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'.