Siegrun Appelt: 8.388.608

The basic structure of the installation is formed by 23 spotlights attached at different heights to the 23 façade supports in front of the EnBW building in Karlsruhe. Like a computergenerated drama, the lights are switched on and off in variable combinations according to the "Monte Carlo" technique, which uses a randomisation principle which is still calculable. The switching sequence of the 23 lights can be combined 223 times. The spotlights, which are directed downwards, also form a curtain of light. In wet weather or snow, this curtain is transformed into lighting cones by raindrops and snowflakes.



This installation is extremely appropriate, considering spotlights, and how they both adapt and react to the environment that they are positioned in. I particularly like the way in which the lights turn on and off forming an apparently random sequence. Although this is not an interactive action it is something that I would like to consider introducing into my work, as I feel that it would add another aspect to my work.

It be enthralling to be stood within a spotlight, and then suddenly it would turn off and another light would appear in a different part of the space. I think that this would be enriched by the nature of the lights. i.e. the brightness and also the interactive aspect. The user would be able to make the connection between the lights turning on and off and their movements. If this was not expected it would be extremely effective. There would be a danger however, that the switching between lights could turn into a light show, that would be more familiar at a concert. This is something that I am going to consider more thoroughly and more than likely will appear in the piece in some form.

Interaction

Throughout my university life I have become fascinated with the idea of interactivity and how the communication between human and machine can evolve. This has been a core idea with the work that I have produced since starting the course. I have always tried to find other methods of computer control than simple using a standard mouse and keyboard, instead using another part of the anatomy. This is an ideology that remains apparent within this work, and in fact acts as a core feature within the installation. Throughout the research stages of this project it has been interesting to see similar works, some of which also aim to illustrate light in a different way. During this process however I have not seen any interactive pieces, that allow the user to directly affect the light through an automated process, i.e. triggering a response from a machine, without somebody else having to control the machine. This is something that I feel I have addressed, and tried to fulfill with ‘Illuminate’.

One consideration that I have contemplated during the production process of the project (recorded in the supporting blog) is an interesting query that interactivity often raises; whether the user can becomes a co-author to the art. This thought was considered whilst deliberating over the role that the user will have throughout the installation and what level of control that they be granted. The user will have the freedom to move freely around the structure effecting how the light behaves with their movements, but does this really make them a co-author. Following some further thought I realised that the users role is not one of a co-author, but more of a performer. The user can control how the light behaves during the installation, but these behavior patterns have already been defined. The user simple has the control to dictate which route to take through the patterns. These ideas are supporting by the views of Lev Manovich, who comments,

“I always wonder how people (viewers) are exited about this new way of manipulation on them. It seems that manipulation is the only form of communication they know and can appreciate. They are happily following very few options given to them by artists: press left or right button, jump or sit. ”

Although I do not necessarily solely agree, as I myself enjoy using new methods of interaction within the media, I can understand why it could be perceived as manipulation.

For this reason I have tried to allow the user as much freedom as possible within the installation, but again this is controlled by my rules, and prerequisites. This is something that I am not sure could have been avoided considering the nature of this work, but is something I would like to consider further in the future.

The Myth of Interactivity- Lev Manovich “The Language of New Media”

Since starting the course I have become fascinated with the idea of interactivity and how the ideas can be developed to add complexity to my work. I have, however, noticed that the term is often used extremely loosely and can imply several different meanings. In order to correctly apply the term to my work I decided to research it further, starting with Len Manovich’s exploration of the term in “The Language of New Media”.

Used in relation to computer-based media, the concept of interactivity is a tautology.

In order to consider interactivity as a concept in itself Manovich also considers a number of other concepts including menu-based interactivity, salability, simulation, image- interface, and image-instrument, all of which allow him to consider different kinds of interactive structures and operations.

As Manovich highlights all classical art already possessed interactive aspects, manipulating the viewer’s attention to focus on different parts of the art, whether it was theater, cinema or even painting. Modern art and other media took this technique, and pushed it further, increasing the cognitive and physics demands. Early modern media, such as film montage from the 1920’s, forced audiences to construct mental gaps between unrelated images.

New representational style of semi- abstraction which, along with photography, became the “international style” of modern visual culture, required the viewer to reconstruct the represented objects from the bare minimum -- a contour, few patches of color, shadows cast by the objects not represented directly.

New forms of art such as happenings, performance and installation meant that art became participational, meaning that the viewer participated in the art. It was this movement in the 1960’s that some new media theorists believe paved the way for interactive computer installations that first appeared in the 1980s.

The concept “interactive media” often brings forth a literal interpretation of physical interaction between a user and a media object (pressing a button, choosing a link, moving the body). Although in many cases this may be what appears to happen it negates the idea of psychological interaction. The psychological processes of filling-in, hypothesis forming, recall and identification, which are required for us to comprehend any text or image at all, are mistakenly identified with an objectively existing structure of interactive links. This mistake is not new; on the contrary, it is a structural feature of history of modern media.

Spotlights

Spotlights

Although the main idea behind the form of the light revolves around columns, it is highly likely that users will consider the columns to be spotlights, due to the nature of the lights, after all the lights that I plan to use are spotlights used in theatre and other stage performances. This is a problem that I need to consider, as I don’t want the lights to appear like they have just been taken from a pop concert. Although this problem will be addressed later I also need to consider the meanings that are attached to spotlights in the own right, including ideas that stretch from, alien space ships and war search lights, to rock concerts and sun beams.

I have decided to first look at the spotlight from a chronological vantage, allowing any analysis to be well grounded and informed. Consequently the following section will read as a brief history of spotlights. A great source of information considering this came from …. Chapter on the ‘History of the Spotlight’ in Light Art from Artificial Light.

The ideas outlined here mainly focus on the use of spotlights from the war period, where light was used as a weapon to blind the enemy, meaning that they couldn't seen the attackers, rendering them easier to kill.

As well as being used in war planes, and on the ground, another common connotation is alien spaceships. This idea has been born through several big profile hollywood films, and supported by claims of sightings, where large beams of light appear from the base of the ship, as either a weapon or a method of 'beaming' up something.

Cylindrical Columns

It has become apparent that it may not be possible to produce a square column of light. Although I have tried several different solutions and have spoken to several experts within the field it appears that there may not be a method of producing a perfectly square light. There are other possible solutions that could potentially produce a square light, including reconstructing a light, with square edges etc. However, this would prove to be extremely difficult, and require a large amount of knowledge surrounding lights.

As time is against me I have regrettably decided to revert to cylindrical columns. It is disappointing to have to move away from the original idea, but it has proven extremely time consuming and difficult to find an adequate solution. Columns have traditionally been cylindrical for thousands of years, so this decision will also allow me to continue with tradition, which may reinforce the idea that the lights are in column or pillar form.

As well as hardware solutions I have considered projecting the light into a corner of a room, similarly to James Turrell’s work (discussed earlier in the blog), and lighting a structure (made from fabric etc). Although these would probably be able to produce a square light, I had planned to produce something that was freestanding, which is something that I would like to still be apparent. After all it will be this movement around the columns that will trigger the sensors, and consequently the interactive aspect of the project.

This is a disappointing change in direction as square lines would have been wonderful to see, but it is also an exciting change as it means that I can press on with the production of the piece. Following research I have found a viable method of producing a defined cylindrical column, follow spots.

Stage Lights

So far I have struggled to find a light source that will produce a collimated beam of light, let alone a square beam of collimated light. I have decided that my next step is to consider stage lights, commonly seen at concerts or the theater. This was an option that I had considered during the starting period of the project, but moved away from in favour of projector, both digital and analogue (overhead). As time is not on my side at this point I think that the best option would be for me to research into lighting companies located in London that I can then go and talk to regarding my problem. I think this will be far more effective then simply blind searching the internet, as although I know what the desired result is, there will be lots of lights that I will not be familiar with, and consequently it will be far more time effective to go straight to professionals within the field. In honesty this is something that I should have done much sooner, instead of focusing on the research behind the project.

As you can imagine there are several stage lighting companies located in London, all of which had a large amount of lights available. I decided to phone around to see who would be willing to allow me to come into the shop/business and test some lights out. Some of the firms were more reluctant than others due to light deterioration and some simply didn’t have a possible solution. Many firms suggested that laser lights would be the best option as laser light travels in straight lines, but I was still under the impression that the light would spread once leaving the source. The other option, that was repeatedly mentioned, was a follow or profile spotlight, often used to highlight a single person whilst on stage.

I eventually found a couple of firms that were willing to let me come in and try out different options in the shop. The first of which, called Clubtek, was located in Beckenham, which although was relatively south of London, was still worth the journey. During the visit I was able to try moving-head lights, profile spots, and follow spots.

Moving head lights:

A moving head is a versatile and multi-function light that was designed to replace multiple conventional, non-moving lights. The main advantage of moving heads is the versatility that they offer, all of which can be controlled via computer programming. The effects can be pre-programmed and played back using only simple commands, changing between effects rapidly.



Although the beam that was produced was very bright and crisp, the beam was too angled, which wouldn't work for the installation as I want the beams to appear collimated.



Follow spot:

A followspow is a powerful stage light, which can be controlled manually to follow actors around the stage. They normally have a several features that can be changed manually, including a focusable lens, an adjustable iris and a manual device that can effect the intensity of the beam.



The beam that was produced by the follow spot was more collimated than the moving head, and was equally bright. The beam was not as sharp as the moving head, but presented a viable option for the project.



Profile spot:

A profile spot works similarly to a follow spot, but the beam is not as powerful or pronounced. It can be used for the same uses, but is not as commonly seen.



The decision was made that laser lights probably wouldn’t be suitable considering the width that I desire from the beam i.e. a solid foot of light, as lasers are generally extremely thin beams unless you get extremely expensive lights.

I was pleased with the results, learning that a follow spot would provide a relatively collimated beam over the distance that I was proposing (7 to 8 feet). The follow spot however was as anticipated cylindrical, and the staff were not aware of any method of producing a square beam. Although this was disappointing the follow spot had other options that could potentially act as interactive system. On the front of the light there was a magazine fitted, that held five colour filters and a metal sheet that could make the light appear to turn on and off.



Although this wasn’t the solution that I had intended to find on the way to the meeting, I left feeling confident that this could form a back-up plan if I cannot find a solution for the original idea.

Contraction tests

I decided to test my theory considering how light could appear to contract and expand with the use of card and a pully system. Although at this stage I did not think it was necessary to introduce a pully system, as I could move the card adequately using my hands. I started the test by cutting out two cardboard L's that would form the structure that would control how much light would be allowed through.



I then used the same procedure, as with the initial tests, and blew smoke through a beam of light produced by spotlight torch. Although this is not how I intend to produce the final columns of light the technique produces an adequate enough beam to conduct tests with.

I then positioned the cardboard L's underneath the source of light (the torch) and linked them so that they formed a square in the middle that could be enlarged by moving the cards slightly apart. Although, this technique did reduce the size of the beam, it remained in a cylindrical form, and was considerable not as bright as above the card. The results are shown below.







Why did this happen?

Most of the light from the light source simple reflected off the card, as there was no method of control where the light was angled. If there had been a method to reflect the light through the hole the brightness wouldn't have been effected. This would have involved using curved mirrors, or even a completely different source. However, if the hole was made any smaller the same problem would still exist. Although the card did control how big the beam was coming out of it, it also caused a considerable amount of light to diffract around the edges of the hole, causing the light to spread.

Conclusion:

Although the tests were interesting, they have proven that this idea would be difficult to fulfill, requiring a complicated use of mirrors and pullys. I am consequently going to consider another method of achieving the effect as well as other possibilites of how the light could change following the input of the user.

Contract not bend

Since starting the project, finding a method to make the columns of light appear to bend has proven to be extremely difficult. I have tried options that include lenses, tilting the light source and even software options, none of which have provided an adequate method to achieve the desired effect. As a result I have decided to consider other interactive possibilities, as I would rather a working form of interaction than spend the remaining amount of time trying to find a solution and not succeeding. Although this is a disappointing prospect, as I was extremely interested by the original idea, it is also an exciting prospect as it will allow me to consider other possibilities that may not have been thought of before hand, and could even produce a more enriched experience.

I would like to make it clear that this is not a decision that I have taken lightly and it is a careful choice that will hopefully improve and develop the project.

During recent discussions about the installation I have considered the idea of introducing a method of making the light column appear to contract and expand. This would have direct correlation to how close the users are to the column; the closer they are the more the column will contract. Although I like the idea of such a system it is a idea that requires more consideration to see if it would actually be possible. The initial idea would be to have two L shape pieces of wood or card, the would be aligned with each other to form a square in the middle of them.



These pieces could then be controlled by a pull system to move them in and out, controlling how much light is allowed through the central square. I am uncertain, however, if this will be successful as I believe that the light will simple spread once if leaves the central square, but in order to be certain I would like to test how successful this technique will be.