordingly. Nonetheless, there may be differences in the precise amounts awarded to different projects based on their proposals.
  • It is acceptable to present a proposal that will cost far more than you are likely to receive from the network, explaining your other sources of budget for the shortfall.
  • It is felt that spreading the money much further than five projects will render the amount available to each project too small to be effective.
  • The chosen projects will, in preference, be spread across art disciplines, such as multi-media, art, performance, literature, music, architecture, etc. This will ultimately depend on the nature of proposals.
  • All proposals should include a list of references to contributors’ work or other resources that can be added to the website to give context to the work.
  • All proposals must adhere to the main principles outlined for the artworks (above) and explain how these will be met.
  • It is hoped to marry node people up to cells and themes, rather than to reject anything outright. Projects should be planned to be as inclusive as possible, so as to draw other people in.
  • No one will be shoehorned to work with others. Mergers must emerge.
  • Intellectual property rights will stay with the collaborators or their institutions. Cells will have to negotiate these details among themselves.
  • Successful bidders accept that the Leonardo Network will have the right to exhibit first anything produced with funding from the network and is to be acknowledged in any subsequent uses of the artwork.
  • Images and other representations of the artworks may be used on the Leonardo website and blog without explicit seeking of permission.

    If you have any remaining questions about the process, please contact one of the organising committee.

  • 25/2/2005

    Ideas for Future Workshops

    Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:19 pm

    Here are ideas that came out of one of the working groups at the first workshop in York (thanks to Ian Gibson for sending them on)

    Ideas for themes:
    1. How is power and sexuality replicated in technology, and how does this impact on our culture? How does it influence our values with regards to sexuality and power?
    2. Positioning/re-positioning of relationships. How does technology change/re-position relationships (e.g. embodiment versus disembodiment)?

    Two suggestions were made for non-conventional formats for workshops:
    1. People could contribute by bringing in an object relating to a theme and speaking about it from their perspective.
    2. People may wish to “job swap” for a day (or more?!!) thereby helping them to learn about design concepts across disciplines.

    More news of the next workshop will be posted here soon.

    Ideas for the Artwork

    Filed under: — Ann Light @ 10:15 pm

    Here are some thoughts on the nature of the artwork, developed by one working group at the first workshop in York (sent on after the event by Wibke Hott of FACT – thanks!):

    * get artist involved
    * artwork must reflect network therefore the network needs to be up and running to enable us to capture the ‘spirit’ of the network, might take some time to recognise it. However, with a first ‘draft’ of the artwork scheduled for Sept 05 this might be sufficient time.
    * artwork must be flexible, able to grow, things should be added on, maybe software?
    * rather than ONE artwork, we would prefer an exhibition of multiple pieces
    * art work must have strong identity
    * Where will it be? Online? Touring? The artwork must stay accessible through time, space and different formats
    * how about software that will create life performance that can be streamed live over the web then be ‘parked’ on the Leonardo net website for visitors/users to download/watch. But software is also available for visitors/users to download and create their own version with; i.e. a version per node/location of nodes…
    * How about an ‘art making machine”, a machine that ‘performs’ art (see: acting rather than being, giving the impression of art, imitating art…? A machine that develops random inventions, ideas, Leonardo ideas, an idea generator!!! Could look clever but use pre-existing blocks, could ‘learn’ and improve its products. The framework of the machine/software/game is the way, it’s about choosing the path of evolution
    * The Leonardo Game!!! A virtual/online copy that can be played by multiple users in various locations and a ‘real’ version that will help Leonardo-net members make important decisions.
    * Or maybe a machine that you feed with an idea and it spits out a funding application…?
    * Squirrels, sort of Squirrel-bot that gives presentations to visitors to Formby Nature reserve about what it’s like to be a squirrel…? Carrying a nut for each visitor not unlike a fortune cookie…?

    More information about the artwork and how it will be developed to appear here soon.

    20/2/2005

    Open to All

    Filed under: — Ann Light @ 9:10 am

    The next stage of our work is going to involve as many people from the member nodes as we can. If you are the contact person for a node, do encourage everyone to sign up for news of developments at: LEONARDO-NET@JISCMAIL.AC.UK.

    News will, of course, be broadcast here too!

    17/2/2005

    Our Tagline – help needed

    Filed under: — Ann Light @ 2:27 pm

    Time to get thinking… “The theory, design and application of interactive technologies” is the tagline gracing the pages of our website at present (www.leonardonet.org), but it is hardly adequate for the full range of activities – both mental and practical – that we are anticipating.

    Therefore, the challenge is on to come up with a more informative one. Please offer words or phrases and, if you are feeling particularly brave, a whole replacement tag.

    No one except me and Alan Dix can post on this blog at the moment, but we are happy to extend the right to any node member, so get in touch with me at: annl@leonardonet.org and get signed up, or just add comments with your ideas.

    Powered by WordPress