a framework for toolmaking
For my purposes in this project, a tool is something that somebody uses to effect indelible change upon something else. They are used in the creation of artifacts that can be shared later.
The Oxford English dictionary defines “tool” in the following way –
“ Tool: 1a. ‘Any instrument of manual operation’ (J.); a mechanical implement for working upon something, as by cutting, striking, rubbing, or other process, in any manual art or industry; usually, one held in and operated directly by the hand (or fixed in position, as in a lathe), but also including certain simple machines, as the lathe…”
This is backed up by the etymology. The word derives from taw (to prepare a raw material) and –el (also -le, that which does, e.g. girdle). In other words, a tool is a thing that does stuff to other stuff and that is the way I intend to use it. SOURCE NOTE
The word instrument is often also used in relationship to tools, in fact its definition is very similar.
Instrument: 1. a. That which is used by an agent in or for the performance of an action; a thing with or through which something is done or effected; anything that serves or contributes to the accomplishment of a purpose or end; a means.
What there is not is any mention of a change effected upon anything else. They are also commonly considered finer and more precise. I have two categories of items I want to discuss that fall in the tool-instrument gray area, measurement devices and musical instruments.
I have a ruler in my toolbox. I have a square, chalk-line, stud-finder… all very useful for getting things done. Of course if someone applying the framework for themselves creates a measuring device, that’s fabulous. However, my interest lies in the gouging of existence, in the change of one thing to another… the manifestation of ideas from nothing. As a result, the exercises will be geared towards that kind of tool development.
I am not going to exclude musical instruments outright. There has been a great deal of work in the “New Instruments for Musical Expression” SOURCE NOTE field that I intend to draw upon heavily. Again I need to emphasize that reflection and editing are important in this framework. As a result, any one using the process to build a musical instrument might be frustrated if they do not either intend for their creation to record its own performances, or want to develop a schema for composition. There will also be no discussion of public performance.
This is the medium question… is this a framework for making brushes or mixing paint? The truth is new tools are needed because new mediums are developing. Tools change what you can do with a medium and when you can access the code base and material science of the medium itself that aforementioned change can inspire an evolution in the nature of the medium, too. Macromedia’s Flash program is a medium that barely existed 5 years ago and its interface and capabilities impacts what people do with it. It is a tool and a medium that continue to evolve in concert, albeit in the context of corporate control. By controlling the evolution of their own tools, artists and designers can have a more personal range of options for their work. While the focus of the framework is making tools, for many it will lead them to redefine their medium as well.
This is not a framework for building Machines, and by that I mean devices that require limited engagement to produce the final work. That said, huge amounts can be done by a computer behind the scenes while you still have a very active engagement with the whole process. This is not a criticism of art pieces that react and change to their surroundings or are data visualizations, and this framework might even be useful for creating a tool to aid in their development. Nor do I reject the value of laser cutters and rapid prototyping machines. That said – I seek to increase an individual’s investment in the type of physical behavior he or she will engage in to create their work and that is antithetical to idea of automatically-generated-machine art.
There is a misconception out there that results come from a linear process. That you have an idea, you go do something about it and then–presto!–you’re done. The reality is much more organic than that and there is an important interplay between what you know how to do and what you can express.
The cognitive impact of this interplay is so important that it even has evolutionary ramifications. In the general introduction to the book “Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution” Kathleen Gibson points to research indicating that both speech and refined movement of the right hand are controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain. The implication is that if increased ability to manipulate tools led to better survival the resulting natural selection process helped lead to the evolution of speech as well.
Much of this work comes from the study of the stone age. Because stone endures an anthropologist can spend a lifetime comparing how this rock from this valley looks different from this other rock from this other valley. And it is very interesting. There was a primal desire to accomplish something beyond what the hand could do by itself and BAM the grabbing of a rock extend us evolutionarily beyond what thousands of year of dying and copulating could ever accomplish. But I prefer the first paint bush, assumed to be a crushed green twig. Small, probably disposable after being dragged across rock so often, and instead of augmenting physical strength it unfolded dreams.
Tool-making and the resulting ability to keep records (like painting and like written language) has lead to major changes in human thought including the scientific process. The discoveries made through the scientific process led to computers, which now give us a platform for even more advanced tool making.
Digital art is in an interesting position today. It is new enough that the rules have not been established and mature enough to hint at potential directions. This leaves the field wide open for play and exploration. If artists and designers are going to be in control of the types of meaning that they are going to express they need to get into the game of tool making for themselves.
Important to note, is that the computers powering digital art come from a lineage that was founded to solve for scientific, corporate and military needs. They come from the need to process information, not convey private dreams. This leads to specific challenges and opportunities today.
One of the challenges facing artist today is the presence of a few monolithic institutions that dominate a field and whose focus has nothing to do with supporting individual artist.
On one side you have the companies manufacturing the hardware to build your own machines, like Microchip Technology, Inc. , which manufactures PIC microcontrollers. They are an engineering company and are not overly concerned with the individual needing small orders, convenient interfaces or clear documentation for novices. That can be to the artist’s advantage sometimes because they have no problem giving away a few chips here and there to individuals as samples.
A different issue is the big software manufacturers that have created powerful models which have defined some digital art. Even excellent pieces made by Macromedia’s Flash program can be identified from a mile away by their moving paper doll style. Adobe Photoshop’s filters are equally identifiable. traditional In all honesty I do respect and use their impressive products. However, they both market locked and sealed products and openly acknowledge that corporate clients are their priority. Also they have just announced a merger negotiation that will make the little guy an even smaller consideration.
The problem with products that come from companies whose focus is other companies is that corporate clients end up setting the prices and determining what features get built. Those features then shape what kind of work everyone else does, too.
Another problem is when the feature set is designed for artists, but it’s being built mainly to mimic the feel of working with two dimensional media.
Wacom, for example, has worked hard to make tablet computing accessible to consumers. They have brought the stylus out of Mesopotamia and into the 21st century. SensAble makes what are known as haptic devices that use forces-feedback to let Industrial designers working in 3D CAD systems feel like they are directly manipulating what is on the screen like clay.
The software companions to these hardware technologies like Corel’s Painter IX are largely still harnessing the technology to allow people to paint or sculpt “like they could do before.” This does take conquering huge technological challenges, but there is still very little pay off in terms of novel forms of expression. You mainly get pretty stuff that looks like it could have been made by hand 10 years ago.
One doesn’t have to use a stylus just for painting or writing. For example, in Apple’s latest operating system, Mac OS X Tiger , the stylus can be used to issues commands, like cut or paste, with what is known as a gestural interface. A gestural interface has also been included in Apple’s Motion 2 film-animation software. What is interesting is that the operating systems gesture recognition component is called Inkwell. In 1992 Apple was using the phrase “Inkwell” to refer to an animation software, like Motion is, and in that documentation is a shark that looks suspiciously like one in Pixar’s Finding Nemo . Steve Jobs is CEO of both Pixar and Apple Computer so it seems hardly likely that this is a coincidence. The point is that people who are actively trying to create things that simply weren’t possible to do without computers come up with more interesting solutions than people who are just trying to keep up with the past.
Even beyond the work of large companies, however, is the ability for individuals and small groups to take real risks for specific causes.
Another example is “MultiTouch” technology which was developed be researches at the University of Delaware to help people avoid repetitive stress injury. It is a track-pad like surface that senses at least 9 contacts at once . These researches founded FingerWorks and now sell items like the MacInTouch keyboard, which recently disappeared from their website. It was designed to replace an Apple laptop keyboard and allow the user to just go in and use all their fingers to type or even issue commands. Still being sold is the TouchStream LP which is external hardware.
What gets even more interesting is to see this technology get adapted by artists. A new product this year is JazzMutant’s Lemur . It is a custom programmable sound controller that “associates multitouch capabilities with visual display” to create a StarTrek like flat control surface for music performance.
Digital art itself can serve as muse for tools that can later be used to create it. Although most art is not designed to save an artifact to be shared later, many works reveals where technologically based creative tools could go. Some examples of artist that have been working with their respective genres of interaction style for many years are Camille Utterback, Steven Schkolne and Kelly Dobson. The rich idiosyncratic interaction style developed by these artists are good preliminary examples of the type of Art that convinces me that more is possible from tools themselves.
http://www.camilleutterback.com/
Utterback uses video tracking to develop her “aesthetic system of language” which allows people to dance disappearing art pieces in a gallery space. Her work is partially a study of the ephemeral nature of a location in time and space that much of this type of video work tends to be.
http://www.schkolne.com/
Schkolne has a physical interface for his piece “Mary-Kate” that employs kitchen-tongs to design and manipulate 3D models in a virtual space. Like Camille he considers the interaction itself to be the artwork.
I suspect that as interactions design becomes more accessible there will be a shift from cool-interaction-as-art back to a more content driven aesthetic. The next artist, Kelly Dobson is an example of what that adjustment might look like.
http://web.media.mit.edu/~monster/
Dobson screams and growls at her “Blendie 2000” to make it run at different speeds. Although her work is still needs to be experienced as an interaction, it is a very powerful exploration of how primal behavior can be used to communicate back and forth with a machine. The ability to manifest emotionality the way Dobson is able to do in her work would be a powerful asset to any tool-maker.