Digital Intimacy was a thesis project that sought, through a multi-sensory installation, to assist in the development of sensory integration in children with autism spectrum disorder. Both user interaction with the surface (detected by sensors on the surface) and movement of the users (detected by movement sensors located around the surface) are fed into an information bus which is then interpreted by a computer that produces visualisations based on the information fed into it. These visualisations are then projected onto the surface.
The student created everything for the full scale prototype:
1. The visualisations were programmed using Flash Actionscript programming.
2. Processing was used to program the sensors and the actuators.
3. The components were all made using rapid prototyping having been modelled in grasshopper to react with the parameters of the required curvature of the frame.
What I like about this project first of all is the craftsmanship in the prototype, both physically and in programming terms. The layers of detail and complexity on the final prototype are technically seductive and help provide an interesting prompt for interaction. I am also interested in the programming side of things and how the visualisations are produced.
I feel that I would be capable of crafting something to this quality however my only concern is the programming used for the creation of this installation. The student who did this had had lots of experience in programming before he started this project and since I have no prior experience in any programming language I am just conscious that this may be a barrier for what I want to achieve however I am willing to give it a try.
This is an impressive piece of work and is big and ambitious! It’s important to recognise the layers of technical complexity here – in terms of programming, hardware engineering and mechanical engineering. Stephen Townsend’s work is sophisticated on a number of different levels and involved parametric modelling as well as the more obvious technical stuff involved in the electronics. Too ambitious then…? Perhaps…However there are some things we can learn from this project which might be interesting:
ReplyDelete1. The project comes from a growing tradition of the design adaptive and smart surfaces with a range of application and the creation of spectacle. I like this project particularly because it has a genuine function – i.e the creation of sensory rich environments for those with autism You might also be interested in looking at the work of the Hyperbody Research Group in Delft: http://www.hyperbody.nl/. I have to admit to being sceptical about some of this research (I’ve been known to describe it architecture which beeps, flashes and wibbles) but it is a valid research endeavour and is certainly worth exploring.
2. It seems to me that key to this work is to think in terms of components. You might not be able to tackle, for example, a whole smart façade system but you could consider a particular component and its physical construction (alongside virtual simulation through videos for example) and give yourself the possibility of extending the project as a 6th Year Thesis (in the way that Townsend has).
3. This also reminded me of an exhibition I saw at the weekend of the work of Chuck Hoberman. If I was to be critical of Townsend’s work I would say that its seems over engineered. Can you imagine the whole thing with thousands of actuators – a third of which will stop working after its first week of operation. Hoberman’s stuff is poetic and beautifully simple but does the same sorts of things using clever mechanical rather than electronic systems:
http://www.buildingcentre.co.uk/galleries/galleries_main.asp