Robo Dance

input |ˈinˌpoŏt| précis

Robot Stomp
____________

'collaborate in a larger group to plan, co-ordinate and perform a LEGO robot re-enactment of a designated video (selection)'

I became a participant of Team 4 (comprised of three groups) which was assigned a 2:04 sec segment of video depicting a stage performance by 'Stomp' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2UHCm1Yfsc) This particular segment demonstrated use of 'pail' buckets as instruments to incorporate strong elements of rhythm accompanied by dynamic choreographed movements. A minimal yet 'industrial' stage setting augmented the performance of everyday objects as 'tools' for spontaneous creativity (reinforcing a sense of covert value and importance of imagination and resourcefulness within the average 'blue collar' work environment.

throughput |ˈθroōˌpoŏt| passage

Examining this video segment and with internet links (www.stomp.co.uk/ www.lvrj.com/neon/7116986.html) we attempted to extract a comprehensive account of themes, actions or 'markers' prevalent throughout the stage performance. In particular we identified three significant areas within the video content. These were the importance of sound/rhythm, movement (synchronization/co-ordination of it) as well as environment (stage as contextual setting for association of principal themes). My initial analysis led to a detailed study of the rhythmic content of the performance with the intention of revealing/documenting accurate data for re-enactment including reference of choreographed movement. Further discussion and identification of the general dynamic of the performance followed. Identifying the predominance of the three areas above, we regrouped to assume responsibility for exploring/developing their respective outcomes. This translated as sound/rhythm = robot construction and aesthetics for generating sound/movement = choreographing performance through programming/environment = stage set and design.

I predominantly contributed to exploring possibilities for emitting sounds from the robots during/after construction. (I also participated as an advisor during programming giving observation and choreographic feedback). With regard to sound, I tried a variety of materials to attach to the robots (the 'spinner' bot design was used requiring a two wheel base with one servo free for other use) with the intention of capitalizing on the basic movements of the robots (forward/back/left/right/rotate) and hoped to incorporate surfaces that would interact or emit sound through scraping/striking/rubbing/rattling/thumping etc. while in transit. This also meant that the buckets would also make sound/noise and should be 'conducive' as well. I experimented for example with metal buttons/paper fasteners/rice grains/beads/plastic containers/steel wire/plastic lids/soft drink cans.


output |ˈoutˌpoŏt| arriveé

Eventually the buckets sported a ring of metal buttons to create a rattle reminiscent of snare drums during movement as well as while being lifted/dropped. The robots generated three specific sounds and became identified as 'metronome' 'shaker' and 'lifter'. The metronome itself was sandpaper around a hairclip that was regularly struck by a strip of of coffee cup plastic (cut). This produced a 'clicking' which was audible through the bucket (aided slightly by small vents cut in the bucket). The shaker was an empty 'lisa's asian eggplant' container filled with rice and metal beads which see-sawed back/forward also (providing a slight tilt and lift). The lifter was capable of evenly raising the facing/front edge of the bucket to allow enough space for it to be dropped when released, thus generating an accented thud. All three buckets were mesh-like in structure and we affixed three arched plastic strips across the modules to generate a rubbing/grating noise against and inside the buckets as they turned. These strips all had metal buttons attached as well, helping to recreate an overall metallic 'pail' effect.

reflections |riˈflek sh ənz| moi-même

Our actual performance went better than I had anticipated and I was pleased to see that the themes we felt best represented 'Stomp' were seemingly conveyed. These centered around the strength of the robots as the instruments themselves (underneath buckets), the significance of the actual noises they generated without additional sound, as well as a visual sense of interaction through movement.

Considering the industry application of the exercise, it immediately volleys issues of (general) project management. Time/Budget and Planning became very significant considerations. Importantly for me is the realization that (in my opinion) intensified group participation is imperative to create an overall 'storyboard' or 'conceptual overview' of the project as a whole.

In our case, I feel this would've established a more concrete and cost-effective method for identifying set materials for use, as well as facilitating continuity, discussion of planning and execution of respective roles. If we all had an agreed, structured and lucid reference to follow (say a diagram or project schematic) our group awareness would've been perhaps more transparent and our progress/interaction (I believe) more productive and interconnected.

Furthermore a documented visual map/project itinerary would have prompted key dialogue or at least ongoing communication for topics such as; What was our objective?/How should it look?/ How should it be presented?/Who was doing what?/How much was it going to cost?/How was the project going?/What were our time limits or restrictions?/When should we rehearse?....etc.

Management strategy aside, while witnessing every presentation - it intrigued me how essential (and alarmingly precarious!) each integral part and minute action of a 'group' can be. Given the collective technical difficulties demonstrated, these occurrences are contained and remain inextricable from the outcome and resulting dynamic of the performance. I am reminded (by LEGO robots!) how communication as a traverse process is inherently 'human'.

Mindstorm 'Bottica'

input |ˈinˌpoŏt| précis

Character Bot
_____________

'explore and apply principles of robotics to demonstrate character elements'

throughput |ˈθroōˌpoŏt| passage

Taking the Chessbot from the previous exercise, our group discussed and sourced frog-like qualities to apply as possible defining characteristics. We jotted a list of variables from internet links/images as well as personal 'markers' (individual evocations). Arising from our reference material we extracted specific criteria to convey the 'energy' of our bot while attempting to capture a structural resemblance, which could be later 'dressed' aesthetically (with other materials). Eventually these became assigned controls incorporating; jumping ability/slow sedentary movement(s)/observation through turning. This translated as a sequence:

1) movement=backwards/forwards 2) orientate=rotate 3) 'dynamic' gesture=jump up and down

output |ˈoutˌpoŏt| arriveé

We managed to construct an extension (of levers) to 2 of the motors which generated enough power to lift it up/down (simulating jumping). The linear movements became small increments of the wheels (alternating) to produce a 'shuffle' and lethargic quality. The turn was basically a rotation of a single wheel. For the presentation we expanded on the ability to jump by attaching an ultrasonic sensor to initiate this action, by dangling an inpromptu 'fly' to the fore....and this hopefully conveyed recognition of prey. An audio file 'hooray!' also sounded before the jump activated, lending to an appropriate response by our character which then moved towards the trigger. (I noted afterwards how this could have resembled a 'reverse retraction' of the frog's tongue).


reflections |riˈflek sh ənz| moi-même
Aesthetically, it was remarked that our jumping 'legs' could actually have been put at the rear of the unit to produce a more visual effect and utilising a plastic ball (somehow!) may have enabled a more stressed hop/jump/(even) flip. Interestingly, Tarei programmed a random loop inside a larger loop so essentially a subset effect facilitated potential subtleties in behavioural movement. I found also, that our group engaged more efficiently through attempting to identify concrete themes more quickly, making our collective objective seem clearer. This felt better in that; a sense of co-operation and 'inclusion' manifested itself - in a more natural way.

BCT semester 1

Mar 11, 2009

input |ˈinˌpoŏt| précis
Exercise 1 Chess Bot

_____________________

'explore creative potential of implementing protocol through programming and applying to robotic systems'

Acquiring a LEGO Mindstorm NXT (software development kit) the group must assess and construct a 'Chessbot', capable of simple actions of movement/direction. Accompanying software must be utilised to define and interface user protocol. The bot should start at foyer entrance and finish in studio.

throughput |ˈθroōˌpoŏt| passage

We unpack and distribute respective parts/pieces for the unit and collaborate to build the 'tribot' template in instruction manual. We identify that sensors are optional as add-ons but focus on basic unit. Completing the bot now capable of 'static' simple movements we plug in our module to test (motor) functions via USB interfacing with NXT platform.
These check out=working/moving/sending/receiving. Out of curiosity we add a sensor to produce 'ultrasonic' (object distance) sensitivity/reaction. It responds accordingly but we do not (until later) incorporate it as part of our protocol. Attempt at programming begins.

We identify between us how specific icons possess corresponding value criteria which are mappable onto a grid. It becomes clearer that these will eventually block together to produce a work flow for the Chessbot - transmittable to the module's CPU for 're-enactment'. This degree of action is variable (we note) and potentially unpredictable given the attachment of sensory detectors (and their programmable reaction). Doing our best to correlate all our 'ingredients' we discuss/plan our strategy for executing a RUN program for the bot that best reflects/performs our protocol moves.

output |ˈoutˌpoŏt| arriveé

Our NXT program became a sequence of 2-3 actionable commands, moving within limits of 2m sq. We physically mapped the route with the bot in tow using the defining movements to gauge and adjust the actual input values, but basic movements were [forwards 1 step=1.5m@2 sec/rotate R or L/stop;move forwards]. This often meant that the unit had to be reloaded with each correction of a step - to achieve accuracy. This proved very time consuming and exhausted the batteries, making it difficult to finalise our assessment. We decided to rendez-vous early am to tweak its performance for presentation.

reflections |riˈflek sh ənz| moi-même

During presentation the Chessbot performed better (covering more distance) than I expected. It interested me, how much I had become 'attached' to the idea of achieving the 'success' of our result - by adhering to accuracy of protocol; as opposed to the event of unpredictability (or even failure). I was also intrigued how two bots, entirely independent of each other and with completely different protocols - converged at the same finishing distance (yet opposite one other)!

On a deeper level, observing the bot being drained of power conveyed a 'humanness' to me; in the sense that our 'power' to perform (with all the grace of our motor skills) changes dynamically (sometimes drastically) without energy: and moreover that total absence of 'electricity to the heart and brain' posits life/death motifs.

Mar 10, 2009

input |ˈinˌpoŏt| précis Project 1 Social Networking

________________________________________________________

'explore complexity of interaction within a small group;generate data visualisation of information'

Divide ourselves into (designated) groups. We would all be given post-it pads (of differing colour) as well as coloured balls of string. A series of questions would be asked and the relevant answers for each were to be recorded on a separate post-it sheet. These answers were to be presented using larger physical space in the first instance, as radiating connecting points
from our individual names (like a star) with uniform colour string.

throughput |ˈθroōˌpoŏt| passage

Everyone (from our group) answered the following questions writing them down as specified (in no particular order and from memory)

1 What is your favourite/preferred social network/interface? J=(my answer) none
2 What is your favourite coffee? J=latté
3 Which town do you currently reside? J=Mangere Bridge
4 What is your least favourite vegetable? J=brussel sprouts
5 What is your favourite cuisine? J=indian
6 What would be your favourite pet? J=cat
7 What is your favourite TV show? J=blackadder
8 What was your last job? J=caregiver
9 What's your favourite Blog? J=none
10 What city do you come from? J=Otahuhu
11 What was the last best-selling book you read? J=the whole woman

We chose one of the surrounding walls as our 'map' area and began to pin up our labels, using tables to stand on to cover a greater surface. Our group used yellow string to connect our answers to our names. We then received instruction to use a secondary colour, to show connecting values using 'similarities' (only) as the single common determinant. We then recorded our findings. Instruction followed to input this data into Pajek - a 'network analysis program'.

'Pajek' processed our data using an algorithm comprising Vertices/Nodes/Edges whereby;
Vertices = (total number=number of people+number of common nodes)
Nodes = 'similarites'
Edges denote relationship between people and nodes- where Edges would be the frequency of Nodes adjacent to an individuals identifying number/The common nodes for our group became 10 in total;
'facebook'
'latté'
'Auckland central'
'brussel sprouts'
'italian'
'japanese'
'dogs'
'none/social network'
'none/blog'
'none/job'

output |ˈoutˌpoŏt| arriveé

Juxtaposing the resulting values, this introduced a pattern like appearance of numerical data which Pajek's algorithm 'mapped' out for us as a visual diagram. Printing the diagram as an A0 page, we added it to the original raw material on our wall. We held a presentation the following morning.

reflections |riˈflek sh ənz| moi-même

This project was an interesting exercise - in that physical interaction and exchange of information became a premise for connection, which was then subsequently mirrored in the diagram.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

input |ˈinˌpoŏt| précis Project 2 Situational Shuffle

'explore system conventions (while following simple instruction) and observe how these interface with an environment'

Divide ourselves into groups of 4. Each group is given - set of (control)cards - chalk - map of downtown Auckland. We also required digital and non-digital materials/medium for documentation.

We are then each assigned a respective role determining our level of participation within the group. The collective objective remains unclear in relation to the actual content on the cards (as yet unseen). The roles comprise;
Actuator =subject=Josh
Controller =myself=directs the Actuator
Tracker =charts Actuator's progress=Tarei
Sensor =observes outside the group=Daniel

We are told to begin at Aotea Square (11am).

throughput |ˈθroōˌpoŏt| passage

As a group we follow the 'rules' of the roles which resemble a sequential block and flow of events.

1 Controller draws card>shows Actuator>gives to Tracker
2 Actuator performs action>stops
3 Tracker transposes Actuator's movement onto map>draws present card icon on footpath with chalk (initial action reference)
4 Sensor documents whole group with (variety of) medium
5 Unactionable card goes straight to back>to be performed

We repeat this sequence as a loop until no cards are left unactioned. While assuming our roles, we find it necessary to re-iterate the Actuator's task - to avoid confusion and to facilitate movement to the next card. Josh performs a lot of rotations during the exercise. We came across only one card initially unactionable, placing it at the back. Our final card landed us on Queen Street. We return to the studio to collate/confirm data. Tarei and I make an itinerary, checking accuracy of the route to corresponding actions. We prepare for the morning presentation, identifying a strategy to do so. We all agree that a large map should reflect our route supported by text and raw material collected during the exercise. We must also prepare our own (150/200 word) reflective statement for inclusion during the presentation.

output |ˈoutˌpoŏt| arriveé

Securing wall space in the studio, we attach a (retraced) enlarged/printed area of our map/route. To identify the actual direction, two A4 pages are also attached detailing the flow of our movements including descriptions of our actions in numerical sequence (represented by odd and even numbers). The same numbers are transfered to adhesive yellow dots designating the areas where actions took place. We connected these dots with coloured ribbon, to suggest a visual account of our journey and reinforce the sense of orientation with an abstract shape. Come our turn we discussed the exercise giving our interpretations/getting feedback while a brief slide show and video ran simultaneously.

reflections |riˈflek sh ənz| moi-même

In particular, I'm intrigued by the effects of adopting individual roles within a collective/group(objective). What interests me are the social implications of levels of interaction as determined by the performance of a role. From the exercise - I identified that my desire to focus on the result of assuming the responsibility of my own role facilitated recording initial data accurately. Yet the 'effectiveness' of this role was strengthened however, inseparably and largely by the co-operation of the group.

This leads me to observing conventions further and how we may interface as a group - as an environment in itself -which I feel warrants discussion. Within systems governed by technology; if one's awareness of their own actions is predominant and maintained as the primary concern, and you translate that as say performance of data: does our level of interaction on a 'network/platform' really mean that we're communicating, or in fact connecting interdependently; simply because we have our own awareness of the information we provide? Or does it suggest, that in the act of 'participation' - we become insular and remain a cache/caste/category; the consumer and end user; visibly ONLINE: but not necessarily exerting 'controlled' influence?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

input |ˈinˌpoŏt| précis Project 3 Protocol Iteration

'explore effects/outcomes of a theme based protocol (a game of chess) as a convention which controls/enables movement and communication between elements'

Group from previous project 2 assembles. We are required to create a new chess piece or character. The character's name should identify connection to the role while defining a simple protocol supporting (behavioural) movement defined as units. The protocol must contain; min 3/max 7 units (e.g. 1 unit in any direction/2 in reverse). A diagram should illustrate it.

throughput |ˈθroōˌpoŏt| passage

At first, we discuss elements that tend to centre around the 'rules' of chess and respective heirarchal pros/cons of movements leading to advantage. There is some confusion regarding priority, defining the piece's role; or identifying key movement for illustration. We are then requested to implement the protocol we are developing, applying it as physical movement.

= Assemble at Britomart/move our piece (as a group) to Aotea Square/without compromising our protocol rule/if so - we lose the 'game').

Before our attempt, we identify a character - 'The Leap Frog' .... a (fairy tale) Prince through unfortunate events is turned into a frog by his King in order to contain/limit his movements as a singular leap. We translate this as 3 units in total; direction - backwards/forwards/left/right. We begin the exercise. Arriving at Britomart we first use a map to plot our course, then 'leap' from one city block over another,following the unit rule. (We eventually make it to Aotea Square!)

output |ˈoutˌpoŏt| arriveé

Taking our map data we extract our movements and represent them as blocks from the chessboard on the studio wall. We wished to convey the directional movement and capture the shape of our protocol; as a simple visual: separating the blocks from the constraints of a normal square board.

reflections |riˈflek sh ənz| moi-même

Setting aside the function of chess as well as its objective to be the winning opponent, I gravitated towards the necessity to develop our visual result. Graphically our illustration remains (while not overly dynamic) an arrival from the specific set of values in our protocol. I was however surprised to see how the governing values transformed to become iconic yet abstract, almost isolated. This suggests to me unpredictability (and even randomness) of representation, from a predominantly mathematical protocol.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)