About Garth Paine

Garth PaineGarth Paine is a senior lecturer in Music Technology and Researcher at the MARCS Auditory labs, University of Western Sydney, where he leads the Virtual, Interactive performance research project (VIPRe). He is internationally regarded as an innovator in the field of interactivity in new media arts. He was awarded The RMIT Innovation Research Award in 2002. He is a member of the advisory panel for the Electronic Music Foundation, New York and one of 17 advisors to the UNESCO funded Symposium on the Future. His immersive interactive environments have been exhibited in Australia, Europe, Japan, USA, Hong Kong and New Zealand. He has been part of the organising and peer review panels for the International Conference On New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) since it’s inception and invited as guest editor of Organised Sound, a pre-eminent international journal on music technology published by Cambridge University Press. Dr Paine is the holder of a number of ARC research grants focusing on interactivity for musical performance and realtime interactive systems for interactive dance and theatre performances. He was the Australia Council for the Arts, New Media Arts Fellowship at RMIT University in 2000.

http://www.activatedspace.com

Posts by Garth Paine

Experience and the future

Three foci:

  1. Resonances: Experience
  2. Desires:  how do we get at physical experience?  How is experience represented in physiology?
  3. Offerings:  An experience of Sonic Gesture; knowledge about sensing systems and the qualities and limitations of the resulting data.

I am very interested in delving deeper into the nuance of sensed experience.  To understand better how I can get data from the body that reflects small nuances in changes of body state (felt experience) without being invasive.  Thinking Through the Body represents un-voiced engagements – qualities of interaction that are internal, complex, multifaceted and dynamic. The sensate body…. the sensitised body…. how can we measure the changes in these somatic states.

For my own sake I place here a definition of Somatic  (see wikipedia.org)

The somatic nervous system is the part of the peripheral nervous system associated with the voluntary control of body movements through the action of skeletal muscles, and with reception of external stimuli, which helps keep the body in touch with its surroundings (e.g., touch, hearing, and sight).

The system includes all the neurons connected with muscles, skin and sense organs. The somatic nervous system consists of efferent nerves responsible for sending brain signals for muscle contraction.

In discussion this afternoon, Maggie spoke of hearing the body  – hearing changes.. I understood this to be a reflection of a sensed energetic state – a change in the energy flow in the limb, a realighnment …. this is the kind of interaction I would like to get closer to.

Here is a definition of the autonomic nervous system (see wikipedia.org) :

The autonomic nervous system (ANS) (or visceral nervous system) is the part of the peripheral nervous system that acts as a control system, maintaining homeostasis in the body. These activities are generally performed without conscious control or sensation. The ANS affects heart rate, digestion, respiration rate, salivation, perspiration, diameter of the pupils, micturition (urination), and sexual arousal. Whereas most of its actions are involuntary, some, such as breathing, work in tandem with the conscious mind. Its main components are its sensory system, motor system (comprised of the parasympathetic nervous system and sympathetic nervous system), and the enteric nervous system.

One option then is to look for changes in involuntary/un-concious control (ie. heart rate, digestion, respiration rate, salivation, perspiration, diameter of the pupils)as a reflection of prescribed voluntary interactions – ie. to make the sensing a biproduct of the act of engagement rather than the objective – this may assist in subjugating the technological layer so that it is not seen as thepoint of engagement, the first point of contact that needs to be navigated through in order to experience the art work.

cheers, garth

Tags:


Bio-Feedback Apparel

Thought this report on BioFeedback apparel might be of interest. Interfaces for biological sensing in art.

The above video interview with Sean Montgomery was recorded at the recent Last HOPE conference where Mr. Montgomery exhibited his line of ‘Vital Threads’ projects.

I have also been using some of the Infusion Systems wireless biosensing systems on another performance project with Hellen Sky.

Tags:


Links to some MoCAP technologies

I thought this links might be of interest: Here is a new MoCAP system that does not use markers on the body – this seems to me to be a revolution in unencumbered motion capture. 

I saw this system at the Organic Motion HQ in NYC last year and was very impressed at the responsiveness  and speed with which it computer the body form within it.Here are some video examples of it in action  Organic Motion data samples and also some discussion of the  biomechanical motion analysis interface 

Optitrack make a cost effective MoCAP system that seems to be reliable and robust, and is portable so makes more sense than say a VICON system for use with dancers in a theatre and for touring a show.

MoCAP example using Optitrack – thought this might be of interest in thinking about what is missing given our Feldenkrais work. 

Tags:


words … communication ………..

connections

One of the challenges  we face (often a factor in communicating experience ) is the imprecision of  language.  It seem then that one of the first steps is a glossary – a common understanding of what the terms being used actually refer to – the problem is of course cyclical, in that the use of a singular communication modality is nearly always limiting.

Most sensing systems have been moving towards multi-modal approaches for this same reason.

One example of this is a difference between David Roekeby’s VNS installation and the tracking systems utilized in the installation Fish Bird. In Fish Bird, 4 video cameras mounted in the roof are used to generate a blob at x,y position for each person in the active space, however as an adjunct to this, laser systems are used to check the presence of a human – that is a solid body, and to cross correlate that information with the video data in order to authenticate each set of data as cogent.  By contrast David Roekeby’s VNS installation utilises a single camera view divided into a grid of rows and colums – the presence of the body in a standing posture caused sound mapped to different rows in the camera view to be played simultaneously – lying on the floor and moving the hand up and down through the rows (higher and lower from the ground) elicited quite different and much more differentiated sonic outcomes that allowed for more intentionality in the performance of the work.

Further considerations over the last 24 hrs have included a contemplation of semantics – for instance when undertaking a Feldenkrais session, it seemed to me that the words  Awareness and Attention were being used interchangabl.  I wanted to think though the difference and where these perceptual conditions reside – for instance, possible not in the rational mind… possible in an extended consiousness … within the skin or the muscle …..

some of the words and concepts I have been focused on include:
Awareness  →  Attention ? What’s the difference – where do they reside?

Constraints….. Probabilities.  The semantics of choice… does usage/language form differing affordances, opportunities, expectations and perspectives on what happens?  Can happen?

Intention … function …  in  Feldenkrais, movement seems to be considered/categorised by function.  How does the fiunation and the intentionallity of the gesture relate/inter-relate?

Tags: