June 15th, 2010 - first iteration of table complete
The conversation alteration table, the starting point for this residency exploration, is finished. While having others try it out, the feedback that I generally get is that it falls in some sort of uncomfortable place between a useful design object and an obvious art piece. I’m very interested in this space, but I think sometimes in seeking it out I end up with work that is too subtle for many people to connect with or understand.
Here are the main questions and things I was thinking about in developing this piece:
I am very interested in the potential of technology to affect our interactions. It happens constantly as new technologies are created, but there seems to be a tendency to move as quickly as possible toward faster, smaller, more, without taking time to reflect on the effects of our innovations. The table was intended both as a critique and an exploration.
I specifically wanted to make the feedback that people give non-automatic. For this reason, people turn pedals with their feet rather than using biofeedback or some kind of ambient analysis of the conversation. I wanted that moment of consciousness when a person becomes aware of himself evaluating his experience, quantifies it, and decides whether or not to act. In this moment – what are the factors considered to rate one’s experience? What matters and what does not? What does it mean to anonymously provide feedback? How does it differ from what is communicated through verbal or body language? What are the things we feel uncomfortable saying, and why?
In our current networked social culture, we are constantly rating – videos, thoughts, activities, actions. “Like”, “dislike”, “3/5 stars”, “retweet”, “friended” are extremely stripped down ways we can instantly communicate, but what depth of relationships, ideas, emotions lay behind these mechanisms? Does our current culture provide a platform for sustaining and developing this depth of human interaction, or are we growing more isolated and distant in our constant connectivity? This table explores these questions by reducing all conversation to the movement of a lever and the modulation of light.
One person that saw my table commented, ‘but if I had this in my living room I think I would go crazy.’ What is it about this scenario that seems to explicitly wrong? How different is it from the ways we interact with each other regularly? Sometimes no words need to be said for an expectation or a judgment to be clear.
In a more optimistic direction, what if technology really could positively affect our interactions? Is there a possibility for feedback to be leveraged to help people toward new, more enriching experiences? Could a system like this potentially accelerate new relationships, pushing past barriers of unfamiliarity and obligatory small talk?
These are a few of the things on my mind while making this, but the table is also intended for each person to read it in their own way. In viewing in virtually and having no opportunity to actually experience the object, it perhaps requires a bit more imagination and engagement on the part of the viewer. What could be done to facilitate this? Scenario videos? Actual use trials with documentation?
While thinking about the documentation and presentation of this table, I’d like to move on to a number of other experiments. More to come on that soon!
Jonathan Munro (June 16th, 2010 at 11:17 am)
Hi Lauren. Just looking at your new posting and the project looks like its coming along nicely. after following the project from the start, I think its only now do I start to understand it abit better, maybe seeing it finished and people sat around using it helps me to connect with it. Also in your posting you point out a few important points. I too thought the table sat between some kind of design and obvious art piece. But now I’m not too sure! I think there is potential in this object to create a lubricant for positive social interactions, possibly breaking down barriers and enriching experiences. But then I wonder is this a question for good design of art. As in your wearables, I thought there was an interesting awkward quality to them, sinister and questioning. I don’t feel the table as achieved such an equilibrium between an object and an art piece, maybe its the connotations that tables invoke. People talk at them, families eat around them and friends may enjoy drinks at them. As you question yourself, In our modern day world are we really as cut off from telling each other what we feel, is it because we live in a networked culture? or because we struggle to understand ourselves and the people around us? I think your project is at a really interesting point for exploring your questions further. For the documentation I think it would be interesting to see lots of videos and imagery of different people using the table and rating there experiences, some friends others complete strangers, and also in many different locations; work, play and home!? Congratulations on the project so far, I’m looking forward to seeing the next stage and seeing you answer some of your questions!
Lauren (June 30th, 2010 at 5:38 pm)
Hi Jonathan,
I agree, the table is not there yet. As you mentioned the images
started to allow you to connect, I think your suggestion of
videos is right on. I think giving the viewer some use scenarios
that highlight the contradictions and questions I’m trying to
invoke with this piece would allow them to engage a lot more
easily. I’m hoping to develop a few different short videos as I
work in parallel on another piece that iterates on some of these
ideas.
vincent (June 16th, 2010 at 9:49 pm)
Hi Lauren,
You mention ratings and explained that they are easy attempts to communicate self-assessments of the murky domain of human emotions, thoughts, intentions, or relationships. Here, I want to add that are ratings are also attempts to make the human complexity accessible for computation. It needs numbers in order to work. Like you most likely map the table users input to a number between 0 and 1024. The (un)conscious understanding of these might part of the unsettling experience of the users. It taps in my eyes right into humans fear of loosing control over technology that is not capable of understanding the human at all.
Furthermore, to come to a less sinister topic I wonder whether you’re planning to employ game strategies in yourexperiments?
\\vincent
Lauren (June 30th, 2010 at 5:33 pm)
Hi Vincent,
I’m excited that you picked up on this theme! I often find myself
thinking about some of these less obvious references but have
difficulty communicating them in a way that reaches people
without making the piece so explicit that I lose interest myself.
I know that I tend to err on the side of subtlety perhaps a bit
too much, forgetting that the rest of the world is not inside my
head.
I need to do a bit more reading up and thinking about game theory
as I develop the next piece in this exploration, I’ll be writing
up a post this evening that explains more of what I’m thinking
about for it, and I believe game strategies could play a large
role.
Pau (June 17th, 2010 at 6:24 pm)
Hi, Lauren
First of all, congratulations! I really like this project and I
see that you are taking care of every detail in the final object
that you are creating. I understand why you choose the pedals but
still find their usability a bit questionable, and I think that
probably ambient analysis would work better. In my opinion this
does not prevent people from being aware of the situation: for
instance, if there is that brief moment in which the conversation
stops and nobody says a word, the table could suddenly turn off,
making the users aware of this lapse of communication. The system
could also be designed in a way that the table does not react
immediately to people’s conversations, but is gradually “engaged”
by it. The lack of visible pedals or buttons also makes the table
a bit more mysterious, not just an object to be used but more
like a living thing that reacts to people’s conversations. In
this sense I like the work behind a toy like the Pekoppa (even if
it’s just a toy): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd57iPJtVmk
As Vincent does, I too wonder if you are considering to employ
game strategies… e.g. an interesting way of engaging the users
of the table is to have the light change differently according to
where each person is sitting (maybe setting 4 areas in the
table), so that the reaction of the table can be focused on each
individual.
Lauren (June 30th, 2010 at 5:21 pm)
Hi Pau,
Thanks for your comments. To address your point about using
ambient environment analysis as the basis for feedback, you
expressed the opinion that this would not prevent people from
being aware of the situation – the feedback would be enough to
remind people of the explicit analysis going on – and I agree. In
thinking about it further, I’ve found that there are actually two
situations or moments of awareness that I was trying to create.
The first is what you mentioned, triggered by changes in the
brightness of the tabletop. The other is the moment when a
participant decides to move a pedal (before any feedback is
visible). In this moment, only that individual is aware of the
choice being made and the effect it will have, he has time here
to ponder why he is making this choice, what factors contribute
to it, and if/how/why it might differ from what he is expressing
verbally or though body language. This experience is personal and
private, as opposed to the shared group experience of seeing the
feedback.
I am interested in this idea of ambient analysis, and I’m
planning a second piece that explores this idea further. As well
as the idea of providing personalized feedback to each
participant in the conversation. Look for a post later tonight
where I detail my initial plans for this.
Greg J. Smith (June 24th, 2010 at 4:36 pm)
Hi Lauren, this is really a fascinating piece. You state: “The
idea is that foot pedals attached to the base of the table can
allow people to rate their current experience of being at the
table with others in a discrete way.”
Could you precisely explain the various options for “rating” – or
point me at this description if you’ve already done so and I’ve
missed it. I’m very interested in these kind of social metrics.
If you haven’t already looked at the interface design in Will
Wright’s <a
href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims”>The
Sims</a> series you should!
Lauren (June 30th, 2010 at 5:09 pm)
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your question, I wasn’t very clear about how the
rating works. Each participant has a foot pedal that they can
move from left (-) to right (+), giving an analog rating of their
overall enjoyment of their subjective experience at the table.
The table adds all input ratings together and dims or brightens
accordingly. None of the pedals read input until they are moved
for the first time, allowing the table to be used by less than
four people. A reset button resets all the pedals to a non-read
state in case someone leaves the table or a new group sits down.
The Sims reference is an interesting one, I hadn’t thought of or
played that game in a long time. I’m fascinated by how they
simplify the complexity of human life and interaction to very
specific rule sets that fit within the structure of the game.
Does the fact that the Sims can keep users engaged for hours or
more indicate they’ve just hit on a successful game design or
that people are really relating to these simplified
representations, building a world in their imagination that draws
on the depth of human relationships.
Greg J. Smith (July 6th, 2010 at 3:35 am)
Lauren,
I should have been able to read the pedal functionality from the
The idea of the “reset” button is fascinating, I know
images!
it is a pragmatic necessity but as a social interaction is seems
quite mechanistic — then again, as any waiter would tell you,
tables and conversations certainly have a refresh rate. As for
your question regarding the Sims, I think it is mainly that the
designers have crafted an engaging formula. I think the allure of
simplified social interactions (i.e. the career ladder in the
sims, or neighbourly relations) is what gets people playing the
game in the first place.
Another project that your experiment reminds me of is "http://www.painstation.de/">Painstation — thankfully your
table is a little more enabling.
Do you have plans for any more social objects?
Lauren (July 6th, 2010 at 5:41 pm)
Hi Greg, More good references, thanks! Yes, I am trying to play
with this mechanistic reduction of more complex interactions to try
to raise the question of how mechanical or choreographed is our
behavior at times, without objects like my table. I’m glad you
picked up on this theme a bit. My newest post
(http://res007.tintarts.org/2010/07/04/conversacube/) describes my
next project in this series as well as plans for further
development of the table piece.