Project II Statement | JD Pirtle

I have altered my project significantly, as follows:



My new proposal is this:

First, to model an abstract eye and an ear in Maya, import into Pepakura, unfold and then produce papercraft version of each. [Both would be either sitting on the floor, on two plinths or any flat surface. Even possibly hanging.]

In the ear, I would put a small microphone component attached to a small laser (the $5.00 650nm variety) attached to a small audio output transformer, all powered by a 9v battery. This laser would be focused out of a hole in the side of the ear, pointing toward the side of the eye. The transformer will modulate the light of the laser based on the mic input.

The eye will contain a photocell resistor connected to a 9v battery and a blue superbrite LED. The laser light will enter the eye through a hole in the side. The eye will be open in the iris area, and there will be a diffuse material inside the eye (or iris) to turn the focused laser light into an overall glow (possibly diffraction grating material). The photocell will take in the modulated laser light and cause the LED to change in brightness accordingly. The goal is the have red and blue light combine in varying ways inside the eye, making the iris area appear in various hues.

The overall effect will be that viewers can speak into the ear and have their words turned into light in the eye, which is seen by other viewers. This project uses more democratic and cheap components, and fulfills my desire to combine those components with delicate sculptures. It retains many of the original thematic elements of my previous proposal, only really lacking the community fire aspect (which I would like to explore in a different piece).

Reading Response 3 | Situated Advocacy | JD Pirtle

There are numerous intriguing ideas presented by Jeremijenko and Bratton in this text. The primary concepts revolve around ubiqiutious computing and emergent political structures, but they are able to superimpose these principles in various areas. They pay a great deal of attention to the value of data, specifically to what value data has: how is it collected? By whom? For what purpose? The framework is basically that ubiquitous computing can lead to direct data consumption that could support direct, local political engagement; replacing a strong, representative central government and bringing issues such as climate change to the site in which the specific problem can be addressed, which causes a type of emergent political structure to begin to form.

They provide some interesting examples of sensing structures in which non-human entities become aggregate political groups, e.g. co2 sensors on trees. Also, the portions of the text in which they discuss the role of the artist as an additional individual engaging science as "model citizen and naive scientist.” This is similar to artists like Vibeke Sorensen working alongside scientists at the San Diego Supercomputer Center in the capacity as peer, as early as the 1970s. They valued the perspective that Sorensen brought to any project she worked on, perspectives that were outside of rigid scientific method and therefore fostered innovation. Jeremijenko and Bratton make the excellent point that perhaps artists are the only beings that could take the vast clouds of data and create an “image” that has some sort of cultural/environmental/emoitional currency beyond merely a sexy data visualization.

I think Jeremijenko’s How Stuff Is Made project provides the provenance of manufactured objects in a way that is very accessible. Rather than the common extremes of showing the cost/benefit of our culture through either consumable media coverage or white paper dissection, How Stuff Is Made democratizes the contemplation of where our stuff comes from.

I thought many times throughout this text about various efforts of artists recently present a non-data based image of environmental impact--for example, many of Burtynsky’s photos.