Emotional Machines - Composing for Unstable Media.

Thorolf Thuestad

Emotional machines – composing for unstable media. Thorolf Thuestad In partial fulfilment of PhD in artistic research The Grieg Academy, Department of Music, Faculty of Art, Music, and Design, University of Bergen, 2021 The artistic research project Emotional machines - composing for unstable media explores how non-representational kinetic objects may afford affective and emotional responses, in particular experiences of kinship and relation between an audience and animated objects. Further possibilities for artistic expression are opened through composition and dramaturgy, in works where the animated objects perform alongside human performers and other media, such as light and sound. How may such animated non-representational physical objects be developed? How does animating the physical objects change the potential for experience of kinship and relation between audience and object? How does context modulate the potential for experience of kinship and relation between audience and animated physical object? How does the potential experience of kinship with the animated object differ for the creator of the object, and audience? These questions have been investigated through the creation of a set of animated kinetic figures. These figures have performed in a series of artistic presentations such as gallery exhibitions and stage presentations. The artistic research concludes with two complementary public artistic presentations taking place in bergen in June/July 2021; a time-based stage production at Cornerteatret and a gallery exhibition at Lydgalleriet. The presentations are considered connected and have the common title For one – for many – for all. This is an exposition of the research that presents the kinetic figures, the process of developing them, the questions they have contributed to explore, resulting artistic works (with particular emphasis on the final artistic presentations taking place in June/July 2021), the additional artists contributing to these public presentations, and a series of reflections resulting from the research. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emotional machines – composing for unstable media Thorolf Thuestad. Denne eksposisjonen presenteres som del av gjennomføring av doktorgrad i kunstnerisk utviklingsarbeid ved Griegakademiet, Institutt for musikk, Fakultet for kunst, musikk og design, Universitetet i Bergen, 2021. Emotional machines - composing for unstable media utforsker hvordan ikke-representative kinetiske objekter kan skape affektive og emosjonelle responser hos mennesker. Spesifikt opplevelse av slektskap og relasjon mellom et publikum og animerte objekter. Det åpnes ytterligere muligheter for kunstneriske uttrykk gjennom komposisjon og dramaturgi i verk der de animerte objektene opptrer sammen med menneskelige utøvere og andre medier, som lys og lyd. Hvordan kan animerte ikke-representative fysiske objekter utvikles med dette startpunktet som inspirasjon? Hvordan endrer animasjon av de fysiske objektene potensialet for opplevelse av slektskap og relasjon mellom publikum og objekt? Hvordan modulerer konteksten de animerte objektene presenteres i potensialet for opplevelse av slektskap og relasjon? Hvordan er den potensielle opplevelsen av slektskap med det animerte objektet forskjellig for skaperen(e) av objektet, og publikum? I Emotional machines – composing for unstable media har spørsmålene har blitt undersøkt ved hjelp av en gruppe animerte kinetiske figurer. Disse figurene har opptrådt i en rekke kunstneriske sammenhenger hovedsakelig galleriutstillinger og scenepresentasjoner. Prosjektet ble avsluttet med to utfyllende offentlige kunstneriske presentasjoner som fant sted i Bergen i juni/juli 2021: En tidsbasert sceneproduksjon vist på Cornerteatret og en galleriutstilling vist på Lydgalleriet. Presentasjonene er tilknyttet hverandre og har fellestittelen For one – for many – for all. Denne eksposisjonen presenterer de kinetiske figurene, prosessen med å utvikle dem, spørsmålene de har bidratt til å utforske, resulterende kunstneriske verk (med særlig vekt på de endelige kunstneriske presentasjonene i juni/juli 2021), kunstnerne som bidro til disse offentlige presentasjonene samt en rekke refleksjonstekster drevet frem av arbeidet med prosjektet.

Figure #7 and 8: Fingers

Two figures of slightly different design. A significant difference in capabilities.

These two have the power of locomotion untethered by any wires; they can move around freely.

The mechanism that affords them this freedom consists of eight linkages that transfer two motors' rotational movement to a walking gait using four legs on each side. The ratios are based on the Jansen linkage.1 The legs are attached to an elongated body and driven using 3d printed timing belts. By adjusting the speed and direction of the two motors, each figure can walk forwards and backwards and turn in any direction. The central trunk is carrying a "head" that consists of three pneumatically actuated "fingers." These are elongated hollow structures 3d printed in a flexible material2 forming a row of air chambers joined together on one side (facing upwards). When air pressure is applied, it causes the fingers to bend upwards as the air chambers expand on the downward-facing side. Each figure has one pump and three solenoid valves, allowing each finger to operate largely independently from the others. However, since the 3d printed structures that hold the "fingers" in place and the fingers themselves are not completely airtight and powered by the same pump, each finger's engagement and disengagement do, to some degree, influence the other two. Lastly, #8 has a motor that changes the angle of the "neck," allowing the figure to change the orientation of the "head" by bending its "neck."

Of the two versions of this figure, the second (#8) has small DC gear motors that allow it to move relatively quickly. #8 also has somewhat longer "fingers" and a smaller "head." #7 propels itself with small, geared stepper motors with a more prominent "head" and shorter "fingers."

The result is that #8 is quite agile, noisy, and "energetic," where #7 moves almost painfully slow. The two figures are similar in design, but they impart different impressions because of their radically different movement abilities.

As part of the family of figures in this project, there are several differentiating aspects putting #7 and #8 apart from the rest: They adopt movement mechanisms that are human-recognizable such as legs, and their bodies can easily be recognized as consisting of sections corresponding to a familiar body layout with legs, body, and head. The result is that despite them having eight legs each, their appearance seems much more familiar than the other figures in the collection. These two figures' shape will, for many, have some reminiscence to familiar objects, most apparently animals such as dogs.

The feeling of affinity and relation towards animals such as dogs is a long-standing established cultural practice. Similar feelings of affinity seem to arise towards these figures. Is that a sort of transference of the affinity we may feel towards an animal such as a dog? Is the affinity we have towards dogs or other four-legged mammals projected onto these figures because of their perceived similarity? And is the recognition caused by the familiarity of the body model, the "legs, torso, and head"? In short, do we feel an affinity towards these figures because we recognize them as being similar to animals with which we as a species have long-standing relationships? Are they capitalizing on our general attachment to canines?

Impetus

Figures #7 and #8 are battery-powered. Therefore, they (mainly the quick #8) give an impression of having freedom of movement that the other figures, with their fixed positions, lack. As figure #7 and #8 developed, I hoped that this freedom of movement would inspire the experience of them having intent, of "wanting" something in a way that is not accessible for the non-mobile figures. That they could somehow transcend the abstract strata, the other figures inhabit, encroaching on one where we find ourselves and operate with all our mobility and physical abilities. The freedom of movement that these figures have makes them seem much more labile.

The other figures that are part of the project attempt to minimize their similarity to objects previously familiar to an audience. The hope is that any sense of relations that an audience might experience when encountering them is not merely being reminded of ties they may have shared with objects or entities they have encountered previously.

As humans, we generally navigate life according to social conventions. These conventions provide us with a solid ability to predict what any given interaction with other people will be like. Similarly, since the human-canine bond is well established, we generally have a similar ability to predict what an interaction with a dog will entail.

Because figure #7 and #8 are the only figures with a body layout similar known from animals such as canines, a large part of the affinity we may experience towards them may result from projecting dogs' social position onto them. Humans and dogs share a good amount of social understanding. Therefore, we are accustomed to expecting a fair amount of predictability in any encounter. I believe that an audience' interactions with figures #7 and #8 are influenced by behavioural expectations triggered by their perceived similarity to canines. In practice, when audience members come into close contact with figure #8 specifically, it often seems to spark insecurity about how to act. A conflict appears to arise in audience members wanting to react to the "dogness" of the figure, withholding because of the "artiness". It seems that two social contracts the audience are familiar with, how to be with a dog and how to be in an artistic presentation, collide. What is expected from a canine smashed together with what is expected from an artwork, with uncanniness created by mimesis meeting unfamiliarity.

In the end, I find myself in two minds when it comes to the relational complexity introduced by the mimetic aspect of figures #7 and #8. It muddies the clear waters the much less mimetically inclined other figures. It is interesting how quickly mimetic recognition alters the potential openess in an encounter. The balance between recognition and otherness is undoubtedly interesting to experience but in the end, I decided to not pursue such specific mimetic recognition in later figures rather wanting to investigate the potential for non-specific mimetic recognition. I do consider recognition as a key ingredient in the compositions and am fascinated by the potential for the audience to recognize without knowing what it is they recognize.

Tip

Tip

Figure #7 and 8: Fingers

Impetus