As an artist what motivates me is a desire to create systems and situations that support us to become more alive to the worlds around and within us, and to be able to experience and engage with this aliveness with a sense of grace, delight and care (even when engaging with processes that may outwardly appear quite abject, humorous  or mundane).

Care is a word I’ve been thinking about a lot lately – and its absence in so much of what we experience in the worlds around us (I get so sad when I see people littering in the street or on trains and busses – dont they care about the spaces they live in – are they so numb to their environment that they couldn’t give a f#%ck?).

We could think of the art experience as an extension of this idea of care (not disimilar to concepts of  ‘conviviality’ or hospitality that circulated around discussion on ‘rellational aestheics’) – coupled perhaps with some flirtation (thinking here about the careful touch of two people dancing) – or the uncontainable  of an experienced enthusiast as they share the source of their joy to a new commer or fellow affcionado (look at THIS! and THAT!). Through this contact we bring something otherwise hidden – out from eachother – and that we together bear witness to for a breif moment that we may or may not call an ‘art’ experience, a lesson, a workshop, a meeting of friends etc.

The question then changes from what we as artists are ‘interested’ in – to what specifically we care about, and how we manifest this care through our actions and foci, through the situations and exchanges we create for other people.

So for me – with this project – I’m trying to articulate how I can extend a caring and enlivening touch to other people (and myself!) through experiences that allow us to become sensitive and aroused by subtle and not so subtle qulaities of touch, movement and proprioception. To this end – I have to temper my habitual impulse towards large intense experience – with the knowledge that its not via extreme, cathartic actions that we learn to refine our capacity for sensitivy and discernment

- but on the contrary -

its only by learning to be still, and attentive to small actions/sensations that we can start to gain a deeper awareness of where we are opperating FROM.

This blog has been written fresh after listening to a wonderful concert presented as part of Liquid Architecture, and in particular – an amzing set by Asmus Tietchens that featured a truely sensual use of dynamic volumes, sounds that caressesed and wove in and our of audibility, with lilting forms that had me swaying on the edge of my seat like a snake charmer’s cobra! The delicacy of this sound was supported by the strength of the sound system (occasional use of deep bass – confidently hinting at its full potential), and the improved listening acoustics (huge curtains drawn around the space at the start of his set). This experience left me deeply touched, and determined to acheive a more considered use of sound and volume dynamics in my forthcomming interactive art show at St. Vincent’s Hospital. To create a situation where to use an analogy – the snail feels safe to venture out of it’s shell – and to extend its ommatophores (eye stalks) out of its head – and into its surrounds (in this instance – a biofeedback system that is an environment that is both inside and outside). To extend this metaphor a little further – one doesn’t get the snail to extend its eye stalks by poking them with your fingers!

Jonathan’s workshop ‘The Situated Body’ invited to develop a response to our experience in the land around us, based on the sensitivities we’ve been developing towards our bodily experience.

I was interested structuring attention across internal and external environments, drawing on experiences of Feldenkrais work, meditation and environmental audio field recording aesthetics – to explore how I might bring the same quality of attention that I would bring to bear on listening to sounds in a remote rural landscape (birds, wind, insects, distant motors etc.) to my internal experience – visceral, postural, muscular, cardio-respiratory and skin sensations. Previously, in the context of meditations and body-scan exercises I’ve had a hard time maintaining my focus on these sensations, being easily diverted by complicated, self-conscious judgements as to whether I was doing things ‘right’ or simply drifting off into daydreaming about what I think I should be doing tomorrow, or something someone told me some time ago etc.

I’ve drafted a guided sensorial scanning experience, that could be presented as a form of listening meditation workshop for a group of people, or undertaken individually. I think it makes a big difference being in a beautiful rural setting like Bundanon/Riversdale, with its abundance of birdlife, rivers, insects, other animals and wide open spaces, but will be interested to see how I go doing this in an urban setting with lots of cars, music, people and various alarms and sirens.

The idea of folding internal and external experience picks up on Lizzie’s observations of the maps we created, when invited by Maggie to create a map of our brains: the maps many of us made, could just as well have been maps of our experience of the world, a diagram describing relations between modes of engagement.

Structuring experience and perception between internal and external environments.

Wet your hands with a little water, and wipe this water onto your face, neck and ears; focus your attention towards the sensation of the air as it moves around your body.
How do you register the direction and intensity of the breeze as it moves around your body? Can you imagine these changes in intensity and direction as changes in air pressure: the wind around you as a fluid moving around and within the landscape surrounding you …the ebb and flow of air pressure systems circulating over the land, and the gradual transformation of these currents from one minute to another; from one sunrise to another; from one season to another; from one year to another.

Now draw your attention inward, toward the sensations arising from your chest, thorax and pelvis, focusing specifically on sensations that describe changes in the state of the various muscles inside this area of your body: the expansion and contraction of the muscles in your chest and ribs that accompany your breathing, and the extension of your breath and subtle, moment-to-moment postural adjustments to the muscles in your pelvis and shoulders: subtle changes in tonus across the volume of your torso.

Consider the irregularities of these sensations as they rise and fall from your awareness, the meandering rhythm of these sensations and reflections, in relation to your recent experience of the air around you.

Directing your attention back outwards now, to the sounds of the environment around you: the birds, flies buzzing around you, the engines in the distance… Can you hold these sensations in your attention and also feel the acoustic quality of the landscape around you: the way that the various sounds you hear travel around the space: the subtle echoes and reverberations that tell you what kind of space you are in  – that you are here, and not in your bathroom; not in an underground car park; a desert, or a cathedral…

Imagine now a circle drawn around you, outward into the land around you, as far as you can hear. Listen for what you can hear that is located directly in front of you, can you hear anything at all? Use the sounds you can hear all around you to identify the presence or absence of sounds directly in front of you – as if a line where drawn from the front of your body, outward to the horizon.

Turning our attention back to the feel of the air around you, listening to the subtle reverberations and echoes that tell you about the place your in, can you imagine this experience as an experience of density? The air around you as a diffuse but tangible and dynamic substance. What do your sensations of your skin, smell, ear, nose and throat tell you about the quality of the air around you, and, by extension, the quality of the land you are in.

Moving back inside your body, turn your attention from the feeling of the air around you, to the feeling of the air inside you: the sensation of each breath on the inside of your nose, your throat, tongue and deep into your lungs, taking care to note the subtle shifts in what comes to your attention, between the sensations on the inside of your nose, the roof of your mouth, and inside your throat, taking time to appreciate the dynamics of your focus as it shifts between these sensations from the different parts of your respiratory tract.

Focusing attention back out the land around you, can you listen to the sounds around you according to pitch, listening specifically to sounds that lay in the higher frequency range: the birds, insects, leaves rustling, grasses. Can you experience these sounds as clusters of high pitched sounds increasing and decreasing in dennsity? Can you imagine the negative form of all the frequencies you aren’t hearing, as defined by what you can hear – where within this spectrum of frequencies is greatest amount of silence?

Catherine blindfolded us today and asked us to make ourselves in clay.  I thought of myself lying in bed.  I always lie on my side. Unable to see what i was doing my felt-sense of the volume and shape of my body became very vivid.  It was a peculiarly intense sensation, to use my own hands to form my head, my neck, the curve of my back. Later on Somaya gave me a back rub, and I had the strangest feeling that it was the second one of the day.

When we took our blind folds off we saw that almost all of us had sculpted ourselves lying on our sides.  We had also all got our proportions almost exactly right.

The power of the blindfold is very inetersting to me right now.  Our visual sense so dominates our experience of the world – and it feels to me today that it is also linked firmly to my own analytical stance.  I appraise things with my eyes, i judge them.  Unable to see, I felt my way through the clay – i explored its properties, I worked with it and did not try to impose my version of the world on it. What would be the equivalent of a blindfold when I write?  What would help me work with the words and feel my way through them rather than trying to wrangle them into a form that I expect to be pleased with?

George and I are currently invited respondents to an online discussion on curating art that “responds to bodily inputs” on the CRUMB list. There’s lots of interesting discussion on there that relates to Thinking Through the Body. I haven’t posted anything yet (mainly because my body has been very reluctant to do any thinking at all – or go near a computer for a month now). But I plan to post something about this project in the next week or so. Several of you may also want to contribute. You can join the list and see an archive of the discussion so far at the website: http://www.crumbweb.org/

In the meantime – here’s a taster of one exchange within the discussion between Adinda van ‘t Klooster (the convener of the discussion) and Brigitta Zics. They’re talking about the difference between active and passive interaction. I’d be interested to hear what the Feldenkrais pros think of the idea of “cognitive feedback art”

——————————————–
ADINDA:
I think this is a very useful distinction[ACTIVE AND PASSIVE INTERACTION.]
If I understand this right, you refer to the body’s subconscious
physiological response which is reflected in their heartrate, EEG, EMG, etc,
captured by the system. As these are then reflected in audiovisual content
created by the artist or designer of the interactive system, the viewer is
challenged to gain more control over these otherwise immediate responses. I
wonder if in this process of the participants learning to operate the
system, the interaction becomes conscious and thus becomes active even it
started as passive? I have been looking for a word for the whole of the
system of this ‘new’ form of aesthetic experience which differs from
interactive art, but is not purely responsive either. You suggest term
cognitive feedback loop. How would you place this is the context of art,
would you call it cognitive feedback art?
I wonder if this would do enough justice to the body itself, or if indeed we
have then lost it (the body) somehow?
———————————————

RESPONSE:
I would not agree with the point that you make about passive interaction
i.e. that through the learning process/control of the user the work become
active. I think we talk about similar phenomena with slightly different
network of terms, which attempt to explain body-mind actions with a diverse
hermeneutic sensitivity. As I pointed out earlier the bodily passive status
means the way the body is used for interaction and not the quality whether
the art work activates conscious-subconscious processes. Passive interaction
refers to a bodily passive status, which activates
a sensitivity towards cognitive responses of the user (like emotions).
The interconnectivity of conscious-subconscious events or, from another
point of view, the relationship between embodied and new knowledge is
crucial to art works. However I describe this not with the differentiation
of active and passive but with the aesthetic conceptualisation of learning
processes in the interactive art work. To account for the learning process
(or as I term the ‘mastering the tool’ processes) means to operate between
embodied knowledge and action and the novelty of technology and content (new
knowledge and. non-predictable actions). As such, the aesthetic conception
of the mind-body nexus implies how we artists design the conscious-subconscious
relationship in the user’s experience.
I think the term Cognitive-feedback Art is too restrictive for me (similarly
Biofeedback Art). I think we already have to work with difficult terms such
as Software Art / Virtual Art or Internet Art which from my point of view do
not bring creditable differentiations to art as they only refer to the
medium but not to the content. I would describe this simply as
technology-based art, which focuses on cognitive qualities, the body-mind
nexus and the embodied/ novel knowledge. I would suggest that this is an
emerging form of interactive art, which introduces cognitive-driven
interaction (if we suggest that bodily status reciprocally provide
information about cognitive states). As such, in my interpretation
‘cognitive-feedback loop’ also refers to a bodily status. Even though the
semiotics of the body do not have particular role in this kind of
interactive works, this is why I called them passive interactions. The
cognitive-feedback loop however is an important term to explain a system,
which builds on cognitive qualities. Thus, the system attempts to evaluate
the data according to a cognitive status and according to this outcome the
‘instant affection technologies’ (see in my earlier email) attempts to act
upon the user to lead him/her to particular cognitive states. Therefore
‘cognitive-feedback loop’ is an interactive system which applies affective
computing and technologies.

I thought this article by Edward S. Katkin of the Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York, is an interesting review of G. Ádám (1998). Visceral Perception: Understanding Internal Cognition. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 232.

Edward Katkin titles his review, The last word on gut feelings, which I think is a more than appropriate subject for our consideration.

A couple of weeks ago I obtained a copy of a new book by Mark Johnson, called The Meaning of The Body. Its a great read, and has really helped me to understand more concretely, many of the issues we are dealing with when we talk about thinking through the body in relation to our various practices – thinking and meaning being defined more broadly, as processes and constructions that enable us to adapt to the worlds around and within us. Its only available in hardback at the moment, but I’ll see if I can send all you TTTB-Artlab researchers some excerpts soon.

In The Meaning of the Body, Mark Johnson continues his pioneering work on the exciting connections between cognitive science, language, and meaning first begun in the classic Metaphors We Live By. Johnson uses recent research into infant psychology to show how the body generates meaning even before self-consciousness has fully developed. From there he turns to cognitive neuroscience to further explore the bodily origins of meaning, thought, and language and examines the many dimensions of meaning—including images, qualities, emotions, and metaphors—that are all rooted in the body’s physical encounters with the world.

Throughout, Johnson puts forth a bold new conception of the mind rooted in the understanding that philosophy will matter to nonphilosophers only if it is built on a visceral connection to the world.

Drawing on the psychology of art and pragmatist philosophy, Johnson argues that all of these aspects of meaning-making are fundamentally aesthetic. He concludes that the arts are the culmination of human attempts to find meaning and that studying the aesthetic dimensions of our experience is crucial to unlocking meaning’s bodily sources.

I would be quite interested to explore the use of thermal imaging as one way of gathering somatic responses in a public installation.

Possible sources for such technologies include:

1. Infratech cameras for medicine
2. Wikipedia on Thermography

cheers,  garth

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

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?

It is such a pleasure to be working from the body again. Paying attention to it, slowing down, extending my range of movement, moving into my potential, rejuvenating. How to incorporate such bodily practices into my everyday work, as well as everyday life?

The Feldenkrais work is very interesting … I found it to be a very structured, precise inquiry into the relationship between the mechanics and anatomy of the body and the felt, conscious sensation of the body at rest and in motion. The use of language is important … a care towards the choice of words and their evocations and assumptions about the body. There is a questioning. I am intrigued to learn more.

My workshop today on Laban movement analysis was an experiment. An experiment in teaching the Effort-Shape description and an experiment in applying the system of analysis to live bodies engaging with interactive artworks.

How to teach the Effort cube? Some of the basic Effort actions are easier to access firstly with arm gestures, e.g. Flick. Then we need ways of involving the whole body or initiating the movement from a different source … ?

Everyone was very receptive and had plenty to say on their experience of the Laban system. Some interesting points from the participants regarding learning the system were:

• it was easier to perform an imagined scenario from everyday life than generate movement from abstract concepts of weight, space, etc. (like dancers do)
• the mirroring exercise did result in the observers gaining a strong bodily understanding of the initiator’s movements, but perhaps only in form. The intent or context of the movement was not easy to grasp and without this, the embodiment of the movements seemed hollow to some.
• the mirroring exercise revealed one’s own habitual movement patterns in relation to the movements of the initiator.
• the continuous repetition of the action or movements allowed the gradual registering and recognition of a range of characteristics of the movement – different sensations and qualities emerged over time. Then one could begin to describe the characteristics of the movement in the process of moving. The attention to Effort-Shape revealed the complex dynamically changing inter-relationships between the Effort-Shape parameters.

The notating of Effort-Shape during observation of audience was challenging! A template was provided with the individual parameters across the top. Each person had to figure out how to record using the template and this resulted in a great variety of ways of transcribing. The notated movements were very fragmentary. Was there any value in notating as we did?