__CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE

OBJECTI_ION

__BY MÓNICA ARIAS

Major Studio: Interactivity

Instructor Sabine Seymour

February 22, 2011

__THE WHAT & THE WHY

Always motivated by human behavior, the artificial vs. the natural, and interaction

vs. interactivity, Monica Arias has been suggesting a shift in the way technology is

perceived and used, and how it is imperative to take it back to what it was: a tool to help

us. Throughout her projects it is noticeable she tries to keep the more humane aspect of

things. That is why she thought, why should this project be any different in that part, if

her overall main statement is to use technology as a response to a human condition?

But to better understand human behavior, we need to first comprehend the role

of technology as a major part in our lives. We are constituted through our relationship

with things. Technology now dictates the possibilities in the world.

“Nature is no longer the ultimate horizon of our experience… In effect, for us,

the artificial is now the horizon and medium of human experience”.

Clive Dilnot, Design for this Century lecture

Everything is driven by technology, and everything is being designed with

technology in mind. But when did we forget that artifacts were first created as tools to

help us? How can we be sure if we're still in control of the artificial and not the other way

around? Is this part of our disassociation with our inner selves? We are certainly more

on line everyday, and less outside.

“Artifacts help objectify the self in at least three major ways. They do so first by

demonstrating the ownerʼs power, vital erotic energy, and place in the social hierarchy.

Second, objects reveal the continuity of the self through time, by providing foci of

involvement in the present, mementos and souvenirs of the past, and signposts to future

goals. Third, objects give concrete evidence of oneʼs place in a social network as

symbols (literally, the joining together) of valued relationships. In these three ways things

stabilize our sense of who we are; they give a permanent shape to out views of

ourselves that otherwise would quickly dissolve in the flux of consciousness”.

“Why we need things”, by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi 1, In “History from Things”

In this excerpt from Csikszentmihalyi, the author Monica Arias highlights one of

the biggest monsters of modern society: how the things we possess define us.

Nowadays, what you have makes you who you are, and ranks you inside the social

hierarchy. Weʼre constantly using objects to portray our inner-selves.

Abraham Maslow touched upon these issues in his book A Theory of Human

Motivation 2 (1943) when he introduced the Hierarchy of Needs (Fig. 1). After the basic

physiological and safety needs, and right before the last stage of self-actualization, he

stated the most relevant ones: need of belonging and the need of esteem. It is both

fascinating and interesting to the author how these needs of belonging, of being liked

and approved, of earning the esteem of the people around us, come right before our final

goal.

Fig. 1. Maslowʼs hierarchy of needs

Since our self-opinions depend on how others perceive us, we use things to help

reinforce our opinions on ourselves, to increase not only our status but also our own

sense of security.

But why do we really need an object to give us power, to look better, or even to

remember a special occasion? This is where the author asks the question: what if

objects do not need us in return? We donʼt need objects to keep our minds in order; we

need to start replacing objects with symbols and detach ourselves from belongings. Just

like technology, objects need to go back to what they were at the beginning: tools; tools

that are used only when necessary, without carrying around extra baggage.

__ THE HOW

In the pursuit of learning how to integrate new materials and technologies into

electronics and physical computation, the author signed up for a collaboration studio

called Soft Circuits. Experimenting has always been in her interests and this collab gives

her room to do so. For the period of a week, she explored more deeply the possibilities

of working with materials people never thought could be part of technology (such as

textile, thread, paper, and ink), and of course, how to incorporate all these into one

meaningful interface (Fig. 2-5). All these new things and the excitement of being very

experimental, inspired her to be playful with soft technology, without leaving behind

giving it a reason of existence, her overall purpose of humanizing it. During this week of

material exploration, one could say she engaged in hands-on research, as she learned

to pay attention to the aesthetic value of the projects, and how to troubleshoot while

working with unpredictable materials, like the ones used in soft technology.

Fig. 2. Soft switch built with soft technology

Fig. 3. PlugMeIn TV built with soft technology

Fig. 4. Reverse LightBox

Fig. 5. Tree of Hearts

__ THE PREDECENTS

• Zane Berzina, E-Static Shadows 3

Fig. 6-7. Zane Berzina, E-Static Shadows

The installation seeks to register the amount and intensity of the charges

exposed to the sensory electronic textile membrane. It then translates them into audio-

visual patterns on the surface of the cloth. Berzina with this project proposes not only a

reflection on the energy resources of our planet, but also portrays the human body as a

generator of energy.

• Gary Hustwit, Objectified 4

Fig. 8. Poster for the film Objectified

This documentary looks to understand our relationship with and through objects.

The film conveys the creative processes of product designers, and how these artifacts

have an impact on our daily lives. “What can we learn about who we are, and who we

want to be, from the objects with which we surround ourselves?”

• Roman Ondák, Performance 4: Measuring the Universe (2007) 5

Fig. 9. Measuring the Universe, at the MoMA

This project started in large white empty gallery at the Museum of Modern Art

(MoMA) in New York City. During the exhibition, designated staff would mark on the

walls visitorʼs names, heights and dates of attendance. With this, the artist seeks to

break the barriers between art object and observant, inviting the audience to participate

in the piece. The interaction this exhibition generates makes it relevant. The

collaboration process between strangers creates a final masterpiece to expose one final

concept: human need to understand the scale of the world.

• Kristin Neidlinger, GER: Galvanic Extimacy Responder 6

Fig. 10. Kristin Neidlingerʼs GER

This garment visually displays the wearerʼs emotional state through a Galvanized

Skin Response (GSR) tracking how the body responds to stimulus, displaying red or blue

depending on the mood of the wearer.

• Juliette Sallin, Touch_Me 7

Fig. 11. Touch_Me interactive carpet

This interactive carpet animates when it senses the presence of a person. Using

soft technology elements, such as shape memory wires and textile pressure sensors,

the carpet moves when walking on it.

• Meg Grant, Secret Keeper Gloves 8

Fig. 12. Secret Keeper Gloves

These gloves use the top of mind interaction of telling a secret. When you put

your hands together it activates the microphone that records your secret, and when

placed on the ear it plays it back. The take-away of this project would be its simple

interaction that comes natural when using these gloves.

• Maggie Orth, Petal Pusher 9

Fig. 13. Orthʼs Petal Pusher

This interactive textile lighting was built using only soft circuitry, without leaving

behind the aesthetic value of the piece.

__ THE CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE

OBJECT_ION

Objects donʼt need us. They are independent, and desire no more than

themselves. So why are we so eager to possess them? Why do we need them? Can we

demonstrate this need through an interface? Can technology help us disconnect/detach

ourselves from our necessity to have them?

The authorʼs first conceptual prototype consists of a textile/paper wall and a pair

of gloves. While the user wears the gloves, and tries to touch/feel the texture on the

reactive wall, this one will move away from the touch. No matter how much the user tries

to reach it, the “object” will keep rejecting the contact.

Fig. 14. First rough sketch of OBJECT_ION

__ THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Maslow, A.H., A Theory of Human Motivation, (1943), Psychological Review

50(4): 370-96.

2. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Why We Need Things, (1993), in Lubar, S. and

Kingery, W.D., History from Things, pp. 20-29.

3. Berzina, Z., E-Static Shadows, (2009)

http://www.zaneberzina.com/e-staticshadows.htm

(Accessed February 19, 2011).

4. Objectified, Directed by Gary Hustwit, (March 2009)

http://www.zaneberzina.com/e-staticshadows.htm

(Accessed February 19, 2011).

5. Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), Performance 4: Roman Ondák, June 24–September 14, 2009 http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/980 (Accessed February 19, 2011).

6. Neidlinger, K., GER: Galvanic Extimacy Responder, (2010)

http://fashioningtechnology.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ger-galvanic-extimacy

April 13, 2010, (Accessed February 19, 2011).

7. Sallin, J., Touch_Me, (2010)

http://fashioningtechnology.ning.com/profiles/blogs/touchme-interactive-

carpet, May 10, 2010, (Accessed February 19, 2011).

8. Grant, M., Secret Keeper Gloves, (2011)

http://fashioningtechnology.ning.com/profiles/blogs/secret-keeper-gloves,

January 25, 2010, (Accessed February 19, 2011).

9. Orth, M., Petal Pusher, (2009)

http://www.ifmachines.com/, (Accessed February 19, 2011).