Art, Science + Technology
DMA9 Fall 2007, Section BArchive for October 22, 2007
AI- are we ready for it?
There was a lot of talk this week about robots and people trying to make robots more and more like humans.
Well, I suppose the fundamental question then is are we ready to be able to make another thing that can create something thats potencially better than us?
Various movies have come out to discuss this topic already, Matrix, AI, or even I Robot. They all, to some degree, potencially show how robots might one day dominate humans. Now even thought these movies are fiction they are based on some VERY reliable research that is being conducted. So the scary thing, is that someday they might become true?
As we continue to create and use machines in our everyday use, they become less and less reliant on the user and more self sufficient, without us really paying much attention to the evolutionary process of machines. I read newsweek and time magazine every once in a while and the things that some people are discovering seem unworldly. The idea of AI seems like a kid brother to the idea of nano-technology and the things that some scientists think they can do with it. I would be more scared of the little robots than the big ones if they were actually able to pull off what their talking about.
In the past, humans tend to be very self destructive, and eventually I believe that we’ll be using technology to either blow up the earth, kill eachother in some type bioengineered nontechnology weapon, or to create a machine with AI great enough to replace humans as teir 1 on the food chain. Either way, this kind of technology requires a huge amount of respect and discipline that the human race doesn’t have. Greed, fear and selfishness run rampant is every population and by putting something of this caliber into the mix, lets just say your not trying to bake cookies.
Maybe, by the time we finally achieve these technologic breakthroughs, humanity might be ready for them, but as the world is now; I don’t think were quiet ready for AI.
-Leo
Wk3: Thoughts on robots
on robots
Robots have always been very interesting to me. I’ve always liked science fiction so I suppose that makes sense. But real-life robots seem to get more fascinating on a daily basis. Robots have come a long way over the years, giving us the creepy Asimo and the scary unmanned military vehicles. Of course, more interesting still is what will come in the future. Asimo is one thing, but it would be quite another to have robots do things like run farms by themselves or something equally useful.
Though robots also scare the living hell out of me. Just a few days ago, a robotic canon killed 8 people in some kind of malfunction. But I suppose that’s how it goes. With any significant new technology, people die using it or because of it.
Blade runner brought up an interesting point and while I have yet to see the movie, it certainly made me think about a few things. In the movie, robotics has evolved to the point where androids are sentient beings. It’s very interesting to think about how society would deal with an increasing involvement of robots in our lives. I suppose one day humankind will one day have to deal with a blurred line between man and machine.
More on robots
Films like the Matrix and 2001 depict sentient robots as having a completely negative affect on humanity. In the Matrix, robots have enslaved all of humanity…and in 2001 a supercomputer manning a spaceship tries to murder its crew. Both not so positive about the whole smart robot thing. I have the hopeful vision that this isn’t how the future will be. Label me an optimist if you will, but I don’t really expect a Skynet or a society of robots using humans as fleshy batteries. I think the fundamental problem with these concepts of the future is that they don’t have the concept of gradual change. I’m not going to wake in the morning, turn on the news and hear about the nation of Asimo declaring its sovereignty (later called Asimostan, if you must know). In 100 years, I doubt it will be very strange to think of robots as companions, friends, whatever, just not as metallic evil doers who are going to do mean things to you because you are a silly bag of flesh. It just seems rather silly to think of future progress in technology and science from the present, rather than from the eyes of the societies that they exist in.
Week 3 Robotics
What is a common theme of robotics in TV or movies?
Evil, mass reproducing, out of control, scary, bent on destroying or assimilating everything seems to be an architectural ‘villain’ in TVs and even movies. A big example is Terminator. Humans create robots that eventually became smarter than humans. Such robots began to reproduce themselves and to annihilate human kind. Such a theme seems to be very common in many Sci-fi television shows. First, there is Star Trek with the cybernetic Borg whose catch phrases include “You shall be assimilated,” “Resistance is futile,” or “We shall adapt.” The Borg brings different species of life into its collective by assimilation, which means a cybernation of such species. Similar to the Borg, there are the Replicators of Stargate: SG1. The Replicators are at first spider looking machines that eat metals and technology with the purpose of creating more copies of itself. Eventually the Replicators eat enough technology to become human like. Both the Borg and the Replicators fit the evil robot profile, and there are more TV villains that fit it. Another example is the Cybermen, or Cyberwomen, of British Sci-fi show Doctor Who. Such robot villains are popular and will continue to be popular in Sci-fi shows. There will probably be more villains like them in the future.
Why is Frankenstein so diverse?
Growing up, I see a lot of different versions of Frankenstein. There is the childish version on some cartoon that is always grouped with a vampire, a werewolf, a mummy, and etc. There is the old fashion version as seen in the old black and white TV or movies. While talking about the black and white version, Frankenstein is either shown as a comedy or as a melodramatic horror. It is not until my junior year of high school that I had the opportunity to read the original Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. I find it very surprising that in the book the name “Frankenstein” belongs exclusively to the doctor and his family and that Victor Frankenstein’s creation is just called the “Monster” or “Creature.” But then again, the story is pretty much from Victor’s point of view. On another note, the real creator of the Monster is actually quite the bachelor, unlike the old, white hair, grandfather like, devious scientist that he is often portrayed as in black and whites or cartoon. A reason for Frankenstein to be so varied would be that the book was published in 1818, which is almost 200 years ago. The character Frankenstein is now a part of history, and such subject matter is bound to get Disney-fied (meaning the original idea is the base for a new recreation) in order to make it suitable for the people of that particular generation. Frankenstein is a really interesting character.
Terminator – http://www.thewallpapers.org/movies/terminator3/Terminator%203%20T-800%20Attack.jpg
Borg – http://www.exitmundi.nl/borg3.jpg
Replicators – http://www.frontiermodels.co.uk/images/products/WRP0056.jpg
Frankenstein – http://www.uh.edu/engines/1831frankenstein.jpg
Week 3 – Robotic Art
Does science or art inspire robotic art?
Robotic art is a new genre of art that utilizes robots to create works of art based on random movements and indirect communication. There is a question of whether the artwork that results from this method is an artistic expression or a scientific feat. I felt that this subject related to the work of Nikola Tesla that we learned about this week. His scientific inventions utilized designs that were completely innovative during his time and his ideas about energy and communication changed technology forever. The inventions that he created were certainly scientific advancements, but they were also artistic creations. His goal was to create inventions that would advance technology, but the wonder and inspiration that he provided to others puts his work in a more artistic light.
Robotic art also reminded me of the Math Rock that we had the opportunity to listen to last week. One thing that stuck with me was a response that Mr. Yoshida had to the question of what meaning there was to his music. He answered that his music has no message and that he does not like meanings in songs. At first I thought that he could not be serious or that maybe it was too complicated to explain, but looking at robotic art this week made me think differently. The creators of these robots are making machines that are basically programmed to create original designs through mathematically random movements. There is no denying that the outcome is a work of art and that it is capable of evoking emotion from a person who views it. Does it really matter that the piece was created by a machine that has no sense of emotion and is not aware of any outside influences? Well, if the viewer has no knowledge of this, then it would have to mean that it does not. Just like when I listened to Math Rock, I had a sense that this music represented the angst of someone who was in a suppressed environment. It was not until afterwards that I learned the music had no meaning to the artist, but that did not change how I felt.
My opinion of whether robotic art is inspired by art or science is that it is actually inspired by both (how expected, I know). In this genre, the line between art and science is really non-existent. There is no way that the art that has been created can be completed without the technologically innovative designs of the artists who build the robots, but it has also been their imaginative ideas that allowed this art to even exist. The subsistence of science in other areas of art has been rapidly increasing recently and will continue to play a major role for many artists. The artistic bearing of this art should not be viewed as an interpretation of the process that an artist goes through, but as the unique perspective that it gives to those who view it.
Robotic Art
Robotic art newspaper article
Nikola Tesla Page
Biography of Nikola Tesla
Kinetic Art and Robotics
What is the appeal of kinetic art?
The ability to interact with a piece of art adds another dimension to its appeal. Rather than be limited to interpreting an immobile painting, which can still be interesting, kinetic art forces you to become a part of the exhibit. You’re not just using your sight; kinetic art combines the use of all the human senses. It promotes individual involvement, whether voluntary or not. Personally, I find it much more appealing, because it evokes a personal reaction in most cases. Sure, as in all kinds of art, there are pieces that I don’t find as interesting as others, but those same pieces may be the ones that evoke reactions in you. Thus the beauty of art; no two people will interpret a piece exactly the same. Suddenly, what could have originated as a simple idea, has evolved into a series of opinionated discussion and the sharing of ideas.
Where does robotics fit into the equation?
As we move into the future, what role will robotics take on? Will it have a heavy impact? In pop culture, we see robots in movies as intelligent experiments gone wrong. However, is this very likely? I do not think so. Now granted, these movies are supposed to be based in the future, but we all know how accurate future predictions can be. But it is my opinion that the impact of robotics, although wide-ranging, will be much more subtle. In fact, we use robotics in many daily activities. Automobile assembly, surgery, bomb disarmament…the applications are endless. The real question is how far can we take it? Will we get to the point where human-like robots walk among us without apparent detection? I cannot say, but I assume it’s possible. In our society, if there is a need, we fill it. All that is sure is that much will have changed by the time that kind of need is filled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_sculpture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRYo4V3HB8
http://www.kinetica-museum.org/
Week 3
Kinetic art is an art that has been around for awhile but now is evolving faster and faster. Most of the kinetic art that we see today is in robots. Robots are designed in various ways for a multitude of uses. Many people make robots to perform different tasks. For example, there was a television show where people would make robots to fight eachother. The survival of the robot would depend on the design of the robot. Robots can be designed in other ways.
Some robots are being designed to look like humans. There are many different aspects of art that go into a human like robot. First of all, it takes a lot of artistic abilities for someone to make a robot out of metal to look like a living being. Also, artisitic ability is required to make the robot act human like. The movements of humans is hard to replicate by a nonliving object but artists have to constantly work on getting robots to act and move like a living being.
Now the controversy is that if it takes art to make robots, can robots make art? I think that this question can be answered in two ways. Firstly, I believe that art has to come from one’s soul. Robots cannot accomplish this obviously because they have no soul. THe soul of a person is what makes art. For example, robots have been made that can play instruments. Although the robot is capable of making the sound, I do not believe that it is true music. Robots can’t put in the expression into music that is needed to make genuine music. On the other hand, I think that it is an art to make robots that can create some kind of art, if you can call it that. It is in art in itself to make a robot that can paint a picture or to perform some kind of music but I don’t believe that is a true piece of art.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0wDZI15tiR0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t39ZkWvDUWk
http://www.jeffbots.com/artists.html
http://www.lxxl.pt/artsbot/index.html
http://www.halo.gen.nz/robot/
Robotics
What impact did the Industrial Revolution have on art?
The Industrial Revolution had both a positive and negative influence on art. The emerging technologies gave artists new ways to express themselves, and artists could present their pieces to a wider audience because of mass production and ease of transportation. Artists also enjoyed a wider palette, centering paintings and drawings on the plight of assembly line workers, new technologies, and the shifting landscape. However, the ability to mass-produce art detracted from the originality of artwork. Hundreds of people could now purchase an esteemed piece of art for a meager amount and hang it in their homes. Artists could benefit from a paltry piece of art as long as they could cheaply produce and sell it; the prospect of wealth overshadowed the drive to create something completely new and beautiful.
What is the goal of kinetic art?
Kinetic art, art with moving parts, has progressed from simple sculptures (like Marcel Duchamp’s Bicycle Wheel) to useful technologies like robots and artificial body parts. Watching the breathing lion model and running robot in class, there seems to be a common goal of modern kinetic art: to make machines mimic living things. The robot from Youtube that took the woman for a walk was a prime example. The fluidity of modern robots’ movements is simply amazing; it seems that soon we will be able to develop robots that are indistinguishable (at a glance) from their living counterparts. I can see advances in robotics proving useful in many aspects of life, especially with helping the disabled. Even today, people employ robotics to build fake arms and other appendages that make life easier for the disabled. Robots could even be used to interact with other people or animals, such as using a robot to imitate a parent animal in order to nurse younger animals.
http://www.jstor.org/view/0024094x/ap050019/05a00180/0
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~brand/artist.html
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/robot1.htm
Robotics or Intelligence
After hearing about the prominent influence that robotics is supposed to have on our future I did some research on truly intelligent machines. While searching I found an article on “On Intelligence,” a book by Jeff Hawkins. Hawkins believes that the reasons for our failure in the area of robotics is because we are programming the machines to do specific things. Instead he thinks “that to actually make an intelligent computer, we simply need to teach it to find and use patterns, not to attempt any specific tasks.” I believe Hawkins is correct. Once we know more about the brain we should be able to structure a “robot” to learn. We should be able to construct something in such a way that the machine could actually learn as in movies such as “I, Robot.” In order to make sure that the robots won’t “take over the world” one could build restrictions on how much can be learned. Instead of programming software to take out our trash we could teach an intelligent machine to do many useful tasks instead of just a few. The only downside that I see tho this new technology would be an increased unemployment rate. The machines would be able to do work just as well as humans and problem solve around things. Big companies would only have to pay a one time fee for all the work they could imagine. Our lives could be changed forever, both positively and negatively.
As progress in neuroscience occur so will artificial intelligence. Jeff believes that in our brains we have memory-prediction framework located in our neocrotex that is associated with the thalamus and hypothalamus and that once we are able to clearly understand how this framework works we will be able to model intelligent life after it.
Although Hawkins ideas are a little out there, they could be like those of Tesla, just a little before there time. Tesla would not believe all of the technology that we have today, and one hundred years from now who knows, maybe we will be walking around not being able to tell the difference between a humanistic robot and a normal little girl. But one has to remember that this is only a prediction. Twenty years ago people believed that by now we would be flying around in cars and having robots do everything for us. Although this is not the case, we have made many advances and are on our way to producing intelligent life.
Could this be our future?
AI: Artificial __________?
Amidst the horror-filled dystopian predictions of robots turning against humans, and optimistic dreams of living in harmony with android friends, the term “artificial intelligence” gets thrown around approximately once every three sentences. However, for most of us, our conception of what this actually entails is somewhat flawed.
To begin with, intellect is generally understood as something’s capacity to learn, reason, and understand based on factual information. Learning has already been conquered; computers have long been able to store and recite information fed in from external sources. Reasoning has likewise been tamed, on a basic level at least; the simplest “IF/THEN/ELSE” statement provides for a simple conclusion based on given factual premises. Understanding is also falling under manmade dominion; the Kansei robot, for example, “reads” facial expressions and “understands” the emotions they convey. “Intelligence” per se is not, therefore, referring to actual intelligence, but rather to a higher degree of conscience or sentience.
This is where we tend to overreach. Humankind has long thought itself far superior to other animals based on our advanced mental capacity. It seems more reasonable to me for development of robot “minds” to focus first on autonomy in baser forms; that is, re-focus our obsession from Artificial Intelligence to Artificial Instinct. The ability to sense, perceive, and develop reaction to anything around them, even things outside their pre-programmed schematic, is that vital step between machines and those “robots” of the future.
On a somewhat tangential point, the ethical question would spring up around here somewhere; at the point where humans are creating autonomous individuals. More interestingly, and perhaps more importantly, would be the dilemma when we are actually on the cusp of creating actual sentience. Sure, these robots wouldn’t be “alive” by a scientific definition; yet if they could act on their own, think on their own, and behave for all intents and purposes like a living organism, then I don’t think ethics should be concerned about the physical makeup of its robotic innards. After all, the creation of certain types of robots would be technological eugenics; programming a robot is tampering with or creating its genetic code. In a time where stem cell research is so hotly debated, I find it interesting how the issue of robotic life is just about ignored.
Another interesting subject (sorry for jumping around) is what was brought up during discussion in regards to art and robots: is it art if it’s made by a machine? Before diving into this question, I’d like to say that, in my opinion, art and meaning exist in separate realms. A piece of art can have a particular meaning; a person can draw meaning out of art as well. Yet the absence of meaning doesn’t prohibit a piece from being artistic, if it is still aesthetically pleasing. The “perfect man” image, for example (http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=409), was computer-generated. Yet I can find artistic merit. Thus to return to the original question, I would say that yes, art created by robots is still art. However, I don’t think robots can confer a meaning in the art they create. It can be programmed to do something a particular way; however, any meaning is coming from the person programming, not the robot itself. And here we come full circle in my attempt to make this entry less scatterbrained: in my opinion, a robot will not be able to create something of its own, with a meaning or message that came not from a programmer but itself, until it has autonomy and sentience.
Now here’s some links to interesting robot stuff:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/071012-robot-marriage.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/robots/remote-control-humans-193817.php
Week 3 – Robotics by Shih-Yao Nathan Hsu
What’s the influence of advanced technology on humanizing machineries?
As the technology advances, the machines from industrial age no longer possess the old, stereotypical looks, but rather, they are coated and beautified by humans. Robotics – machines possessing humanly appearance – is the product under such paradigm shift. “Technological advances double every eighteen months,” said Henry Wang, a computer sciences engineer in University of California at Riverside. Now, humans are able to create senses in machineries as well as building sophisticated AI – Artificial Intelligence – within the tiny chips inserted within the metal box. Not for long, the scientists and engineers will, coherently collaborating, shape these lifeless beings so-called robots into forms of us, perhaps undistinguishable with bare eyes.
What direction is Robotics heading?
It is scary even to imagine a man marrying a robot; however, as published in news on Chinese Yahoo! Website, Japanese and Korean scientists are endeavoring on combining machineries into a physical, humanly shell, though not as frightening as the story Frankenstein. “Perhaps in the year 2050,” commented by these scientists, “the technology within these robots, who are less whimsical and incomprehensible, will be advanced enough to replace the real women in for men, and vice versa.” Although it seems improbable to create highly realistic “Human machines”, some of the AI, as of now, are capable to beat the national champions in chess. The direction to which the technology and robotics are heading still appear unpredictable.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO
http://www.robotics.com/robots.html
http://www.roboticsonline.com/
http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/robots.html
Kinetic Art and Robotics
Kinetic Art is a perfect example of how art and technology have intertwined in this art/ science world of ours. In kinetic artwork, the art has movement or parts that are in motion. This movement is either defined by illusion, i.e., when an individual passes by the art work, or is mechanically powered. Eastern European artists Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner were the first individuals to experiment with this type of art. They were inspired by their fascination with technology. A more advanced form of kinetic art is robotics.
Robotics and a robot in itself is a form of art mixed with technology. Robots and the idea of having a machine emulate a living creature’s characteristics have been around for decades. The fact that robots are becoming more advanced as time passes is remarkable in itself in terms of art and technology. Now, the idea of a robot creating art; well that seems somewhat illogical.
Some robots, with the advancement of technology, now have the technology to create their own art. This sparks up many questions in my mind. Can a robot really replace a human artist? So is this actually considered art? Or is the robot in itself the art work? Can art create art? Personally, I do not believe that an art piece created by a robot should be considered art. The robot is not the artist; the creator of this robot is in fact that artist. Stating that this robot is the artist is basically saying that a printer is an artist. Robots are simply programmed to perform certain tasks, ordered by the individual who designs the machine. The machine merely reproduces artwork, as referenced to in Walter Benjamin’s essay. Although it has replaced many humans in the industrial world, throughout time, a machine can never replace a human being, in terms of artistic ability and creation of art work.
http://www.sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?t=5810
Mr. Tesla
I was very fascinated by the integration of the arts with machinery. I personally had the most fun watching clips of the matrix: revolution. However, this doesn’t mean that I wasn’t inspired to do further research on projects now inspired by Nikola Tesla.
As most people may already know, Tesla was famous for inventing the tesla coil, but he is less known for discovering the alternating current which is used greatly in today’s society. This was a great utilization of energy: rather than using a direct stream of energy and losing much in the process, Tesla was able to utilize approximately 95% of the energy to stream it from his source into its receivers. However, despite my interest in Tesla’s previous works, I will be talking about something else: an electric car.
Sure, the EV-1 was a breakthrough and a failure, but now hybrid cars are being produced left and right. However, what a lot of petroleum companies don’t want people to know about is Tesla Motors, a company that has produced a elise-like roadster that can travel up to 245 miles on a single charge. Since the car uses rechargable lithium ion batteries and has an electrical motor, there is less chance of engine failure and only requires two gears. The possibility of one gear could be explored further to optimize performance, but some rivaling companies decided to buy out their patent and is now holding onto it in secret. As of now, the car is being sold for 98 grand due to its limited availability and demand, but as people start to buy more, the cost will go down dramatically. As of now, I believe tesla motors is designing an all-electric sedan. more info about this can be found on www.teslamotors.com
www.teslamotors.com
http://www.braincourse.com/wirelessa.html
http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm
Week 3: Robots and Art
Will robots soon be as intelligent as humans?
In the 90’s, there seemed to have been a new type of craze over robots. Many new sci fi movies made during the era posed their own answers to the question: How intelligent will machines be in the future? Two of my favorites were Bicentennial Man (1999) and A.I. (2001). In Bicentennial Man, an android (played by Robin Williams!) is created to perform menial tasks in a household, but continues gaining knowledge and even experiences emotions. By questioning its identity, the android becomes a threat to its creator. Though the movie is very interesting, it is fiction, and will probably remain that way at least through our lifetimes.
Work on artificial intelligence began after WWII, becoming popular in the 1950’s. Now, scientists use computer technology to create artificial intelligence systems that can learn and make decisions almost as well as humans. Specifically, they are attempting to use microprocessors that function based on algorithmic patterns to mimic neuron activity. However, we have yet to be successful in the creation of an “electronic brain”.
How does art tie into robotics?
As I have mentioned before, I am a science major, and can easily see how advancements in science benefit society. It takes a little more brainwork to see it from the art side, but I do. If a humanlike robot were created in the future, it would not be very convincing if it did not look like a human. Therefore, it is necessary to have art skills for the outer design. For example, I can imagine that a robot would need artificial skin, hair, etc. To make these, an artist would have to search for efficient materials that appear realistic.
< Hiroshima Engineers Develop Robotic Carp (article)
~ an interesting article which also demonstrates the beauty of art in science
Links:
Making Robots Smarter (article)
Robotic Arts and Steroids
What is the controversy that surrounds robotic art?
Robot art, like any subset of art, arouses extremely different responses from different people. Some are enthralled by the implications of harnessing the power of robots to create stimulating art. Boosters of the scene say that by using robots, whose task typically involves nothing of creativity, to create art helps fuse the world of technology and science with the art world. Others, art purists among them, feel that adding a mechanical element to creating art takes away from its authenticity, or makes it less than “art.” Some might say that in a society such as ours in which technology and industry dominate our day to day lives, that art is one of the only escapes from the clutches of technology and thus shouldn’t be created through robotics. In a way, these people feel like art is one of the few things left in society that is truly human. Adding robots to the picture takes away from the humanity of it all.
How is this debate over robotic art similar to that of performance enhancing drugs?
This debate surrounding robotic art is very similar to that of the role of performance enhancing drugs in professional athletics. Supporters of the drugs feel that the athletes are there to entertain us, and that as entertainers they should be allowed to do whatever it takes to take their performances to the highest possible level. Detractors feel that steroids and other performance enhancers create an unfair advantage for players and that their use takes away from the idea of sport as competition. Furthermore, these people say that professional athletes who use performance enhancing substances are sending the message to kids that it is ok to cheat or to bend the rules. Although not nearly as much in the mainstream as the debate over drugs and sports, the controversy over robotic art has at its core the same conflict: what is the point at which innovation and technological advancement seizes to enhance something and begins to chip away at its purity?
Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_(sport)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/03/06/growth0313/
http://www.stcroixstudios.com/wilder/fastkarl/index.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldOfSport/idINIndia-30064020071019
Nikola Tesla and the Tesla Coil
Nikola Tesla, the inventor, physicist, mechanical engineer, and an electrical engineer, influenced our lives significantly by bringing the foundation of modern alternating current electric power (AC) system, and basis for other electronic devices such as wireless remote control. Amongst his inventions, is the Tesla Coil, a type of transformer. It transforms high current into high voltage.
Because it can generate discharges or currents of high voltage, the tesla coils are used in demonstrations, special effects, product safety testing. Also, because the discharges from the tesla coil resembles the lightning so much, it has been used by many science fiction entertainments such as computer games. An example would be The Tesla Coil in the game series Command & Conquer: Red Alert where the tesla coil is used to fire volts of electricity towards the enemy.
Some different uses of the tesla coil includes its ability to create music through proper control unit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1O2jcfOylU In this clip two tesla coils are connected to a laptop with a software that sends the tones that is played by the two tesla coils discharging.
One can even guess that the inventor Nikola Tesla himself must’ve been fascinated by his tesla coils from the fact that Tesla refused to hold conventions without his tesla coil blasting electricity throughout the room. Eventhough he was a reclusive individual, he had a great showmanship. In some sense, Nikola Tesla can be seen as a two culture man. He was a friend of Mark Twain, the writer. By other friends, Tesla was described as “a scientist or engineer who was also a poet, a philosopher, an appreciator of fine music, a linguist, and a connoisseur of food and drink.”
Links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1O2jcfOylU , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Tesla
Robotic Art and Art Robots
Art is a generalized word for many different types of disciplines. Robot art can also be classified into categories. The two I will be talking about is art assisted by robots/mechanical devices and art done solely by a robot. The general definition of art is: “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” My definition of art is a product, whether panting, sculpture, or anything else, that somehow creates an emotional feeling and has a underlying message or significance. I feel that art done by a robot would not be considered art, by my definition. When I say “done by a robot,” I do not mean a robot being controlled by a human, but a robot that can sustain itself without human assistance. A robot like the robot given in lecture. It produced a series of different colored circles on a sheet. Is that art? I look at it and say, “wow…. its a bunch of dots.” Sure it’s interesting to know that a robot painted it, but that is all. The picture has no significant emotional value or depth.
This sculpture from UCLA sculpture garden seems like just some random rock, but the name of the sculpture, “Hybrid Fruit called Pagoda” gives it a significance.I do not consider that art. An example of a robot creating “art” is Zanelle the autonomous painting robot. (www.zanelle.com). This robot looks like a big printer on wheels, but it uses brushes to paint the picture. The artist programs the robot with lines of code, and the robot paints. I consider the picture painted by this robot art because the artist uses the robot as a tool for his creations. The robot does not control itself.
A painting like this would take Zanelle 21 hours to complete
Kinetic Art
The types of kinetic art shown in class were very weird and interesting, and I loved it. A picture is worth a thousand words right? How much is a moving picture worth? The only bad thing about kinetic art is that if it is being run by motors, it gets very noisy, which seems to take away focus to the art. My favorite type of kinetic art would be from the artist Tim Fort. Every MUST watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRYo4V3HB8
And thats an order!
References:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
http://www.zanelle.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_art#Rome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLRYo4V3HB8
http://amorphicrobotworks.org/directions/public/index.htm
Kinetic Art and What Defines Art
Blair Georgakas
Where and when was kinetic art first made?
The first pieces of kinetic art trace back to 1920 by Naum Gabo and his brother, Antoine Pevsner, in Moscow. Through the late 1950s to the 1960s, kinetic art became popular. It started out as art pieces that also incorporated motion, mostly by wind, a person’s hand, or a motor. However, when we think of kinetic art of the present day, we visualize high-tech machines producing sounds and movements that react to observers and their actions. Kinetic sculptures are a rare form of art that we often do not even correlate with the arts at all. We think of these machines as nothing more than technology driven by science. But amazingly, this technology that is driven by science then produces some of the most beautiful and captivating pieces of art of all.
What is your definition of art?
Art, for me at least, is anything that is an expression of its creator. For my definition of art, art includes almost everything. There are millions and millions of thing that initially may not seem to be art, but a valid argument could prove that it is. Art is either driven by some feeling or inspiration or it brings it out in someone else. From this interpretation of art, almost all technology can be viewed as art. This certainly includes kinetic art. Kinetic art is produced in hopes of letting people interact with it while enjoying themselves. With this intention aren’t cars then seen as art or laptops or even sports?
Extension and Enhancement through Robotics
Where do mechanics stop and we begin? Is the purpose of mechanics to extend our abilities to what would have been unthinkable or monotonous? If so, should the blending of robotics and mechanics be abrupt or should there be no distinction at all? If we do limit the distinction between the two are we just cutting ourselves short of our full potential? Perhaps humankind would never be able to reach the kind of advancement it did with computers, if it wasn’t for the development of the mouse. The mouse greatly increased the ability of a person’s hand and touch to control the cyber world. It beat out other ideas for pointing devices, but most importantly it has stood the test of time. First developed in 1963 it has maintained its simple design and ease of use for forty-four years.
Computers have accomplished many great things through the use of mice and other devices used to extend our abilities into the world of computers. Robotics have also been used to make lives easier. They are able to eliminate or reduce the chores in daily lives. The robotics on an assembly line have both eliminated the jobs of some people and extended the power of the supervisor. The supervisor is able to make adjustments to the process to much finer degrees and directly control the production. Before, only the worker could change how fast or slow he/she works. The extension gained by applying robotics and mechanics to our lives gives us more power and versatility.
But maybe it’s not just preventing the full adaptation of robotics into our lives, but into our our bodies as well. Many people have adapted to prosthetics to regain functionality in their body, where before it may have been completely lost. If so much more functionality could be gained from prosthetics, how much could gained from a functioning human body? Would there be more to be gained because there was no loss of functionality before? Or would there be less to be gained because there is less area to improve? There must be many ethical debates on whether or not something like this should be done or not. The idea of steroids comes into thought when thinking about manipulation of a human body. There might be great strides to be taken with the forwarding of human body. On the contrary, the mechanization of a body functioning normally might have negative effects similar to how steroids damage the body. Science fiction writers have turned this, in some cases, into a possible future, where it offers super-human abilities. This is not only in the past, but also a new TV series on NBC has made this idea very real. Although to bypass any ethical debates, they altered the body of a woman after a severe accident.
There is a debate concerning the morality of these types of enhancements. Although there are some cases of so called “prosthetic enhancement” dating as far back as March 2002. A British scientist reportedly did the experiment, where a complex electronic device was connected to his nervous system. A robotic arm was able to mimic his movements based on the readouts from the electronic device. From a similar previous experiment, he was able to control light, doors, and heaters. Relating to this experiment, “The main purpose of this experiment was said to be to test the limits of what the body would accept, and how easy it would be to receive a meaningful signal from the chip.” So if the body really can be augmented by this type of development, how much are we limiting ourselves?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Warwick#Robotics:_Project_Cyborg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_mouse#Early_mice
