Thesis Statement #1: Research
In search of ways to introduce technology that are loved for their imperfection.
Preface: Growing up with a dad who was a mechanical engineer and a mother who was a genetic engineer, I was opened to the those two worlds, or maybe just the world of science a little sooner than the average child. I've used a computer since I was 4 years old, which is unusual for someone my age but not so much for kids growing up nowadays. I know a 2-year-old who knows how to play games on my iPod touch, his sister, age 4, opened up the camera software on my computer and asked me to take pictures of us. She also knew how to scrub through a video file on computers. Their level of emotional connections, operational familiarity, and skillful handling of technology is very impressive. Like these kids, I've also had the pleasure of opening my technological eyes at an early age, playing games like Reader Rabbit and Oregon Trail. I remember making Valentine's day cards on a computer in second grade and printing them out--of course I had to re-print because I had spelled "Valentine's" wrong. I believe it was some sort of an early edition word processor with a couple of clip art.
My early adapting to higher technology such as computers, VCRs, video game consoles, and many random pieces of electronics at my dad's lab has given me a somewhat of a unique stance when it comes to topics like 'emotional technology,' 'mechanism meets emotions' or 'communicating with or through technology'. It seems like this is different from robotics or science fiction related fantasies. To me, emotional technology or emotion design is very real.
Context: There has been many advances in what we are able to do with technology, and many have created projects and objects utilizing them in efficient, interesting, and even controversial ways. The more I am exposed to recent developments, the more I seem to be witnessing not-so-smart or not-so-ethical use of high technology. People being captured in the virtual world, sushi-making machines that replace sushi masters and their craftsmanship, a USB-enabled flower which would dance when you get mail, computer characters you can develop emotional bonds with, mirrors with widgets you are supposed to stare at when you are shaving, and t-shirts that could let you feel hugs through actuators triggered by information sent over the internet... And as more and more people are exposed to many forms of technology and are becoming familiar with them, it seems like it's about time we thought about the consequences of our inventions before we just made things just because we can. As Norman Klein says it, it's about time we took a break and slow down our vision. What's working? What's not? Why? What are we trying to achieve? What makes our lives easier? more interesting? What happens when there is too much ease in different tasks? or interest in one world? What makes some machines so “odd?” so un-acceptable?
Methodology: Because of the utilitarian reason of birth technology holds, it is not easy to develop bonds with them especially when they seem irregular, broken, defected...unusual in general. Kevin Kelly believes that technology is the 7th Kingdom of Life and that the major trends in technology evolution are the same as in biological evolution-- the same drives that we see, towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity. In that case, why is it that we accept, understand, or even appreciate imperfection in nature, life, and the pre-analog when an imperfect piece of technology is considered as trash? Imperfection is the sign of humaneness. Can technology feel more meaningful when there are functions subtracted? When it is deformed? When it is incomplete? Relying on rigorous experiments and research, serendipitous discoveries, and critical evaluations, I plan on illustrating the possibilities of meaningful experiences using higher technology that embody imperfection as a humane trait. I believe imperfection can make un-lively looking objects seem more alive, intimidating objects more approachable, and annoying objects more affectionate.
Personally, I’m the most interested in the “personal life of an electronic object” at the moment. Elements like “down-time” of an electronic object, “needing people to finish a task,” and electronics having a “relationship with creatures other than humans” are some sub-topics that particularly stays in my head. My only concern is that I may be going down a slippery slope down “mere personification of an electronic object.”
Click here to view the thesis-related experiments.
Preface: Growing up with a dad who was a mechanical engineer and a mother who was a genetic engineer, I was opened to the those two worlds, or maybe just the world of science a little sooner than the average child. I've used a computer since I was 4 years old, which is unusual for someone my age but not so much for kids growing up nowadays. I know a 2-year-old who knows how to play games on my iPod touch, his sister, age 4, opened up the camera software on my computer and asked me to take pictures of us. She also knew how to scrub through a video file on computers. Their level of emotional connections, operational familiarity, and skillful handling of technology is very impressive. Like these kids, I've also had the pleasure of opening my technological eyes at an early age, playing games like Reader Rabbit and Oregon Trail. I remember making Valentine's day cards on a computer in second grade and printing them out--of course I had to re-print because I had spelled "Valentine's" wrong. I believe it was some sort of an early edition word processor with a couple of clip art.
My early adapting to higher technology such as computers, VCRs, video game consoles, and many random pieces of electronics at my dad's lab has given me a somewhat of a unique stance when it comes to topics like 'emotional technology,' 'mechanism meets emotions' or 'communicating with or through technology'. It seems like this is different from robotics or science fiction related fantasies. To me, emotional technology or emotion design is very real.
Context: There has been many advances in what we are able to do with technology, and many have created projects and objects utilizing them in efficient, interesting, and even controversial ways. The more I am exposed to recent developments, the more I seem to be witnessing not-so-smart or not-so-ethical use of high technology. People being captured in the virtual world, sushi-making machines that replace sushi masters and their craftsmanship, a USB-enabled flower which would dance when you get mail, computer characters you can develop emotional bonds with, mirrors with widgets you are supposed to stare at when you are shaving, and t-shirts that could let you feel hugs through actuators triggered by information sent over the internet... And as more and more people are exposed to many forms of technology and are becoming familiar with them, it seems like it's about time we thought about the consequences of our inventions before we just made things just because we can. As Norman Klein says it, it's about time we took a break and slow down our vision. What's working? What's not? Why? What are we trying to achieve? What makes our lives easier? more interesting? What happens when there is too much ease in different tasks? or interest in one world? What makes some machines so “odd?” so un-acceptable?
Methodology: Because of the utilitarian reason of birth technology holds, it is not easy to develop bonds with them especially when they seem irregular, broken, defected...unusual in general. Kevin Kelly believes that technology is the 7th Kingdom of Life and that the major trends in technology evolution are the same as in biological evolution-- the same drives that we see, towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity. In that case, why is it that we accept, understand, or even appreciate imperfection in nature, life, and the pre-analog when an imperfect piece of technology is considered as trash? Imperfection is the sign of humaneness. Can technology feel more meaningful when there are functions subtracted? When it is deformed? When it is incomplete? Relying on rigorous experiments and research, serendipitous discoveries, and critical evaluations, I plan on illustrating the possibilities of meaningful experiences using higher technology that embody imperfection as a humane trait. I believe imperfection can make un-lively looking objects seem more alive, intimidating objects more approachable, and annoying objects more affectionate.
Personally, I’m the most interested in the “personal life of an electronic object” at the moment. Elements like “down-time” of an electronic object, “needing people to finish a task,” and electronics having a “relationship with creatures other than humans” are some sub-topics that particularly stays in my head. My only concern is that I may be going down a slippery slope down “mere personification of an electronic object.”
Click here to view the thesis-related experiments.