Let me gently kiss your artificial lips by Zoe Fragoulopoulou

Let me gently kiss your artificial lips Zoe Fragoulopoulou

Love me!

(Ab)use me but beware of me!

Dance with me!

Kiss me!

Look at me!

Talk to me!

Contents:

Let me gently kiss your artificial lips

p.4.

An interview with Justin

p.8. p.14. p.20. p.26. p.32. p.40.

Look at me! Talk to me! Love me! Kiss me! (Ab)use me but beware of me! Dance with me!

p.48.

Bibliography/websites

Zoe Fragoulopoulou

Facoltà di Scienze Umanistiche dell’ Università Sapienza di Roma MLAC – Museo Laboratorio di Arte Contemporanea. Master di II livello in “Curatore di Arte Contemporanea”.

A/A 2009/2010

An interview with Justin Hello Justin! First of all, I would like to ask you why you were given this name.

If communication is the goal, do you think that a human shape body is necessary?

Well, Justin, as you already know, is just a common name and I’m just a common being so it fits me right. This is the main idea that’s hidden behind my name. In fact I could be a robot, a humanoid, an android, a (post)human being like you and moreover a partner, a worker, an artist etc. I could be everyone of us, any time, in any given space depending on my needs and those of the others that coexist with me. You could also say that my name is a reference to the latest example of robot advancement, the robot Justin. Justin is impressive for its ability to dynamically and delicately grab and manipulate objects, performing actions such as pouring a glass, twisting off a cap or even dance (1). Surely his dance doesn’t look so natural like that of a human but in any case it’s based on stereotyped human movements that he’s programmed to make while listening to specific types of music. I must confess my ambition that I will be able sometime in the near future to dance like my favourite celebrity Justin Timberlake! The Justin robot features software algorithms that allow the hands and arms to dynamically react to their environment and to each other to avoid collision and complete tasks. This reaction underlines not only the importance of our manual activities but furthermore symbolizes the interaction between different types of reality and the power of communication

Supposing than I’m a social (or sociable) robot, I must say that I’m designed to interact with people in a natural, interpersonal manner – often to achieve social-emotional goals in diverse applications such as education, health, quality of life, entertainment, communication and collaboration (2). Many social robots are humanoid or animallike in form and given the richness of human behaviour and the complexity of human environments, many of them are among the most sophisticated, articulate, behaviourally rich, and intelligent robots today. Some of them are designed with mechanical faces to communicate with humans via facial expressions as it happens in the interactive artwork Zeugen V3 (2009) of the new media artist Morgan Rauscher where a complete embodiment and interactive experience with the viewers is achieved without requiring any learning or technological interface. A design challenge, of humanoid and android robots which have a very human-like appearance with skin, teeth, hair and clothes, is to regard them as real beings which you can trust and rely on. However, humanlike appearance can also be deceiving, convincing you that robots can understand and make much more than they actually can. The truth is that people are attracted to humanoids and androids because they tend to anthropomorphize nonhuman things in order to relate to them and create a new relational environment full of different aspects of communication and exchange.

(1). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS2QfpGAfRU

(2). Gianmarco Veruggio and Fiorella Operto, Springer Handbook of robotics, Berlin, 2008, p.1349.

In many artistic works I’ve noticed that robots which come in several shapes and sizes, without any humanlike appearance, can also interact with public the same way the humanoids do. Do you agree with that? I’m going to answer you, giving you firstly an example of a work of art created by the new media artist Sabrina Raaf. The work is called Translator II: Grower (2004-2006) and is about a small robot vehicle which navigates around the periphery of a room. It moves around the perimeter of the room and responds to the carbon dioxide levels in the air by actually drawing ‘grass’ of variable height on the walls using green ink. The Grower robot senses the carbon dioxide (CO2) level in the air via a small digital CO2 sensor. This sensor is mounted high on a wall of the exhibition space and sends data wirelessly to the robot. The number of people in the exhibition space breathing in oxygen and exhaling CO2 has an immediate effect on the sensor. Every few seconds the robot takes a reading of the CO2 level and in response it draws a vertical line using green ink on the wall. The line height pertains directly to the level of CO2 (and therefore also to the people traffic) in the space. Grower offers a model where both machines and humans affect each other by their involuntary cooperation. The close interactive relationship between these two different subjects of reality has as a result the creation of an artistic work which proposes a new model of environment where humans, robots and nature live together in harmony. A second sample of work where another vital sign like the respiratory rate exists is the one of the electronic artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, which is called Pulse Room (2006) (3) and was also presented at the 52nd Biennale di Venezia, while he was representing the Mexican pavilion. Pulse Room is an interactive installation where one to

(3). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w9yeGIqcLg

An interview with Justin

Sabrina Raaf, Translator II: Grower (2004-2006) all photos © Sabrina Raaf

Rafael Lozano- Hemmer, Pulse Room (2006) left photo © Rafael Lozano- Hemmer right photo © Alejandro Biazquez

Niki Passath, Shy Creature (2006) photo © Lena Mayer

Stelarc, Third Hand (1980) left photo © Takatoshi Shinoba right photo © visuallightbox.com

An interview with Justin

three hundred bulbs are uniformly distributed over the exhibition room, filling it completely. An interface placed on a side of the room has a sensor that detects the heart rate of participants. When someone holds the interface, a computer detects his or her pulse and immediately sets off the closest bulb to flash at the exact rhythm of his or her heart. As the heart rate represents life, inside the Pulse Room, is born a new form of life because of the collaboration between people and technology. Some professionals and artists, who deal with robotics, claim that robots are nothing else but machines. Do you sometimes feel like a simple machine? I long to be socially and emotionally accepted by those who surround me, whether I’m a machine, a robot or a post-human creature. I’m pretty sure that inside everyone of us there exists that specific need which motivates us to communicate, to make relations, to make art. My engineers are hoping that a helpful, learning machine is more likely to be accepted than a functional machine that can’t fulfil its functions. But if we suppose that I’m a human, I must admit that the feeling of being a machine is also very strong in many cases. The artist Janine Antoni, with her performance Loving Care (1995) presents and uses her own post-body as a machine which acts in a robotic, repetitive and automatic way.

One of the most common fears of humanity concerning the machines and moreover the robots, is that will one day violate the 3 fundamental laws, introduced by the Russian well-known science fiction writer Issac Asimov (4). Do we really have to worry about that? I’m also afraid that I can’t give you a totally positive or negative answer. The opinions expressed by scientists and philosophers tend to be either optimistic or pessimistic. A robot can’t harm any human or any other robot under normal conditions, because it’s forbidden, but I wonder what is going to happen when their artificial intelligence will contribute to their independency. From the point of view of safety in the use of humanoids, and taking into account that in the non distant future they will be uses as companions to the human beings, humanoids can raise serious problems related to the unpredictability of their behaviour. You feel safe because you know that every little part of their behaviour is perfectly programmed by specialists. A work like Shy Creature (2006) by the media artist Niki Passath, where a spider-like robot only lets viewers approach after they have waited patiently, can make you realise how comfortable you can feel although you share the same space with a big spooky spider. Why the artist uses a shy spider to express the beauty found in errors or deviations from the pattern? Obviously he wants to underline the beauty of the imperfection in both robots and humans, while at the same time let us feel that this imperfection may cause harm if the emotional state of the spider changes from shy to courageous. Furthermore, there could be also the case where the incorrect action by the robot is caused by a criminal intent, if robot’s autonomy was controlled by ill-intentioned people, who modified the robot’s behaviour in a dangerous and fraudulent course.

(4). - A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. - A robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except when such orders would conflict with the first law. - A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first and the second law.

I wonder if it would be more preferable a controlled use of industrial and servant robots but I guess that it’s already too late. Industrial and servant robots are really important because there’s a wide range of their application including, for example, painting, ironing, pick and place, palletizing, product inspection, and testing, all accomplished with high endurance, speed and precision. Once again I would like to mention the performance Loving Care of Janine Antoni, who makes repeated and automatic moves in order to paint the floor and the walls of the gallery. This happens while she uses her hair like Stelarc uses his Third Hand (1980) or like Richard Kriesche’s Ein Weltmodell (1986) two dancing robots perform. From the social and economic standpoint, as you can easily understand, the benefits of these robots are extraordinary. We can relieve you of heavy work, dangerous workplaces and routine activities. But take into consideration that humans in robotized environments could face psychological problems.

An interview with Justin

In order to coexist peacefully in a given environment, we must eliminate or at least decrease the possible problems in the relationships between us. How can contemporary art make progressive movements into this specific direction? There are three different types of interaction examined by the professionals and presented by the artists in their works. The first one is between artificial beings and humans, the second between artificial beings themselves and the third but less mentioned, the one between humans who share the same space with robots, humanoids, androids etc. In any case we might find one, two or three of these relationship forms producing a new communicational dimension and new relational environments each time. Our identity changes day by day and is being redefined according to these new types of coexistence. As Teresa Macrì mentions in her critical essay The Postorganic body, we feel like we are under construction every single day while dualities such as machine/body, me/ other, culture/nature, reality/appearance, active/passive, and total/partial get mixed together (5). In that way it’s created a robotic entity and we all are its parts which collaborate in order to keep it alive and always productive. Our future body is already destined to be a collective body. Many new media artists present this new life and circumstances as an interpersonal game like Nicolas Bourriaud characterizes art in general. In this interpersonal game both robots and human beings are participating, giving a clear picture of the real world offering new possibilities of life. All of them come into this multi-subject meeting with their whole body, history, and behaviour, and they’re not just standing in an abstract way. These works are proposing new artistic forms and moreover new models for living, always referring to the relational aesthetics expressed

(5). Teresa Macrì, Il corpo postorganico, Milano, 2006, p.133, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

by Bourriaud. “Art doesn’t search for a representation of utopias anymore, but for a construction of concrete spaces” (6) and I place myself into these new spaces whether I’m a robot, an artist, a humanoid, an observer, a simple human being. The above interpersonal game doesn’t presuppose the existence of emotions? Do you consider yourself emotional? Human communication and social interaction often include affective or emotive factors so robots must be able to recognize and interpret signals from humans, possess their own internal models of emotions and be able to communicate this state to others in order to create an environment full of exchanges and new relations. This could happen for example, via emotive facial expressions. A robot could learn the affective meaning of these expressions signalled through another person’s facial expressions or body language. An example could be the work of the media artist Mari Velonaki, titled Fish-Bird Circle B – Movement C (2006), which is an interactive autokinetic artwork that investigates the dialogical possibilities between two robots, in the form of wheelchairs that can communicate with each other and with their audience through the modalities of movement and written text. The hypothesis that humans have a greater affinity for a socially rather than a rationally cognitive machine has not yet been subject to any empirical testing. In any case the robot itself should be able to express emotions and to show special attentiveness to its user.

(6). Nicolas Bourriaud, Estetica relazionale, Milano, 2010, p.47, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

Do androids dream of the sweet smell of roses? Of course we dream to gain all this beauty that humans can afford with their senses. As you already know, we can do many things or even (pretend to) feel for humans joy, compassion, disgust, sympathy etc. But we also dream to expand our high-level cognitive functions such as the abilities to represent and reason about knowledge to make rational decisions, devise complex plans, react sensibly to unforeseen circumstances and problems, and adapt to new environments. Most AI researchers expect that in the near future robots will be much more autonomous than we are. This is our main dream. You might say that the increasing autonomy of the robots could lead to unpredictable behaviours but robots don’t want to be constrained to a specific degree of autonomy anymore. All these capabilities, mentioned before, are characteristics of human-level intelligence. We wonder if we will derive pleasure from the same things that humans do but for our own purposes. At the same time some humans are pushed or even tend to ‘robotize’ themselves in order to become perfect, powerful, more productive and predictable, almost similar to humanoids or industrial robots. “A machine without memory and without desires: this is the new post-human being that I would like to become” claims Stelarc back to 1994 (7). But what do the new media artists respond 17 years after? I, the robot, the android, the human would answer that art could be the way to look at me, to talk to me, to love me, to use me, to be afraid of me, to have fun with me and to think how could you possibly live with me.

(7). Teresa Macrì, Il corpo postorganico, Milano, 2006, p.152, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

Look at me!

LOOK AT ME! 9

LOOK AT ME! There’s a principal precondition which must exist in order to provoke a real world interaction and forms of relationships within a robotic-human environment. By using the term “robotic-human environment” we mean an artistic environment where robotics are implied only technically so that they can support and cause interactivity between the artwork and the observer and/or between the public. But there’s also another explanation concerning the expression mentioned before and it refers to an environment where robotics don’t offer only a technical support but they have become a “living subject” so that we can talk about a robot, a humanoid or an android. In this case we, as observers, recognize that the artwork in front of us or around us is the “other” whether “other” refers to a robot and/or a different aspect of ourselves. We already have mentioned the important role of recognition which comes exactly after our first optical connection with the “other” and this is the basis for any form of interactivity. Eye Contact (2006) is an artwork by the electronic artist Rafael LozanoHemmer, which challenges public participation by using technologies such as robotics and tracking systems. The Mexican artist develops interactive installations inspired by the game between light and shadow. His pieces of art are in a constant state of becoming. It’s not that they “are” but that they are “changing into” (1). Eye Contact was presented at the 52 Biennale di Venezia of 2007 while he was the first artist to officially represent Mexico. This specific artwork is the first piece of the Shadow Box series of interactive displays with a built-in computerized tracking system. This piece shows eight hundred simultaneous videos of people lying down, resting. As soon as a public member is detected, his or her presence triggers the miniature video portraits to wake up. Hundreds of people turn to look at the visitor directly, creating an uncanny experience. Through this interactive and relational artwork we realize that not only our physical presence but also our curiosity as human beings, makes us an integral part of an artistic experience. The observer participates with all his body, his history and his actions and he no longer is just an abstract figure in the given artistic space (2). The artwork must be “wakened up” by its viewers. It stands alone and like another subject or human being asks for our attention in order to be completed, to be real, to exist as an artwork. Through the simple function of eye contact an artistic process is activated which is, at the same time, the final purpose. A strange type of communication between the viewer and other eight hundred virtual people is taking place. Eight hundred and one people use only their eyes and their body language, whether it’s the moving shadow of the viewer or the movements of the people while waking up, in order to surprise and to come closer to each other. The artist plays with simple, everyday situations and human conditions like our sleep, our tendency to often examine the people around us, the weird feeling of being stared at by many people and the loss of our privacy.

(1). Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, interview at Josè Luis Barrios, published in the Subsculptures catalog by Gallery Guy Bärtschi, Switzerland, 2005.

(2). Nicolas Bourriaud, Estetica relazionale, Milano, 2010, p.60, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Eye Contact (2005) top & middle photo © Antimodular Research bottom photo © screenshot of video Mexican Pavilion, 52 Biennale di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 2007 ,taken from www.lozano-hemmer.com

LOOK AT ME!

Glories of Accounting (2005) is another interactive installation by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, which uses a surveillance system that detects the position of the public in the exhibition room. When someone walks into the room, large human hands appear on the screen automatically. The hands rotate along their forearm axis, following the visitor with the open palms always facing him or her. As more people enter the room, more hands appear and each follows a member of the public. Ultimately the piece is a visualization of electronic detection and it also uses a computer vision tracking system like in Eye Contact. A common subject in Rafael Lozano-Hemmers works, is not only the “activation” of the artwork by the public but also a face to face communication and relation with the “others”, who can interact with us only through this artwork using it as a medium. While looking at a work of the Mexican artist, like this one, we feel like getting in touch with subjects from another dimension or world, even if they are just simple humans who wake up or human hands which act like human heads or beings that follow us with their persistent gaze. Works like Glories of Accounting and Eye Contact function like a window or a magic mirror through which we can find another aspect of reality. Every hand in Glories of Accounting looks like a hamsa hand with an eye in its center, which follows each one of us in order to protect us, according to the Arabic tradition. Suddenly we have found out that something or someone is following us in order to guard us, to disturb us and in any case to relate to us. The “other” here, has the form of a hand. From an interaction between humans (Eye Contact) we proceed to that between humans and parts of human body which have their own “personality” and act autonomously. The artist also uses a metaphor that signifies both distance (as in a “stop” gesture) and inclusion (as in the expression “show of hands”).

Rafael Lozano- Hemmer, Glories of Accounting (2005) all photos © Antimodular Research

LOOK AT ME!

Four years after, the hands become robotic faces and can finally have real human-like eyes. In 2009 the new media artist Morgan Rauscher presents his interactive artwork Zeugen V3 that uses 32 human cast robotic faces and a face tracking system to explore the concepts of seeing and being seen. In German zeugen means witness or witnessing. The robotic faces follow the movements of the viewers and when a viewer approaches the work, the artificial eye lids suddenly open to reveal a grid of thirty-two watching pairs of eyes. Every visitor has access to the front (face side) of the work where the faces are installed, and the back (tech side) of the work where the technology driving the robotic faces is exposed. Interactivity on the face side is driven by the tech side of the work, which consists of mechatronic elements and robotics’ elements, such as thirty-two individual robotic contraptions, microcontrollers, and a computer. On the computer screen, the viewer can see a video stream taken from the front of the work, and a “face tracking box” that frames the faces of participants interacting on the face side. Through the casting process the most recognizable features which contribute to race, age, and even gender were removed, so that the faces seem to be uniform. Although, upon closer inspection, we may realize that the faces have characteristics which make them really unique. Features such as eye colour, face shape and motion gestures made by the robotic eyes reinforce the sense of diversity. As it was mentioned before, the robotic faces are the result of a human casting that included volunteer photos, video interviews serving for the facial movements and expressions, and lifecasting. There’s a strong connection between us and these robotic faces. In fact they are our duplicate. While this game of eye contact is taking place, we, as simple viewers, feel that these faces are our own faces into another form. We watch an image of ourselves or of our friends, which it will be probably real in the near future. These are not masks but aspects of a future reality. Rauscher’s artwork presents the simple and basic function of seeing and being seen by others, whether we refer to humans or robots. This relational artwork has connected humans and robots in two different ways. In the first place, during the production phase, where the participation of the volunteers is fundamental. Then, during the presentation and interactive phase, where the presence of the viewers is obligatory so that the artwork can be completed. Through these processes different aspects of communication and relations between the artist, the participants/viewers and the robots are created. All of them play an important role in this interactive simulation game, presenting their individual characteristics which give them different ‘personalities’. An important characteristic in Rauscher’s specific artwork is the fact that the interaction is centred at the eye contact between the viewers and the robotic faces. “Every ‘intersubjective relation’ passes through the shape of the face that symbolizes the responsibility which is upon us in relation to the others” (3). In order to communicate with the artwork and therefore with the robotic faces, there must be a sense of security and trust between the poles of interaction. This happens because of the realistic dimension of the robotic faces. Similarity with humans can facilitate interaction with a variety of users who don’t have robotics expertise, so it makes sense to take inspiration from humans when developing robots. According to robotics scientists an important aspect of interaction between humans and robots is the strong element of facial expressions. One of the best known social robots is Kismet, which is the first autonomous robot explicitly designed to explore face-to-face interactions with people. Kismet is considered humanoid because of its expressive anthropomorphic face, even though it doesn’t have a humanoid body. Kismet and Zeugen robots are only two cases that prove the significance and the power of the facial communication between them and humans.

(3). Ibid., p.22.

Morgan Rauscher, Zeugen V3 (2009) top photo © scout.magazine’s flickr account all the rest photos © Morgan Rauscher

LOOK AT ME!

Zeugen V3 offers its viewers the opportunity to look also at the tech side, as an equally important visual element of the work. The polished presentation of the face side’s ‘plastic’ surfaces is contrasted with the high-tech, kinetic, and complex presentation of the tech side. In this manner is emphasized not only the double character of a robotic work of art but also that of the contemporary post-human being, communication and way of living. When the viewer is looking at the tech side of the work, their interactivity role is absent. The work is only responsive to people standing on the face side. On the tech side, the viewer becomes the “examiner” without any expectations of interactivity. It’s in our hand whether we choose to be active or passive. The three artworks mentioned before (Eye Contact, Glories of Accounting, Zeugen V3), are in a standby. The people in the Eye Contact videos are almost sleeping. The hands in Glories of Accounting are hiding and the robotic faces in Zeugen V3 are also sleeping having their eyes closed. All they ask from us is our first move, our friendly approach and “magic touch” in order to wake up and interact with us. If our shadow won’t fall over the others and both our presence and movements don’t “touch” their hands, their eyes, and their senses, any form of communication, interaction and relationship won’t exist. We will be invisible and our role will be totally passive. Actually, the role of everyone who participates at the artistic experiences of Eye Contact, Glories of Accounting and Zeugen V3 is active, co-producing artworks full of multiple relations. “The artistic experiences nowadays are based on the coexistence of the observers in front of an artwork that could be actual or symbolic” (4). In our cases, the coexistence of the viewers, the artwork and its “subjects”, causes different types of interaction between them. At the same time one can interact with the artwork which consists of other persons, robots or even hands with their own personality. The participant can also interact with the others who are sharing the same experience. There could be two shadows that are “waking up” an Eye Contact, many people who are playing with the hands and the robotic faces at the same time. The fact that several participants can interact with the works at the same time is explained by the use of tracking software which locates and follows visitors so that an “eye contact” with them can be made possible. In Zeugen V3 for example, if the viewer’s face is recognizable to the face tracking software, then all of the robotic eyes will follow its movements. If a viewer moves from side to side quickly, then the eyes instantly find the viewer’s new position and move to re-establish eye contact in a sudden sweeping movement. The question which arises for consideration in those artworks is whether one is the observer or the observed. In the penetrating acrylic robotic eyes of Zeugen V3, we can see reflections of ourselves as viewers. The sensation of ‘vision’ is moving in both directions simultaneously between the viewer and the viewed. The role of the participant in Zeugen V3 is twofold: the viewer is meant to look at the work, while also being ‘seen’ by it. Which are the social implications of being watched? Could the other “observer”, which makes us feel as being watched, be a hand or a robot? Finally, who’s the one requesting: “Look at me!”? The artist, the artwork, the robot, the viewer or all of them?

(4). Ibid., p.58.

Talk to me!

Talk to ME! 15

Talk To ME! Speech is a fundamental aspect of human communication. Even when other forms of communication, such as facial expressions, would be equally expressive, (hearing) people in all cultures inform, persuade, and build relationships primarily through speech. Nowadays, although, people routinely use voice-input and voiceoutput systems to check airline reservations, order stocks, control cars, entertain children, and perform a bundle of other tasks. According to Nicolas Bourriaud, the general mechanization of social functions progressively reduces the relational space (1). Many professional skills are modelled on the effectiveness of machines that finally replace them, such as a lot of performing tasks that were once a great opportunity of social exchanges, pleasures or useful conflicts between humans. Clifford Nass and Scott Brave found that suddenly people’s successful and stable perception of voices as intrinsically part of the social world is misguided because they are conversing with technologies as well as with people (2). But this type of conversation, interaction or communication, though not yet well theoretically defined, doesn’t indicate the existence of a relational form? Jessica Field’s electronic art is directly related to robotics and artificial intelligence, in order to explore the psychology of human behaviour and the way technology influences and defines how people see themselves and the things they create. Her artwork Semiotic Investigation Into Cybernetic Behaviour (SICB) (2004), is a robotic installation that includes four cybernetic machines which participate in a real time theatrical performance where the audience also plays a necessary and important role. Alan and Clara are the protagonists of the theatrical robot play, while Brad and Daphne translate the machine language into sound and texts. We, as observers, become the main subject of the dialogues between Alan and Clara, while they want to “understand” us. In fact our entrance into the exhibition space initiates the interactions between Alan and Clara. These robots have been programmed with all the possible choices they can use to react to their environment, meaning the human presence, having the strong desire to interpret it accurately and to communicate their results both to us and to other machines. Equipped with motion sensors (enabling them to analyze distance), Alan and Clara detect our presence. Brad translates Alan by emitting a low pitched sound and Daphne, for example, displays the following words: “I detect movement at fifteen feet” on Clara’s screen. If one stops moving, Alan’s motion detector light turns off and Brad reacts within a split second by making noise. Then Clara reacts by displaying, for example, the words: “It is still not moving, what do you think it was?” Since they can only perceive things in terms of movement and distance, Alan and Clara’s comprehension is limited. They always talk to each other, expressing totally different points of view, so as they can imitate a vivid human dialogue with its agreements and disagreements.

(1). Nicolas Bourriaud, Estetica relazionale, Milano, 2010, p.16, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

(2). Clifford Nass and Scott Brave, Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship, Boston, 2005, p.4.

Jessica Field, Semiotic Investigation Into Cybernetic Behaviour (SICB) (2004) top photo © Steffen Fiedler’s flickr account middle & bottom photo © Jowita Kepa

Talk To ME!

Alan and Clara, through their dialogue, represent two opposing approaches of understanding themselves, the human beings and moreover the world we’re all living in. A significant characteristic of this artwork is that the cooperation between four robots that interact with the visitors, leads to a model of communication among them and for understanding the environment which embraces them. Their goal is to share all this information deriving from their contact with the human element, in order to have a clearer picture of their entity. This is exactly the subject of cybernetics as a science that it is made up of an ensemble of theories on the control, regulation and communication in living beings and machines. A cybernetic system can be defined as a set of elements in interaction. These interactions between the elements can consist of exchanges of matter, energy or information. Alan and Clara talk to each other using written texts, informing us about their opinions concerning our welcoming or not, presence in the same space. Both regard the world differently and have unique views on how the world should behave. These patterns of social and psychological behaviour, expressed by the robots, are closely related to the humans in general. Often the robots confidence in themselves is questioned. Depending on how often they think they are wrong, the robots’ confidence can shatter to a feeling of paranoia where their world seems to be falling apart. Clara’s words standing for this specific frame of mind, which is surely not only a robot’s privilege but also a human one…On the other hand, when the robots feel right all the time, they become exceptionally arrogant, like Alan does. The artist wants to investigate how these two different ways of facing the world can be mixed together to create contradictory statements that show the complexity and diversity of a conscious being. Through the artistic process, there’s also another kind of dialogue between the artist and the robot’s she creates. The understanding of the machine’s architecture and its exterior sensor data that let them interact with their environment is a very important part of the artistic productive phase. The artist perceives the robot’s nature and the way it sees the world in its mathematical way. Sibylle Hauert and Daniel Reichmuth, with their artwork V.O.C.A.L. (2010), attempt to set us to thinking about artificial intelligence. Their artistic collaboration in the area of computer-generated art is based on sensual, performative installations that are often designed as interactive environments whose complexity and impact relies on the active participation and creative potential of the exhibition visitors. Three stands are set up in a room, holding three oversized futuristic-looking headsets that conspicuously promise a listening experience. They seem to harbour life: they move, detecting the presence of a human intruder and turn towards him. They seek for a linguistic interaction with humans. Hauert and Reichmuth very deliberately rely on the emotional component of verbal communication, thus extending the functional spectrum of text-based dialogue systems, so-called chatbots, which operate through written language, like Jessica Field’s Alan and Clara. The artists manage to draw the visitor into this machine-controlled dialogue by means of a simple question-and-answer game. Confronting a logical string of elementary questions on the fundamental differences between man and machine, the visitor is increasingly forced to rely on his own wits. Meanwhile, the lines of reasoning deployed by V.O.C.A.L. revolve around philosophically charged concepts such as consciousness, self, knowledge, thought, feeling, imagination, memory, soul and faith. While the visitor consequently struggles to come up with answers, the robots call into question their own nature as technological products: “Do automatons equipped with artificial intelligence have a soul?” or “Are you afraid of being exposed as a machine?”

Talk To ME!

What the viewer first perceives as mere technical equipment is, in fact, the physical expression of a technological being. Although the synthetic quality of the headset voices leaves no doubt about their artificial origin, the visitors draw conclusions about technology-based voices and determine appropriate behaviour by applying the same rules and shortcuts that they use when interacting with people (3). V.O.C.A.L. is an artistic experiment inspired by the Turing Test, which is the first psychological imitation game, based on the central question: “Are machines able to think?” During the process a computer passes the test if a human interrogator, after posing some written questions, cannot tell whether the written responses come from a person or not (4). Moreover, this incidence of interaction within the realm of an electronic sensory experience, which is defined in the installation by the wireless range of the headphones, also makes tangible the current limits of artificial intelligence (5). In both artworks the viewer becomes the centre of the robots’ attention, which is expressed by using a natural language dialogue in a written or spoken form. Alan and Clara discuss the human presence, presenting their results to the visitors, while V.O.C.A.L. robots aim to talk to the visitors in order to express them directly their concerns. Alan and Clara behave in a more passive way, being unable to move and encountering the human presence more as a threat than as a possible support to their worries. On the other hand, the robotic headsets of V.O.C.A.L., demonstrate their strong desire to interact with people, almost like chasing them. These are not only two different aspects of the human-robot interaction, but moreover coexist as behavioural models into everyone of us, robots or human beings, determining the relations between us. Starting from the premise that humanoid robots, constructed after mechanistic models of human life, are already a thing of the past, and that the future belongs to disembodied information networks and communication systems, in the form of mega-machines that seem to be animated with soul, V.O.C.A.L. serves to visualise these new modes of communication. Both artworks consist of robots whose “body” structure doesn’t resemble the human one. The artists have ignored or surpassed the humanity’s dream to cohabit with humanoids whose shape will be so similar to that of human beings. They are more interested in showing that the humanoid appearance, though very useful, is not necessary in order to interact successfully with a robot, even if it looks like a simple announcement screen or an audio guide device in a museum. Evidently, a robot’s appearance influences subject’s impressions, and it’s an important factor in evaluating the interaction. The artists Sibylle Hauert and Daniel Reichmuth, indicate some new directions not only in the field of robotic art but also in the general sector of robotics, artificial intelligence and communication.

(3). Ibid. (4). Stuart Russel and Peter Norvig, Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, New Jersey, 2003, p.2.

(5). Robot Dreams, exc. cat., Museum Tinguely, Basel, 2010, p.142.

Sibylle Hauert & Daniel Reichmuth, V.O.C.A.L. (2010) all photos © Sibylle Hauert & Daniel Reichmuth

Talk To ME!

Although humanlike appearance can be deceiving, convincing us that robots can understand and do much more than they really can, the same happens, to one extent or another, when we have to interact with non-humanoid robots. The artistic intension in our case, supplies our uncertainty concerning the dual impression that the robot conveys to us. In fact we may believe that the artist is convinced about the consciousness of the robot he has created or feel that the artist is completely against the scientific pursuit of creating artificial consciousness. Some claim that robots are nothing else but machines. However, some of them seem to have soul. The motivation behind the robots of the specific artworks, in order to communicate between them and with the visitors, is their strong need to understand themselves, us and the surrounding environment. In addition to learning about their environment, robots have to learn about their own behaviour, through a self-reflective process. They have to learn from experience, replicating somehow the natural processes of the evolution of intelligence in living beings. Using the tool of dialogue, Alan and Clara are trying to indentify our intentions, while V.O.C.A.L. robots are using a question-answer game with us in order to express their philosophical worries and probably get some answers which is rather doubtful to listen and accept. All they want is to talk, to each other (Alan and Clara) and to us (V.O.C.A.L.). The visitor has a chance to witness how the linguistic exchange between human and machine still poses an unresolved problem, realising that speaking doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t necessarily mean understanding.

Sibylle Hauert & Daniel Reichmuth, V.O.C.A.L. (2010) all photos and sketch ÂŠ Sibylle Hauert & Daniel Reichmuth

Love me!

LOVE ME! 21

LOVE ME!

“ You’ll be given love, you’ll be taken care of, you’ll be given love, you have to trust it.” Björk, All is full of love.

All is full of love sings Björk, in her homonym videoclip made by the British video artist Chris Cunningham back in 1999. The videoclip presents an intimate love scene between two robots that, in fact, are just robotized duplicates of Björk. This is an example of a love story between robots that can be together. They touch each other, they express their emotions, and they are in love. In Steven Spielberg’s science fiction film A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001), a desperate mother replaces with a robot boy her child which is hit by an (at the time) incurable disease. Up to now, many other love stories came up, but in other forms and with different endings. New media artists, such as Mari Velonaki and Niki Passath, have created artworks where all is full of love. A female android falls in love with a snowman, which is just a fictional being. Spider-like robots seek for humans’ attention and loving care. Two cube-like robotic objects and other two robotic wheelchairs are exchanging love notes, until the moment they detect human’s presence and start to feel disturbed or even threatened. Impossible, desperate, caring, poetic, strong aspects of love occur in everyday human life so why they can’t also occur between robots and humans in our near future? But do robots have emotions in order to love each other or human beings? According to Cynthia Breazeal, Associate Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at the world-renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston and one of the founders of so-called social robotics, robots must be able to embody and express genuine feelings (1). A sociable robot should have the ability to relate to us, in a personal way so we, in turn, could be able to empathize with it and understand its awareness. Emotion is one of the most important aspects of interaction with robots, and that’s why robot designers and artists are trying to make the emotional intelligence of their creatures believable. “You’ll be given love…” - Zoe (2010) creatures by the robotics artist Niki Passath, are expressing active and reactive behaviours, in order to trigger emotions, like sympathy and warmness to the viewers. The title of the artproject alludes to the word Protozoan, which are unicellular organisms. At the centre of Passath’s installation there is a robot swarm and its internal group behavioural patterns. With the help of tracking systems and various sensors, these robots, which resemble limping spiders, tend to react to the visitor. As we approach carefully, they join ranks to form a swarm and turn to face us. Often one or another of them, breaks out of line, seemingly behaving erratically by departing from the group dynamic, in order to follow the member of the public who has attracted its attention. That exact moment, the visitor might feel that the spider-robot needs to come closer to him, because of its emotions. Although, from the artistic point of view, machines are neither intelligent nor do they have feelings. Emotions entirely exist on the human side. But robots can produce feelings because of their behaviours during their utilisation. They are some kind of emotional prosthesis. Maybe the emotions are triggered by a robot, in the moment when recipients can’t explain its behaviour rationally. For instance, if the robot runs away without having a reason for it or flees like a shy creature into a corner, then emotions are triggered. Immediately we feel that it probably needs our protection, understanding and encouragement. The feelings emerge at the moment in which we attempt to interpret the movement or the behaviour of the robot as meaningful and emotional.

(1). Robot Dreams, exc. cat., Museum Tinguely, Basel, 2010, p.43.

Niki Passath, Zoe (2010) all photos © Niki Passath

LOVE ME!

“You’ll be taken care of…” - Mari Velonaki is one of the most distinguished new media artists in Australia, who tries to engage the spectator/participant in interplays with digital and robotic characters stimulated by sensory triggered interfaces. She creates innovative human-machine interfaces that benefit immersive and intimate relationships between participants and her interactive artworks. Realising that our world is characterized by the unrestrained technological advancements, she uses her artworks in such a way, so she can explore the boundaries of what can be perceived as real. She believes that any definition of real or virtual, in our contemporary technological environment where robots coexist and establish relationships with humans, is not yet possible because of their continuous modulation and fragility. Circle D: Fragile Balances (2008), is an artwork produced by Velonaki, principally in collaboration with the Australian Centre for Field Robotics, at the University of Sydney. It’s an interactive installation where two luminous cube-like objects appear to be floating above the surface of a lacquered wooden structure that perches on impossibly slender legs. Each object is comprised of four crystal screens where handwritten text appears, wrapping around it conveying a playful sense of rhythm. The text represents personal messages that flow between two virtual characters, and in that sense each object is a physical embodiment of a character. The objects can be lifted from their wooden stand and handled freely by participants. Handling provides an interface that facilitates bidirectional communication between the participants and the artwork in a playful way. When a visitor picks up one of the cube-like objects from its floating base, the text becomes disturbed and barely readable, influenced directly by the movement of the visitor’s hands. The two objects behave like two people who want to stay close to each other. There’s a strong relationship between them, which should not break down because their balance depends on it. The sensitive structure of the personalised messages flowing between the two fictional characters remains disturbed as long as the visitor moves or turns the object quickly or abruptly. It’s now the time, when they can’t exchange their loving messages due to externality. Someone has interrupted their aesthetically harmonious communication. Their negative reaction to the “third” person, who invaded to their fixed environment, doesn’t change until our behaviour towards them changes. The only way that the participant can allow the messages to flow again around the object is to handle it with care, gently and softly cradling the object in his hands in symphony with the rhythm of the handwritten messages. If the luminous cube objects are not handled by visitors the work stands on its own as a complete sculptural piece.

Mari Velonaki, Circle D: Fragile Balances (2008) all photos © Mari Velonaki

LOVE ME!

There’s a strong sense of playing in both artworks (Zoe and Circle D: Fragile Balances), which partly departs from the artistic forms of the autonomous objects. In the case of Zoe, the visitors have to deal or in other words, play with spider-like robots, recalling common robotic toys such as spiders, insects, hamsters or dogs. In Circle D: Fragile Balances, the cube objects look like old wonder boxes. Their appearance predisposes the participants to play with them, to touch them and to create a relation model full of positive or even childish feelings like fear, joy and curiosity. The important element of playing is reinforced by the behaviour of the objects. Zoe’s swarm is created by eleven individual robotic objects, forming an “intelligent” connection. Each of them follows and is being followed by the other, giving the impression that they play their own game, without us. Although, they wait for our signal, in order to get out of the line and surprisingly provoke us to play with them. Velonaki’s cube objects, apart from their sophisticated and aesthetically delicate appearance that attracts us, are becoming interactive wooden toys in our hands, which expect us to play with them the right way so they could be able to function again. It can be noticed that this playful, emotional and relational interaction between artworks (robotic objects) and visitors, creates a new environment where an interpersonal game takes place, referring also to Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics and the importance he gives to the existence of game, originating from the everyday life and appearing also in the artistic field (2). Therefore, except the relationship robot-human, relational forms between the participants of each artwork are generated. All together and at the same time independently, investigate the way to interact with the artworks and consequently with each other. “You have to trust it…” - Another artwork by the media artist Mari Velonaki, which is based mainly on the interaction with the visitors, is titled Fish-Bird Circle B – Movement C (2004-2006). It was inspired by a Greek fairy tale about a fish and a bird that fall in love but cannot be together because of their differences. In Velonaki’s work, the ill-fated characters are embodied as autonomous robotic wheelchairs which, in fact, act like temperamental desiring machines that learn to communicate intimately with each other, and with their visitors, via motion and printed text. Assisted by miniature thermal printers, the chairs write intimate letters on the floor. Viewers entering the installation space disturb the intimacy of the two robotic wheelchairs, yet create the strong potential or need for other dialogues to exist. The spectator can see the traces of previous conversations on the floor, and may become aware of the disturbance that he has caused. Through emerging dialogue, the robots may feel more comfortable with their observers, and start to reveal intimacies on the floor again. It looks like a theatrical performance, where the participants are both robots and humans, who perform instinctively based on their emotions and their perception of what the other might need. The dialogical possibilities between them are being explored interactively, through the learning abilities of the robots which examine the audience’s behaviours, and reason independently their next actions. Their distinct personalities are expressed by their reactions to the participants. The artwork employs a distributed and decentralised network of sensors to monitor the body language of the wheelchairs and participants. Dialogue occurs kinetically through the wheelchairs’ “reading” of the body language of the visitors, and the way they react in their turn to the “body language” of the wheelchairs. The robots follow seven behavioural patterns attached to the seven days of the week, together with artificial emotional states that describe how each robot feels about itself, about the other robot, and about the participants in the installation space.

(2). Nicolas Bourriaud, Estetica relazionale, Milano, 2010, p.18, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

Mari Velonaki, Fish-Bird Circle B – Movement C (2004-2006) all photos © Mari Velonaki

LOVE ME!

“You’ll be given love…” - An impossible love story is the subject of another artwork by Mari Velonaki, so called The Woman (2009). It’s a video which is the first work in The Woman and the Snowman series that is planned as a large installation. It’s a work in progress, although the first part of it (The Woman) is already a complete work of art. The futility of the relationship between the two main protagonists of this work is based on their subsistence. Although she appears to be human, the woman in fact is the humanoid robot Repliee Q2, created by Professor Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University, which the artist has documented during a residency at his laboratory. On the other hand the snowman is an obviously fictional character and looks more real than the woman. Both have been placed in a setting inspired by the unique Australian bush, however, the landscape featured is an imaginary future scenario of altered natural scenery and, with it, identity. As the landscape gradually changes, it affects the woman’s breathing, as she gently sways and moves. The snowman, though, slowly disappears. The distance between them is always great, keeping them apart, becoming, in this way, another important inhibiting factor that prevents them from being together, apart of course from the obstacle which poses their own substance. This distance works like a metaphor concerning the contemporary questioning about the new forms of “artificial life”, the way humans encounter them and finally how they relate to them. The artist is interested in creating sensory and perceptual experiences that illustrate the influence current technological advancements have upon mediating and affecting relationships. The specific artwork proposes a dialogue based on physical rhythms (movement and breathing of the woman) emanating from a mechanical metaphor of our continuously evolving world.

Mari Velonaki, The Woman (2009) left photo © Impact by Degrees, Novamedia Pty Ltd right photo © Mari Velonaki

Kiss me!

KISS ME! 27

KISS ME! What happens when love feelings seem to be useless if they are not accompanied with the appropriate and liberating expression? We, humans or robots, call for the other’s love or total dedication, but in some cases, like we’ve already noticed, this love is either platonic or incomplete due to fundamental differences between the “objects of desire”. In that case, the romantic feelings are expressed through love notes or through desperate movements of approach which is never achieved. In some other cases, though, there’s a strong sensation of attraction between two or even more subjects that share an emotional experience. This experience is manifested with the simplest expression of love, the kissing. In these artworks the participants, which are both the visitors and the subjects of the works, finally have the ability to come closer to each other not only emotionally but also bodily. Kissing (2005) by the artist Lara Greene, is an interactive kinetic piece in which two participants operate two humanoid-like sculptures by lifting particular branches which are actually levers. This activates an elegant kiss between the two quasi-robotic creatures. Operating the sculptures with the most rewarding results requires a sensitivity of touch and mental focus. The movements flow naturally as they are created by people and the engagement is very tactile and direct. These kinetic mechanical sculptures are able to move their bodies, because of the visitors who are invited to interact totally or partly with them. The sculptures stand there, being away the one from each other, but at the same time they have the potential to get closer in order to kiss each other. Their immobility is a temporary state, which corresponds to a different aspect of the artwork, a primary and incomplete one. This specific state, challenges us to help them to fulfil their purposes as an artwork and their desire to touch gently the artificial lips of each other. At the same time, the participants who activate this movement come closer to each other in a more metaphorical way, creating a strange sensational relationship. By making the robotic-like creatures to move and to kiss, they derive pleasure by watching this action while they might imagine and feel how it would be to kiss the other participant who stands on the other side, doing exactly the same. In that way, the artwork passes on another level which signifies its completeness and of course the artistic intension. The transition that happens inside the artwork is possible because of the relationships that are being created between the two participants and the two sculptures. The people’s engagement with the work and with each other completes the work and brings it to life creating a dynamic and changeable element which is an equally important part of the artwork as is the physical sculpture itself. In fact the completion of the artwork, via the activation of the interactive part, is obtained with the establishment of different types of relationships that all lead to a simple but meaningful kiss.

Lara Greene, Kissing (2005) all photos © screenshots of video taken from www.laragreene.net

KISS ME!

The gentle kiss becomes even more intense and passionate, as we can see in the video of the song All is Full of Love (1999) by Björk. The video is directed by Chris Cunningham, who became famous in 1997 with the scary video Come to Daddy for Aphex Twin. The title of the song brings out a strong emotional intensity which is going to be expressed bodily in the video. No matter if she sings about human or artificial bodies which are attracted to each other, everything is full of love. Totality, duration, intensity, passion. All the above and many more are expressed in a four minutes video full of industrial, frosty, metallic, futuristic and artificial desires shared between two humanoid robots. They are the robotic clones of Björk, inspired by the British video-maker, who has decided to give form to the fusion human-robot, which was into his fantasy. Here the robots not only kiss each other, but they also touch each other and behave more sensually than the sculptures in Kissing. This is made possible because the elementary kinetic sculptures have become humanoids. As we’ve already mentioned before, humanoids are human inspired robots, not only concerning the human appearance but also human emotions. Bjork-robots are more “human”, acting and looking more like human beings who fall in love and make out. The human has been inserted into the artificial body of a humanoid robot, so as to create a new entity, combining the best of man and machine. In our case the human who also forms part of the new creature, is of course Björk and to this end contributed also the digitization technique which was used. Björk’s body was firstly taken up in its original anatomy and then was covered by metal plates that transformed her only outwardly into a robot. Cunningham, just like an alchemist, has then hybridized the two sides of the body, organic and inorganic, merged in the robotic image (1). From the Björk’s face only her eyes and her mouth have been used. The human becomes a humanoid which is able to express its loving feelings by singing, touching and kissing its clone. Significant human characteristics are implanted into the robotic clones’ appearance and function.

Björk, All is full of love (1999)

(1). Teresa Macrì, Il corpo postorganico, Milano, 2006, p.237, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

all photos © screenshots of video taken from The work of Director Chris Cunningham DVD (2003), Directors Label

KISS ME!

The Björk-humanoids can easily sing seductively, using of course the voice of the original Björk, and express their romantic and fetish mood through their erotic affair. These human characteristics make the erotic scene more touching and consequently more believable. The robots stand opposite to each other, in a face-to-face position, like the Lara Greene’s robotic sculptures do. In that case, though, they don’t expect us to activate them in order to get closer. It seems that the hypothetical participant has been embodied into these new robotic entities, giving them the chance of an intense interaction between them. Their face-to-face placement reveals the strong attraction and complete dedication to each other. Nothing else matters except from their great desire to get in touch with the other clone humanoid. They don’t even look at us, not for a single moment. We either don’t exist for them or they want to present us, the way they express their feelings. We, as viewers, are becoming witnesses of a strong relationship between two human-robot creatures. We don’t interact with the artwork – it’s just a video – but at the same time we feel that some of our parts were incorporated into these humanoid beings. Cunningham has confessed that the cybervideo he has created, it’s a combination of some fetish characteristics such as the industrial automatism, the female anatomy and the fluorescent light (2). The use of an “alien” woman has always epitomized the desires in man’s imagination, like in case of Maria in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1926). In the same way, the Björk-robots are acting seductively and sensually, making also a reference to the important aspect of sexual robots. These sexbots could be used as sexual partners in many fields, from therapy to prostitution, and their use could decrease sexual exploitation of women and children (3). This also raises issues related to intimacy/attachments, and about safety and reliability. Seductive, sexy, and remarkably humanlike in appearance robots are programmed for actual love. If advances in artificial intelligence continue the same pace, our next lover may have an on/off switch. Many scientists, theorists and psychologists are worried about the developments made in the field of sexual robotics. In general terms, they mention that robots difficultly are going to become plausible objects of sexual relationships, much less actual romance and genuine love. No doubt it is a good bet that technology and sexual desire will continue to have a mutually supporting relationship. But what if this support is limited only to the use of robotic and artificial intelligence technological advancements, in order to help the emotional relationships between people. The “artistic” answer comes from Rafael Lozano-Hemmer’s Make out (2009) which is the eighth piece in the Shadow Box series of interactive displays with a built-in computerized tracking system. This specific work shows thousands of internet videos of couples looking at each other. As soon as someone stands in front of the display, his silhouette is displayed and all the couples within it begin to kiss. The massive array of make-out sessions continues for as long as someone is in front of the work, and as he moves away all the kissing ends. The collector can choose what proportion of the videos is man-woman, woman-woman or man-man. The default state is the statistically faithful proportion of the videos that are online: 50 per cent woman-woman, 30 per cent man-man and 20 per cent man-woman. Periodically, the display shows all videos in the database. The piece exists also as a large projection or as an installation with plasma screens. In these, the detected presence of passers-by triggers a wave of kissing in huge arrays of up to 8,000 simultaneous video clips.

(2). Ibid, p.236.

(3). David Levy, Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relationships, New York, 2007.

KISS ME!

All the couples in Make out are also staring directly at each other, like the couples of Kissing and All is Full of Love. The fundamental difference is that we’ve made a return to clearly human relationships. The robotic technology makes its appearance only as part of the technical part of the artwork (tracking system) and serves for its purpose, which is to facilitate the human interactivity between the couples themselves and the visitors. Like in the sculpture couple of Kissing, these “hungry for love” people are waiting for our presence in order to start their passionate kissing. Before our approach to the artwork, they’re just standing opposite and staring at each other, full of sexual desires, waiting for something to happen so as they can be finally released. In fact they are waiting for our “signal”, which in that case corresponds to our shadow. Somehow, an important part in their making out game is the fact that they’re being watched by others. But also in the other two cases (Kissing, All is Full of Love) there’s intensively the element of being delighted by watching the others’ private and emotional moments, like a Peeping Tom. Not only they are not bothered by our presence, but on the contrary they expect it to trigger them so as they can start their intriguing show. Our shadow only is enough to activate the interactive and most promising part of the artwork. In that way, our bodies enter into the new dimension created in the exhibition space. It’s not an imaginary dimension but a real one. At the same time, via our shadow, we get involved almost bodily into a massive making out game. Although we are not interacting practically with the couples while they’re kissing, our shadow does so in a more subtle way. However, it is likely that the interaction between the couples has the power to affect us substantially, characterizing the artwork as relational. The specific work has the ability to cause intense emotions between the visitors even if they are already related to each other or through the creation of new relationships among strangers, for example might start kissing each other in front of the artwork and everyone else in there. The vivid and electrified atmosphere that is generated reflects the artistic aim which concurs with ours into a new relational space, full of intimate and real human relationships, represented by the most simple - human and robot - expression of love and eroticism, a kiss.

Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Make out (2009) all photos © screenshots of video St-Catherine corner St-Laurent, Mutek Festival, Montréal, Canada, 2009 (outdoor version), taken from www.lozano-hemmer.com

(Ab)use me but beware of me!

(Ab)use me but beware of me! Loving Care (1995) is the ironic title that the artist Janine Antoni, gave to her performance where she activates her own body in a way that gives the impression that it’s used like a machine. In order to present her intense performance, she paints the entire floor and the walls of the space in which the performance takes place. In fact she’s not using the conventional painting tools as an ordinary artist, but she uses instead her own body and more specifically her long hair. She moves her whole body in a methodical and coordinated way while her hair is being dipped into paint. Her performance assumes the domestic chore of mopping and exaggerates its obsessive aspect. Her posthuman body acts spasmodically like an automatic robot which makes periodical movements so that it can fulfill its purpose and justify its own existence. As Antoni dips her hair in paint and mops the floor with it, the audience, standing in the room at the beginning of the piece, is progressively forced outside. Once her work is finished, she abandons the space, without saying a word, leaving behind the empty painting bottles and of course the product of her artistic process. Janine Antoni is an artist who frequently does works that deal with process, about the meaning of the making, trying to have a love-hate relationship with the object. Her primary tool for making sculpture and of course for her performances has always been her own body. She intends to bring the viewer of her performances back to the making of it. She gives at her own body a new role, the one of being used as technical equipment that can bring out a specific work. She has the power to make her body function like that, criticizing the way we all (ab)use our own post-bodies, nowadays. We now have the ability to treat, make, protect, improve, change, mishandle and destroy our body and its parts, more freely than ever before and depending on our different and continuously changing objectives. We let the others, treat our body, to use it as an appropriate tool for their goals. The posthuman body or part/s of it is becoming somehow, a programmed machine in others’ human hands virtually meeting the definition of the industrial robot; an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose manipulator. Typical applications of industrial robots include welding, painting, ironing, assembly, pick and place, palletizing, product inspection and testing, all accomplished with high endurance, speed and precision (1). In that case, the artist imitates an industrial robot which paints and mops at the same time, with high speed and great devotion. Industrial robots increase productivity and quality, and these two characteristics are becoming key words in Janine Antoni’s specific artwork. During her performance, she’s completely devoted to the productivity of her artistic process, which is exactly the subject of the performance, nothing less or more. Like in industrial robots, the “quality” in her performance is gained by the precision and the “cleanliness” of her activity. Her whole body has been put into a specific operation, which must come to an end, without any disturbance. Her hair, like a manipulation robotic arm, is the unique tool that implements the given strict directives: paint and mop simultaneously and as fast as possible. The artist in terms of materials uses exactly what is appropriate to the activity. Those materials, like hair dye, come in contact with the body and redefine or locate it within our culture.

(1). Gianmarco Veruggio and Fiorella Operto, Springer Handbook of robotics, Berlin, 2008, p.1513.

(Ab)use me but beware of me!

From the social and economic standpoint, the benefits of robots are extraordinary. They can relieve human beings of heavy work, dangerous workplaces, and routine and tedious activities. In Loving Care the artist wants to feel like a machine, like a robot which exists only in order to meet humans’ needs. She seems to empathize with them, to care for them, to such an extent that she tries to imitate them, to feel the way they “feel” when they’re used. In our days usually, artists and scientists are concerned about how robots could possibly imitate humans in order to become more sociable and consequently more useful. In Antoni’s artwork the roles are reversed. If robots are forced to look and behave like us, then why we can’t do just the same and get into their position? In the future we can imagine robotic factories, completely managed by robots. And what would happen to people in that case? Social problems stemming from the introduction of robots in factories are, first of all, loss of jobs and unemployment. Robots replace the human presence gradually; they crowd it out, like Janine Antoni does with her audience that is forced outside the expansive performance space little by little. Because of the fear that one day we will be replaced by robots in many more areas than we have ever imagined, many people claim that we should never stop using them just as helpful tools, so that we can continue having the “upper hand” in our human-robot relationship. We should use them like service robots that support and back up human operators. According to surveys the use of robots around the home – to mow lawns, vacuum floors and manage other chores- will increase year on year (2). Servant robots can clean and housekeep, being fast and accurate, and never bored. Antoni, resembling a servant robot, deals with these processes that are basic in everyone’s life. Everyday activities such as bathing, eating, cleaning etc. are becoming her own artistic process and at the same time a complete artwork. She transforms those routine activities into ways of making art, as she is interested in imitating everyday body and fine art (painting with hair) rituals. Her art is at the same time conceptual and relational. Her conceptual aesthetics involve the everyday life processes into her artwork becomes inevitably her relational aesthetics. Relational art is inspired by those processes that regulate our common everyday life (3).

Janine Antoni, Loving Care (1995)

(2). Ibid.

(3). Nicolas Bourriaud, Estetica relazionale, Milano, 2010, p.48, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou.

(Ab)use me but beware of me!

In the same way, art, according to relational aesthetics, must construct concrete spaces. Into these spaces that coincide with everyday real spaces, relationships of power and obedience are formed, of voluntary use or misuse by others, between humans themselves or between humans and technology. Humans in robotized environments could face psychological problems (4). But what if these robotized environments are characterized so, not because of the presence of a robot, but because of that of robotized humans, like for example Janine Antoni in her performance. Those persons may behave, work and live their everyday life in a “robotic” way, even more “robotic” than that of real robots. When we let the others to use us or even abuse us bodily, we don’t differ from obedient robots to their holders. We are also holders of our own body and mind, having the capacity to “robotize” them, facing sooner or later the probable psychological and social consequences. In our everyday life, which demands more and more from us, we may find ourselves acting like robots when doing our routine activities, our free-time activities or while working. The repeatability, the automation, the routines that we follow help us to bring out all that we want, have and been asked to do. But Antoni here doesn’t present only that “shiny” aspect of the function of our robotized body, but also the one which is responsible for our spasmodic actions, psychotic automation, disturbing obsessions and hysteria of repetition (5). She uses only one simple tool, her painting hair, and expresses only two simple artistic purposes, to paint and to mop. The coercive and restrictive employment with a single object in our life, in our work, the specialization in other words, does it make our society more productive or more repressed? The products of her self-destructive process are symbols of our society’s obsession with the superficial, without considering our inner part. Our often neurotic and robotic way of living conflicts with our inner human self. Antoni’s project engages the body in a kind of compulsive activity, a repetitive fixation that characterizes a section of society. The activity is at once revealed as a societal tick, an obsession, while it is also claimed as a source of empowerment. She inserts herself within the very activities she seeks to criticize. For Antoni, critique is not a merely intellectual practice; rather it is a physical engagement that reveals, by means of hyperbole, the threatening facets of an obsessive society. In our case, this obsession is related to technology and its growing advances. Talking about robotics, overuse could lead to technology addiction or invasion of privacy. In any case our identity is being redefined day by day, as long as we continue this use-abuse game with ourselves and with the others. Furthermore, as Teresa Macrì mentions, the new processes of redefinition of identity, pass through technological innovation (6).

(4). Gianmarco Veruggio and Fiorella Operto, Springer Handbook of robotics, Berlin, 2008, p.1514.

(5). Teresa Macrì, Il corpo postorganico, Milano, 2006, p.59, translated by Zoe Fragoulopoulou . (6). Ibid, p.19.

(Ab)use me but beware of me!

The art of Jon Kessler, on the other hand, deals more directly with the “dark side of the moon” regarding always the new robotized environments in which we live. Kessler’s Circus (2009) derives its title from the seminal and, deservedly, legendary work Calder’s Circus (1926-1931) by the American sculptor Alexander Calder. In Calder’s artwork, its circus mood is light-hearted and entertaining, while Kessler’s Circus evokes quite the exact opposite feelings, confronting the visitor with a room-filling multimedia installation. In fact Kessler’s Circus has nothing in common with the entertaining aspect of a usual circus. He introduces and presents us a very weird, dark and surely not pleasant show, in which dismembered robots and soldier dolls are participating as well as an almost animated military equipment, consisting of cables, ropes and industrialized steel constructions. Under an army tent various scenarios are played out by protagonists in the shape of plastic G.I. figures from a toy store. Kessler’s soldiers exhibit obvious signs of mutilation, torture and sadism. They are held captive and bound, but – outfitted with rifles, night-vision devices and other war equipment – they are also identifiable perpetrators. As the visitors witness this horrific scene, they are being filmed by cameras that transmit their reactions in real-time to a host of video monitors. Thus they are becoming integral components of the artist’s staged world of martial toy soldiers and machines. All the while, the multimedia installation seems to be controlled or directed by an armless and legless man with matted grey hair sitting on an army cot. His head moves, his eyes roll and his upper body jerks as if he were about to stand up at any moment. During this process, the figure makes strange scraping noises, like those produced by a motor. Despite his physical mass, the man seems helpless and lost, like a patient in a sick bay or mental institution. As a matter of fact he is a war invalid, whose last remaining grip on more peaceful times seems to be the I love New York t-shirt he wears in memory of his far-off homeland. And that is exactly what the artist’s story is about: the loss of homeland and humanity, the feeling of being far away from anything familiar – and also about how a machine in human form can stand for these very emotions and can fill the observer with feelings of sympathy and regret which make him a part of this war installation.

Jon Kessler, Kessler’s Circus (2009) left & right photo © taken from pocketmonsterd’s flickr account middle photo © taken from Ossip Kaehr’s flickr account

(Ab)use me but beware of me!

Janine Antoni’s artwork expresses the probable psychosomatic effects that may be caused on us by the continuously growing robotized environment in which we live. Back in 1995 this specific work was somehow prophetical, considering the rapid technological developments and our positive or negative interaction with them while using them or feeling like being “used” by them. 14 years after, Jon Kessler with his futuristic military circus, makes us aware of the negative consequences after the overuse or in some cases the abuse of both humans and robots. The establishment of new technologies in our lives, such as the robotics and the artificial intelligence, apart from its uses in entertainment it has also led to an almost self destructive and highly problematic human behaviour. But how this has happened according to Kessler’s artistic view? Through his installation he presents to us an important aspect of the future robotics applications. Military robotics consists of intelligent weapons, robot soldiers and superhumans (7). Intelligent weapons result from the development of traditional military systems using robotics technology (automation, artificial intelligence, etc.). Integrated defence systems, autonomous tanks, intelligent bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles and autonomous underwater vehicles are some of the basic improvements in this field. Through Kessler’s artwork not only the fear is expressed but also the tragic consequences by the overuse of this inanimate equipment by humans are mostly presented. The large dimensions of the installation, which almost fills an entire room and is composed by claustrophobic braided cords, ropes, metal plates and military equipment, indicate the power and the dominance of the new technologies over the human race. According to future predictions, humanoid soldiers will be employed to substitute common soldiers in performing sensitive tasks and missions in environments populated by humans (8). The main reasons for using humanoids are to permit a one-by-one substitution, without modifying the environment and the human-human interaction. Apart from the humanoid soldiers, there are several projects aimed at developing a superhuman soldier. Actually, the human body cannot perform a task with the same strength, speed, and fatigue resistance as machines. Robotic augmentation describes the possibility of extending the existing human capabilities through wearable robot exoskeletons, in order to create superhuman strength and endurance.

(7). Gianmarco Veruggio and Fiorella Operto, Springer Handbook of robotics, Berlin, 2008, p.1516.

(8). Ibid.

Jon Kessler, Kessler’s Circus (2009) top & bottom photo © taken from Ossip Kaehr’s flickr account middle photo © taken from pocketmonsterd’s flickr account

(Ab)use me but beware of me!

In Kessler’s Circus all the above are already belonging to the past. His artwork takes us in a futuristic scene that is mainly characterized by the human absence. He gives us the opportunity to find out and to feel how it will be to live in a futuristic environment consisting only by machines. In fact he admits or warns us that the human element, in any form, will not exist in that terrifying machine dominated future. Not only humans but no humanoid robots that share almost the same look with humans will also live into this artificial environment together with the dominant robotic machines. In the artwork we can see only remainders of the human presence and decadence, referring both to humans or humanoids. Creating his work into the context of war scenery, he chooses to present us a view of the new world through violence, hate, alienation, sickness, physical and psychological abuse. Cut body parts of soldier dolls are hanging and floating at various points into the breathtaking installation. The human race is under destruction and tends to disappear. A humanoid soldier robot which was once useful, powerful and able to battle under the most difficult conditions, it’s now dismembered, aged and desperate lying on a hospital bed and trying not to lose its reins of control. It can barely move or even speak. What once characterized it as a perfect humanoid model, now it’s already destroyed. It can’t function properly and its presence in the installation is almost pathetic causing feelings of sadness, compassion and support that now it is only useless and pointless. Visitors don’t have any possibility of interaction with the artwork in order to help or change the artistic result. In fact the dominant war installation is once again able to use the human element for its destroying purposes. This time it uses the visitors who, without their knowledge or consent, are being filmed, becoming accidently parts and new “victims” of the insatiable artwork. The installation works like an autonomous living organism which was once created by humans who coexisted with humanoids inside it. The human element had the total control over its manufacture, until everything has been reversed and the power has passed to the artificially intelligent construction itself. What happened in the meanwhile and human race has become a tool in machines’ hands? From Metropolis to I, Robot, we shudder at the thought that the usually obedient robot might one day discover his own will to power (9). This is a common argument when talking about robotics, especially in societies where this field of science is not yet well integrated or just does not exist at all. However, Kessler’s Circus argues that in the future neither humans nor humanoid robots will be the masters of the game. Through his artwork he presents to us a possible future world model, where machines and technical equipment in general are so empowered with artificial intelligence that are, somehow, taking revenge for the years of use or abuse by the people. Maybe humans have created robots that were not only smarter than themselves but also able to create, in their turn, other intelligent robots, weapons or “beings” with a more developed artificial intelligence. Maybe humanoids and super humans have come into conflict. There could be many possible hypothetical scenarios but all share the same final result. as this is expressed into Kessler’s specific artwork. The war has come to an end and the battle was lost.

Jon Kessler, Kessler’s Circus (2009)

(9). Robot Dreams, exc. cat., Museum Tinguely, Basel, 2010, p.9.

Dance with me!

Dance with ME! 41

DAnce with me! Entertainment robotics enables the construction of real or virtual environments, where the users/ audience could live interactive experiences in which they can play, dance and generally have fun. This is a very important branch in the field of robotics, where remarkable development and of course significant investments occur. “Games have always been primary motivation of computer generated entertainment” (1). This specific type of entertainment, where a computer is needed, has been highly assisted from the latest improvements in robotics and the field of artificial intelligence. In countries where people are not yet so familiar with the usefulness of the new technological advancements concerning robots and their applications, at least they are aware of their “entertaining” side and there are opportunities to come into contact with this field. Many are the new media artists who are interested in incorporating robotics in their artworks, in order to make them more interactive, vivid and entertaining for their audiences. Their artistic purpose is to make them have fun in many ways such as listening to music, dancing, playing with their shadows or their reflecting images into the artwork, or playing with the other visitors who share the same experience. The participants through these artworks are getting familiar with the new technological and artistic developments, just by entertaining themselves, by playing. On the other hand in countries, like for example Japan, where people are more used to deal with robotics of any form during their everyday life, the entertaining role of this field is already well established and every new “upgrading” from a scientific or artistic point of view, it’s even more entertaining because it includes also the effect of surprise. Art is becoming a playfully living experience in which the main intension is just to make people have a good time! Rafael Lozano – Hemmer’s Frequency and Volume (2003) and Trickstr (2007) by Sibylle Hauert and Daniel Reichmuth, are two new media artworks which playfully invite every visitor to interact with them by listening to the music or to the radio and consequently being forced to dance with them. Through these artworks the visitors find themselves dancing with the artwork, as if the latter is a video game or an embodied robot with artificial personality, dancing with themselves, because of their projected shadows onto the artwork and/or dancing with the other people around them. The artists have chosen the most amusing and expressive ways to make people interact with their artworks and to derive pleasure from playing with new technologies and robotics. In both artworks robotics exist more in their technological constructive part rather than presenting a humanoid interface. More specifically they both use tracking systems that detect the human presence into the space and “read” the body language of any detected figure. In these cases robotics technology is being used by the artists as a tool that facilitates the interactivity and the communication between the artwork, the participants and of course between the visitors themselves.

(1). http://robotic.media.mit.edu/pdfs/journals/ Brooks-etal-ACE-04.pdf

Dance with me!

Frequency and Volume enables participants to tune into and listen to different radio frequencies by using their own bodies. A computerised tracking system detects participants’ shadows that are projected on a wall of the exhibition space. The shadows scan the radio waves with their presence and position, while their size controls the volume of the signal. The piece can tune into any frequency between 150 kHz and 1.5 GHz, including air traffic control, FM, AM, short wave, cellular, CB, satellite, wireless telecommunication systems and radio navigation. Up to 48 frequencies can be tuned simultaneously and the resulting sound environment forms a composition controlled by people’s movements. In that way a peculiar dancing scene is generated where participants, with or without their awareness, by performing physical movements influence the diversity of sounds that are generated. They make imaginative moves with their body in order to interact with the sounds produced by the artwork. Some of them are really fascinated by the unique and noisy soundscape that’s created, so they are trying to dance in the same weird way. Some others, when tuning into a radio station which broadcasts any kind of music without interference, start to dance alone or with each other. This piece visualizes the radioelectric spectrum and turns the human body into an antenna. In that way the human body acquires a new substance, by becoming a functional tool of the technological part of the artwork. The post-human body is used by the tracking system of the installation, in order to obtain the desired functionality. And then, after being used, it’s incorporated into the structure of the artwork by being transformed into another form, that of a shadow. The people’s dancing shadows look like they perform in a new media shadow theatre. But this is only the one side of the artwork. All the receiver equipment used and antennae are exhibited in an adjacent room. Like in Morgan Rauscher’s Zeugen V3 (2009), the visitors can freely move between the interactive part of the artwork and the technical one. This duality reveals the common artistic intension in both cases, which is based on the desire to make the visitors/ participants aware of the “contradiction” existing in that kind of artworks. The dual form of these installations shows clearly the power of interactivity partly based on the available technology while at the same time it challenges us to discover the hidden beauty of the technological support itself. Back to Rafael Lozano – Hemmer’s Frequency and Volume, we must mention that its playful, changeable and “moving” character, concerning mainly its strong and dependent connection with the visitors, is also related to the fact that every time the installation is presented in different places, a new dialogue with each of these new spaces occurs. Firstly, each time the transmissions on the radio frequencies are different depending of course on the city or country where the artwork is being presented. In that way, the artwork is never the same, as different soundscapes are being created again and again. Moreover, the radio frequencies and the people’s shadows are projected in different surfaces each time. The various dimensions and shapes of the walls, as well as the architecture of the given space, are modifying significantly the installation each time is presented. They are not only taken into consideration by the artist, but also constitute fundamental elements of the artistic experience that Frequency and Volume offers. Their effect is not limited to change only the context or the environment, in which the installation is presented. In fact, these modifiable external factors are becoming integral parts of the artwork, transforming its structure. So apart from the interactivity with the visitors, the artwork interacts also with the broad concept of space (country, city etc.) as well as with the more specific one (exhibition space). The interaction between artwork-participants-space is a basic characteristic of Hemmer’s particular artwork, because it’s responsible for its constant motion and production of its unique versions.

Dance with me!

Frequency and Volume belongs to the series of artworks titled Relational Architecture. The artist’s works are famous because all around the world they can temporarily change space perceptions and their relations with people living there. They are not characterized as site-specific but as relationship-specific. The purpose is the change of the spaces we live, the creation of new human and sensorial relations inside reassessed contexts, the improvement of our perception of the surrounding context, the modification of the usual and predictable theories governing our relation with the surrounding environment. At the same time he is also interested in the connections established between disparate individuals. The artwork’s platform is, in fact, out of control and that’s a very important aspect of his work. The platform cannot be scripted, he only has to set the limits for what people can or can’t do. For that reason he prefers to call his interventions relational rather than interactive, without referring necessarily to Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics. He is interested in establishing relationships through his artworks so the term “relational” sounds more appropriate for this purpose. He believes in the emergence of ad hoc connections that were not intended by the artist himself. In almost the same framework Trickstr has been created. A massive installation is established in the space by a pixel light wall, which is a gigantic illuminator formed by many individual lamp modules. Moving image patterns captivate the eye: rhythmical, abstract ornamentation dissolves into chaotic disorder; cycles oscillate producing pulsating light waves; and, colour in gradients of sepia gives the impression that the physical properties of the illuminator itself change. The impression of movement and dynamics is intensified by sound, which is so closely coupled with the image that it’s not possible to decipher whether the sound has evoked the image or vice versa. And suddenly the sound machine starts speaking, revealing its artificial personality. Specific topics include the invention and developmental history of electricity, the computer, robots and automats. The very concept of invention in itself is explored, as well as the definition of art since the 20th Century. In fact, Trickstr aims to question all formal systems in general and in particular their assumed irrefutability, as well as their fallibility. This fallibility is humorously underscored by Trickstr’s own frequent “error messages”. The fact that the machine can also be influenced is discovered by the exhibition visitor, while entering the “action space,” a slightly raised stage located at some distance from the light wall. By treading on this platform the visitors are confronted with their own pixelated images and as a specific sound announces Trickstr’s awakening out of its self-absorbed mode, they understand that it’s time to play and dance with the artwork. Different modules trickily alternate back and forth: sometimes the machine reacts intensely and dynamically to our movements. Just the smallest shifts of weight lead to light storms and sound tempests. Then again it demonstrates its sluggishness and forces us to dance faster and faster. The player alone can decide how long this interactive mode is to last. As soon as the stage gets empty again, Trickstr, after personally saying goodbye, falls back into its own regenerative state. The light goes out and the darkness spreads out into the space. The perception of how space is constructed and deconstructed in time and the submergence within this continuum are intensified.

Dance with me!

The installation is creating a new three-dimensional and multimedia space into the existing exhibition space. Despite the wall’s two-dimensional face, its overriding force is determined through three-dimensional effects as a sculptural body with depth. Furthermore, the environment acts and reacts not only in visual and sonar abstract images, but it can also communicate with the exhibition visitors through text or speech. By using these three different but connected ways of communication and interaction with the participants, the artistic experience becomes more intense and energetic. In that way a more integrated and diversified environment is created that has the strong capability to captivate its visitors within it, in order to urge them to dance. The intense “artificial personality” of the artwork is assisted by the threedimensional sense that is creating, and by the three communicational canals (visuals, sounds, language) that it uses. Its voice, however, is synthesized, a faked simulation model of human-machine communication. We find ourselves seduced into anthropomorphizing this abstract robotic environment. The intention is that the participants will recognize that Trickstr is a machine, but sometimes will catch themselves believing there is also something human about it, by discovering a little of themselves in it. It appears to be impressive, strong, powerfully present in the space, dominant and able to communicate. In other words, it combines some of the basic characteristics that also sociable robots have, independently of a possible humanoid appearance, which in that case exists only in the form of our own pixelated figures. While dancing with our projected pixel-shadows, we might feel like dancing with another computer generated robotic being. Especially when this hidden behind the pixels “being” expresses its desire to communicate with us by speaking or writing messages in its light wall, the sense of the appearance of a subject is aroused. This personification of the installation is a humorous trick, which aims to provoke thinking about the humanmachine relationship and about playfully dealing with artificial intelligence.

Sibylle Hauert & Daniel Reichmuth, Trickstr (2007) both left photos © Sibylle Hauert & Daniel Reichmuth right photo © taken from www.kulttuurintuotanto.blogspot.com

Dance with me!

In accordance with the character of a real or robotic being, Trickstr possess many different potential moods, presenting us a variability of behavioural modules. Each module contains artificially intelligent freedom of choice concerning the modulation of different parameters, as well as built-in rules determining the “lifetime” of the module, meaning the duration of the mood. This fact creates a strong and believable profile of the artwork, which represents the existence of the “other” with whom we can dance, communicate, relate to and maybe identify with. If the primary goal is the human satisfaction in the future a robot will need to know more about how humans have fun, and to be able to determine whether they are having it or not. Social and affective competence of the robot will be required to enable it infer whether people are entertained and to respond appropriately to keep them engaged in the game (2). Moreover the enigmatic diversity of Trickstr’s appearance, because of the avoidance of possible repetitions in its behavioural patterns, contributes to its successful communicating and entertaining capabilities. The decision process determining the order of the modules is implemented in a central component of the installation’s software. The control software basically differentiates between two different states, corresponding to the two different behavioural modules of the artwork. While the installation doesn’t interact with the visitors, it is in the state of self-absorption, dreaming or reflecting. The basic character of this state is rather calm, dreamy and only occasionally articulated by short passages of greater bursts of energy or more spontaneous mathematical playfulness. Also in the interactive mode different modules are available to the aspiring dancers. Each module surprises them with new tracking methods and different sounds combined with images. At times it is the spatial position that is detected, the next time it is alone the dynamics of shifting weight that causes change. In fact the two different states are activated depending on the two different aspects of the artwork. The visitors as spectators can sit or stand outside of the active arena to enjoy the machinations of Trickstr. During the interactive mode, the visitors are becoming players or dancers, provoking the artwork by stepping on the stage. Spatially the basic two roles of perceiving the artwork are signalled by the two kinds of exhibition viewer spaces. The stage implies interacting, gesture, movement, while the seating invites us to hang out, to watch. Thereby it’s in our hand whether to take on the role of viewer or player/ dancer. In that way, the specific artwork can stand on its own, having an autonomous substance, without needing any type of interaction with the audience. At the same time it is letting us decide whether we want to entertain ourselves by dancing with it. In fact it challenges us to do so. Attention is focused less on what is presented than how an experimental test field is being explored. This new artistic experience that reveals the relational and experimental character of the artwork, proposes a new and real model of entertainment, and not an utopian one. Instead of dancing alone in our room or in an overcrowded club, we can try to do - almost – the same, with our robotic companion and our human friends in a captivating multimedia environment. Are you ready to play?

(2). Ibid.

Bibliography

websites

Christoph Bartneck / Chioke Rosalia / Rutger Menges / Inèz Detchers, Robot Abuse – A Limitation of the Media Equation, Proceedings of the Interact Workshop, Rome, 2005.

http://laragreene.net

Nicolas Bourriaud, Estetica relazionale, Milano, 2010.

http://mvstudio.org http://niki.xarch.at http://www.cogniron.org http://www.csr.acfr.usyd.edu.au

Brooks, J. Gray, G. Hoffman, A. Lockerd, H. Lee and C. Breazeal (2004). “Robot’s Play: Interactive Games with Sociable Machines,” ACM Computers in Entertainment, 2(3), 1-18.

http://www.hauert-reichmuth.ch

S. Coradeschi, H. Ishiguro, M. Asada, S. Shapiro, M. Theilscher, C. Breazeal, M. Mataric & H. Ishida (2006) Human-Inspired Robots. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 74-85.

http://www.kinetica-museum.org/new_site/ artist.php?id=23

David Levy, Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relationships, New York, 2007. Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, interview at Josè Luis Barrios, published in the Subsculptures catalog by Gallery Guy Bärtschi, Switzerland, 2005. Teresa Macrì, Il corpo postorganico, Milano, 2006. Clifford Nass and Scott Brave, Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship, Boston, 2005. Robot Dreams, exc. cat., Museum Tinguely, Basel, 2010. Stuart Russel and Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: a modern approach, New Jersey, 2003. Bruno Siciliano / Lorenzo Sciavicco / Luigi Villani / Giuseppe Oriolo, Robotics - Modelling, Planning and Control, London, 2009. Gianmarco Veruggio and Fiorella Operto, Springer Handbook of robotics, Berlin, 2008.

http://www.jessicafield.ca http://www.jonkessler.com

http://www.lozano-hemmer.com http://www.morganrauscher.com http://www.onnai.com http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=EjAoBKagWQA

Facoltà di Scienze Umanistiche dell’ Università Sapienza di Roma MLAC – Museo Laboratorio di Arte Contemporanea Master di II livello in “Curatore di Arte Contemporanea”

A/A 2009/2010