Ephemer(e)ality Capture: Glitching The Cloud through Photogrammetry

Tom Milnes

Ephemer(e)ality Capture: Glitch Practices in Photogrammetry details artistic practice using cloud-based photogrammetry that actively invokes glitches through disturbance of the imaging algorithm by utilising optical phenomena. Reflective, transparent, specular and patterned/repetitive objects were used to confuse the imaging algorithm to produce spikes, holes and glitches in the mesh and textures of the 3D objects produced. The research tests the limits of photogrammetry in an effort toward new image-making methods. It builds upon the research of Hito Steyerl’s Ripping Reality: Blind spots and wrecked data in 3D in which she outlines the errors of 3D scanning media in her work and contextualises amongst thought surrounding the objectivity of photographic media. This research explores the potential gaps in Steyerl’s approach, building upon investigations into 3D scanning’s ‘constructed imagery’ through methods which explore ‘fractional space’ more thoroughly through glitches caused by capturing of optical phenomena. Through practice, the research investigates the possibilities of conducting a ‘media archaeological’ investigation of cloud-based technology using methods akin to ‘Thinkering’(Huhtamo) and ‘Zombie Media’ (Hertz & Parikka). These investigations sought to ‘hack’ technologies through focused technical adjustments or adaptations, centred on media that were ‘local’ or accessible to the artist - artists that have been able to open the machine’s hardware to change circuitry or to access and change the software code. With cloud-based media’s materiality being inaccessible, the investigation utilised techniques which actively disrupt and confuse the image-making process; a form of ‘digital détournement’ which develops techniques which reference Guy Debord’s approach to disrupt the powers of image-making culture. The research is discussed with regards to similar approaches in contemporary glitch practices and aesthetics. Prior (2013) posits that glitch practices form a ‘paralogy’ of the Lyotardian notion of ‘performativity’ of the contemporary techno-economic conditions; acknowledging that paralogy is a method that contributes important critical discourses to culture and research. Previously, ‘local’ glitch practices focused on the internal affordances and functionality of the machine, whereas this research demonstrates practice which is focused externally – through the optical nature of images selected to disrupt the algorithm in photogrammetry rather than through ‘hacking’ the algorithm directly. Through these investigations and a discussion of their methodology, the research encourages a critical reflexivity of the artist/user through use of a dynamic methodology. This is to reflect the issues of technological flux which sees imaging algorithms being updated and refined, forcing techniques and practices into obsolescence.

12th March

The soft magnolia sunlight that beamed into the residency studio cast a diagonal glow across

the floor and adjacent wall. As the light hit the floor-length mirror,

it projected a peach hue throughout the far side of the room.

A glass of water, perched up against the mirror,

refracted colours tangentially onto the floor beside it,

an effect paralleled in the mirror as the colours

conjoined at point of reflection.

The light shifted and faded as I moved around

the glass taking images.

Beams of light dimed and altered

as the environment outside changed;

clouds passed by and leaves dappled the sun.

Light flared into the lens of the camera

from the mirror as I ducked to capture the rear of the glass.

I moved around incrementally.

The water in the glass warped

the objects behind it differently each time I moved.

Itself a lens, the glass refracted the surroundings

and confusing the spatial structure.

I unavoidably blocked the light

as I encroached on the far side,

capturing images from above the glass.

The captures become a time-based media,

warped by the changing of states,

altered by the photographer and camera.

Models display the glitches, warped textures, holes, and blank spots of an algorithm confused by shifting optics. The transparent object is completely ignored: the glass has disappeared, aside from its base. The refraction of the light has caused a warped entity to appear — a strange, grey pixelated form at the back. The reflection of the mirror becomes not a reflection, but a window to another world. From this world, we see a confused set of objects, what should be the glass’ reflection becomes blank and twisted. The repetitive carpet design merges with the mirror at the point of reflection. The algorithm approximates and blends the reflected carpet with other objects, enveloping them into other areas. Holes are blown into the skirting and floating sections appear in the background, made up of composites of boxes and wall. The surface of the water appears undulating, moving as if rising up within the invisible glass. Its surface is frosted with pixels, bizarrely opaque. An impression of the surroundings is smeared across the glass, stretched and pixelated. The surface of the floor stretches out into a funnel, arching away from the furthest point of reflection from the camera. The floor is punctuated with inconsistent bumps and lumps. Objects caught in the reflection float, disconnected from the central isle. Further from the centre, they become less clear, blurred, fuzzy, and indistinct.

Vanitas series

Vanitas ephemera, 2020.

The development of the experiments above has led to a series of vanitas works exploring ephemerality through still life. The chosen objects test photogrammetry and

how it perceived ephemera or visibility.

The objects are also vanitas symbols

including references to death

and the ephemerality

of life and wealth.

The works, therefore,

include a glass skull,

dried flowers,

and gold.

Reflective,

transparent, refractive,

complex and symmetrical objects

create confusion for

the imaging algorithm.

Whereas symbols of life

and death are symbols of human

existence in traditional vanitas works, the difficult-to-visualise objects are contemporary symbols of ephemerality for automated imaging technologies. Their existence becomes liminal and causes difficulties for the technology.

The vanitas has all of the conditions for causing photogrammetric issues. It has transparent objects, reflective surfaces, light emission, and confusingly complex and repetitive patterns. In the images shown you can see glitches caused by the reflective nature of a circular mirror and several transparent, glass objects. The flame of the lit candle becomes part of an adjacent object, confusing the algorithm about the position of objects.

Dried flowers represent preservation, loss, or death — deeply symbolic for vanitas. They are also complex three-dimensional structures that are confusing for photogrammetry. The depth of the overlapping, thin petals is difficult to gauge from images.

Colours are smudges, while forms are smooth and homogenised. The detailed delicacy of the flowers’ structure is not captured in parts but is instead replaced by an averaged mass with texture superimposed. The texture is freckled. Spots of blank areas are dotted with purples and yellows from the petals

Tip

Tip