Kicked up from Flatland (invited talk, 2009)
The document discusses the conceptual framework of 2.5-dimensional interactive displays and the ecological approach to perception, emphasizing the enactive view of perception as a means of spatial interaction. It presents a variety of projects by Alvaro Cassinelli that involve media augmentation of space, including mobile displays, interactive architecture, and augmented realities. The work explores themes of presence, spatial perception, and the blending of physical and virtual environments through innovative technologies.
Kicked up from Flatland (invited talk, 2009)
- 1. Kicked up fromFlatland: 2.5 Dimensional interactive displays Alvaro Cassinelli June 2009 HongIk University, Seoul
- 3. Computational Model of Vision... ...Ecological approachto Perception vs Text A theoretical framework ?
- 4. The Enactive viewof Perception “To localize an object simply means to represent to oneself the movements that would be necessary to reach it” H. Poincare “Seeing is a way of acting” J.K O’Regan and A. Noe
- 5. 5 I’d like tointerpret “media augmentation of space” in this light: as mediatedways of actingin/on it traditional mediated
- 6. Enough theory! Some examplesfrom my own work
- 7. Mobile display surfaceswith 3d “affordances“
- 8.
- 9. Meta-Walls: interactive architecture? “City Elephant” atOkamura Showroom in collaboration with artist/architect Shin Egashira (2007)
- 10. the Khronos Projector mobile...and deformable? (2004)
- 11.
- 14.
- 16. DIS-CHORDE (in collaboration withDaito Manabe and Philippe Chatelain) (2007)
- 17. ...as an interactivewall “Timescape”,in collaboration with architect Hiroshi Naito (2006)
- 18. Fixed surface, interactiveimage - other : lasers, sound - classical camera/projector setup
- 19.
- 20.
- 21. ...other technological meansof augmentation: lasers stickyLight & scoreLight (2008~)
- 22.
- 23. 24 Line Surface Noise (incollaboration with Philippe Chatelain. Fundacio Pilar I Joan Miro, Mallorca) (2008)
- 24. Artificial sensorimotor contingenciesfor enhanced spatial and visual perception
- 25. ...artificial antennae ? Proprioception(body posture) tactile feedback
- 26.
- 27. … and theHaptiKAT (2008) (made for BBC program with Joanna Lumley)
- 28. As prepared forbeing exhibited for two years...
- 29. Virtual Haptic Radar: feeling ghosts (2009) Whatis “presence”? What is a physical object?
- 30. haptikar (2009) Again, de-construction ofa “body” in space
- 31. (some of myproposals for Nissan Innovative Concept award Minimal reactive displays
- 32. 33 Ghost in thesaccade… (in collaboration with Junji Watanabe, 2008 ) Images without support? images as transient illusions in space
- 33.
- 34. Augmenting spaces withmedia… or media-spaces?
- 35. Mixing spatial scales •Mixing scales • zoom-existence system • Microscopic manipulation micro macro
- 36. Shared space: OUROBOROS (workin progress: pre-selected (Nov. 2008) among 53 Finalistsfor the “LIVE BITS: Art Exploring Real-Time Connectedness”) (2008~) Patchwork of spaces taken from different places in the word… new mediated-architecture!
- 37. From robotic-based tele-existence… …to robotic based simulated teleportation Tele-ping pong Shared space: simulated teleportation
- 38. Vision Chip isused to capture position of the puck without appreciable delay …data is sent to the “other side” using UDP/IP connection. An early attempt: tele air-hockey prototype (2005)
- 39. Tele-Existence: teleport theSELF "Telesar" (Tachi Lab) Eliciting a powerful sense of tele-presence is key to performance here • Multimodal distal attribution • Respect natural sensori-motor patterns (human-like avatar - actuators and sensors)
- 40. • • - artificial“out-of-body” experience • - manipulation: size, delay, view BoxedEgo Exploring the sense of “self” and placement in space… where are we?
- 41. “Autoscopes” in thewild: the future of Mirrors?
- 42. 43 what is space? whatis augmentation / mediation? ...and how to sell art? (thanks JinYo! ;) self-centered “referential”
- 43.
- 44.