New Media Production

New Media, Technology and People

Andrew Brett
11-03-2011
 Contents Guide

p.3 Description Of Artefacts

p.3 Audience
p.5 Giant Teeth

p.7 Significance

p.7 Audience
p.8 Giant Teeth

p.10 Comparative Analysis

2
DESCRIPTION OF ARTEFACTS

Audience

Audience (Figs.1-4) is an installation consisting of around sixty-four head-size mirror

objects. These were arranged on the lower floor of a large atrium at the London Opera

House. Surrounding the spacious area of the insatllation were glass walls, seats,

large windows and stairways leading to the balconies. This area allowed for plentiful

amounts of public traffic, some who came to the room specifically to see the piece and

some making their way to other areas of the exhibition. Many people made use of the
comfortable two and three-person chairs surrounding the room also. These chairs may

have been used as a third person vantage point to view the piece, but to interact and gain

the full experience of the piece; one must do so from the floor in the center of the room.

Each mirror is powered by two servomotors, giving them pan and tilt rotations

from a stationary position on the floor. Each individual mirror can move its head in a

particular way to give it different characteristics of human behavior. Some chat amongst

themselves, some shy away and others confidently move to grab your attention. It
is however once a viewer has grabbed the attention of the installation that the real

communication and interaction begins.

3
Figs. 1-4 // Chris O’Shea and rAndom International, Audience, Deloitte Ignite Festival,  London
Opera House, 2008.

4
Giant Teeth

Giant Teeth (Figs. 5-8) is two and a half meter tall model set of teeth and gums. This was

commissioned by Estonian organization Kliink 32 to promote its Dental Health Month.

The piece was unveiled as a piece of interactive media outside the Solaris shopping

center in the countries capital, Tallinn. This piece was immediately accessible to the many

passing members of the public. Even though the piece is located in a particularly busy

area of the countries capital, with lots of distractions present, its huge size makes it an

item almost guaranteed to attract attention.

On unveiling, the public were encouraged to interact with the piece by means of

graffiti and personalization, ultimately to cause damage and deterioration to the piece.

During peak daytime users may be inclined to do their bit and keep on moving, but

at nighttime users have the space and comfort to take their time and interact with the

piece. Consumers were enticed and invited to play the role of bacteria. The piece was

accessible on the pavement for one week after it was installed.

5
Figs. 5-8 // Taevas Ogilvy and Kliink 32, Giant Teeth, Solaris Shopping Center, Tallinn, 2008.

6
SIGNIFICANCE

Audience

Initially, interest towards this project may first be developed on spotting the array of

mirrors appearing to interact with each other on the floor. This may provide some

interesting visuals of the surrounding area, depending on the angles of the mirrors in

relation to the person’s viewpoint. This may immediately prove significant with viewers

by raising questions in relation to their subjectivity and perspectives of the world around

them. For others the interactions of the mirrors between themselves may pose a mystery
and cause the viewer to challenge their own limits of understanding with regards to computer

programming, automation or other areas one could suspect as being implicit in the piece.

As the person catches the attention of the piece, each of the sixty-four mirrors will

rotate and pan themselves to that the viewer may see their self in the mirror. The viewer

may experience shock as the piece extends to a theoretical reversal of the object/subject

relationship. This is caused when the piece re-directs the viewer’s attention back onto

their self, transforming the relationship of who is viewing the art and who is being viewed.
This may strike an intellectual note for those with an interest the in theory of art.

For those with less desire to engage with the piece on an intellectual level the

piece delivers superbly on a superficial level, a topic that for many is of huge interest, that

is the visual representation of their self. For all who engage with the piece in this manner,

a questioning of self-image may occur. As the piece reflects the person’s image from 64

somewhat unusual vantage points at once, a person is forced to view their self in a way

significantly different from how they typically engage with their own reflection. This may

prove a very significant experience in a multitude of ways for vast range of personality

types and lead to their encouragement of others to view and engage with the piece.

Another significant aspect of the piece is the sense of challenge, which may present itself

as persons attempt to hold the attention of the piece. Since users do not know anything

about the criteria necessary for the attention of the piece to be held, this may lead to

7
the trying of several different motion patterns and other experimental means. Once this

process is underway it may create a new experience for third persons to the scenario.

Any third person may feel neglected by the mirrors and may in turn begin to compete with

the others for the attention of the piece, or to see who can hold attention for the longest

time. The elements of challenge and competition, along with emotional states the piece

can elicit, make the piece even more engaging more memorable post-experience.

Giant Teeth

The immense scale and ‘in your face’ location of Giant Teeth make it very unusual
and highly visible, because of this the piece warrants immediate attention. The vast

amplification of these model teeth may immediately draw attention to the intended

emphasis on the importance of oral hygiene. I estimate that during the initial stages at

least it is perceived as being fun and inviting for all members of the public. The image

of a healthy set of teeth and gums may perhaps inspire viewers to smile themselves,

ultimately raising awareness to their own oral hygiene.

As the days pass by re-occurring passers by can witness the stages of

degradation, which can take place seemingly automatically when oral hygiene ignored.

Towards the end of the week however, the piece may have proven to become an

eyesore for passers by. This gives whole new levels of significance to the piece and in an

alternative manner, re-enforces the significance of oral hygiene. The development of the

narrative may prove significant in drawing viewers back again to see how the story further

develops and ends.

At all stages the piece has surely formed a significant talking point between

passers by. This can perhaps even create a common ground between strangers who

now have an interest in sharing narratives, either physically with the piece or sharing

with each other narratives of their own teeth or even teeth of others. Each mark or action

depicted on the Giant Teeth may in turn inspire further narratives from the members of

the public.

8
The chance to interact directly and even to ‘damage’ or ‘vandalize’ a piece of corporate

property may strike levels of excitement and creativity within individuals. This may

generate interest in others who like to see immediate results, adding significance to the

project as it develops a collaborative element or adds to a sense of community among

the public. This may prove significant for example those with an interest in street art

or those who generally detest the one-way bombardment communication typical of

corporations. The experience of interaction may create for some a link between fun and

oral hygiene.

The overall impact of the piece may see the public post-experience, go on to

spread the word about the piece and how striking it is. In this case, this may inspire

others to go to the Solaris Shopping Center and witness the piece for themselves. The
ultimate ends of this project is that it will raise interest in narratives relating oral hygiene

and perhaps generating interest in Kliink 32 which is located inside the center.

9
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The two artifacts here are vastly different in terms of the technology employed. The Giant

Teeth has been created with technologies, which may have been available as far back

as primitive times. I refer here to means of sculpting substrate and the application of

color by brush. For the creators of the piece this may have proven very cost effective in

relation other interactive projects such as Audience. The linear nature of the narrative,

and permanence of the marks on the piece means it may not be re-used to deliver the

same message after its initial run. However, the permanence for both the creator and the

public ensures that a more concrete message is delivered, which ties in nicely with the
importance of our single set of teeth and our one chance to interact with them.

Conversely Audience relies hugely on contemporary technology. This technology

consists of two ‘servo motors’[1], which allow the mirrors pan and tilt rotations. The piece

implies a lot of carefully scripted programming developed with Open Frameworks and

OpenCV, to give each mirror the appearance of different behaviors. These software

programs can be reprogrammed and adapted for other scenarios and ultimately the

delivery of new messages using the same piece of technology. The Audience piece can

and has been adapted to different situations by its creators.

In the application described here, an overhead camera is used for live image

analysis and individuals are tracked using optical flow. The optical flow is made possible

via a camera, which is hidden from the viewer. The hidden optical flow system can create

a sense of wonder in the viewer as to how the project is operating. The motors form the

simplest part of the technical details as the hinged movements can be easily interpreted

and understood by most users, but these are essential for the functioning of the piece.

The scripted program may be the most complex detail. It is this technology,

which allows for the creation of a piece, which not only appears to interact with

itself, but actually interacts with human participants. This is simply not possible with

the technologies used in the creation of Giant Teeth, which relies solely on external

interaction for its development and effective communication. The technology utilized in

10
Giant Teeth also creates a sense of permanence with regards to the interactions of the

users, which cannot be undone or reset. The technology used for Audience determines

that any prior interactions should not affect any present experiences of the piece,

therefore the point in time which one engages with the piece is far less significant than it

is in the case of a persons experience of Giant Teeth.

*****

11
12