drift like sleep

The flower of life is an organization based on the teachings of spiritual teacher Drunvalo Melchizedek. The purpose is to teach the Merkaba Meditation (Merkaba means 'vehicle of light' in various languages) and has been around since time immemorial. For the past year and a half I begun doing work for the Researchers of Truth, an esoteric christianity circle based on the teachings of Dr.Stylianos Atteshlis. When talking to his daughter who is now running the circle, the most important problem that arose was that new students have difficulty in visualizing (not to be confused with imagination), even simple things like "the colour blue". My work includes doing animation and music composition for their meditation exercises, thus assisting students, to visualize symbols, colours, and also to reach altered states of consciousness.
After the talk by Luciana Haill on her IBVA, I begun to contemplate the possibilities of use with meditation for assisting new students to grasp certain issues of meditation.
I also found another technology that will be able to create an immersive environment for the user/student. This device is called the Heliodisplay, which is a display connected to a computer and can project images/video in mid air.
The idea is that the user can wear her EEG device, and begin the meditation exercise. For the sake of comprehension let's say the first stages are opening the chakras (energy systems that also relate to brainwaves). When the student is in the first chakra, certain visuals will be seen, as well as music based on those brainwaves (brainwaves are very related to vibrations which constitute music as well). When the student enters the second chakra, meaning another brainwave, different visuals/music will be triggered.
Seeing lights emanating from your body where each chakra system resides, in combination with music and other symbols will definitely help the user understand how meditation works but also have a more tangible result by actually seeing with her eyes these concepts. It is my belief that after a certain amount of classes the user will be able to visualize on her own.
I have contacted Luciana and asked her whether this is a feasible idea or not. Once I get an answer I will either begin to create the visuals/music for the Merkaba meditation or I'll fall back to my original idea of the interactive story.
Now because I am having great difficulty in actually doing an interactive story that I know already will not be interactive (see previous post), I decided to base the plot on a surreal environment that will have it's concepts based on the myth of interactivity. A world where everything is in vein really. Where the user has two choices based on paradoxes, where even the most perfect axioms cannot imply truth in a system of logic. Taking the idea raised in the book "The Global Brain", that our reality is a shared hallucination, that the collective unconscious has agreed on the reality we live in, then any forms of computer interactivity, which are the extensions of our brain, are limited to our own limitations. Limitations that we our selves bestow upon our society.
The game will develop from the notions and arguments of interactivity and the idea of control to show that in our society we have rules and regulations as well, hence we are slaves to a non interactive world. And it all revolves around money. The more money one has, the more she can interact with the world. I like it!
Hope the above made at least some sort of sense. If not, have a look at this and forget all about it:

Manovich, Marshall and Crawford are three very naughty people. With their concepts they undress the word interactivity, stripped to the bone and dancing around it. They're chanting repetitive patterns in my head mesmerizing me in limbo. I'm pretty sure it's a conspiracy.
So what is interactivity? It is a myth, with its teeth bared it enchants the audience to become the New Media designer. Preset associations are means of control. The collective unconscious follows without questioning. And although the "big money" is doing everything in its power to offer diversified means of engagement by bombarding the same product through different mediums in our faces, we are still clicking on predetermined hyperlinks. The end game being Virtual Reality, offering full immersion for the user; letting her become part of the complete system in a game or environment. But the concept of the Matrix films is only a Hollywood dystopia right?
Moving back two squares I open the book "Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling". Again, as with the other two authors, I find nothing to disagree with. He argues that words like 'engaging', 'responsive', 'reactive', 'participatory' and 'immersive' fail to describe interactivity. He trashes a school of thought, to give his own explanation which is "(interactivity is) a cyclic process between two or more active agents in which each agent alternatively listens, thinks and speaks".
With that in mind I begun thinking and drawing preliminary trees for the choices in my interactive story. "Interactivity depends on the choices available to the user". So let's say the game starts and for every interactive point the user is given two choices. In order for real interaction to emerge, then every choice must lead to a completely different storyline. Which will then lead to another point where the user again has two choices that will lead to two other ,completely different storylines. Do the maths and the result is 64 alternative endings when the user makes her 6th choice. That's a bit of an overload to actually clay model, animate and make interactive in what is now, erm, 22 days.
Now you are probably thinking, who the hell actually does that? Well some examples are given in the book such as Facade (now done in virtual reality), Zoesis, and his own Storytron
Overall I find the arguments and theories raised very intriguing. Yet I find myself in vein of actually producing anything. I lack the "end goal", a friend advices, "the first step is half the journey", he says.
Tomorrow, I'll post the three final ideas I decided upon, and then I'll throw the dice.

Keep an eye on this

David Byrne Journal

The guy is a genius and he always has something insightful on, well, everything.

calm like a hindu cow

Confused. Researching on the new project led nowhere. I've been looking at a variety of interactions, from performance to websites, that even "stumble upon" doesn't let me search the multimedia section anymore saying I've seen everything. Too much information evidently does not lead to knowledge but overload. Maybe it's because Manovich pops in my head with every idea I have and asks in a malevolent voice "but is that really interactive"? Or maybe it's Marshall showing me that at the end of the string of my idea there's a wall. Created by me, the wannabe designer. Not that I disagree. In reality I agree to the point where I decided that I won't do anything unless I find something that's truly interactive. So I spent the last weeks looking on the web. Day by day. And where I least expected it, it hit me! HELP! I'VE GONE POST-MODERN! No seriously!
Anyway, the point is I'm disappointed because everything has been done before. Many, many times. Some worse than others. Some absolutely beautiful. Natural evolution perhaps?


Yes, the above video is completely irrelevant to the project but it was to answer the aforementioned question in a positive manner. Couldn't help but bring a smile to my face. The 15-year-old rebel inside me shouts "scream for me brazil".

So one idea is an interactive story. Based on lucid dreaming. Designed in a surreal way the environment will be made out of a variety of materials such as wood,metal,soil,paint and plasticine. The elements will animate as in claymation. The story will have different paths to follow according to how the user interacts, with a variety of endings.
Much influenced by Animusic, perhaps some fantastic instruments can exist and be triggered by the user to create sounds/music changing the overall atmosphere of the game.
Looking at flash games, I thought of designing some and integrating them somehow with the story. Ofcourse not as a means to an end.



Another idea was based on the A.L.I.C.E the interactive bot. If it can retrieve information and form sentences then could it be programmed to have a 3d interface of a human speaking the answers instead of simple text? Since it can be trained, maybe it can be fed psychology information. Tons and tons of it. Could it become an online 3d psychologist? Register now for a low fee and talk to our online psychologist. Scary. It'd sell in the states surely. (hihi)

Midi and Sound triggering visuals. Found some VJ tools, but was thinking if a midi device can actually trigger visuals. Found some good examples of that but not as much as I expected. Those I got I didn't really understand. But the idea is to connect synths and an electronic drum kit on the computer which can be controlled within a software. Each midi note played will trigger a different visual on a projector, maybe have a combination of triggers as well. Is the user the performer though? What about the audience? Does it count as interactivity?

To avoid being the cause of boredom here are a load of links:
Levitated (thanks to chris) - has some stunning interactive actionscript generated graphics.
Lassie Adventure Studios - Game-engine for adventure games for intermediate programmers.
Adventure game created with the aforementioned engine (i think).
Matmi - fancy flash games.
Flash game-design sources.
Shoot-em-up flash game tutorial
Voyeur - interactive storytelling by HBO
Interactive toys by zefrank
Interactive drums and mixer loop - Not a succesful design nor interaction in my humble opinion.
Soundtoys - what it implies.
Iriealism - experimental software/vj tool?
Visual performance application build with Flash Air. Open source as well.
Human body turned to musical instrument. Performance art.
Modern Living/Neurotica - inspiring interactive paranoia.
FindSounds - I think we've been given this website before but not sure. It's a library of sounds. Thought it might come in useful.
Man in the dark
Interactive psychology theory. Try it yourself it says!
Mr.Picassohead - good fun with building faces with preset elements. Drag+drop, resize etc.
More good fun with faces
Funnier every time. The horse quartet ladies and gentlemen.
Interactive LED - Similar to the dvd Micheal showed us with interactive art.
Interactive forest - Can I be 5 again?
Pipe-cleaner dance - Fell off my chair laughing.
99 rooms - it's like a gallery, but in a game kind of way, very clever.
Interactive chordbook - choose the guitar chord, fret, and press play!
Flash-based music composer - a bit limited on options, and some errors with triggers but liked it.
Cell-phone disco - can't help but wonder, if it triggers that much electromagnetism, what sort of mashup is it causing our brain?

And that's about it for links.

In a different tone from the essay of Monday, here's an interesting article by Jaron Lanier (the hippy) on Minority Report; the lack of utopia in hollywood for the sake of dystopia; and the positive joyous side of interactivity.

Anger is a Gift (systems-art)

WARNING: NOT INTENDED FOR ACADEMIC USE
SHEER IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY OF AN ENRAGED OUTCAST
CONTAINS LANGUAGE AND IDEAS THAT MAY OFFEND ANYONE

A class of 18 people have noticed that the essay "Observing Systems-Art from a Systems-Theoretical Perspective" does exactly the opposite of what it's trying to convey. It attempts to impose the non-existing problem (successfully implemented in all other industries, artforms etc) of "Critically Examining" (bitching). I could not help but sense desperation in the writing. A desperation of a need to implement another system of control on Art. In simple terms, create the power for the academic world to say "this is crap" and "this is beautiful". Evidently they are lacking things to bitch about (Excuse my non-academic french).
For the reason of non-existing structures to do so (criticize new media) we do what us humans are best in. Create a web. Take all existing theories - technology, sociology etc - and blend them in order to make sense out of this thing called "New Media".
The argument is that unless new theories and terms are created to critically analyse, examine and criticize, new media will continue to be looked as threatening, non-serious (hilarious?) and beyond the pale. As an art historian - the author agrees in non-coherent, fancy phrase structure resembling a Zen parable - that this is needed.
Perhaps the anal-ists, examiners and critics have realised that they have figured out all other forms of art and now it's time to attack new media. Due to extreme stupidity on my behalf I find it difficult to understand the need. Divide and conquer technique maybe?
Suffice(icicicity) to argue that the Art World Executives (well I have to find a term for them) might find it useful in taking the time to do another Ph.D in Media Design. Take a training course by Adobe.
Or maybe the only way for this to work out is as simple as this:
Now bare with me, I know this isn't the most popular idea but, what if, we critically examined New Media Systems in what they really are at their core: One's and Zero's.
"I think this is a one"
"I disagree sir, you see although the lines are straight on the top left corner of this fabulous installation art, the prevailing notion of zero's in the bottom right corner make this definitely a number O"
"Yes, I agree, I shall include this in my review, so people will come and see it rather than...not"
"Funny how the future of the artist and his living depends on us mumbling about 1's and 0's. Someone would even argue that this is exactly what happened with Klimt. You know, dying poor and lonely, while now his paintings are sold millions of pounds that go in the pockets of some museum to pay for critics and curators to do the exact same thing to new artists until some of them get laid and change their minds and cause a fuss about this brilliant young mind"
"Shhh"
To sum up, a blank canvas is what we make of it. There are no new words to form terms. There are no new emotions. It's not that hard to find terms to explain why ones PERSONAL opinion is positive or negative regarding a certain work. They want the keys to walk inside, place fancy labels on everything for only one reason. MONEY. It's what keeps the wheel turning, keeps people with no creativity, imagination, love, passion to get a paycheck at the end of the month for writing an essay that makes absolutely no sense. And if I may say so (and I will) probably doesn't even make sense to the author him/herself.
In the words of King Crimson "I repeat myself when I'm distressed".