Topic: Algorithmic studies
The Algorithmic Studies
The rules of CHAIR ATTRACTOR

4 chairs arranged diagonally from down stage right to upstage left, forming a diagonal. Chairs one and three face downstage, chairs two and four face upstage. Aisles one and four are symmetrical inversions of each other, aisles two and three are symmetrical inversions of each other. The "Object" (in today's case, myself, Matthew Rose) is the only player who knows the rules. All others are Observers.

The stage space is the deliniated "interactive space." Observers are welcome to enter or leave the space at any time. The third observer to enter the space becomes the Interactive Observer (IO), upon whose movements those of the Object are based. The algorithm is complete when all four chairs have been occupied by the Object. The Object copies the behavior of the IO with an approximate 3-second delay, as well as symmetrically inverting the movement in the corresponding aisle (aisles one and four, for example). Object will attempt to avoid contact with other Obervers whenever possible. Object will only interact with original IO. Stillness on the part of the IO for more than five seconds will cause the Object to circle the chair in the Object's current aisle until the IO resumes movement. When movement is resumed, Object also resumes inverted symmetrical three-second delay repetition. If IO leaves interactive space, Object will sit on floor and say "Goal incomplete, goal incomplete..." until IO rejoins space. Object then resumes inverted symmetrical three-second echo again. When object sits in chair one, Object recites, "Mary Had a Little Lamb." When Object sits in chair two, Object recites, "Humpty Dumpty." When Object sits in chair three, Object recites, "Jack and Jill." When Object sits in chair four, Object recites, "Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater." Upon completion of all four chairs (in any order), Object stands and says "Goal complete," thus ending the algorithm.

In terms of memory, I did need to put prompts on the chairs of one letter ( "M" for "Mary Had a Little Lamb," etc.) to remind myself of which poem to recite. Other than that, I memorized all other directions/reactions I would need in order to act appropriately to the rules of the algorithm. As I was moving in reaction to an outside visual stimulus, this kept my memory needs to a minimum.

It was basically set up as a completely reactive response, which was reliant upon the participation/non-participation of the observers. I did enjoy setting up the space as an obvious performance are though. It seemed to create a sense of creativity and participation in the observers.

For knowledge, I wanted to give the observers as little information as possible so they could simply begin interaction however they wanted, then construct their responses as the algorithm progressed.

The interaction went much as expected. Once the relationship between myself and the IO was recognized by the majority, the other observers tried to force interaction with myself and them upon the system, which is only addressed in the algorithm as "the Object tries to avoid physical contact as much as possible." They are basically put into the role of observers/setting.

I think the sense of the overall experiment was one of play, the deliniation of performance space/performers and perhaps observers, and a confusion of trigger elements (why a nursery rhyme? what did that have to do with the elements involved?)

DREAM ALGORITHM

If I could go all out with no real regard for expense, I would love to create a six sided room (the interior of a cube basically) made of input-sensitive projection screens. I would like the input to be sensitive to certain bio-readings of the participant(s): temperature, movement, heart-rate, blinking rate, etc. The algorithm would direct the computer to base the enclosing "environment" on the participant(s) bio-readings. It would be interesting to do a fast-tempo duet in this space, or a slow solo, or a large group improv. I think this would set up a very interesting user/computer loop, with the actions of the participant(s) causing an environmental change, which would then influence the participants, etc. etc. to create a "mediated bio-loop" so to speak. It seems that as we have explored systems and rule sets, that the need to discover the key to the system or control the system has been a motivating force in determining one's interface with the system, and this loop may yield interesting results. I think this system may also blur the distinction between a reactive and deliberative system, as it contains elements of both. Finally, depending on the visual/audio output provided, the environment could tend to excite or relax the participant(s). I think this system would explore numerous aspects of interactivity, the implementation of knowledge (as this is basically a cause and effect system), and certainly would be a saturation of the senses in a full-on 360 degree space.