Which art project do you attend the Amber Festival with?

I was presenting prototype of my latest cybernetic sculpture called “Nucleus”. This project began its development in summer of 2009, and making of it was supported by Culture Foundation of Latvia and also by Latvian Academy of Arts.

What is your aim with your art work?

General concept of this object was to serve as a tool for visualizing complex analytical data in a simplified and visually perceptible manner. Although initially idea was to programmatically analyze internet commentary for specific keywords, therefore displaying visual representation of overall emotional state of average internet commentator. On higher level of importance for this sculpture lies symbolism of “persistence of vision” effect which clearly represents insubstantial and elusory state of virtual news media and digital information in general. Information in our time and age has a physical form of electric charge or electromagnetic footprint. It means that in order to read digital data we are ought to have some form of translation tool which communicates between these two spaces. We as human beings are not able to sense electromagnetic data or directly read binary code. So sculpture “Nucleus” is asking question – what happens with information when communication between human and machine fails.

Also I would like to point out formal language of “Nucleus”. Its kinetic behavior is somewhat crude and frightening, and of course its mechanical structure, rotating metallic parts, possesses high degree of danger to the viewer. And although this aspect of sculpture was not clearly defined in beginning, I felt that this is part of symbolism which speaks about way we communicate with machines and crudeness that could be quite often observed in human/machine interfaces and interactive processes.

Speaking from more personal standpoint, for me each new artwork is a way to express troughs and speak about problems that occupy me. And of course each new project is a possibility to understand what is it I would like to work on next and more importantly, it is a challenge to explore technical as well as artistic aspects that are worth to continue, and also to drop off parts of artistic language that does not work for me and does not interest me.

So every art project is a continuous process of troughs and ideas, and personal intellectual growth.

How does your project work?

I’ll omit most of the technical stuff here because I could very easily get carried away and write some few pages about each tiny little technical detail in this sculpture. But I am afraid it would not really be of any value, therefore I will just lay down some key aspects of how “Nucleus” is made.

As you could probably see from a photo, it is a cylindrical “persistence of vision” display which creates an illusion of three dimensional forms by fast moving light diodes that creates a cylindrical light trails. Persistence of vision is a phenomena of human eye by which an afterimage persists on the retina for about 49 milliseconds. This effect of visual perception allows seeing an individual frame sequence as animation.

Technically sculpture has 36 diodes attached to elastic ribbon which is deformed by five small electric stepper motors. This ribbon then rotates around a central core of a sculpture at about 20 frames per second. So as a result it forms a light trails in a cylindrically deformed shape.

Conceptually this deformation visualizes analytical data received from a computer.

Could you describe your process of creation?

My process of creating an electronic sculpture is somewhat similar to process of buildings a software product, say for example a game. As unusual as it may sound for an artist, for me first always comes technology and only afterwards I think about what could be done with that technology, what kind of message could be brought across using it. And the best results are produced when these things collide and then merge naturally.

But for most part concept of electronic sculpture develops along side with its physical presence in process of building and because time span for creating these works are somewhat long I tend to think up in the beginning some abstract concept for what my sculpture represents and why it works the way it is supposed to, and then this abstract meaning just expands along with an overall progress of work therefore acquiring detail, and subjective meanings.

Basically, I mark a beginning and direction of road, so to speak. And then when I follow that road it may or may not go straight. Much more interesting is when path of an idea does not advance predictably, but rather evolves alongside with my own experience and takes some unexpected turns or in a process of making emerges some new ideas which add more dimensions to an art work. As I already said, creative process is continuous and newer really stops.

Also it is interesting to note that similar to technological iterations of sculpture from prototype to version one until version two or whenever it is done, also storyline and concept iterates and has its revisions according, so I believe I have some kind of ideal image in my mind how the result should look like, and then there is written down more realistic version of that. If I could I would just work infinitely long until I reach that ideal. But for most part it is not the case because there is limited budget for each project and there is also other upcoming projects which tend to distract attention.

Also there is somewhat narrow set of problems I usually tend to talk about in my art. I am interested in questioning overuse of technology in our day to day basis and how this technology transforms our life and social habits. Generally I like to ask question about – does technology make us happy.

How long have you been producing digital art?

I started to be seriously interested in digital media at about year 2001. At which point I knew almost nothing about practical aspects of it, but I was just incredibly amazed by possibilities of interactive software and games.

Back then I took the route to learn all I possibly could about this stuff so I studied hard. For most part it was programming and 3D graphics. So little bit later when I built up my experience I had a chance to work in a professional (so to speak) company producing computer games.

At the same time, at about year 2004 I with some friends organized a local Latvian game developer’s competition to find out and also encourage people to develop games. At that time game development scene here in Latvia were quite poor. But my interest about commercial game development since then went downhill as I became more conscious about what are my key interests in modern media.

Few years later in 2006 I decided to continue my studies in classical sculpture and was curious about results that could emerge from my knowledge of digital media joined together with sculpture. I took route back to sculpture because I could not find satisfaction in pure virtual computer media even if it was three dimensional graphics. Understanding came to me that there is indescribable joy of producing physical tangible things which are not hidden in some virtual space behind flat monitors or projections, but indeed resides in our own reality where my work could be touched and felt and seen from different angles. I believe it is similar to what architect feels when he sees his building finished. Its that sense of accomplishment when something which was just an idea on a piece of paper or drawing in a computer some time earlier, now has emerged in real physical world.

Virtual media for me never really gave that sense of accomplishment. So from that point on I basically started to become skeptical towards ‘visual communication’ field as it for most part utilized effects of graphical representation of ideas and used computer monitors and projectors and stuff which to me really does not present much value.

Electronics was another field that cached my attention because of possibilities it opens for an artistic expression.

You know, I infinitely respect artists who work with robotic art or are trying to break the borders of what standard off-the-shelf hardware offers today, because I now completely understand sheer amount of knowledge and self motivation needed to be able to work in this field of art.

How do you describe your art as an artist using technology?

Basically at this point I define work I produce as an artist is ‘cybernetic sculpture’. My definition for meaning of term is still very vague. For me cybernetic sculpture means kinetic or mechanical sculpture which is controlled by an electronic signal acquired trough sensors from its environment. But unlike strictly reactive process, behavior of cybernetic sculpture affects its environment and then reacts to that same environment thus creating a feedback loop.

What made you choose digital media as medium?

This decision came to me naturally because I was just incredibly amazed by what could be produced with modern media. 

Back as a child, when there were no computers and electronic games, I think we all in some degree were reading books and imagining a lot of things.

So as a kid I certainly had a strong imagination and liked to dream up fantasy worlds, characters and games governed by rules. So basically when I first saw a three dimensional computer game I immediately understood immense possibilities of storytelling this kind of medium has.

But newer the less I always had kept a strong attachment to physical crafts and because of it a decision to learn interactive three dimensional graphics were a step in same direction. I believe much of the same root principles still apply in virtual 3D graphics as well as in sculpture. And it was an interesting discovery that kinetic sculpture or interactive sculpture has a lot of common with computer game theory.

So as I said I choose modern sculpture instead of virtual media because I felt that digital art has a weakness of not being fully real or truly connected to our physical world. But still time to time I do some programming work for personal or commercial projects just to find a balance between virtual and physical media. I still very much love working on computer games and interactive software.

Do you have aesthetic concerns while producing your art?

Sure, aesthetics is as much important as it is conceptuality. These two things are on the same level of significance and they both are linked together thus forming a solid art work. For me formal and visual language is a tool to express and amplify conceptual aspects. Aesthetical factor is first thing viewer approaching my work notices, and it has a force to give a strong first impression and may excite curiosity for viewer to explore my art further.

With kinetic and cybernetic art there is one more variable to take into account, and it is aesthetics of motion. Factor of time and movement, not only static form, has to be taken into consideration. Every time I generate ideas for kinetic object I try to imagine how it would look like in different states of motion and what kind of visual image does create its kinetic behavior. Sometimes I feel it is similar how animated character is made for a movie, because also each sculpture has its own character and rhythm of movement, even if it is an abstract form or just a pile of wires and bolts. Actually even wires and every single technical part has its own influence on overall look of a electronic sculpture, so even those tiny details has to be considered in overall visual composition. For most part I tend to think about these electromechanical parts as abstract entities, because they are the same for me as for example it is paint and canvas for a painter.

Still my biggest concern while working with this kind of art is complexity and conceptual accessibility. Sometimes we see artworks which are complex and complicated where is not entirely clear the interactive aspects of it and even less obvious is conceptual elements. That way artwork is not accessible to wider public. You have to be an engineer or scientist or otherwise specifically educated person to understand and admire it. Overuse of technology makes this field of art closed and elitist. I often like to think about it as a democracy of technology is dictatorship of knowledge.

As Theo Jansen said “there is no border between art and engineering in our mind”. Well, I tend to believe that there is some point in specific fields of art where you could loose that sense of artistic value by stepping over that thin line which divides something overly complex and technical from purity and lightness of true interactivity and beauty of motion.

I would like to overcome that and make art that everybody can enjoy, from hardcore engineer guy to a kid.

What do you think about the literal and figurative integrations of the human body and technology?

Well, there are many aspects of it. One of course is pure necessity out of medical reasons. Now, and already for quite some time exists a surgical implants for bones made out of titan which could be classified as technological addition to a human body. Also there already exist prototypes for a bionic eye for example or artificial robotic limbs for war victims.

So we take this type of “replacement parts” as morally acceptable because often it is only option for a person to live fulfilled life. On the other hand there is some controversy regarding casual use of this kind of technology. For example, situation with women breast implants. We might not be supporters for such kind of human body modification, but for some people it is a motivated decision to do that. So the big question is - where we draw a line to pure necessity versus everyday use of technologies that artificially enhances human body.

I believe that in future, as technology progresses along with social level of acceptance this trend will continue. And for some individuals this so called “body and technology integration” will be a choice made for personal reasons rather than pure medical need. But I do not think it will be as widespread as it is portrayed in science fiction novels.

Other aspect in question is our emotional integration and attachment to soulless machines. We are becoming more connected with technology and therefore also more dependant of it. Experience of interaction with technology today is getting more intimate and personal than if was many yearsearlier. For example touch screen phone versus good old mechanical dial phone, or Segway for example which uses our natural body movement for control. This kind of interaction and experience is already so natural that it could be seen as extension to our bodily functions. Thus we are physically as well as emotionally connected to a machine.

What we may become as a result of our increasing engagements with technology?

Recently I thought about it and was surprised by one of my friends who is mountain guide and also a skiing instructor. He had an intense training for a few years to learn how to survive in most dangerous and extreme weather conditions, in winter he had to live for several weeks in Norwegian mountains in a tent and nothing more.

So I was wondering, how many of us would today be able to survive such change if all of technology would cease to exist. For example, how would anybody start a fire in minus thirty degrees cold without looking in Wikepedia how to do it?

Informational growth of society has been huge in the past ten to twenty years, but also we have experienced a shift of information necessary for our survival. Today, someone to survive has to know how to operate basic electric appliances but does not need to know hot to start a fire or catch a wild animal.

Zemāk lasāms tehniskais apraksts

Tātad, uzdevums tika stādīts priekšā gaužām vienkāršs no pirmā acu uzmetiena – bija nepieciešams diviem butaforiskiem lauvām izgaismot acis. Lauvu figūras nebija pārlieku lielas, aptuveni 1.5 metri augstumā, līdz ar to arī acis bija tieši tik mazas lai pietiktu ar pāris gaismas diodēm uz katru aci. Tomēr pats interesantākais sākās prasībā pēc iespējas, pirmkārt, gaismu pilnībā kontrolēt. Tas nozīmē nepieciešamību vadīt gan gaismas intensitāti gan arī krāsu pilnā RGB krāsu spektrā. Otrkārt, gaismas vadības panelim vajadzēja atrasties pietiekamā attālumā no pašiem objektiem, tā lai cilvēks, kurš kontrolē efektus atrastos skatītāju zālē, vai pat aiz skatītāju zāles – gaismotāja kabīnē. Šāda situācija būtībā radīja divus iespējamos risinājumus. Pirmais, mazāk vēlamais, ievilkt garu vadu no kontroles pults līdz gaismas diodēm. Otrais variants izmantojot bezvadu savienojumu starp kontroles pulti un gaismas avotiem. Salīdzinot dažādu variantu materiālu izmaksas tika secināts, ka tik būtiskas atšķirības nav, un no radio vadītas sistēmas būtu vairāk ieguvumi dotajā situācijā. Par cik „Argus” radio detaļu veikals nu jau kādu laiciņu atpakaļ sāka piedāvāt tirdzniecībā gatavus radiofrekvences pārraides un uztveršanas moduļus, tad tika pieņemts lēmums izgatavot kontroles sistēmu pašrocīgi, izglītošanās nolūkā un arīdzan ar mērķi notestēt konkrētās RF shēmas.

Sistēmas uzbūve

Visa shēma sastāvēja no vadības pults, kurai bija jābūt ar gana vienkāršu un intuitīvi uztveramu interfeisu lai varētu kontrolēt visus gaismas kanālus gan reizē gan katru atsevišķi. Kā arī diviem neatkarīgiem uztveršanas moduļiem, no kuriem katrs bija paredzēts iemontēšanai objektu aizmugurē. Attiecīgi vienam modulim tika pieslēgtas divas RGB gaismas diožu matricas, kuras, savukārt tika ievietotas lauviņu acīs.

Nu, lūk, ņemot vērā, ka elektroniskās shēmas nācās izgatavot specifiskas un atbilstošas dotajam pielietojumam, tad skaidrs, ka bija nepieciešams arī vienkāršs un ātrs veids kā apstrādāt ierīču loģiku - vadības pultij, tie būtu signāli no pogām un potenciometriem, bet uztvērēja moduļiem, savukārt bija jāģenerē gaismas kontroles signāli. Pie tam shēmai bija uzdevums arī sarunāties ar radiopārraides/uztveršanas moduļiem. Šiem uzdevumiem tika izvēlēts universāls mikrokontrolieris ATmega8, un ATmega88 vadības pultij. Šie mikrokontrolieri ir viegli un ātri savienojami ar visdažādākajām ievad- un izvad- ierīcēm (pogām, potenciometriem, gaismas diodēm, u.c.), un to loģika ir programmējama C programmēšanas valodā.

Radiofrekvences pārraides un uztveršanas moduļu izvēle pārdošanā nav visai liela tomēr starp tiem, kuri bija pieejami ir dažas būtiskas atšķirības. Pirmā izvēle bija par to vai izmantot universālu transceiveri, vai uztvērēja/raidītāja kombināciju. Par cik dotajā risinājumā bija nepieciešama tikai vienvirziena komunikācija tad otrais variants likās loģisks. Nākamais jautājums radās par veidu kā šie gatavie RF moduļi komunicē ar pārējo shēmu (mikrokontrolieri), jebšu veids kā ir iespējams piekļūt saņemtajiem datiem vai nosūtīt jaunus datus. Piedāvājumā esošajiem produktiem tika izmantoti divi komunikācijas principi, viens no tiem izmanto parastu seriālo komunikāciju, ar tipisko ātrumu 4800 biti/sekundē. Izmantojot šādu shēmu pašam nāktos veidot datu protokolu un pārbaudīt saņemto datu pareizību, tas nozīmē mazliet vairāk darba programmēšanas līmenī, tomēr pozitīvais aspekts šāda tipa moduļiem ir savienojuma shēmas vienkāršība un arīdzan protokola caurspīdība. Otrs moduļu tips izmanto jau nedaudz sarežģītāku komunikācijas protokolu - SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface). Caur SPI pieslēgumu tiek dota iespēja moduļos iestatīt parametrus, un tas nozīmē, ka ir plašākas konfigurācijas iespējas un arīdzan caur šo pieslēgumu tiek sūtīti un saņemti dati.
Dotajā gadījumā izvēlē krita par labu SPI pieslēguma moduļiem no kompānijas „HopeRF”, jo tie izraisīja interesi tādēļ, ka bija lēti, maza izmēra, un teorētiski bija konfigurējami darbībai četrās dažādās frekvencēs. Jāatzīst gan, ka ražotājs jau iepriekš brīdināja par to, ka katrs no moduļiem ir pielāgots noteiktas frekvences pārraidei/uztveršanai un konfigurējot tos darbībai citā frekvencē var ietekmēt pārraides stabilitāti un distanci, tomēr praksē šādas problēmas novērot nenācās.

Zemāk attēlos redzami – raidītāja un uztvērēja moduļi (RFM01, RFM02), paredzēti SMT montāžai (uz virsmas). Lai varētu ar šīm shēmām strādāt prototipu platē, vajadzēja tās pielāgot DIP tipa pakotnei, ar iespraužamām kājiņām.

Uztvērēja modulis

Kā jau augstāk tika minēts, moduļa darbības loģika balstījās uz ATmega8 mikrokontroliera, kura uzdevums bija pirmkārt nolasīt datus no radio uztveršanas shēmas (RFM01), saglabāt tos masīvā lai vēlāk vadoties no tā varētu ģenerēt kontroles signālu katram no gaismas krāsu kanāliem, katrai acij.

RGB gaismas diožu spilgtuma regulācijai bija nepieciešami 6 pulsa ģeneratori – pa trim krāsas kanāliem uz katru aci, attiecīgi katra krāsas komponenta spilgtumu regulējot ar pulsa platuma palīdzību. Diemžēl ATmega8 dzelžu līmenī uztur tikai 3 PWM kanālus tādēļ bija nepieciešams izveidot tos programmatūras līmenī izmantojot vienu Atmegas 16bitu taimeri. Taimeris tika darbināts ar aptuveni 18 kHz frekvenci, tādējādi lai izlaižot 256 taktis tiktu iegūts aptuveni 70Hz frekvences pulss. Tādā veidā skaitot soļus bija iespējams variēt pulsa platumu.

Katra acs, savukārt tika izgatavota no četrām RGB gaismas diodēm, kurām katrai vidējais katras krāsas spožums bija 3 kandelas. Šāda gaismas intensitāte bija pilnībā pietiekoša dotajā risinājumā.

Kā barošanas avots moduļiem tika izmantotas 4 AA tipa 1.2 voltu baterijas. Šeit gan jāatzīmē, ka patīkami pārsteidza Argus piedāvātās Eneloop lādējamās baterijas ar 2400mAh ietilpību. Salīdzinot ar citām, parastajām supermārketa NiMH fotobaterijām, Eneloop baterijas tiek pārdotas jau pilnībā uzlādētas un tās neizlādējas no dīkstāves, tik ļoti kā citas. Kopumā šīs baterijas izrādīja pārsteidzoši labu performanci, lai arī dotais projekts nebija ļoti jaudas prasīgs. Vienīgais negatīvais aspekts ir lādēšanās laiks, kurš ir tik pat ilgs kā visām citām NiMH batčām.

Vadības pults

Tātad pults uzdevums bija attālināti kontrolēt četru gaismas avotu intensitāti un krāsu, kā arī dot iespēju pārslēgties starp diviem dotajiem moduļiem un arīdzan starp atsevišķiem gaismas kanāliem katrā modulī, tādējādi vadot katru no tiem individuāli, vai arī visus reizē.
Gaismas krāsas kontrole pavēra divus iespējumos risinājumus lietotāja interfeisam, abos gadījumos izmantojot trīs potenciometrus parametru uzstādīšanai. Pirmā iespēja bija dot lietotājam tiešā veidā kontrolēt RGB krāsu vērtības, Otrs variants savukārt bija izmantot HSL krāsu telpu, kura arīdzan sastāv no trim vērtībām, tāpat kā RGB telpa, tomēr ir daudz intuitīvi vieglāk uztverama un kontrolējama. HSL ir saīsinājums no angļu „Hue, Saturation, Luminosity”, ko varētu tulkot kā „tonalitāte, piesātinājums, spilgtums”. Šajā gadījumā lietotājs uz vadības paneļa var kontrolēt atsevišķi krāsas tonalitāti ar pirmo potenciometru, piesātinājumu, jebšu to cik tonis ir spilgts, vai pelēks – ar otro potenciometru, un ar trešo potci vadīt gaismas spožuma pakāpi. Pogas savukārt tika izmantotas lai pārslēgtos starp atsevišķi kontrolējamiem moduļiem un kanāliem.

Dotā izmēra korpusā, kurš tāpat tika iegādāts Argus’ā, bija paredzēta vieta divām AA tipa baterijām, vai vienai Kronas baterijai. Shēmas vienkāršības labad tika izmantota 9 voltu Kronas baterija ar voltāžas regulatoru uz 5 voltiem.

Rezultāts

Visbeidzot uztveršanas moduļi tika iemontēti lauviņu aizmugurē, un vadi ar gaismas diodēm izvilkti uz katru aci. Tāpat moduļa aizmugurē tika pieskrūvēta neliela antena.
Jāatzīst gan, ka moduļu darbībā bija arī savas problēmas, galvenokārt ar datu zudumiem pie pārraides, un ieslēgšanu/pārstartēšanu, kas ne vienmēr nodrošināja pareizu parametru uzstādījumus RF modulī. Tomēr šīs problēmas ir risināmas elektronikas līmenī.
Kopumā izstrādātā sistēma savu darbu veica atbilstoši prasībām, vēl jo vairāk ņemot vērā nelielo budžetu, kurā nācās iekļauties, tādējādi maksimāli optimizējot izmantoto detaļu skaitu un cenu. Runājot par pašiem RFM moduļiem no „HopeRF Electronics”, jāatzīmē to universālais darbības princips un zemā cena. Šie moduļi ir perfekti piemēroti izmantošanai nelielos hobija tipa elektronikas projektos, kur ir nepieciešama attālināta vadība, divpusēja komunikācija vai attālināta datu reģistrēšana.

AVRStudio4 projekta faili - C kods
AVRSource.zip

Resursi:
argus.lv
www.hoperf.com