Final Statement and Installation

Posted on

“Software < Hardware”, Installation, 2017

A work that explores the nature of technology and perhaps reverses the idea that we are a disposable culture when it comes to the devices we interact with everyday. The work incorporates technology that was overtaken by another technology that physically made it dead. Scattered around are Walkmans that were made redundant by MP3 download,, TVs that were left when digital antennas meant the analogue channels were cut off, and iPhones that with regular iOS enhancements that meant working devices were become slow and inconsistent. So is what’s killing technology and any future development the software element? Forcing the consumer e to purchase a new one and discard the original. Would you part with your phone if it would still work in 10 years time?This is something that I feel if some people didn’t HAVE to change, they wouldn’t. So I believe this works on a digital level. The digital software is perhaps what’s halting a lot of technology. So I looked into a technology that uses an abundance of software to perform the newest forms of technology and I stumbled into 3D printing.

3D Printing utilises millions of lines of code that are then programmed into a piece of hardware that releases a physical form. So my question is, as a technology that uses so much software to operate, can it survive? or will it be the destruction of so many other things we’ve had to now rely on photos or memories to enjoy?


Sam Noakes 4759485


Posted on Updated on


Item list:

2x Kumi projectors: each playing a set of code on loop. The projection onto the 3D printed artefact is a code from one of the components that is then sent to a printer to be turned into the physical. The second projection then comes through from behind onto a tv with a iPhone glued to the screen. The projection is an apple update that was the last update I downloaded onto it that eventually caused it to run slowly and eventually not turn on. This was the last apple update i performed before switching to android.

The tv at the back right + strobe: strobe sits in the bottom right corner to showcase static unresponsiveness. That was the last TV I had that was affected by the switch to digital TV channels and could no longer run off the analogue channel providers. This was made unusable through digital upgrades.

Miscellaneous Tech: scattered at the back…ownership of each of the items have been replaced by another due to software or digital upgrades.






Week11: 3d printing is the next to go…

Posted on

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 11.38.06 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 11.37.25 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 11.37.04 am

So a development in idea process. Instead of a mannequin-like set up that is showcasing technology dying into itself, I’m focusing on a particular technology that is new, but will end up dead. 3D Printing.

Everyone says how this is the next big thing, but track record of emerging technology suggests otherwise. I want to showcase this physically. Take out the mannequin hand that is looking for the next technology to sabotage, and use my 3D printed prosthesis. Then with the kumi, project onto the hand the STL code from the file I got it with. Essentially, the 3D printed hand is a piece of code taken a physical form. This will act as a catalyst for the humanisation of a device.

The dead technology will still sit behind it, however the idea is that the 3D printing phenomena is the “killer” in the momentum of futures. The STL code will loop over a period of time to show all components that go into the piece. The question I want to address is how can we stop this trend? Is a trend of the new futures going to be how quickly we can move onto the next emerging technology?

Iteration and installation will happen next week, this week I just sat within the space and literally looked at the devices. Questioned the motifs behind what it really is I want to understand and was really effective. I want to mind map this all out and basically just throw it up. The aesthetic nature comes last now.

week10: technology updates technology

Posted on Updated on

The direction for this installation has gotten me thinking about what it is I want to showcase in this work. Originally the idea I wanted to tangle with, was the notion that technology goes back and forth in iteration, in design, in trends and in functionality. I like the idea that the departure point for this last project was “futures”, and my immediate response was to showcase something that’s framed in the past. I think this is the basis of the work I want to display.

As non-human object, the technological devices we carry everyday constantly run at a pace determined by us. That, meaning they’re only function is determined by our use of them. Autonomy within them are seemingly not far away with the small increments being added to smartphones, however we can still choose most of their function. The thing that is seemingly out of our control though now is the way they’re manufactured to be replaced by the next evolution of the same thing. This leads most to expect another criticism of Apple,  however I want to go perhaps a little more broad with examples like the Record – MixTape – CD – MP3 evolution. Or the Film – VHS – DVD – Streaming trajectory of technology that include perhaps require a whole new hardware component to access content. Without discouraging the thought of this, nowadays this seems to have come t a relatively smaller halt, but the upgrades coming WITHIN the device, as a software update.

Consumers now are faced with a device that is in perfectly fine working order, in that it turns on, runs and connects them to content at a leisure. However to gain more or perhaps the most recent available services, the individual must update the device. NOTE: I’m going to be using the smart phone/tablet for this example as it is the most relatable for me. Once the software is updated, the phone has basically been given a no returns sentence. The update is designed to target newer app downloads, but also “laggs” the phone, decreases its swift functionality and tells the story of the device ultimately needing an upgrade.

Something this week that I want to explore is perhaps the trail effect or reckless understanding we have of this. Using the devices from my past, as a reminder of how much this trend of keeping updated and connected, leads to a media archeology of functioning devices that are tossed aside. Perhaps we wish we could stick to the one mobile phone or the one DVD player, but industry doesn’t allow us to. There’s possibility for batteries in devices to last 3 weeks, however corporate bosses don’t allow this to happen. Is there humanity to these devices that ultimately leads to its era ending?


week9: fail early fail often…or something like that

Posted on

FEFO as it’s commonly known.

Screen Shot 2017-09-26 at 3.40.27 pm

Screen Shot 2017-09-26 at 3.40.54 pm

Screen Shot 2017-09-26 at 3.41.07 pm

Simple fact. It didn’t work. It didn’t showcase what I needed it to. It didn’t convey a sense of nostalgia. It didn’t ask questions of why we are attached to technology. It simply just didn’t resonate with people and again gave off the impression of a workshop/hoarding set up that was filled with Xmas lights and cheaply assembled LED lights.

Thats okay. I’ve got a backup idea to try. Same direction of how we dispose of the technology quickly, this time instead of asking what it is that makes us attached to things, this time i’m asking the question is it the technology within thats making these devices disposable. Is it the embedded marketing within websites and product launches that actually makes us subconsciously upgrade and dispose. Is the idea of AI not a being that can think walk and talk, but switch and make us switch devices at will.

I want to tangle with the idea of automation. Not in that we switch something on and leave it to wander for itself, but within the idea of automatic response. Automatic trajectory of devices, that things are built to break quickly and we just abide this because these machines tell us to.

Stay tuned. Broken tech still stays. LEDs go.


week1: Theory; Practise & Process.

Posted on Updated on

Introducing theory, practise, research, art, media and technology into one collective group I believe allows us to draw connections and trajectories between works of art, innovation modules and indeed continue an obligation to broaden the limits for the future.

Firstly, I participated in an activity to draw an draw out or map our thoughts within a Venn Diagram. We split the categories three ways: Research, Craft and Art. With these the base headings, we wanted to discuss how some technologies and works we’ve created in the past fit into some, one or all of these.


The three categories were filled with words or thought stimulators we could come up with. We ultimately decided that if dwelled on for long enough, each of the examples provided could actaully weave their way into all the categories. Which meant we had to be really specific with out choice of examples. For instance, if we say “technology” as a whole, it can definitely be talked about in a Research, Craft and Art bias but when naming a specific technology like VR/AR or 3D Printing, we then have to think about its position in these categories relevant to the time period.

This then lead into a mode of generalised thinking;

Research – Documentation, theory, PAST TENSE, things shaping ideas that have already happened and are revisted for further understanding

Craft – Practical, Skill based, materialistic, for me the act of “doing” could even be placed here. For example, the act of deciding to create or develop, that intrinsic thought applied to turning ideas into a reality.

Art – “the Grey area”, possible outcomes, aesthetic?, subjective, passion

For my own benefit and area of practise, I decided to take the controversial topic of Drone technology and try and outline their significance in each of these categories with an example of the above. I love the conversation this kind of thinking evokes, and how innovation can be seen as an artwork, or someones craft can pave the way for further research. This has happened with me. A lot of my projects have stimulated my own research into drone application for jobs to help people or solve outdated problems. Though indefinite, my research isn’t exactly “aesthetic” or probably wouldn’t be considered by most as an Art piece, doesn’t mean it couldn’t be. A device that provokes discussion for me means that it has potential. When the technology becomes a realistic everyday norm that’s when it gets succeeded.

Examples I want to share and build on the idea of specific pieces of work from drone technology, rather than the broad field they offer.




Next week, I’m excited to dive into the “futures” topic, and further develop this idea of connected links between craft and theory, and how some of the practises I’m involved with had elements of Research, Craft and Art mixed to create a prototyping idea through media art and communications applied to a new area of study in engineering.

Out Of Hand: Materialising the Digital

Posted on

“Examines the place and impact of new digital manufacturing technologies – 3D printing in its various forms, CNC machining, Laser cutting, and digital knitting and weaving”

Upon visiting the Powerhouse museum and the showcase that was “Materialising the Digital”, perhaps the greatest observation was that the iteration process and the value in producing a physical artwork, installation or interactive technology is perhaps an solely aesthetic purpose for some of these manufacturing technology. As we know, the act or potentials of some these practises don’t have the traction needed to be an everyday device like our smart phones or laptops, however 3D printing materials that we can emulate to showcase or surroundings, natural occurrences and bring to life, I believe is what Matthew Gardiner has captured perfectly with his art work Oribotics: The Future Unfolds.

Through the entrance of the gallery space at the Powerhouse museum toward ‘Out Of Hand’, Gardiner’s work is in the first room with its luminous pastel greeting of what initially looks like flickering LED bulbs. As encouraged, interaction is key but touch is disallowed, so naturally the audience including myself wanted to get as close as possible the the works to see which had the ability to change, or, that we could manipulate to accommodate each individual experience. ‘Oribotics’ again, maintained my full attention throughout the exhibit due to this personal reason. Every Time I interacted with the work it was based on my movements and my motivations and curiosity towards it. On first viewing and interaction, the robotics involved with the processes of opening and closing, had a blossoming affect. The origami design perhaps helped with this aesthetic and drew connotations to cultural representations of Japanese flora and art. As i drew closer and realised the proximal movement of the work, and began the interaction of judging the implications of standing closer and progressed to using my hands to make them expand and retract. This was all before researching the works, this was purely just my initial thoughts and curiosities. The display was across a rippling wall with each Oribot displaying a different colour light behind it depending on how close any interference was to its sensory trigger. I worked out that the closer the subject to the device, the warmer the colour (red, orange) and subsequently the further one pulled away the cooler (blue, green). The materials came across to me as a web like surrounding around a series of wires that are central to a mechanism that expands and retracts. My interactions with the device were captured at the time that can further explain this idea, thus;

Screen Shot 2017-04-30 at 2.52.58 pm

Screen Shot 2017-04-30 at 2.52.22 pm

Throughout the exhibit the devices, were embracing a self directed approach while ever there was no interaction. This created an eerie nature to the room it was in due to the colourful contrast. I wanted to know why some movements I did, some being very similar, caused different levels of intensity to which the objects changed. Some of the devices had a more sensitive response to my hand than others, and some didn’t react at all to my hand but then would act autonomously without being provoked by an outside factor.

Matthew Gardiner is an interesting practitioner, in the way that he has so much to do with the values upheld by the University’s digital media encouragement and the way we should approach some of the projects we’re asked to create in a short amount of time. Instead of thinking about how we can use a device or technology to create something aesthetic, he grabs an idea or process that is already complicated and not associated with media art and technology, and uses his own skill-set set and research practise to try and represent this with a technology. Reverse engineering something that’s perhaps static in its practise but can take another simplistic form. This really resonated with my curiosity and perhaps my own creative endeavours in a lot of the technologies I’m personally involved with i’ve had to reverse engineer a practise for them within a creative space. Gardiner is a cross cultural interactor, meaning, he regards his works to be influenced by Japanese traditional (origami = oribotics, blossoming plants), Western ideas of technology (3D printing, sensory technology, LED lights) and the conversations between the two repeatedly as well as the response from the audience. Then he’s also an accomplished designer, working with material science and perfecting a fabric, experimentation and exploration of new ready technology and computer science so that the two can create a work (M, Gardiner 2010, vimeo). His background in a digitally dominated field allows him to exercise these kind of aesthetics within a work but explore deeper meaning associated to biological factors. This immediately got me interested in the way this artist thinks about the world and how process would be an interesting exploration for him when designing this particular piece. 
Screen Shot 2017-04-27 at 11.24.25 am

Image: Jayne Ion, Facebook 2016


The work debuted at the Arts Electronica Festival in 2010, and introduced me to an interesting locational narrative to how the work came to life and dives deeper into the meaning behind materials and how the layers of research ultimately create such a successful work. The installation is situated in the FutureLab, directly above the BioLab and the FabLab. These two interact in the same way he considers himself cross-disciplinary.


The BioLab is a space whereby visitors to the centre can be showcased to methods whereby plants are synthetically cloned, it’s also symbolically situated in close proximity to the 3D printer that was used for the materials in the Oribotics. It’s interested in the ways biology interacts and the process connected to life and how artists in residence can represent this in their works, offering the patterns within a lifeform. The FabLab, is a space located opposite, and looks at the ways we can manipulate materials and use new technologies. Things like laser cutting and, for this work, 3D printers are focused on not for their aesthetic presence, but they’re ability to produce the materials within a work. The focus isn’t the process of the print, it’s the ability to be able to tinker with the materials of the work produced. The plastic use for Oribotics: The Future Unfolds, we made from the FabLab, as well as the corresponding folds, manipulations and designs for the devices.  The constant dialogue then from the origins of this work, includes the symbolic representations of the microscopic folds in the material used and thus “highlights the connection to the many contexts where folding occurs in nature, the most significant being the folding of proteins, including DNA” (Arts Electronic, 2010). Where these actions occur in nature and in the work, we can understand that even the slightest of mistakes could have rippling effects on the subject, it’s why Matthew Gardiner has given in-depth thought to the materials he’s chosen through understanding and trial and error.


His account of the materials for the Oribotics is best explain by him, where he talks about paper fibres were unsuccessful, due to the material fibres breaking when folded repeatedly. It was revealed at a 900x magnification that this was then going to affect the structural memory and integrity of the device. What his research discovered was that plastic polyester, as mentioned produced in the FabLab, had fibres within the material, that even though don’t break, still allow bending of the materials allowing a fold to be remembered within the device. The polyester therefore was deemed a stronger material to be used for the origami shapes as their entire aesthetic is the way they seamlessly fall back into shape every time. This artwork could then be produced with multiple iterations, with greater durability as well as keeping its structural memory that could then be programmed to perform the blossoming aesthetic.

discovering patterns that have complex expressions that can be repeatedly actuated” (ARS Electronica, 2010)

Screen Shot 2017-04-27 at 11.24.39 am

Image: Jayne Ion, Facebook 2016

This process was perhaps an indication for fascination personally, due to this lifeless, meaningless and somewhat inanimate process of 3D printing, micro fabrics and robotics, being digitalised to assume life or resonate representations of life and purpose. Within a workshopping exercise in a gallery space at the digital media centre, an area of practise we were trying to discuss in terms of brainstorming potential project explorations. Subconsciously, this work resonated with me for that reason. I’m interested in the way Matthew has managed to duplicate a natural occurrence such as DNA protein folds and the precision involved, yet somehow related it back to his field practise that, initially if spoken about in the same sentence, wouldn’t have had much alignment. The idea of cross disciplines utilising skills and knowledge to create a media artwork that allows some interaction is something I believe amplifies this work.

The interaction process was something I tangled with, and also not perfected in some areas within the space when I visited, the overarching theme was clear. The proximity sensors awaited human presence, back lit with an LED light, so that the above research and groundwork could be showcased as an artwork. The closer the subject got to the oribotics, to more the robot would expand, like a blossoming flower. The colour would also correspond the movements. This simple interaction had yet another layer of complexity, with the folds in the movements of the oribotics reaching 1050 in a single contraction. The idea then in these movements, the oribotics would assume an autonomous trigger point to create a ripple effect of opening and closing for an image across interactions along the wall.

It’s interesting to see this work as technology reflective of life on earth and processes that happen in great detail and often go unnoticed. Perhaps this work explores the possible future, of where life on earth is headed. Through the use of various robotic technology was are almost able to model a DNA system with materials that are artificially created as layers in space. I particularly like the potential these Oribots have to steer the negative narratives away from robotics as a general socially constructed moral panic. These small little flower like devices have a living organism feel to them, and could pave the way into how we think of life with robotics as apart of our everyday life to interact with in daily life. Moving away from the stereotype of ‘robots taking over the world’, these Oribotics are dependant organisms, for those who don’t like the idea of rushing into autonomy, these have some basic autonomous controls, however are programmed by us. Instead of creating devices and robots modelled on the human species and making them look as close to us as possible, Matthew Gardiner has developed the flora equivalent. I believe this could invite a positive attitude from those whom believe artificial intelligence has negative impacts on society. If we created robotics with the attention to detail that Matthew Gardiner showcases with ‘The Future Unfolds”, perhaps the plantation thats been irreversibly damaged could be focused on and instead of remaining bare, we could replace with these ideas of blossoming devices. Perhaps deforestation effects could be replaced by larger scaled oribots that encompass the nature of the plantation affected. Tall blossoming trees, that whilst don’t offer the natural purification elements, would look aesthetically more appealing.


M Gardiner, 2010, Oribotics [the future unfolds], Vimeo, online video, Novemeber 2nd, viewed 26th April 2017, <>

Orobotics, Matthew Gardiner,, viewed 27th April 2017, <>

Arts Electronica, 2010, Artist in Residence: Matthew Gardiner – The Future Unfolds, Repair, 2.9. – 7.9., viewed 27th April 2017, <>

Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, 2017, Out of Hand: Materialising the Digital, MAAS, viewed 28th April 2017, <>

M Gardiner, 2012, The functional aesthetic of folding, self similar interactions, ResearchGate, viewed 30th April 2017, <>