Moshe Ladanga

Interim Report

leave a comment »

Interim Report

Moshe Ladanga
Camberwell College of Arts
MADA 2
March 19, 2008

I. Title Revisions:

Current: Reproduction Prohibited 2008

February 2008: Power Play
December 2007: The Rules of the Game
October-November 2007: Collisions

The revisions reflect how the idea for the collaborative work developed from the initial concept of having two independent works juxtaposed in one frame/screen, to the current setup which incorporates interactivity, shifting the act of meaning-making from authoring moving images to facilitating the creation of moving images in real-time, through the setup of two video feedback loops.

II. Collaboration

A. Revision of Aim
We still intend to challenge the current modes of artistic collaboration, but instead of juxtaposing two independent visions within a singular framework, we will individually facilitate the creative act of meaning-making through the video feedback loops. The final work will be a visceral experience, engaging the audience in an immersive environment.

B. Framework
The initial concept was based on Michel Foucault’s theory of discourse as a medium of power (Foucault. 2002) and its implications on relationships; that all relationships are negotiations of power (Strega and Brown.2005). This theory had quite a number of conceptual manifestations as it can be inferred from the titles: from Collisions, The Rules of the Game to Power Play. What informs the current development in visual terms is Rene Magritte’s 1937 painting, Reproduction Prohibited.

The video feedback loops in the current setup has exactly the same effect; the only difference is that the repetitions are endless, the image replicating into the screen. The work has gained a psychological dimension, and with our research about perception and consciousness, we place the act of meaning-making in the experiential quality of the work.

My head, for example, my head: what a strange cavern that opens onto the external world with two windows. Two openings- I am sure of it, because I see them in the mirror, and also because I can close one or the other separately. And yet, there is really only one opening- since what I see facing me is only one continuous landscape, without partition or gap.

-Michel Foucault, “Le corps utopique” (1966)

C. Methodology

methodology.jpg

The methodology diagram was inspired by Lev Manovich’s ideas of hybridity and its implicit DNA structure (Manovich. 2006). The structure will be the same, but the process will happen in real-time through the video feedback loops.

ls-setup.jpg

III. Individual

Objectives:
Instead of creating moving image clips, I will be writing programs (Puredata or MaxMSP) that will alter the video feed in my monitor/screen. If there are visual elements that will be inserted into the reflections, I will shoot it and set them as footage to be chroma-keyed in real-time.

sketch-01-videofeed-manipulation.jpg

I will also continue to experiment with my collaborative partner with the setup of the monitors and loops. What I’ve learned with the making of the prototype is that the positioning of the cameras and monitors can alter the experience of the work fundamentally.

Media:
The installation would require two monitors/screens and two cameras mounted on the screen. The space would need to be big enough to facilitate the movement of people through and between the two monitors. The monitors would have arduino chips linked to infrared sensors. We are still studying if we would need laptops or G4’s to house the puredata patches and the possible footage that will be keyed into the video feeds.

We are also currently discussing the possibility of using cathode ray tubes from old TV’s as the monitors; as an installation, it would definitely be more interesting, with the technology being exposed. In my point-of-view though, it might be problematic for the experience of the work. The cathode ray tubes are quite sculptural, and it might interfere with the interactive experience. But technically, it has great potential, because the cameras, sensors can be attached to the monitors, and the CPU can be conveniently be at the base. This whole setup can be housed in a plexiglass plinth.

Rationale:
My rationale remains the same, but with more of an ethical stance towards image-making. My current thinking about working with technology is very much informed by the experiences I’ve had with Sciria (the Phd Seminar) and the tutorial with Dr. Barabara Rauch. The books that I’ve been reading also influence me a great deal: Mark Hansen’s New Philosophy for New Media and Cinema 1 by Gilles Deleuze.

The focus of my investigations is now on perception, which was informed by my research of the Film Avant-Garde of the past century, namely Ernie Gehr and Peter Campus, whose works sought to reveal how we see moving images and creatively subverting the technology to accomplish it.

Methodologies:
I will engage in a series of tests with the setup. Due to the interactive feature of the project, we would need to build the prototype in order to test the Pd programs. These experiments will be undertaken in the studio and we will build, design and refine the final objects for the installation, as well as test the interactive work by inviting people experience it. We will record their interactions with the work (video), and contact them after a few days to see if the work did have a significant impact on their experience.

We will use the data gathered from these case studies to further refine the installation, from the physical layout of the monitors to the choreography of the effects triggered by the interactions.

Risk assessment:
We will have periodic reviews of the installation, also in line with the case studies. The installation for the final show will require a space, possibly a corridor (ideally the Wilsons Gallery space). The two monitors will be independent systems. We will design the monitor setups to be as compact as possible, and if ever we are going to use the plexiglass housing, we will leave one side of it open for ventilation. The wires will be placed behind the work.

Timetable Revision:

MADA UNIT 3:

April
-Construction of Monitors/Video loop Apparatus.
-Learning Pd, programming and designing interactivity patches.
-Electronic testing of apparatus with infrared sensors (Arduino boards)

May
-Case studies of interactions
-Refinement of Pd patches, design of monitors, layout of installation
-Test days in assigned site for MA Final Show; final case studies

June
-Organizing the show, Finalization of Output, Submission of Two Written Reports (Artist Statement and Reflection)

Advertisements

Written by mosheladanga

March 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: