|
72 Artefacts
The Project "Future Intelligence" at the World
Exhibition EXPO2000 in Hannover.
Realized by:
Machine-Art-Group BBM (Observers of Operators of Machines)
Center for Art and Media, ZKM Karlsruhe
Fraunhofer Institute, Dortmund
Consultant: Maja Mataric, USC Robotics Institute, Los Angeles
Art Versus Commissioned Work
Olaf Arndt, BBM, artistic director:
With the project "Universal Machine" we were
aiming at a kind of self-disposal of art. That´s the background
you need to know if you want to understand the many implications
of the Expo Project "Future Intelligence"; in addition you
should keep in mind that "FI" was only the third part of
"Universal Machine".
This is why, on second thoughts, the Expo-Project
lacks context and the intention of the whole project - BBM´s
original artistic concept - is absent.
And, by the way, BBM never would have chosen the oval
milky hoods to cover the body of the machine itself…
Rainer Baer, Fraunhofer Institut, programmer of
the control algorithms:
"Robots" sounds deceiving to me. Robots, that´s
also Lego-toys or industrial robots. "Artefacts", that´s
artistic, it describes something that is less practical. Robot means
"operating machine" or artificial worker. It doesn´t
suit artistic purposes. These ones don´t work. They are here
for our pleasure. You can define an artefact as an object with specific
attributes. That sounds more suitable to me.
Science and Art
Stefan Iglhaut, Expo2000, project manager:
Networks as systems that permanently coordinate and
enlarge their capabilities and the fundamentals of self-organisation.
That was the basic scientific program that we stated for the "knowledge"
sector of the "Thematic Area". Level 2 was, that Olaf Arndt
and his colleagues — he as well is a network nerd, somebody
who never works alone — invented the idea of transferring that
into an exhibition with interconnected collectively working robots
. Olaf, Béla Stetzer and Hartmut Bruckner: their ideas were
the "initial ignition" for the whole project. There were
two steps of development following each other. First I worked on
a paper with some friends coming from different backgrounds like
scientific research, museums, techniques etc. In that paper we stated
something we called "distributing structures" which describes
a fluidly changing situation in the exhibition, high degree of interactivity
etc. I don´t claim that to be my original inventions, it only
meant that we wanted to deal with very modern high end systems.
Artificial Life
Olaf Arndt:
We chose to work with people coming from an AI-background,
programmers of self-generating games (like ALife), those who have
experience working with autonomous robots like sewer cleaners that
independently track and find their orientation, and are capable
of "learning". That´s the kind of experience indispensable
to our project.
These types of sensors have problems with too much
interferences by visitors. We feared the swarm would break down
- the robots would have stood still all the time because of too
much sensitivity of the laser-scanners. On the the other side, the
TÜV (German Institute for Technical Surveillance) had huge
problems with the idea of moving robots and the solutions they constantly
discussed were based on stopping the robots effectivly as soon as
they started moving.
The Prototype
Maarten Kippenbroek, BBM, artist:
In serial production the Expo producers implemented
a complete computer to fulfill the safety needs. For our prototype
we simply used a rope. You could pull it from outside the shell
in case of emergency and the machine comes to a halt.
Kippenbroek:
The "engine"consists of two parallel electric
motors as used in wheelchairs for invalids, controlled by a standard
"black-box" also found in wheelchairs, which makes the motors
revolve very smartly and smoothly. The joystick we replaced by a
remote control, which in turn was replaced by the wireless LAN in
the final version. In the center of the chassis you can find two
large lorry batteries which power all the motors, projectors etc
for 8 hours without charging. The brim ring holds the prototype´s
hood which is modelled out of very clear synthetics similar to the
material boats are constructed of. The supports of the mobile sound
system´s speakers are to be found here. In the prototype we
used a slide projector instead of the MPEG player in order to project
a still image on the hood from within.
Maintenance
Maarten Kippenbroek:
The batteries can be unbolted with a lever, you just
click it and pull the heavy batteries out via a mobile mini-ramp;
this takes only a few seconds and affords almost no muscle power.
The Task
Olaf Arndt:
Mikis and Maarten built the prototoype and it´s
only due the exactness of their construction that the serial objects
look as they do now. This sounds tautological, but for many months
we had difficulty proving that our idea is feasible, almost everybody
doubted that such a simple mechanism would be able to get the whole
thing in motion. Thus we were not fulfilling a commission, the machine
- its stable functioning and appearance - was our contribution.
This was based on ten years of experience with the performance group
BBM: constructing sufficiently stable things and producing big shows
the simple way with almost no budget.
Stefan Iglhaut:
We never imagined that our task would be to present
an artistic vision of what "information society" could
be. We developed a program. When I asked Olaf Arndt to convert theory
into exhibition, I clarified more than once that there would be
no place for independent aritistical work. And it became a mixture
of both in the end.
The Birth of the Show
Hartmut Bruckner, BBM, technical director and composer:
It hasn´t work last time I looked it up…can´t
be…but doesn´t matters.
Our system consists of four computers linked via network.
If one of them is not working for whatever reason I can transfer,
use another …
Sure, I have sound archives but in this case I designed
them all according to physical rules: ever heard of this? You can
recreate on a virtual basis according to scientific models. I imitated
a lot of machines etc,… one of them is real, I taped it during
a session for our BBM show at the European Media Art Festival last
year…
Erich took care of all the programming of the control
mixers software. I gave him some briefs and he looked after the
rest. And it works fine.
Erich Geiersberger, showprogramming:
When we began we did not know which hardware the producer
would implement in the end, so we constructed this table of data
we could transfer to whatever hardware was chosen later. A movie
that runs on the surfaces of all objects, almost the same clip with
slight changes and delays, we call an "overall". Overalls
start with a little visual buffer and then the real film - e.g.
birds - flies through the hall. The character and direction of the
movement of the animals is fixed as well as their order and position.
The playlist realizes the overall depending on the situation in
the hall which is tracked by cameras. If the scenographer desires
the birds to start in the left coner, flock to the center and then
blast off to the far end, the software is able to make this happen.
He can choose all kinds of patterns and movements, linear, circling,
clockwise or anti-clockwise.
But it´s tricky. Unfortunately you can´t
appreciate those effects as long as you are in the midst of the
objects. You would need to observe from above. In general the swarming
patterns are hardly recognizable from within the hall, because the
visitor himself is part of the pattern… you can recognize a
swarm only from outside. If I´m stuck in a trafic jam I do
not know exactly what it looks like and where it ends, as long as
I am part of it. It looks very different to me as soon as I look
down on it from a building. I regret that the only position from
which an overview is possible in this exhibition are the little
windows on the gallery, and they are far too small to really appreciate
that nice image of the swarm.
Mathias Böser who designed the light was the
last of the producers´ subcontractors to come and work on his
job. He could start only after everybody else was ready, after showprogramming
and sound were completed. He finished his job just minutes before
the opening of the show.
Applied Science
Iglhaut:
Science fiction: no, it´s not, it´s applied
science. As a curator I would say: it is not network techniques,
not robotics, it is an huge artefact, an intelligent organism who
controls itself. And on a metaphorical level I would state that
it doesn´t need any help from human beings. It is a living
being that organizes itself.
Ideology
Arndt:
The failures, collapses, breakdowns, catastrophies
and accidents are one side of technology … you can discuss
"intelligence" as a term that is critical to use for technology.
Machine intelligence should be clearly differentiated from what
we call intelligence because it is an originally linked to human
beings. Also we want to detach the term "collectivity" as
used by engineers from that one used in political science. We want
to branch off the contexts unmistakably: what a researcher in robotics
has in mind when he discusses collective control-models with terms
like top-down or bottom-up and what a sociologist or historian has
in mind when he talks about collective movements —even if they
sound the same they are two oppositely things. Machines don´t
"cooperate", they don´t even "act", they move
exactly according to algorithms somebody programmed in. They don´t
"behave", they are controlled. In a social-political context
"collectively" means autonomy which is freedom. Keep that
in mind and it makes sense to reflect and discuss the influences
of hierarchical systems and compare them with the effects of social
self-organisation: that´s the kind of process we want to get
started.
Worker's Power
Security advice. The toilet door has to be locked
all day long. Think of that carefully!
Don't throw fags on the floor !!!
(Radio)
I don´t know how to do so, I can´t afford
it. Yes, you can! With an imediate credit from…10thousand Marks
for a monthly rate of 199 mark running 72 months…
Arndt:
The example the british theorist Sadie Plant gives:
to organize top-down only makes sense up to a certain degree of
complexity. People found out that in some case it makes much more
sense to turn the whole hierarchy round and try to get a result
by working bottom-up. It still stucks to the top as the goal. It´s
still exploitation according to new and more effective strategies.
One good example are the people who work in the big
IT market. They realize huge projects in a few months and get fired.
For a very short and intense period of time the people "down
there" can work uncontrolled whenever they like, they can have
long hair, be disheveled, they can go to work smelly if they appreciate
it, they rather seem to be employees: you think at first glance,
they are totally free from any kind of classical restrictions. And
they earn really a lot! But only up to the point the necessary part
of the job is done, the specialist´s part, then somebody from
the top of the pyramid shows up, takes the result and upwards with
it to the the highest board.
"Take a Trip to the Future !"
Iglhaut:
The official Expo-slogan "Mankind Nature Technology"
is maybe too big to describe it but "living in networks"
is more precisely what…no, I have to start over…everytime
I mention "Mankind Nature Technology" I get so
angry that I loose track…
Arndt
Well that´sthe problem with the pretension making
a futuristic exhibition with futuristic technology. In the end it
doesn´t work so smart as you hope and you wash your hands of
state-of-the-art-technology and remember how reliable fancywork
is…
…as asolution Sadie Plant suggests "bottom-sideways"
that´s where we find ideas of Deleuze and Guattari coming back
to our day´s political life, that´s what rhizome means,
growing "subcutaneus" just beneath the surface,
diving into the ground and being invisible for awhile and rise to
your feet at a not-expected place around the corner etc… Bottom
sideways is in fact as well an interesting inception to model the
algorithm of the robots because it offers resistance to chimaira
of machine-control. In the sense of a "talking"
technology it would have been the ideal exhibition-"control"-system:
to have no real control what will happen. Imagine solitary objects
start at the "bottom", "autonomously",
they track each other, form group that disperse after seconds, forming
new groups coincidentally…
What we tried to do is giving a core idea of control
and hierarchy as a subject that makes sense to be discussed taking
into respect our near future and the new tools we can use to design
it: that is as well the only reason why we choose a metaphor from
nature: the swarm as a survival system.
This is the frameworks that we complied with by 50%:
we wanted to build up a genuine complex system with 150 robots,
3000 visitors per hour moving in and out constanly and becoming
part of the ambient of the swarm shaping it´s form, all controlled
by software which we designed ourselves and that works reliable
all the 150 days. So this is a big sensation still now…
|
