Posted by Lighthouse, Digiville.
Tina Gonsalves: CHAMELEON – prototype 8
10 – 15 August 09 – exhibition open: 3 – 5pm
Tina Gonsalves’ residency is now in its second week, and there are some spectacular experiments appearing in the Lighthouse basement spaces… Working with two types of screens, Tina is playing with space and bodily relationship to her video work, recognising the importance of the body’s place in emotional experience.
Both the work with Experientae Electricae and with the Solent Rapid Prototyping Lab have created opportunities to site Chameleon’s interactive videos in relation to bodily space. They have also produced some exciting and captivating images, drawing in the viewer not only bodily but visually and aurally, using a multi-sensory allure, that is possessing and ultimately emotional on a base physical level. The PIXY screens are especially alluring, appearing like hundreds of fireflies in an intelligent mass attempting to communicate with humans with a deep visceral pulse.
The space will be open between 3 and 5pm for people to come and view and interact with the video pieces. Tina and the creative team are here, and will be around to talk to about the work.
There will be a closing residency talk by Gonsalves and the creative team on Saturday 15th August at 3pm, where the team will discuss the progress they have made and the lessons learnt in developing, programming and using the screens. There will also be an opportunity to interact with Chameleon and the PIXY and rapid prototyped screens.
Lighthouse, 28 Kensington St, Brighton BN1 3BD.
http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/whatson/exhibitions.htm
For this blog – I am asking different people who have been involved to add to the blog. Karl has been invaluable over the last week, to discuss ideas, and help build the work. I have had to cut this blog into three parts, as with the a-n blog you are only allowed to write 500 words at a time
Dr Karl Broome Is currently a research fellow in the sociology department working on the project ‘Supporting Shy Users in Pervasive Computing’, an EPSRC funded research project on the WINES programme, undertaken by the departments of Informatics and Sociology at the University of Sussex
KARL BROOME – PART 4
Today Chameleon, Prototype 8 was open to the public. Time was spent
altering the position of the camera used to ‘read’ the facial
expressions/emotional states of interactants, and in testing out the
overall running of the software on the Pixy screen. Before we knew it,
3pm had arrived and a group of around six young adults descended into
the space to experience what prototype 8 was all about. Tina, Michael,
and Natacha all contributed to explaining the different aspects and
workings of prototype 8. When watching the group of visitors interact
with Prototype 8, it seemed that the experience of the emotional
contagion in this context is socially negotiated. Although the emotional
expressions of the film on the pixy screen is the outcome of how the
software responds to the ‘emotional data’ provided by the individual
face captured by the camera, the ‘meaning’ – and arguably the emotional
experience – of this interaction in this situation seems to a
considerable degree to be socially shaped. For example, if prototype 8
responds to an individual’s facial expression with anger or sadness, the
individual’s response is not necessarily angry or sad, but rather it
appeared to be significantly dependent upon how his or her companions
also responded to the sounds and images produced through the interaction
– that is, the individual’s emotional contagion appeared to be affected
by collective response. That said there were a number distractions in
the form of a few ‘teething problems’ that may have impacted upon
visitors experiences. Nevertheless, when reflecting upon my own
experiences and observations within the space, it would appear at first
glance that the social context in which Prototype 8 is experienced makes
a significant impact upon levels of emotional contagion and mimicry. It
will therefore be very interesting to observe over the next few days
whether or not individuals appear to experience more emotional contagion
when interacting with Prototype 8 on their own.
For this blog – I am asking different people who have been involved to add to the blog. Karl has been invaluable over the last week, to discuss ideas, and help build the work. I have had to cut this blog into four parts, as with the a-n blog you are only allowed to write 500 words at a time
Dr Karl Broome Is currently a research fellow in the sociology department working on the project ‘Supporting Shy Users in Pervasive Computing’, an EPSRC funded research project on the WINES programme, undertaken by the departments of Informatics and Sociology at the University of Sussex
KARL BROOME: PART 3
Working within the space as the team construct and fine-tune the
‘exhibit’ one cannot but help occasionally quiver with the affective
energy that reconfigures what is simply a rectangular white walled
basement room into a socio-sensual space of affective intensity. The
room exhibits an intense expressivity even before the lights go off and
Chameleon, Prototype 8 is in full operation. Throughout the day we hear
the repetition of certain ‘emotive’ phrases as the Chameleon films are
playing in the background as we work– emotionality is fore grounded
within the space across both audio and visual registers…
“Fuck..Fuck”, I can hear sound of the emotional expletives being made by
a man crying as I walk around the computer monitor, this makes me feel
for lack of a better word ‘uncomfortable’. Tina explains “he has just
lost his wife, poor man” … when I hear that the man crying on the
screen has genuinely experienced the traumatic loss of a loved one, I
instantly feel sadness in the pit of my stomach…` in retrospect the
feeling I experienced must have been a strong sense of sympathy,
empathy.. I suppose I felt his loss. Or rather, what started out as an
uncomfortable feeling was translated into a painful sense of loss when
accompanied with Tina’s account. Initially it was just the sound of the
man’s voice making me feel that way…Tina’s account intensified the
feeling, provided it with meaning, gave it shape, made it semiotically
ordered.
For this blog, I am asking different people who have been involved to add to the blog. Karl has been invaluable over the last week, to discuss ideas, and help build the work. He is interested in the exploration of emotional contagion and interaction in the Chameleon Project.
I have had to cut this blog into four parts, the a-n blog allows a post of 500 words at a time
Dr Karl Broome Is currently a research fellow in the sociology department working on the project ‘Supporting Shy Users in Pervasive Computing’, an EPSRC funded research project on the WINES programme, undertaken by the departments of Informatics and Sociology at the University of Sussex
KARL BROOME PART TWO
The low-resolution Pixy screen aims to provide a sense of ‘immersion’
but with minimal detail. When choosing which ’emoting’ characters filmed
as part of the Chameleon project are to be shown on the Pixy screen,
details such as the profile of the shoot- is the person filmed side on
or face on- are taken into consideration as this affects to what extent
a face can be seen when interacting with Chameleon, and arguably to what
extent one can identify the emotional response of the character on the
screen. But after sitting and watching the screen for some time, I kind
of feel that emotional contagion is achieved whether or not the face is
identifiable – ’emotional’ immersion is still achieved… To borrow from
Brian Massumi , what ‘objectively speaking’ we see when we look at the
Pixy screen is squares of green light (pixels) in vertical lines, but
what we ‘feel’ we see is the faces of a man or a woman crying, or
laughing hysterically. I still have the compulsion to feel like the few
pixels on the Pixy screen, even when they no longer ‘objectively’
resemble a face. But how does one ‘feel’ like pixels on the screen if
they only appear as nothing more than movement?.. perhaps it is the
result of my prior understanding or experience of the screen when the
face was more clearly identifiable, partially the product of memory, but
I am not so sure… I have a sense that the Pixy screen can potentially
express emotions without the need of a face being discernible in the
pixels. Am experiencing a compulsion to become and behave like something
else?
For this blog, I am asking different people who have been involved to add to the blog. Karl has been invaluable over the last week, to discuss ideas, and help build the work. He is interested in the exploration of emotional contagion and interaction in the Chameleon Project.
I have had to cut this blog into four parts, the a-n blog allows a post of 500 words at a time
Dr Karl Broome Is currently a research fellow in the sociology department working on the project ‘Supporting Shy Users in Pervasive Computing’, an EPSRC funded research project on the WINES programme, undertaken by the departments of Informatics and Sociology at the University of Sussex
KARL BROOME: PART ONE
For Walter Benjamin, the term mimesis refers to the compulsion to
‘become and behave like something else’. When I sit and look at the Pixy
screen I think and feel about the ’emotional contagion’ that is to be
brought about through my ‘interaction’ with the screen in front of me.
Strictly speaking, it is not straightforwardly the screen in front of me
with which I am interacting with but more the small camera, which is
‘reading’ and ‘responding’ to my facial expressions, or rather, it is
interacting with me. But that said, sometimes it is kind of like looking
at the reflection of your own face in the ripples of water, except it is
not a reflection of your own face that you are partially seeing, but a
response to what is perceived as your emotional state, embodied in the
expression of another human being.
