Category Archives: LGRU

The Libre Graphics Research Unit (LGRU) was a traveling lab, developing new ideas for creative tools. The Unit was an initiative of four European media-labs actively engaged in Free/Libre and Open Source Software and Free Culture. This cross-disciplinary project involved artists, designers and programmers and was developed in dialogue with the Libre Graphics community (2011 → 2013). The posts in this category were originally published on Future Tools.

http://lgru.net

100 idées

A first harvest of future tools that were brought to the surface at the Co-position Research Meeting:

Colorfont
The days of monochrome digital typography are over. Inspired by art-deco hand-drawn lettering experiments, Manufactura Independente came up with colorfont.js. This javascript library makes it easier to create multi-colored typography for the web. It was further developed and documented in the slipstream of meeting. http://manufacturaindependente.com/colorfont/

Commit unbaked area only
From the understanding that design files are always collections of elements (each with their own properties and timelines), we tried to think how to version selectively. A design file contains both fixed and fluid areas (some elements stabilize early on, and others might keep changing), could we think of a way to mark areas as ‘unbaked’ and only track changes for these areas?

Comparing processes
Versioning a design-file means tracking changes between different stages in a process, rather than comparing lines in code. Looking at a diff for a Scribus file is at best confusing, and current versioning tools are not helping much to understand differences that matter to design. Since each program is already saving state data, could we use this information to make more intelligent versioning possible? Inspired by so-called edit-decision lists that are used to store edits outside the actual rendered video-file, we discussed the possibility of recording a creative process rather than the result of it. If the data is stored in a separate file, could this be used to reconstruct a design? What kind of ‘actions’ would it need to contain?

Conversational control
If we see design as a practice that seeks to articulate collisions, how could computers be of use to help organise them, to make them visible and legible? We worked on scenarios for potential conversations between computers and designers, interaction between computational optimization and design decisions. This prototype would also have an option ‘just start over’.

Do all these elements need to fit on one page? YES
Should all elements be legible? YES
Can we make this page bigger? NO
[system makes a proposal]
Do you like this better?
[user making changes] YES

Implied spacing
Saving space without negative effects on legibility, could that be possible? This script removes all spaces between words and creates a gradient in letter colouring instead. As a word gets closer to its end, each letter gets progressively lighter (Python script, works with Scribus API). http://blog.manufacturaindependente.org/2012/02/implied-spacing

Lazy Landscape lay-out
We looked into Lazy Landscape, a novel way of sharing and running software inside our browsers. While we explored and got baffled by its intricacies and fixed a few bugs, we wondered how far we could take it to have a new kind of layout tool based on flows and filters. It took us only an afternoon to create the skeleton of a text engine. http://xvm-2-183.ghst.net

Meaningful hashes
A commit signifies a difference that matters, but they are identified with a row of arbitrary numbers. How could these hashes be more meaningful? Could they express something about the character of the commit? How could they be more visual? We looked at http://unicornify.appspot.com and developed some images of our own.

More ideas for whitespace implementation
When we started imagining tools from the perspective of whitespace, we came up with many ideas for new types of lay-out. A few examples:

Multi-level type design interfaces
Type design is an iterative process of refining design directions. Starting from a better understanding of what happens when you design a font, we worked on a type design environment that moves more fluently between different scales of design: From single glyphs to letter-pairs and textblocks but also to move between different versions of both digital and hand-drawn sketches. Some of these features can be already discovered in Fontmatrix: http://oep-h.com/fontmatrix

Save-as commit
Adding a ‘save-as-commit’ option to Inkscape, Scribus and/or Gimp could prevent the sometimes unnecessary harsh transition from design environment to git. Hypothesis: If commit-actions would be better integrated into the design workflow, the spirit of the design process might be better preserved in the commit history.

Shared undo histories
Programs already save undo histories, so why can’t we write those changes as commits? This idea got also referred to as ‘shared action lists’, but that sounds a lot less promiscuous. We liked the possibility of distributing painful discoveries and propagating our mistakes.

Space revelator
Space revelator is a tool to test the way Scribus acts on white spaces (and its support). It uses a squared-glyph font to help designing spaces: http://www.cgemy.com/public/Scribus_whiteSpaceAction.pdf

Toonloop-audio (or: Philip Glass machine)
In a parallel workshop taking place at JES, A Pure Data patch was developed that records audio fragments while Toonloop grabs a frame, and than plays it back in sync. So now Toonloop can do multimedia stopmotion!

Ultra-geometric space
What if we could generate believable lay-outs based on almost-right interpretations of classic rules? A persiflage on canonical grid lay-out or how to make Villard eat a snake. http://pzwart3.wdka.hro.nl/~lspeybroeck/whitespace/5.svg

Unicode remapper
The Unicode Standard is far from easy to navigate. A complicated war history of competing interests and ever-changing ideas about how to make place for All Languages of The Universe means that related glyphs are often spread out over 17 ‘planes’ and sometimes even fractured into multiple code-points. Why not make it easier for users to re-arrange glyphs according to their needs? We could work with experts to design pre-sets for specifc languages. Rarely used glyphs could be pushed into the periphery and more common ones could take center stage. These re-mappings can than be loaded into type design applications such as Fontforge. This could stimulate type-designers to prioritize their work on sets of relevant glyphs, instead of just concentrating on the first plane(s).

Visual Culture
We tried to rethink the text-only and bureaucratic interfaces of current commit-repositories. What if you could visualize the depth of changes, the variety of mimetypes involved. What if you could understand difference at a glance?
OSP developed a working prototype that we tested and tried: http://git.constantvzw.org/?p=osp.tools.visualculture.git

practice shapes tools shapes practice
Implied spacing
PH explains how multi-level type design interfaces could work
Relaxed Folder Icon by ES
Lazy Landscape acts on a glyph
Toonloop performance @ FOam
CG reveals patterns in Scribus lay-out
SVG from scratch
Colorfont is selectable text

Many people contributed to these ideas: http://lgru.pad.constantvzw.org:8000/42. Thank you for making this four rigorous, rich and productive days!

The Libre Graphics Research Unit

Word, Work

A group from Chicago visited Constant Variable last week. One student explains his mother is a publisher and that she compiled an on-line glossary of terms used in her mixed practice of printing, publishing and writing. It is stunning.
For example, under W:

word spacing:
The amount of space between each word in typeset text.

word-of-mouth:
An informal means of promoting a product from one person to another.

work and tumble:
To print one side of a sheet of paper, then turn the sheet over from gripper edge to back using the same side guide and plate to print the second side.

work and turn:
To print one side of a sheet of paper, then turn the sheet over from left to right using the same gripper and plate to print the second side.

work for hire:
A type of agreement in which the writer or designer sells the complete rights to a work to a publisher.

http://www.rainwater.com/glossary.html

Bravo

Bravo was the first WYSIWYG editor (…) Previous editors rarely made any attempt to match the display to the printed page; this meant that users could not check whether they had formatted the document correctly, except by printing it out.1

The Xerox Alto (1973) for which the Bravo text editor was developed. Photo: Martin Pittenauerm, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.

  1. Newman, W. (2012). Design case study: The Bravo text editor. Interactions, 19(1), 75-80

Meaningful transformations

A conversation with Tom Lechner

We discovered the work of Tom Lechner at the Libre Graphics Meeting 2010 in Brussels. Tom traveled from Portland, US to present Laidout, an amazing tool that he made to produce his own comic books and also to work on three dimensional mathematical objects. His software interests us for several reasons. We are excited about how it represents the gesture of folding, love his bold interface decisions plus are impressed by the fact that Tom has decided to write his own programming framework for it. A year later, we meet again in Montreal, Canada for the 2011 Libre Graphics Meeting where he presents a follow-up. With Ludivine Loiseau (amateur bookbinder and graphiste) and Pierre Marchand (artist/developer, contributing amongst others to podofoimpose and Scribus) we finally find time to sit down and talk.

Download: Tom_Lechner.odt

FS: What is Laidout?
TL: Well, Laidout is software that I wrote to lay out my cartoon books in an easy fashion. Nothing else fit my needs at the time, so I just wrote it.
FS: It does a lot more than laying out cartoons?
TL: It works for any image, basically, and gradients. It does not currently do text. It is on my to-do list. I usually write my own text, so it does not really need to do text. I just make an image of it.
FS: It can lay out T-shirts?
TL: But that’s all images too. I guess it’s two forms of laying out. It’s laying out pieces of paper that remain whole in themselves, or you can take an image and lay it out on smaller pieces of paper. Tiling, I guess you could call it.
FS: Can you talk us through the process of doing the T-shirt?
TL: OK. So, you need a pattern. I had just a shirt that sort of fit and I approximated it on a big piece of paper, to figure out what the pieces were shaped like, and took a photograph of that. I used a perspective tool to remove the distortion. I had placed rulers on the ground so that I could remember the actual scale of it. Then once it was in the computer, I traced over it in Inkscape, to get just the basic outline so that I could manipulate further. Blender didn’t want to import it so I had to retrace it. I had to use Blender to do it because that lets me shape the pattern, take it from flat into something that actually makes 3D shapes so whatever errors were in the original pattern that I had on the paper, I could now correct, make the sides actually meet and once I had the molded shape, and in Blender you have to be extremely careful to keep any shape, any manipulation that you do to make sure your surface is still unfoldable into something flat. It is very easy to get away from flat surfaces in Blender. Once I have the molded shape, I can export that into an .off file which my unwrapper can import and that I can then unwrap into the sleeves and the front and the back as well as project a panoramic image onto those pieces. Once I have that, it becomes a pattern laid out on a giant flat surface. Then I can use Laidout once again to tile pages across that. I can export into a pdf with all the individual pieces of the image that were just pieces of the larger image that I can print on transfer paper. It took forty iron-on transfer papers I ironed with an iron provided to me by the people sitting in front of me so that took a while but finally I got it all done, cut it all out, sewed it up and there you go.
FS: Could you say something about your interest in moving from 2D to 3D and back again? It seems everything you do is related to that?
TL: I don’t know. I’ve been making sculpture of various kinds for quite a long time. I’ve always drawn. Since I was about eighteen, I started making sculptures, mainly mathematical woodwork. I don’t quite have access to a full woodwork workshop anymore, so I cannot make as much woodwork as I used to. It’s kind of an instance of being defined by what tools you have available to you, like you were saying in your talk1. I don’t have a wood shop, but I can do other stuff. I can still make various shapes, but mainly out of paper. Since I had been doing woodwork, I picked up photography I guess and I made a ton of panoramic images. It’s kind of fun to figure out how to project these images out of the computer into something that you can physically create, for instance a T-shirt or a ball, or other paper shapes.
FS: Is there ever any work that stays in the computer, or does it always need to become physical?
TL: Usually, for me, it is important to make something that I can actually physically interact with. The computer I usually find quite limiting. You can do amazing things with computers, you can pan around an image, that in itself is pretty amazing but in the end I get more out of interacting with things physically than just in the computer.
FS: But with Laidout, you have moved folding into the computer! Do you enjoy that kind of reverse transformation?
TL: It is a challenge to do and I enjoy figuring out how to do that. In making computer tools, I always try to make something that I can not do nearly as quickly by hand. It’s just much easier to do in a computer. Or in the case of spherical images, it’s practically impossible to do it outside the computer. I could paint it with airbrushes and stuff like that but that in itself would take a hundred times longer than just pressing a couple of commands and having the computer do it all automatically.
PM: My feeling about your work is that the time you spent working on the program is in itself the most intriguing part of your work. There is of course a challenge and I can imagine that when you are doing it like the first time you see a rectangle, and you see it mimic a perspective you think wow I am folding a paper; I have really done something. I worked on imposition too but more to figure out how to work with pdf files and I didn’t go this way of the gesture like you did. There is something in your work which is really the way you wrote your own framework for example and did not use any existing frameworks. You didn’t use existing GUIs and toolboxes. It would be nice to listen to you about how you worked, how you worked on the programming.
TL: I think like a lot of artists, or creative people in general, you have to enjoy the little nuts and bolts of what you’re doing in order to produce any final work, that is if you actually do produce any final work. Part of that is making the tools. When I first started making computer tools to help me in my art work, I did not have a lot of experience programming computers. I had some. I did little projects here and there. So I looked around at the various toolkits, but everything seemed really rigid. If you wanted to edit some text, you had this little box and you write things in this little box and if you want to change numbers, you have to erase it and change tiny things with other tiny things. It’s just very restrictive. I figured I could either figure out how to adapt those to my own purposes, or I could just figure out my own, so I figured either way would probably take about that same amount of time I guessed, in my ignorance. In the process, that’s not quite been true. But it is much more flexible, in my opinion, what I’ve developed, compared to a lot of other toolkits. Other people have other goals, so I’m sure they would have a completely different opinion. For what I’m doing, it’s much more adaptable.
LL: You said you had no experience in programming? You studied in art school?
TL: I don’t think I ever actually took computer programming classes. I grew up with a Commodore 64, so I was always making letters fly around the screen and stuff like that, and follow various curves. So I was always doing little programming tricks. I guess I grew up in a household where that sort of thing was pretty normal. I had two brothers, and they both became computer programmers. And I’m the youngest, so I could learn from their mistakes, too. I hope.
PM: You’re looking for good excuses to program.
TL: (laughs) That could be.
PM: We can discuss at length about how actual toolkits don’t match your needs, but in the end, you want to input certain things. With any recent toolkit, you can do that. It’s not that difficult or time consuming. The way you do it, you really enjoy it, by itself. I can see it as a real creative work, to come up with new digital shapes.
FS: Do you think that for you, the program itself is part of the work?
TL: I think it’s definitely part of the work. That’s kind of the nuts and bolts that you have to enjoy to get somewhere else. But if I look back on it, I spend a huge amount of time just programming and not actually making the artwork itself. It’s more just making the tools and all the programming for the tools. I think there’s a lot of truth to that. When it comes time to actually make artwork, I do like to have the tool that’s just right for the job, that works just the way that seems efficient.
FS: I think the program itself is an artwork, very much. To me it is also a reflection on moving between 2D and 3D, about physical computation. Maybe this is the actual work. Would you agree?
TL: I don’t know. To an extent. In my mind, I kind of class it differently. I’ve certainly been drawing more than I’ve been doing technical stuff like programming. In my mind, the art work is things that get produced, or a performance or something like that. And the programming or the tools are in service to those things. That’s how I think of it. I can see that… I’ve distributed Laidout as something in itself. It’s not just some secret tool that I’ve put aside and presented only the art work. I do enjoy the tools themselves.
FS: I have a question about how the 2D imagines 3D. I’ve seen Pierre and Ludi write imposition plans. I really enjoy reading this, almost as a sort of poetry, about what it would be to be folded, to be bound like a book. Why is it so interesting for you, this tension between the two dimensions?
TL: I don’t know. Perhaps it’s just the transformation of materials from something more amorphous into something that’s more meaningful, somehow. Like in a book, you start out with wood pulp, and you can lay it out in pages and you have to do something to that in order to instil more meaning to it.
FS: Is binding in any way important to you?
TL: Somewhat. I’ve bound a few things by hand. Most of my cartoon books ended up being just stapled, like a stack of paper, staple in the middle and fold. Very simple. I’ve done some where you cut down the middle and lay the sides on top and they’re perfect bound. I’ve done just a couple where it’s an actual hand bound, hard cover. I do enjoy that. It’s quite a time consuming thing. There’s quite a lot of craft in that. I enjoy a lot of hand made, do-it-yourself activities.
FS: Do you look at classic imposition plans?
TL: I guess that’s kind of my goal. I did look up classic book binding techniques and how people do it and what sort of problems they encounter. I’m not sure if I’ve encompassed everything in that, certainly. But just the basics of folding and trimming, I’ve done my best to be able to do the same sort of techniques that have been done in the past, but only manually. The computer can remember things much more easily.
PM: Imposition plans are quite fixed, you have this paper size and it works with specific imposition plans. I like the way your tool is very organic, you can play with it. But in the end, something very classic comes out, an imposition plan you can use over and over, which gives a sort of continuity.
LL: What’s impressive is the attention you put into the visualization. There are some technical programs which do really big imposition stuff, but it’s always at the printer. Here, you can see the shape being peeled. It’s really impressive. I agree with Femke that the program is an art work too, because it’s not only technical, it’s much more.
FS: How is the material imagined in the tool?
TL: So, far not really completely. When you fold, you introduce slight twists and things like that. And that depends on the stiffness of the paper and the thickness of the paper and I’ve not adequately dealt with that so much. If you just have one fold, it’s pretty easy to figure out what the creep is for that. You can do tests and you can actually measure it. That’s pretty easy to compensate for. But if you have many more folds than that, it becomes much more difficult.
FS: Are you thinking about how to do that?
TL: I am.
FS: That would be very interesting. To imagine paper in digital space, to give an idea of what might come out in the end. Then you really have to work your metaphors, I think?
TL: A long time ago, I did a lot of t-shirt printing. Something that I did not particularly have was a way to visualize your final image on some kind of shirt and the same thing applies for book binding, too. You might have a strange texture. It would be nice to be able to visualize that beforehand, as well as the thickness of the paper that actually controls physical characteristics. These are things I would like to incorporate somehow but haven’t gotten around to.
FS: You talked about working with physical input, having touchpads… Can you talk a bit more about why you’re interested in this?
TL: You can do a lot of things with just a mouse and a keyboard. But it’s still very limiting. You have to be sitting there, and you have to just control those two things. Here’s your whole body, with which you can do amazing things, but you’re restricted to just moving and clicking and you only have a single point up on the screen that you have to direct very specifically. It just seems very limiting. It’s largely an unexplored field, just to accept a wider variety of inputs to control things. A lot of the multitouch stuff that’s been done is just gestures for little tiny phones. It’s mainly for browsing, not necessarily for actual work. That’s something I would like to explore quite a lot more. FS: Do you have any fantasies about how these gestures could work for real?
TL: There’s tons of sci fi movies, like //Minority Report//, where you wear these gloves and you can do various things. Even that is still just mainly browsing. I saw one, it was a research project by this guy at Caltech. He had made this table and he wore polarized glasses so he could look down at this table and see a 3D image. And then he had gloves on, and he could sculpt things right in the air. The computer would keep track of where his hand is going. Instead of sculpting clay, you’re sculpting this 3D mesh. That seemed quite impressive to me.
FS: You’re thinking about 3D printers, actually?
TL: It’s something that’s on my mind. I just got something called the Eggbot. You can hold spheres in this thing and it’s basically a plotter that can print on spherical surfaces or round surfaces. That’s something I’d like to explore some more. I’ve made various balls with just my photographic panoramas glued onto them. But that could be used to trace an outline for something and then you could go in with pens or paints and add more detail. If you’re trying to paint on a sphere, just paint and no photograph, laying out an outline is perhaps the hardest part. If you simplify it, it becomes much easier to make actual images on spheres. That would be fun to explore.
PM: I’d like to come back to the folding. Following your existing aesthetic, the stiffness and the angles of the drawing are very beautiful. Is it important you, preserving the aesthetic of your programs, the widgets, the lines, the arrows…
TL: I think the specific widgets, in the end, are not really important to me at all. It’s more just producing an actual effect. So if there is some better way, more efficient way, more adaptable way to produce some effect, then it’s better to just completely abandon what doesn’t work and make something that’s new, that actually does work. Especially with multitouch stuff, a lot of old widgets make no more sense. You have to deal with a lot of other kinds of things, so you need different controls.
PM: It makes sense, but I was thinking about the visual effect. Maybe it’s not Laidout if it’s done in Qt.
FS: Your visuals and drawings are very aesthetically precise. We’re wondering about the aesthetics of the program, if it’s something that might change in the future.
TL: You mean would the quality of the work produced be changed by the tools?
FS: That’s an interesting question as well. But particularly the interface, it’s very related to your drawings. There’s a distinct quality. I was wondering how you feel about that, how the interaction with the program relates to the drawings themselves.
TL: I think it just comes back to being very visually oriented. If you have to enter a lot of values in a bunch of slots in a table, that’s not really a visual way to do it. Especially in my art work, it’s totally visual. There’s no other component to it. You draw things on the page and it shows up immediately. It’s just very visual. Or if you make a sculpture, you start with this chunk of stuff and you have to transform it in some way and chop off this or sand that. It’s still all very visual. When you sit down at a computer, computers are very powerful, but what I want to do is still very visually oriented. The question then becomes: how do you make an interface that retains the visual inputs, but that is restricted to the types of inputs computers need to have to talk to them?
PM: The way someone sets up his workshop says a lot about his work. The way you made Laidout and how you set up its screen, it’s important to define a spot in the space of the possible.
LL: What is nice is that you made the visualisation so important. The windows and the rest of the interface is really simple, the attention is really focused on what’s happening. It is not like shiny windows with shadows everywhere, you feel like you are not bothered by the machine.
PM: At the same time, the way you draw the thickness of the line to define the page is a bit large. For me, these are choices, and I am very impressed because I never manage to make choices for my own programs. The programs you wrote, or George Williams, make a strong aesthetic assertion like: This is good. I can do this. I think that is really interesting.
TL: Heavy page borders, that still comes down to the visual thing you end up with, is still the piece of paper so it is very important to find out where that page outline actually is. The more obvious it is, the better.
PM: Yes, I think it makes sense. For a while now, I paid more attention than others in Scribus to these details like the shape of the button, the thickness of the lines, what pattern do you chose for the selection, etcetera. I had a lot of feedback from users like: I want this, this is too big and at some point you want to please everybody and you don’t make choices. I don’t think that you are so busy with what others think.
FS: Are there many other users of the program?
TL: Not that I know of (laughter). I know that there is at least one other person that actually used it to produce a booklet. So I know that it is possible for someone other than myself to make things with it. I’ve gotten a couple of patches from people to not make it crash at various places but since Laidout is quite small, I can just not pay any attention to criticism. Partially because there isn’t any, and I have particular motivations to make it work in a certain way and so it is easier to just go forward.
PM: I think people that want to use your program are probably happy with this kind of visualisation. Because you wrote it alone, there is also a consistency across the program. It is not like Scribus, that has parts written by a lot of people so you can really recognize: this is Craig (Bradney), this is Andreas (Vox), this is Jean (Ghali), this myself. There is nothing to follow.
TL: I remember Donald Knuth talking about TeX and he was saying that the entire program was written from scratch three times before its current incarnation. I am sympathetic to that style of programming.
FS: Start again.
PM: I think it is a good idea, to start again. To come back to a little detail. Is there a fileformat for your imposition tool, to store the imposition plan? Is it a text or a binary format?
TL: It is text-based, an indented file format, sort of like Python. I did not want to use XML, every time I try to use XML there are all these greater than’s and less than’s. It is better than binary, but it is still a huge mess. When everything is indented like a tree, it is very easy to find things. The only problem is to always input tabs, not spaces. I have two different imposition types, basically, the flat-folding sheets and the three dimensional ones. The three dimensional one is a little more complicated.
FS: If you read the file, do you know what you are folding?
TL: Not exactly. It lists what folds exists. If you have a five by five grid, it will say “Fold along this line, over in such and such direction”. What it actually translates to in the end, is not currently stored in the file. Once you are in Laidout you can export into a podofoimpose plan file.
PM: Is this file just values, or are there keywords, is it like a text?
TL: I try to make it pretty readable, like “trimright” or “trimleft”.
FS: Does it talk about turning pages? This I find beautiful in podofoimpose plans, you can almost follow the paper through the hands of the program. Turn now, flip backwards, turn again. It is an instruction for a dance.
TL: Pretty much.
PM: The text you can read in the podofoimpose plans was taken from what Ludi and me did by hand. One of us was folding the paper, and the other was writing it into the plan. I think a lot of the things we talk about, are putting things from the real world into the computer. But you are putting things from the computer into the real world.
FS: Can you describe again these two types of imposition, the first one being very familiar to us. It must be the most frequently asked question on the Scribus mailinglist: “How to do imposition”. Even the most popular search term on the OSP website is “Bookletprinting”. But what is the difference with the plan for a 3D object? A classic imposition plan is also somehow about turning a flat surface into a three dimensional object?
TL: It is almost translatable. I’m reworking the 3D version to be able to incorporate the flat folding. It is not quite there yet, the problem is the connection between the pages. Currently, in the 3D version, you have a shape that has a definitive form and that controls how things bleed across the edges. When you have a piece of paper for a normal imposition, the pages that are next to each other in the physical form are not necessarily related to each other at all in the actual piece of paper. Right now, the piece of paper you use for the 3D model is very defined, there is no flexibility. Give me a few months!
FS: So it is very different actually.
TL: It is a different approach. One person wanted to do flexagons, it is sort of like origami I guess, but it is not quite as complicated. You take a piece of paper, cut out a square and another square, and than you can fold it and you end up with a square that is actually made up of four different sections. Than you can take the middle section, and you get another page and you can keep folding in strange ways and you get different pages. Now the question becomes: how do you define that page, that is a collection of four different chunks of paper? I’m working on that!
FS: We talk about the move from 2D to 3D as if these pages are empty. But you actually project images on them and I keep thinking about maps, transitional objects where physical space is projected on paper which then becomes a second real space and so on. Are you at all interested in maps?
TL: A little bit. I don’t really want to because it is such a well-explored field already. Already for many hundreds of years the problem is how do you represent a globe onto a more or less two dimensional surface. You have to figure out a way to make globe gores or other ways to project it and than glue it on to a ball for example. There is a lot of work done with that particular sort of imagery, but I don’t know.
PM: Too many people in the field!
TL: Yes. One thing that might be interesting to do though is when you have a ball that is a projection surface, then you can do more things, like overlays onto a map. If you want to simulate earthquakes for example. That would be entertaining.
FS: And the panoramic images you make, do you use special equipment for this?
TL: For the first couple that I made, I made this 30-sided polyhedron that you could mount a camera inside and it sat on a base in a particular way so you could get thirty chunks of images from a really cheap point and shoot camera. You do all that, and you have your thirty images and it is extremely laborious to take all these thirty images and line them up. That is why I made the 3D portion of Laidout, it was to help me do that in an easier fashion. Since then I’ve got a fish-eyed lens which simplifies things quite considerably. Instead of spending ten hours on something, I can do it in ten minutes. I can take 6 shots, and one shot up, one shot down. In Hugin you can stitch them all together.
FS: And the kinds of things you photograph? We saw the largest rodent on earth? How do you pick a spot for your images?
TL: I am not really sure. I wonder around and than photograph whatever stands out. I guess some unusual configuration of architecture frequently or sometimes a really odd event, or a political protest sometimes. The trick with panoramas is to find an area where something is happening all over the globe. Normally, on sunny days, you take a picture and all your image is blank. As pretty as the blue sky is, there is not a lot going on there particularly.
FS: Panoramic images are usually spherical or circular. Do you take certain images with a specific projection surface in mind?
TL: To an extent. I take enough images. Once I have a whole bunch of images, the task is to select a particular image that goes with a particular shape. Like cubes there are few lines and it is convenient to line them up to an actual rectangular space like a room. The tetrahedron made out of cones, I made one of Mount St. Helens, because I thought it was an interesting way to put the two cones together.
You mentioned three-D printers earlier, and one thing I would like to do is to extend the panoramic image to be more like a progression. For most panoramic images, the focal point is a single point in space. But when you walk along a trail, you might have a series of photographs all along. I think it could be an interesting work to produce, some kind of ellipsoidal shape with a panoramic image that flows along the trail.
FS: Back to Laidout, and keeping with the physical and the digital. Would there be something like a digital papercut?
TL: Not really. Maybe you can have an Arduino and a knife?
FS: I was more imagining a well placed crash?
TL: In a sense there is. In the imposition view, right now I just have a green bar to tell where the binding is. However when you do a lot of folds, you usually want to do a staple. But if you are stapling and there is not an actual fold there, than you are screwed.

—————————–

Recorded at the Libre Graphics Meeting in Montreal, May 2011

FS: Femke Snelting
TL: Tom Lechner
PM: Pierre Marchand
LL: Ludivine Loiseau

Transcription: ginger coons, Femke Snelting

What you can learn from digging a hole

In an intense discussion about ‘the interface of the future’, John Lilly (then CEO Mozilla Corporation, now working for another company); Aza Raskin (then Head of User Experience at Mozilla Labs, now running his own company) and Dan Mills (then Lead Developer of Weave, now leading the Account Manager project at Mozilla Labs) debate what happens between intent and result. If the interface goes away, how do you learn what to look for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gygQ2GgN10

00:01,671 --> 02:15,276
AR: Let’s jump a little bit forward because I think when you know where we are going, it is easier to figure out how we chart our course there. So really simple example, starting with the shovel. A shovel has two bits. It has the thing that does the work, that is the blade. And it has the interface or the handle.
What we often see is that most projects is that people work on that blade, making it titanium, making it diamant encrusted. Spending all their time making an incredible backend technology but forgetting about the handle so you and up with a beautiful blade with a tiny short handle and you can’t really use it.
Let’s go a step further. What would the ultimate interface be, for a shovel. The very best one.
Some people might say you want an automatic digging machine, where you might get to ride it like a tractor trailor, other people might call that bloatware.
But what is the ultimate expression of a shovel? It’s a hole, it is having a hole already dug.
Instead of needing the tool, you would just have the result. So I think if we go way way into the future, the place we cannot get now, when we think of interfaces, what you really want, is just the result already done.
I think that is mighty spaceship thinking, what we can pull from that is the closer we get from no interface, the closer we get to not having to think about the interface between us and the machine and us and the artifact to having just the result that we want, the better.
For instance instead of going to our browser and typing in a search query, to get a search result, we should just be able to think or say and interact … “I wonder whether the [?] won this season?” or “Won the last season”, and you get the answer immediately.
To most people, that is not going to feel like an interface. And that is the sort of interface we want. Because as soon as you need to stop and realise and think about an interface, you’ve already lost.

02:15,276 --> 03:09,056
JL: I think that in digging the hole, you learn much about what you are trying to do. I think you are presupposing an intentionality that is not always there.
So I think when you look for knowledge, when you construct knowledge, when you construct a future space station, you don’t always know the goal from the outset, where you are trying to get.
The process of getting there often creates new knowledge. So I argue at c-base the point is not actually (I’ve known you for thirty minutes, so I don’ know if this is actually right) but the point is not to get to the space station, but it is all the things and all the aha’s and all the insights you have along the way.
And you can only get those insights, by struggling. By working through it. So I think that if you presuppose that you understand what you want always and that you are very intentional about everything you that you do, and that you understand precisely the results that you want, than I agree with you. But I think that human beings most of the times are not like that.

03:18,484 --> 03:25,633
AR: So if I understand what you are saying, than you are saying that imperfect tools are better?

03:25,633 --> 03:48,717
JL: No that is not what I said. I said, that you construct knowledge, through the use of tools. You are articulating one type of interface that is getting to the result without use of tools. And I am saying you miss a type of knowledge creation by thinking that way.

03:48,717 --> 04:03,437
AR: Rather what I think I am saying that if your goal is to dig a trench to add a landline, some place, that there are a whole bunch of problems there that go way beyond the physical act of digging of the hole.

04:03,437 --> 04:12,262
JL: I agree with you. If you know exactly the result you are trying to get to, and you don’t believe that you need to create knowledge along the way, than you are good with no interface.

04:12,262 --> 04:21,456
AR: Really what I am saying that any time you spend fiddling with your tool, instead of doing the job or the task that you set out to do, is wasted time that we should be trying to minimize.

04:21,456 --> 04:23,593
JL: And I think that is an over-broad generalization.

04:23,593 --> 04:26,797
DM: What if you don’t know what the task you are setting to do is?

04:26,797 --> 04:34,877
JL: Or what if what you think you know what you are doing but you are wrong? I think that in many cases you are correct, but I think it is an over-broad statement though.

04:34,877 --> 04:40,728
AR: Well, in that case you are going to use a tool that isn’t particularly apropos; discover that it is wrong and make a new tool.

04:40,728 --> 04:46,254
DM: But in your case, there is no tool. There is only intent and result.

04:46,254 --> 04:56,425
JL: That is right. Intent and result. And there is a process between intent and result. And sometimes the process changes both intent and result.

04:56,425 --> 05:05,295
AR: I think I’d argue rather that if your intent is wrong the result will be wrong, and that is the iterative loop you want.

05:05,482 --> 05:19,507
JL: I don’t think that is obvious either. I don’t think the result is wrong if the intent is wrong either. you often think you are headed in one direction, and you end up in a different place entirely. It is an ok result.

05:19,507 --> 05:25,358
AR: I won’t disagree with you there, I just think it is not our tools that should be…

05:25,358 --> 06:24,057
JL: I can be specific. I think right now on the web, we are heading to this non-serendipitous web. What people really want, they want the news they want, just the news. They just want what they are interested in, what their filter is, what their lens is.
But I will tell you that it misses serendipity. When you read through a paper, that you did not expect, but that you wanted to learn and needed to learn. When you walk through Berlin, you notice up a whole bunch of things that you did not think you needed to know, but now you do.
I think that serendipity and the process of knowledge construction… I think that we are talking about different types of activities, but I think that … I’ll tell you that I have learned a lot about myself when I’ve been digging in my yard with a shovel.
It is not that I say we should look for imperfect tools, but I think that connecting intent and result too tightly will not always be the right thing.

This discussion took place in C-base, Berlin in October 2008

The Dilettante Expert

‘Dilettante expertise’ as a way to make practice meet theory:

Expertise is the classical foundation of all geekdom, whether it is encyclopedic knowledge of Shakespeare, of the Star Trek universe or the registers of an 8-bit controller. Dilettantism is the unavoidable condition of drawing the bigger picture. It can end up badly like with the pseudo-mathematics and pseudoscience in the books of Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard and Deleuze debunked by Sokal and Bricmont, especially to the extent that some of their discourse – Lacan’s in particular – lacked doubt and humbleness.

Sokal and Bricmont published “Intellectual Imposters” in 1997. Retrospectively, it seems to have marked an end of speculative cultural studies and media theory, except for shrinking niches in the contemporary arts and in political activism. And deservedly so, I would say, because you could see the grand media theorists shutting up very quickly when the new media technologies became a reality and you could no longer get away with theorizing about “virtual reality” while not being able to operate your own laptop.1

  1. Florian Cramer: The Medium is not the message, On The Future of Media Studies http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1112/msg00023.html

A flow of material across different sources

The first ever Research Meeting in the context of the Libre Graphics Research Unit took place now more than a week ago. Organised by Worm and themed Networked Graphics, 30 participants from across Europe gathered in Rotterdam for five days. We traversed “The extremes of Networked Graphics” as WL puts it: From demo-scene classics to the unparalleled world of ‘Fundamental Research’, from high-powered 3D-graphics to an informal state-of-the art in 3D-printing, from Visual Versioning to the need for dialogue between edit and lay-out.

On Wednesday we start with a tour of Worm, or more precisely their newly opened building. We linger with Esther Urlus in De Filmwerkplaats, enjoying her astute understanding of the multiple relations between technology and practice. She hands us a copy of To Boldly Go: A starters guide to hand made and d-i-y films:

Let’s not keep any secrets! These (chemical) receipts, printing processes, after dev. Effects, emulsion extras and celluloid experiments should be absolutely public. Let’s make hand-made d-i-y films! Let’s make a lot!1

On Thursday, The Unit is invited for lunch at the Piet Zwart Institute’s Networked Media department. We are welcomed by RT, MM and AM. Their presentation is more than encouraging:

The pipeline, as an approach to creating an artistic work, is in dramatic contrast to a traditional image of the “isolated artist working in the ‘clean room’ of his/her creative suite…” and recasts work as being a flow of material across different sources. This acknowledges that the tools are themselves represent decisions, assumptions, work of others, negotiations/compromises. Often a project can have a powerful impact simply by making an unexpected connection between systems.2

Later that night the Constant/OSP delegation decides to return to school and work. RT has lend us her master-key and we feel strangely excited as we let ourselves in to the building that seems lit by fluorescents 24/7.

PH and PM continue their discussion on what could be a flow-based approach to lay-out. Like a pearl necklace, they imagine lay-out actions to be threaded on a string. Sparked by the simple gesture of touching a keyboard, a deeply political process of linking previous and future decisions is launched. To be explored.

GDH has taken up on another challenge. In a session on Networked Lay-out earlier that day we end up talking about how canvas-based and typesetting engines have different relations to computation, parametric design and the physicality of the printed page:

FS: It was frustrating but interesting to discover that in TeX/ConTeXt the idea of a fixed page doesn’t exist. I mean… the page does not exist before compilation.
PM: That’s not true. Page size is the first thing that TeX will ask for!
FS: Yes, you are right. But beforehand it knows only about the page in terms of size, not in terms of amount. It meant that I had to recompile my document several times, trying different font-sizes and margins in order to end up with a booklet of exactly 36 pages. It felt as if I was doing the kind of work that the engine could have more easily done for me?*

After midnight GDH finishes his prototype: A Python script for Scribus which treats margin and font-size as a variable, depending on how a text can fit a fixed amount of pages. It might sound like a small step, but I see the contours of a more interesting connection between canvas based and generative design.

In the mean time, work has commenced on the LGRU-reader. This Reader is a thinking tool disguised as publication, a collection of wanted and existing texts that helps us develop and focus research on Libre Graphics. The editorial team is made up of people living in different continents, so the discussion happens simultaneously on IRC, Etherpad and live in the Worm-cafetaria:

<NM> But the point is not to look for the purest grass root formats
<LN> ah
<NM> Rather to look for the complexity of spec-design
<LN> Hmm: so collaboration in this case is dependent on limitations of mediary figure?
<SV> AL: The UFO format was made to exchange between different softwares. He's not sure though. ES knows?
<ES> Yes for that and for longevity. But to get to your question LN...
<SV> Sorry. Now we have to go outside to make a group photo to prove to that we are here.

--> IML (~nn@189.179.240.141) has joined #lgru-reader
<ES> So LN ... with intermediary figure you mean the format or the people introducing, mediating the format?
<IML> ey :-)
<LN> I don't know. In the case of what NM said about "interference and intermediary above" I wasn't sure if this was the format, or people.
<SV> IML!! :-)
<NM> The intermediary is both file and people, or interest groups.
*

Friday is about the interdependence of the physical and the digital. I struggle with the adolescent sexist imagery that Visa-Valtteri tours us through, but am fascinated by graphics that result from the play of hardware against software or vice versa.

Bas Schouten works for the Mozilla Corporation and his presentation of the Azure project takes on a different tone. Azure is ‘a stateless graphics API that’s closer both to platform APIs and hardware‘ and as his talk3 progresses, we start to understand why high-end 3D graphics such as WebGL require direct access to user’s machines. But we also understand that richer networked graphics paradoxically necessitate a more closed approach to the web, or at least that is how Bas presents the situation:

LGRU: You presented the Azure project as a way to shortcut the CAIRO open source/community-based development; can you say more about that?
BS: You mean: Is the slowness from CAIRO not part of openness actually? Yes. People hamper progress. It is like politics, it happens a lot, people that hold a project hostage. We do develop CAIRO – we do contribute to that project, but our resources are limited. We need to compete with Chrome and Explorer. And don’t forget: paid employees review code at Mozilla; in the end all API decisions are made by The Company. What is our mission? Trying to be as open as we can but there are trade-offs. We do want to stay around for a few more years.*

Robert B. Lisek: The Strongest Link is the Weakest

On Saturday, Robert B. Lisek catapults us back into the world of networks with his delirious trip linking terrorism to graphics. To think about graphics is to think about the relation between things, he seems to say:

Maybe it is my brain, but when holding this book, I see it as a group of elements.

On Sunday, just before the Constant/OSP delegation drives back to Brussels, PH crosses the Maas-bridge by foot to pick up his car parked on the other side of the river. Underway he discovers Maasbeeld, a sculpture by Auke de Vries that connects the pillars of two bridges. PH thinks that as a visual reference to the work on Co-position that has started to cook, this image might be more useful than a pearl necklace. Locals have nicknamed the sculpture ‘De Waslijn’ (The Clothesline).

Auke de Vries, Maasbeeld (1981). Photo: René Hoeflaak, all rights reserved.

*This is not a direct quote, but a faithful reconstructions based on our collective notes.

More notes and images:

  1. http://www.filmlabs.org/docs/toboldlygo.pdf
  2. http://pzwart3.wdka.hro.nl/wiki/Networked_Media_Intro
  3. http://people.mozilla.org/~bschouten/LGRUDec2011.pdf

Tying the story to data

In the summer of 2010, Constant commissioned artist and researcher Evan Roth to develop a work of his choice, and to make the development process available in some way. He decided to use a part of his fee as prize-money for The GML-Recorder Challenge, inviting makers to propose an open source device ‘that can unobtrusively record graffiti motion data during a graffiti writer’s normal practice in the city’.

In three interviews that took place in Brussels and Paris within a period of one and a half years, we spoke about the collaborative powers of the GML-standard, about contact points between hacker and graffiti-cultures and the granularity of gesture.

The text is based on conversations between Evan Roth (ER) and Femke Snelting (FS), Peter Westenberg (PW), Michele Walther (MW), Stéphanie Villayphiou (SV), John Haltiwanger (JH) and momo3010.

Download PDF: Tying the story to data

WORM open

October 31, 2011 bar, event, LGRU, News, Rotterdam, space

Shifted entrance

Café tables move sideways over hydraulic rails

Office workstations

Recuperated Boeing panels

Last Friday, WORM opened it’s new location in the center of Rotterdam.

It was nice to see lots of people show up to celebrate this event, to see their new book- and recordshop back in such good shape and to discover forms of architectural re-use we only dreamt of, until now.

The first LGRU-research meeting will be hosted by WORM in this excellent space from 7-10 December, 2010.

unfold, uncut

Designer Dick Elffers made many Versneden affiches by cutting and binding posters into small booklets:

Dick Elffers: Affiche Holland Festival 1962

Dick Elffers: Versneden Holland Festival Affiche, 1962

He enjoyed the surprising compositions that resulted from arbitrarily combining pieces of his work, ‘Le meilleur des mondes possibles’. But when I bring them up during the Co-positioning worksession (we are discussing ‘designing with imposition’, more about that later), GDH says: “Are you sure they are serendipitous lay-outs? What if Elffers designed these lay-outs as well?” Good question!

The trouble is, that I never saw these booklets in real life. De Stichting Nederlands Archief Grafisch Ontwerpers (NAGO) has apparently more than 20 Versneden affiches in it’s collection, but sadly published only two cardboard covers on-line:

NAGO inv. DE00347: Versneden weekagenda Boymans van Beuningen Rotterdam

Nago inv. DE00093: Boekjes versneden

I know about Versneden affiches from a reproduction in one of the first books on design I ever bought as a student1. I scan the reproductions to see if I can reconstruct Elffers’ method:

When I finish the last image, I realise Elffers could never have simply folded and stapled his posters. First of all, the NAGO-archive describes the booklets as ‘glued’, so there’s a hint. Also, if he had folded the pages and than cut them, at least on some pages the lettering would have been upside down. And unless the reproduction in my book was not complete, 2 pages are missing. I scanned 22 pages, and not 16 or 24 (can both be divided by 4). He must have cut page-sized rectangles out of his posters and than carefully arranged them.

Last test: Did Elffers leave any parts out?

Yes, he did. Some of the cut-outs were turned upside down, but none of those contained text. And he combined fragments from two differently sized posters into one booklet.

  1. Max Bruinsma, Lies Ros, Rob Schroder. Dick Elffers: Een leest heeft drie voeten, Uitgeverij De Balie, 1989

Space filling algorithms

AM: Pre-designed software, be it commercial or open source, pre-supposes how users intend to interact with it, what they want to do, and how they ought to do it, what the pipeline and the process ought to be.
M: Whenever I need a new functionality, I immediately try to design a simple re-usable API for it. I absolutely HATE copy / pasting code between projects, or even within a single project.
DP: It’s a practice. Space filling algorithms. Patterns of growth. At any given point in time, I have to choose a constraint to embrace, the boundaries of the page are an easy starting point.
AM: I have a lot of things I am no where near finished exploring with aesthetically, but also have a myriad of unfinished, generally useful tools for end users.
M: If I need to do the same or similar stuff in different places, I’ll try and make sure my code is parametric enough to accommodate for it, and the API allows it.
ZL: I remember thinking something simple like, “Better tools = better starting point = better work”. That was the motto.
AM: My private policy is: when I get bored and tired of a specific effect (that I’ve found has a sort of “signature”) it’s a candidate for release.
ZL: There are just so many pieces to know about and how they fit together, it seems to me an inherently collaborative medium and one which we should actively work to demystify and to lower the barrier to entry. Good tools do that.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

May 2011, Kyle Mconald interviewed colleagues and friends Zach Lieberman, Anton Marini, Memo and Dan Paluska about “open source, media art, and digital communities”. The Sharing Interviews were conducted using Etherpad and published on GitHub.

Pen and paper

The LGM splash

An M for Meeting

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.

For the 5th edition of the Libre Graphics Meeting, OSP proposed to replace the paint splash by an abstract drawing of three squares forming a flag and also the letter M.1 The splash had been in use since 2006 and some community members felt alienated by the proposal. On 10/10/2009 AL explained on the CREATE-mailinglist: “The main issue for OSP, is that we don’t think continuity can be resolved by going back to the paint splash. We honestly feel it misrepresents the pleasure of using and developing Libre Graphics Tools and we have consciously decided to work with imagery that avoids such remediation.2

Two years later, the Scribus Icon Contest (deadline October 31!)3 seems to have run into a similar argument. One of the proposals features yet another stylized iteration of a fountain pen:

Original Scribus logo

Scribus 1.3.5 introduced: Handwritten textboxes

Calligraphy AND textboxes. Proposal: Ian Hex

I am not the only one who doubts the calligraphic turn. LD responds:
The pen has been around for ages. Yet, a pen has not much to do with DTP and has always seemed to me a bit out of topic or a bit misleading. Typography is not calligraphy. No pen is involved in the work, really. It’s also arguable what a “scribe” has to do with DTP but here I find myself more comfortable since the scribe’s work was in fact to put down the ideas on paper. From that to layout, I think the link is pretty clear.4
GP does not altogether agree: “I think the connection makes some sense in that you have something of a depiction of the work of a scribe, which at least connects to the name Scribus. Furthermore, scribes worked as individuals, sometimes adding embellishments of drop caps and artwork in the margins (primitive layout) and were therefore much like the idea of an individual doing publishing on his own.
He adds: “The difficulty with using computers, screens, mice, keyboards, etc., is that these might be used in the logo for almost any software”

Avoiding the problem: Adobe InDesign (2011)

Reverse evolution: From a typographer's portrait to a writing tool. Aldus Pagemaker (1985)

An individual doing publishing on his own?

It puzzles me why the Scribus community — like other Libre Graphics projects — would want to ignore the rich source of imagery provided by their own object of development. Some keywords for a dreamt logo:
Box, Canvas, Chain, Character, Colour, Column, Curve, Diagram, Document, Figure, Font, Frame, Gap, Grid, Guide, Hyphen, Image, Layer, Line, Margin, Masterpage, Origin, Padding, Page, Pagenumber, Paragraph, Path, Point, Script, Sentence, Shape, Space, Stream, Stroke, Style, Table, Word.

  1. http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/news/watch-this-thread-lgm-site-and-logo-proposal
  2. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/create/2009-October/002091.html
  3. http://forums.scribus.net/index.php?topic=243.0
  4. http://lists.scribus.net/pipermail/scribus/2011-October/044555.html

Spoon

Go into the kitchen and open the first drawer you come to and the odds are you’ll find the wooden spoon that is used to stir soups and sauces. If this spoon is of a certain age you will see it no longer has its original shape. It has changed, as if a piece had been cut obliquely off the end. Part of it is missing.
We have (though not all at once, of course) eaten the missing part mixed up in our soup. It is continual use that has given the spoon its new shape. This is the shape the saucepan has made by constantly rubbing away at the spoon until it eventually shows us what shape a spoon for stirring soup should be1

The edible spoon figures in most of our presentation of the Libre Graphics Research Unit. Slides: LGRU.pdf

  1. Bruno Munari. Design as art, Penguin, 2009

Table practice

A late report from I Don’t Know! — an artistic conference on knowledge production [18/09/2011]

Arriving for the second day of the conference, I am welcomed by EVC with a cheerful: “We are very curious what you’ll do. When we received your proposal we really did not know what to expect!“. At that point I had just read the descriptions of the other parallel ‘table practices’, and was panicking about choosing such a pragmatic approach. Oh well.

Before the seven sessions begin, the organisers ask us ‘to make our notes public’, meaning to write them on vertically placed cardboard surfaces scattered around the room. Additionally, we are invited to formulate ‘matters of concern’ on pink post-it notes (yellow ones are for possible responses, solutions). It is probably post-it fatigue but the question rubs me the wrong way, as does the term ‘mise en abyme’ that is used to explain the purposeful recursion of the discourse. Another coffee, and it is time to start.

The two discussions starting from The GML-Field Recorder Challenge are each useful and interesting in their own way thanks to many smart and generous people around the table. First we ‘simply’ discuss The Challenge in relation to the questions posed by the conference. Participants point out the difference between ‘writing about’ (or data from?) movement and the act of moving itself; the interplay between standard and practice (referring to choreographer Steve Paxton who resented the standardization of ‘his’ method Contact improvisation, feeling it would risk transforming a practice between people into a technique) and reminding me that the relation between markup and text is architectural.

The second session is a bit more complicated. It takes a while to get started, and in the end The Field Recorder Challenge is used as a ‘case’ in an attempt to compare artistic research to case law, or in short, to a ‘file’. Surprisingly, the situation gets almost out of hand when we discuss one of the stipulations of The Challenge: “The winning design will have some protection in the event that the device falls into the wrong hands“. Apparently one of the blockages for approaching artistic research as a ‘file’ is that it would imply an act of sharing without control. What if your work would be used for a bad cause? How then to take responsibility for your work?

The entertaining Discourse Machine is another kind of ‘table practice’, developed by EVC and PR. It is a conversation-game in the genre of Talkaoke1, though more intellectual in style. In proper Don’t Know!-fashion, it at the same time provokes discourse AND a reflection upon the discourse itself (or on the provocation?). The game is played in rapid succession by seven participants who take up the role of presenter, audience member, interviewer, critical facilitator, feedback-person, interviewee or communications manager. PR confirms that this Discourse API could work with altogether different questions too.

Throughout the conference, the vocabulary of Isabelle Stengers and Bruno Latour is omnipresent. The confidence by which participants refer to them in conversation makes me wonder about my own usage of their work. A week later, inspired by AL, SV, PH, and LL working courageously through Stengers’ essay Ecology of Practice, it is good to read:

To challenge is something rather easy, you can always challenge somebody. But challenge as related to the eventuality of a cosmopolitical achievement must include the very special fact that in front of a challenging situation, nobody can speak in the name of this situation. Indeed borders are involved and there is no neutral, extra-territorial, way of defining what matters in the situation. It implies, for each involved party, different risk and a different challenge.”2

When it is my turn to speak in the gigantic plenum that concludes the day3, I am too impatient to say anything properly nuanced. As usual, KVDB is to the point: “Be careful not to fetishise your Don’t know!“.

  1. “The most fun I ever had with my clothes on” http://www.talkaoke.com
  2. Ecology of practices and technology of belonging http://www.imbroglio.be/site/spip.php?article43
  3. 50+ exhausted participants placed in a large circle. One by one we respond to yet another quest for ‘matters of concern’. In the middle some conference debris, a recorder slid into the void space, two microphones and a spaghetti of black cables.

A frog and a rooster

Frog
“A story, doubtless true in the life of such a man, tells us how Hokusai tried to paint without the use of his hands. It is said that one day, having unrolled his scroll of paper on the floor before the Shogu, he poured over it a pot of blue paint; then, dipping the claws of a rooster in a pot of red paint, he made the bird run across the scroll and leave its tracks on it.

Everyone present recognized in them the waters of the stream called Tatsouta carrying along maple leaves reddened by the autumn. A charming piece of sorcery, in which nature seems to work unaccompanied to reproduce nature. The spreading blue color flows into divided streams like a real wave, and the bird’s claw, with it’s separated and united elements, is like the structure of a leaf. Its nearly weightless trace makes accents unequaled in force and purity; its path respects, but with the nuances of life, the intervals setting apart the delicate flotsam that the rapid water sweeps along.

Can any hand translate the regular and the irregular, the accidental and the logical in this procession of things almost without body, but not without form, on the surface of a mountain stream? Very much so: the hand of Hokusai. For the memory of long experiment with his hands on the different ways of evoking life brought him, magician as he was, to attempt even this. The hands are present without showing themselves, and, though touching nothing, they order everything.”

Story: Henri Focillon, The Life of Forms in Art. Zone Books, 1992
Image: Current OSP logo; it’s abstraction results from IRC-operated Scribus manipulations. See also: http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/works/how-to-turn-a-frog-into-a-prince and http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/image/index.php?level=album&id=51

Python week, day 1

This morning: Review of lists, dictionaries, arrays, functions, loops.
Afternoon: Remembering how to speak to the Scribus-API (results possibly less abstract tomorrow). For now:

instructions = ['Don't read', {'Take': ['paper', 'rods', 'blocks']}, ['set them out', 'color', 'build']]

:-)