The article is very interesting from the discussion that led to the urge of creating a manifesto, to the main principles that should direct the information visualization design process.
default to public is a project dealing with the discrepancy between people’s feeling of privacy on the web and the physical world. It consists of an ongoing series of objects and interventions linking the physical world to the online world in unexpected and narrative ways to create awareness for self-exposure.
All works follow a simple, yet powerful principle: Information from the twitter network (standing for information on the web) are displayed in another public environment, the documentation of this process is fed back into the digital public sphere and the authors of the information are notified of that abduction. Two public spheres are temporarily linked, creating repercussions of communication in the digital public sphere, which seems to be regarded as less public than the physical world, although it has a far wider reach than classic media, plus it never expires or is written over.
A very simple, yet almost provocative, piece of conceptual work.
More interesting is the act of bringing the tweets to the paper. The words on tweeter were born on a medium where there is no linearity and no readers — we have users — searching for information, impacient for consumption. The paper traditionally supports a more contemplative and patient reading. Although, the format in which the paper is brought to the physical world seems to embrace the nonlinearity of the web medium, maybe all the user metaphor — as contemplative as reading a tweet in a thin strip of paper can get.
Leonel Moura is a European artist born in Lisbon, Portugal, that works with AI and robotics. He created in 2003 his first swarm of ‘Painting Robots’, able to produce original artworks based on emergent behavior. Since then he has produced several artbots, each time more autonomous and sophisticated. RAP (Robotic Action Painter), 2006 (…) is able to generate highly creative and original art works, to decide when the work is ready and to sign it, which it does with a distinctive signature. ISU (The Poet Robot), 2006, generates random poems, very much in the style of the Lettrist Movement and of Concrete Poetry.
A quick look on ISU’s work — drawing letters and words
ISU is able to draw letters and words and from there generate pictorial compositions. Like in lettrism, which campaign for the use of the letter as the basis of a new art form, ISU generates by itself a series of letters and words that may or may not trigger on the viewer meaning.
The process by which ISU decides the use of a letter or builds a word lays on a complex dynamics between a positive feedback mechanism and a random mode.
ISU is also capable of engravings. Using robots, paintings or engravings can bring evolutionary works to a more tangible world — in that way it feels more natural to name it Evolutionary Art. Noticing the use of the word random for describing the process of those works.
Looking at RAP’s process
RAP (Robotic Action Painter), (…) is an individualist artist and not a swarm, but makes use of the same composition methods based on stigmergy and emergence. This robot is additionally able to determine, by its own means, the moment in which the painting is finished. Previous versions didn’t have this capacity being conditioned by battery discharge or my will to stop the process. RAP’s decision is taken based on the information that it gathers directly from the painting, what produces a considerable variation of time and form, since RAP can decide that the work is complete after a relatively short while (entailing accordingly a low pictorial expression) or can extend the picture construction for a quite long period, making it much more dense and complex. The “secret” of this behavior is in the significant change of the sensors, which passed from two to nine “eyes”, allowing now the reading of local patterns, in addition to color spots. RAP is also my first robot to sign its works.
RAP has a set of sensors to avoid obstacles, to perceive the presence of visitors near the case, to check the paper, and most important to detect color. A total of 9 RGB color sensors, located under the robot body and disposed in a 3 x 3 grid, permanently scans an area of approximately 3 cm2.
RAP will be operating under a Random Mode until a certain amount of color (threshold) is detected. In this mode the robot makes a kind of sketch, randomly drawing a series of lines. The shape, size, direction and color of these lines are also drawn in a randomly way. In this sense it never produces the same lines or the same combination of lines. In the Random Mode in order to generate a truly random number for the seed, RAP gets it from its relative direction measured by an onboard compass. When the color detected exceeds the threshold, RAP changes to a Reactive Mode. It will be drawing on this mode until it finishes the painting, never getting back to the previous mode of operation. Under the Reactive Mode RAP only draws in those parts of the drawing where the color exceeds the given threshold. Therefore it tends to generate color clusters on some areas. Making use of its color sensor grid RAP decides when the work is ready. That happens when a certain pattern is detected with all of the 9 sensors. It then goes to the corner and signs with its own name. After signing, the robot moves to the center of the paper, starts flashing its lights and sends a wireless signal to the paper machine. This machine, installed on the bottom part of the box case, advances the paper roll, feeding the table with a fresh sheet for a new drawing.
Noticing a Random Mode, plus a Reactive Mode. Seems like the combination between a stochastic behavior and a reactive one can reinforce the visual diversity of the paintings, thus conferring a rich personality while setting a constant — and appealing — visual style. Shall we say an artist or a tool ? Either way, there is an artist albeit the sophistication of the tool. For sure.
