E Studio IV Project 1
- Project 1 Research
- “Can Computers Create Art” analysis
- “Molly Steenson on AI impacts Design” analysis
Project 1 Research
Papers I found: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/07/indicator_11.7.1_training_module_public_space.pdf
Relevant projects:
When I visited TCS Hall, I noticed the mites floating around throughout the ceilings.
The space itself is also quite static: there’s very low potential navigation pathways, the furniture is basic and primitive, and most of the layout is nothing out of the ordinary.
Initial thoughts:
- Does (or can) elevation play a role in this?
- What literal shape (narrow, circular, square) of the space could this be used for, if any?
- How “in-the-face” do I want the concept of IOT data to be presented in this project?
I think the prime words to consider when brainstorming are sensor data and public spaces. I want to think of something that’s definitively used for the greater public, but an interaction that I am personally interested in.
Public space uses I’m interested in:
- Parks (large space)
- Libraries (large space)
- “Plaza” areas (street sections with high foot traffic) (large space)
- Study rooms (tackling the wifi, bluetooth aspect) (small space)
- Dining halls?
Sensor interactions I’m interested in:
Could I utilize the mites data with a more object/token sort of creation, rather than a space itself?
I’m a highly visual/movement person. If there was a way I could visually depict the data accurately and beautifully, I think would be the completion of my deliverable goal.
Half-hashed research question (not finalized): How can we utilize sensory data to both visually and physically depict trends in mundane, everyday behavior and thus implement it in commercial solutions?
AI Impacts Design and Architecture TED Talk Analysis
I’m impressed with how many examples the speaker was able to cultivate from for her talking points, and repeatedly reference how this practice of weaving technology and data is already that of longevity. I like her references on cybernetics and systems, as that was a topic in a lot of our Freshman design study classes.
Main notes:
- Treat AI as a plaything: to source for good, to test with organic actions, to create poorly-generated concepts. Anything you feed is what it will regurgitate, so its creativity is bounded within your own
- Everything is an outsourced system of organized patterns and networks
In particular, I like how at the end she talked about the value of working with designers: “You can work with designers on framing a problem, determining what data should be collected, how it should be used, how it should be visualized or explained.”
I have no idea what she meant by “putting an input of unmodified people and having an output of modified people” though. I feel as if this talk didn’t have any strong, organic takeaway she personally advocated for. Instead, she had a lot of ideas and references that were brought into awareness. Either way, there were a lot of concepts and old projects that I learned from this.
Can Computers Create Art? Document Analysis
The concerns for AI in relation to job displacement is a topic I tend to tread lightly: on one hand, I wish to remain aware about it. On the other, I prefer to not overthink something that could easily cause great strife in something outside of my control. I don’t think too highly of AI, but I also don’t think too hard about it at all. Therefore, my greatest insight were the logical ways the paper described possible collobarations, and using it as a tool.
I find this initial beginning to be quite important. When I attended the Infinity Festival in November, there was a panelist talk discussing this very topic. Similar to this document, they expressed similar thoughts — while there is a very valid concern, there are still ways to bridge AI and our work with cohesion, not conflict.
One example that the panelists provided was the Sonic Movie (haha). The redesigning of a model so late into the advertising phase caused Paramount Pictures millions of dollars to revise. One panelist, Megan Neuringer, commented how with AI, there was the opportunity to almost “deepfake” numerous styles and user test audience reception, thus eliminating the need for backtracking, rewriting deadlines, and fixing the animation for a movie that was already near the launch. This, in my opinion, is an example of practical use of AI that could be explored further.
Therefore, I find that this sort of potential use ties closely with the document’s comments regarding historical values of creative practice. How I see it, the main thing to acknowledge isn’t that technology may “overrun” us, but rather our society’s preference for increasing efficiency (nor good nor bad, but in a perfectly neutral context). As the document quoted, only the aristocrats and very wealthy could afford photographic portraits. And nowadays, “[people] would much rather take a photo on their mobile phone than paint a picture.” This, I think is important to consider in the grand context. There’s a trend in efficiency and ubiquitous use throughout centuries, but the value of creative practices will never die out. And as our need for efficiency and ubiquitous opportunities increase, there will become more “practical” or “preferable” ways to create those deliverables, such as utilizing AI to correct budget mistakes (like the Sonic Movie) before it ever happens.
I do not approve of laying off thousands for the mere hope of investing in a potential replacement through technology. I also don’t affirm that possibility at all. I am not the biggest fan or hater of AI, but this paper validates a lot of thoughts that I’ve already had floating in my head. As a result, I believe that the bigger concerns should lie in already existing practices, such as the laws against plagiarism and art theft. The majority of people’s fears regarding AI and technology of such heavily lies in the unethical ways AI is used, such as reselling generated work commercially when it was initially taken from the data of existing artists. These things, I believe, must be controlled immediatley. However, these concerns are not novel, as the concept of licensed work and anti-theft has existed for eras. So when we yearn for more efficient practices, we will still adapt those practices to societies’ ethics, regardless of the amount of technology granted to it.
Towards a Framework for Designing Gustosonic Experiences
I think the quote “Design sound ambiguity to direct attention back to food” was a strong takeaway to gain from the entire article. The more I research the concept of product packaging for an item, the more I’m learning about how marketing agencies and manufacturers develop products to incorporate more of that “sound” experience. For example, even from a more basic, analog perspective there have been methods of enhancing sound through the “food vessel”.
There are products specifically designed to enhance the “pop” sound of a champagne bottle cork, or the crinkling of a potato chip or fast food back. More people would drink water from the “Sonic Straws” that made sounds when you would suck on them. Not only does sound play into how appetizing a food product is, but also the playfulness. This may fall into something we consume from the media, as anything ranging from commercials to cartoons correlate food with an over exaggerated sound effect. Similarly, with our lives surrounded by this form of media digestion, we too subconsciously yearn for that onomatopoeic experience in our mundane activities, such as eating.
Towards Understanding Playful Beverage-Based Gustosonic Experiences.
I like the comparison they make with Sonic Straws to iScream and WeScream, it develops a more manageable way to build concepts and design a framework that best fits their interested when it comes to Mixed Reality in an existing food space. This helped me think of brainstorming questions:
- How playful is it meant to be?
- Is it meant to be enjoyed socially? Or on your own?
- Is it meant so spark conversation, discovery, or both through collaboration?
- Should it be gifted?
“When it comes to multisensory experiences in HFI, it is worth looking at the consumer journey in three stages associated with given food, namely, pre-consumption, consumption and post-consumption. Inspired by these theoretical works, we argue that the playful gustosonic experience can be studied through at least three temporal stages: experiencing at the initial moment, engaging in the moment, and reflecting beyond the moment.”
I think a lot can be learned from the food consumption industry, from a molecular science to the branding, packaging and marketing. I do wonder how well this parodies parallels the initial three stages however. How important is “reflecting beyond the moment” for a multisensory gustosonic experience in relation to the real post-consumption experience in food? When people consume food, most of the post-consumption experience delves on the taste, as well as its relation to past experiences, existing competitors, etc. But because a multisensory experience is considered more novel, how well can people reflect beyond the moment? I imagine the best thing one could say was “that was cool” or “I’ve never seen taht before,” and the impression is lasting that way. However, I struggle so see if it goes beyond that level of impact, as it would be hard to force a meaningful takeaway or lesson onto others.
