When studying Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:, especially in the context of electronics, mechanics, and architecture, it is important to note a few contextual aspects. Shelley's husband Percy outlines several important points in the novel's preface; among the most important are references to scientific and technological In achievements of her time.
The event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, byu Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence.
According to numerous sources, including Digital People and Mechanical Bodies, Computational Minds, the Darwin noted above does not refer to Charles, but rather his grandfather Erasmus. Erasmus developed the early theories of evolution, which were later (and more famously) elaborated upon by Charles. There is also reference to the Italian scientist Galvani's experiments with electrical currents that was passed through frog's legs, causing them to convulse. Later, Galvani's nephew was given a scientific award for similar experiments; by passing currents through the body of a hanged convict, the convulsions of the body convinced others that he had restored life to the man. Around the same time, electricity was thought to restore those who had died from drowning. This was a technique that was close to the Shelley household - Percy's first wife died from drowning, and according to sources it is possible that physicians attempted to revive her in this way.
Textual Notes
The original title of Shelley's book, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Promethus likens Dr. Frankenstein (not his monster) to the Greek myth of Prometheus. In the myth, Prometheus creates humans from mud and water. His search to better humankind compels him to steal fire from the gods, and he is punished cruelly for this act. In the same sense, Dr. Frankenstein's experiments and creation lead to the destruction of his family and himself. (source: Mechanical Bodies,Computational Minds page 184) The context, text summaries, symbolism and more can be found in Wikipedia's notes on Frankenstein (despite the somewhat skepticism that surrounds Wikipedia, I find this passage to be interesting):
"Behind Frankenstein's experiments is the search for ultimate power or godhood: what greater power could there be than that found in the act of creating life? Frankenstein and his utter disregard for the human and animal remains gathered in his pursuit of power can be taken as symbolic of the rampant forces of laissez-faire capitalism extant at the time and their basic disregard for human dignity. Moreover, the creation rebels against its creator: a clear message that irresponsible uses of technologies can have unconsidered consequences."
Shelley makes a clear statement about Frankenstein's experiments with life; the creation of life from any means other than biological reproduction to this point had been reserved for the divine. Frankenstein's thirst for this knowledge is his undoing: he in unable to manage the responsibilities, and immediately is terrified of his creation. Despite popular imagery of the monster, Frankenstein's being is intelligent and strong; he eventually becomes enraged with Frankenstein's inability to provide him with what he desires - companionship, respect - that he destroys his master's life.The notion of the creator-creation struggle is interesting; when Frankenstein dies, the monster states that he can now too rest. Does this imply that the automata has developed some sort of psychological bond with his creator...the creature exudes feeling, emotion. Does this now mean that despite being created by man, from decaying animal and human parts, that the creature has a soul? This lends a completely different take on life, and concepts about automated feeling, spirituality, and meaning.
As a treat...Thomas Edison's 1910 short film "Frankenstein"
Readings:
Hunter, J. Paul, edt. Mary Shelley Frankenstein: The Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W. Nortan & Co. 1996.
Bloom, Harold, edt. Frakenstein: Modern Critical Interpretations New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 1987.
Franchi, Stefano and Guven Guzeldere, edt. Mechanical Bodies, Computational Minds: Artificial Intelligence from Automata to Cyborgs London: MIT Press. 2005.
Perkowitz, Sidney. Digital People: From Bionic Humans to Androids Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. 2004
Here are some more indepth images that describe the nature of our installation:
This is the setup of the projection system: a small analogue camera was set to the electric typewriter, as well as the magnetic tape head. This then projected to the wall at the end of the installation. Elmo and the theremin were mounted to the inside of one of the chambers in the pneumatic. The optical sensors of the theremin were attached to the openings in elmo's motors, creating an oscillating sound. The view through the pneumatic wall to people on the other side.
Montreal Trip #2: The Pneumatic/Electronic Installation
I've posted some images of the installation, as well as our conceptual ideas for the project. It sounds like there will be video footage of the group presentation available - maybe I'll post some clips once I get my hands on some.
The project was officially started on Thursday, October 19th, and ran until Saturday the 20th. It combined the pneumatic structures conceived by the students of RPI in New York, and our studio's electronics.
(photograph and video by carl drohomereski)
Conceptual Ramble:
The pneumatic wall that the RPI group brought from NY had a strong sense of progression, and we decided early on that we should use this to our advantage. The space that we were working in at Concordia was a room typically used for blue screen filming and effects; the stark white walls and curved corners allowed for a more interesting niche at the end of our wall. As the pneumatic wall was curved on various planes, the walls of the room complemented this greatly.
The structure and the electrical components changed throughout the workshop, and this evolution informed our overall concept. The wall was therefore seen as an autonomous, living entity.
The pneumatic itself consisted of two separate air chambers, which allowed for the wall to curve in one of two directions, depending on the which side was inflated. An optical sensor and relay were connected to two vacuums, and as the projected light changed, the relay switched on one or the other vacuum. Each hose was connected to one of the separate air systems; when one air source was off and the other on, the wall gently curved.
As the wall curved, it set of a variety of sensors - some of which were connected to the elmonic-theramin creation, and others to the keys of the electronic typewriter. As elmo's sensors were set off, the motor rotated, and the sound of the theramin oscillated accordingly. A voice-distortion kit was wired into elmo to abstract his words, allowing for only a few distinguishable words each time he spoke.
The key sensors of the electronic typewriter served to record the movement of the wall, but also as the opus of the entity. The magnetic tape head and tape were connected to the typewriter, and played distorted music as the machine completed a line and returned to the beginning.
A video camera was set to record the typing, and projected in real-time the footage. We worked with some basic computer-programming to switch the footage from it's original black and white state to the inverse (negative) - ultimately white background with black text, to a black background with white text. The optical sensor connected to the relay was positioned to sense the light output from the projector, and informed the vacuums that inflated each side.
Ultimately, the electronics were used so that they could interact with the pneumatic, and conceptually come full circle to allow the installation to act as one, autonomous piece.
I've decided to post this in installments of events - starting with the drive to Montreal through the beautiful mid-western United States, Montreal itself, and then the installation work we completed at Concordia. So here goes:
SPACE ALIENS! Firstly, check out the awesome menu. Maybe try a huge baked potato. Actually don't.
And after the announcement that a space ship had crashed landed, the visitor from Planet X arrives...unfortunately he can't join us for our huge potatoes, as he has to return to his job as a line cook.
We've met as a group, and we've fired of a few questions to those of you at RPI. The structure itself is interesting in that it seems to move as it breathes. We want to use this movement as the basis for our installation. By looking at this as a "dance" or as a stage for movement, there are multiple ways that we can integrate our electronics/machines to create rhythm, sound/music, even mechanical dance. We can pinpont ways in which the building can not only instigate reactions, but be fully integrated in that is responds to the stimuli that we are discussing.
Specifically elmo: We are going to rewire some of the sensors to respond to the movements of the building has it expands, contracts. I've picked up a series of microswitches that can replace the existing sensors, which are too specific to the casing and difficult to work with. We're hoping to maintain elmo has a "body" - using the motor and the existing mechanical connections to respond to the building's shape. It's likely that in order to take advantage to the full range of elmo's responses, the gravity sensor will need to be moved and attached to the inflating/deflating wall. So: The building moves, creating sound and triggering certain sensors. Depending on the particular sensors triggered, elmo reacts, dancing in the space. As our other group ideas trigger the inflation and deflation OR produce sound, the building acts as a mediator between the electronics. As for elmo's vocal reactions, we've discussed altering them to create a more abstracted sound, to correlate with Dana's tapeheads, Kyle's theramin, and possibly Carl's accordion.
i'm looking further into what i can and can't change on elmo - namely sensors and microswitches. this may redefine the piece, and make it more adaptable for pneumatics.
i've cut down on the images posted on the blog yesterday, due largely to how long it took for them to load. if you want to check out anything, download the pdf or check out the images on my website.
here are some notes/thoughts from our phone conversation yesterday:
1- the valves prove to be an interesting contact/connection between projects. although patrick touched on this, this was the first thing that came to mind when i was watching the ppt presentation, specifically because of any twisting movement, push/pull, etc. elmo's arms work in a way that could be condusive to many types of valves. 2- using foil tape - do tapes exist that could carry a current? i don't even know. 3 - i loved the woven tower proposed by RPI - the potential for movement with that structure makes it compatible with the micro switches and sensors in many of our projects. 4 - the inner tube project was interesting, and i like the idea of seperating the skin from the structure, but maintaining pneumatic elements throughout. the flexibility of this structure is great, and could be integrated with electronics easily. 5 - projection - the skew that the structure provided to the projected image was great, and i appreciate that both strategies were explored (clear/out of focus). this is something that also could be highly integrated with our group's ideas.
the vivisection is nearly complete. i've attached images of the 11x17 document that was produced to accompany this portion of the work.
a complete pdf version of the images is available here the text included in the images may be hard to read. so, for accessibility's sake, i will reiterate some portions of the included text alongside the images.
elmonic vivisection part two:
"Let’s pretend Elmo" is a toy designed for children 18 months of age and older. It is a complex automated design that responds to various positions and poses. The machine includes a series of mechanical and electrical parts, including circuit boards, micro-switches, a motor, various sensors, and a processor. The toy is programmed to respond to five specific positions, with two programmed reactions for each. These reactions include movement as well as a variety of noises and words.
As the machine is comprised of a multitude of electronic parts that respond to specific cues, the toy can therefore be manipulated to suit an architectural scale. Although it is unlikely that the sound can be specifically changed, it is possible that it could be manipulated or altered in numerous ways. The micro switches and sensors not only prompt sound, but also movement. The toy could therefore be used to create a variety of complex movements and noise. It could likely be integrated into wall systems, door and window systems, or any installation where the user could instigate a series of movements and responses by triggering an initial sensor.
The teletubby doll is very simple: a child pushes the sensor in it’s hand, and it sings. A light then turns on, revealing the image of a child in the television in its stomach. The legs then twist, and the film inside the stomach rotates to show another child.
Electronically the machine is simple, and mechanically it is comprised of a number of gears and switches that allow the mechanism to recognize when to turn its legs in a particular direction. The light and rotating film is also another interesting component of the toy. Both of these allow for the possible exploration of projection. The sounds are already obscure and irrelevant, and could easily be manipulated and distorted. The moving pieces and the push sensor may add further potential, allowing for the movement of objects at an architectural scale.
(image retrieved from the national library of medicine)
