Create a composed experience which is replayed in physical space that helps participants actively explore (and learn about) the concepts and aesthetics of generative/emegent forms.
Read more at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R9Fav5Kfw82mb1tp5LEI0eXMzC2a89xv0MHBPKrk06c/edit?usp=sharing
This is a really cool project and very entertaining to watch! It was interesting to see how aspects of game play that you changed affected the outcome. I, too, would like to see how a location with a different shape and other obstacles would affect the result.
Your algorithm is really unique and interesting! I can definitely see how the different spaces result in very different outcomes. I have a few questions: how were the random starting positions chosen, how did you choose who was in each group, and how did you decide how many people are in each group? All in all, good job!
I think your algorithm is really interesting in how you interact with each other! Did you change anything in the space between the first and second trials? Or did you just keep it the same to see how your movement changed? I also wonder if there is a way you could choose the direction in which you decide to move in a more random way. Overall, really interesting algorithm and great work!
I really love the idea of using using yarn to create a representation of your movement, while also incorporating it into your movement and algorithm! How do you think the outcome would have changed if you had changed the starting positions to maybe the center of the room, with each of you facing toward a different wall?
I definitely see the changes in your outcome from the first trial to the next, and I like how you constructed each of the two spaces in a way to highlight how the same algorithm can have two very different results. I agree with Laura, that it would be interesting to explore how controlling speed and number of spins (maybe choosing them in a random way) would affect the outcome, as opposed to letting each person decide for him- or herself, which doesn't seem to be very random. Overall, great project!
This was a very interesting project, especially since it is built from something where most of the actions are familiar to us. However, I think that you could've added more depth by filming some trials that are more deterministic. For example, each person could choose actions that would allow the "team" to score the most points within the time limit. Contrasting this sort of simulation game to one that is completely random could allow us to notice the effect of the randomness more readily.
Definitely an interesting project and I liked the use of the grid. Was there a way for you to monitor how fast you were moving with relation to the other people participating? If one ghost were moving slightly faster, they could theoretically have more of an advantage. If that wasn't one of the constraints that you took into account, I'm inclined to wonder why (even though I realize it's very knit-picky and relative speed is pretty easy to gauge). Overall, though, the project is very creative.
Thanks for your comments! For the walking movement we decided to move at the fastest pace we could while unwinding our yarn (which ended up being fairly slow) in a straight line from our originating angle. If we had chosen to move in a random direction that may or may not be linear, we felt there would be more entropy, but that we would revert to heading away from each other, towards un-cluttered areas, which was not necessarily the intention of our project. This also relates to the reason we didn't try our experiment in a more cluttered room like a classroom, because we felt we would quickly be trapped by our own yarn patterns, and the interaction with other patterns would be lost.
I agree with the second comment in that the string being used as both an obstacle and as a a method to track where people went is very interesting. I also liked that you didn't restrict yourselves by a certain time (unless it was taking a while for everyone to run out of string), which allowed the project to feel more organic. It would have been interesting to see what would've happened if you pulled the tables and chairs to the middle of the floor rather than leaving them on the outskirts.
I like the idea of using yarn as it also depicts the movement paths of the people, and restricts their movement as well by being an obstacle. Being able to clearly see the trails of movement in the room really helps in better visualizing the final movement form.
Very cool. I think I would have liked to see this in a different location, but I do like the changes you guys incorporated. It definitely seems to emphasize how important the level design was to pac-man being an interesting game.
I really like how the two different scenarios change the outcome of your performance. As each person spin more, the entropy and randomness increases as the walking directions start to vary more. One question I have about your algorithm is how did you choose the starting positions and directions? How did the choice of how you start affect the entropy of your performance?
It was interesting how you had each person generate their own random numbers instead of having them "make a choice". I think that works very well, though, because often when we are given a only a second to quickly make a choice of numbers two random numbers will pop into our heads without us considering the actions behind the numbers. This increases randomness probably more than if you were to have each person randomly choose and action.
Thanks for the input! Each person was not given a set direction to turn in, they chose one direction in the beginning and stuck with it (personal choice- more randomness). Yes, definitely each switch increasing the entropy. And there were no instructions whether to point the camera straight or not, so this was definitely personal choice and led to more randomness and entropy.
Taking into account all of these factors in producing this generative and emergent art make it so that no matter how many times it were to be reproduced, the outcome and perspectives would be slightly changed.
Your project is very interesting! I really enjoyed the contrast between the trial with obstacles and the one without. One thing I noticed was that it seemed as though most of the time when one of you hit a wall, you would turn 2 times exactly, which took away a little bit from the performance. Great work and idea!
"there were still several movements in the video that were not planned for in the algorithm"
This right here is so true. I'm glad you guys acknowledged it, because we had that happen too. It's interesting that you liken it to bugs - that's a good way to think about it (though I might not agree to describe them as happy accidents!) that helps to liken it to something familiar. I also like that you mention sports as having high indeterminacy and entropy, as that's what makes watching sports so good! Overall, I like the way this project handles the assignment! My only issue with it is that I'd like to see a bit more description of the code. I'm not exactly sure how it works (though I can sort of glean it from the videos).
It might be more clear if you guys decide a algorithms for random movement, because I think a person's decision of movement cannot be really random. For example, if the person bumped into a wall on the right side, he will turn left and will not turn back again since he knew there is a wall there. But if the movement is generated randomly, he might turn back to the wall again and again.
It is very interesting to use yarn to show the entropy of the movement. But since the movement of the yarn depends on the movement of the walking person. So one question I has is what is the algorithms of the walking movement.? How do you incorporate entropy in the movement of a person?
Very interesting project! I think it might be easier for viewer to distinguish pac-man from ghosts if you guys wore shirts in different colors. This algorithm incorporates lots of unexpected movements and builds up entropy and randomness. However, one question I has is that in all three trials pac-man and ghosts start at random numbered tiles, what if pac-man start at the same place as ghost? Game over? I think using a separate way to initialize the starting position for pac-man might be better.
Thank you for your suggestion@Amanda. Flipping coins do add more randomness in this process, not only because of the different methods we choose to flip the coin but also the different speed. Also, accidents like coin falling on the ground add more unexpected movement.
It was really interesting to watch the differences between your two trials, and I think it was very clear how changing the environment made a difference in the outcome. I think it might be interesting to see how modifying other factors, such as speed and number spins (while based on personal preference now seemed to become fairly consistent) might result in a more chaotic scene.
I like that you guys included so much variation between your different trials, and it really shows a difference in the emergent outcome of each one. It would be interesting to note, however, the different speeds at which the group members walked depending on how distracted they were or how likely they thought they were to collide with another person or obstacle? Did that in any way affect the outcome?
This project focuses on the generative nature of the outcome based on those performing it, which is a nice approach. However, it would have shown the outcome a little bit more clearly if the two areas that you chose were of marked size difference. The number garden area is slightly larger than the small triangle that you chose, but not such a large size contrast that there is easily visible the differences that occur when more or less collisions happen during the performance.
I'm surprised you didn't end up clumped more together, because it seems like the opposite of the game marco polo, with everyone heading towards the one person to yell bump. But I wonder if in a smaller room, without a mat in the middle, if that would have been more clumped or not?
These videos certainly were interesting, if not slightly dizzying. Was the 90 degree turn for the standing people done in a fixed order (clockwise, counterclockwise), or at the person's choice? Also did each person who was changing levels do so at uneven heights or degrees of change, making the outcome different based on who was participating? Were the camera angles supposed to be pointed downward or straight across, as they kept changing and I couldn't tell. These would be interesting to think about when discussing the final entropy of your project.
This was really cool to watch! I think the shape of the number garden also added some aesthetic appeal to it as well. It was interesting to see the effect the different types of trials had on the game play, and it created very different patterns. I think this would be really fun to try!
This project definitely had less entropy and randomness than some of the other projects where "randomness" wasn't defined by a numerical algorithm, but doing it this way makes the variation between the trails much clearer and marks this as an emergent outcome. Did you consider getting volunteers to be extra ghosts with different movement algorithms? How do you think that would affect the outcome?
There is no sound in your videos, so I can't really tell, but it would be interesting if you noticed during re-watch that the "random" directions that people who bumped seemed to go in weren't so random after all, or if a certain person favored moving a certain way after bumping into something, and how that would increase or decrease entropy in the entire generative movement.
This project is definitely well thought out, but some factors of randomness that would have been interesting to write about would have been that each person is flipping the coin in a slightly different way and at slightly different speeds, which increases or decreases the likelihood of future collisions.
This was a great project! I love that you made every couple trials a little different, and that the topic was easy to relate to. Well done.
Our results did seem to reflect what we expected when we created our algorithm, and chose the two spaces to perform it. There are more collisions (and hence there is more entropy) in our first recording which took place in a smaller space, as opposed to the second. Our movement seemed to fill up the space more in the first iteration.