IN MOTION

While having others try my table out, the feedback that I generally get is that it falls in some sort of uncomfortable place between a useful design object and an obvious art piece. I’m very interested in this space, but I think sometimes in seeking it out I end up with work that is too subtle for many people to connect with or understand.

Here are the main questions and things I was thinking about in developing this piece…

I am very interested in the potential of technology to affect our interactions. It happens constantly as new technologies are created, but there seems to be a tendency to move as quickly as possible toward faster, smaller, more, without taking time to reflect on the effects of our innovations. The table was intended both as a critique and an exploration.

I specifically wanted to make the feedback that people give non-automatic. For this reason, people turn pedals with their feet rather than using biofeedback or some kind of ambient analysis of the conversation. I wanted that moment of consciousness when a person becomes aware of himself evaluating his experience, quantifies it, and decides whether or not to act. In this moment – what are the factors considered to rate one’s experience? What matters and what does not? What does it mean to anonymously provide feedback? How does it differ from what is communicated through verbal or body language? What are the things we feel uncomfortable saying, and why?

In our current networked social culture, we are constantly rating – videos, thoughts, activities, actions. “Like”, “dislike”, “3/5 stars”, “retweet”, “friended” are extremely stripped down ways we can instantly communicate, but what depth of relationships, ideas, emotions lay behind these mechanisms? Does our current culture provide a platform for sustaining and developing this depth of human interaction, or are we growing more isolated and distant in our constant connectivity? This table explores these questions by reducing all conversation to the movement of a lever and the modulation of light.

One person that saw my table commented, ‘but if I had this in my living room I think I would go crazy.’ What is it about this scenario that seems to explicitly wrong? How different is it from the ways we interact with each other regularly? Sometimes no words need to be said for an expectation or a judgment to be clear.

In a more optimistic direction, what if technology really could positively affect our interactions? Is there a possibility for feedback to be leveraged to help people toward new, more enriching experiences? Could a system like this potentially accelerate new relationships, pushing past barriers of unfamiliarity and obligatory small talk?

These are a few of the things on my mind while making this, but the table is also intended for each person to read it in their own way. In viewing in virtually and having no opportunity to actually experience the object, it perhaps requires a bit more imagination and engagement on the part of the viewer. What could be done to facilitate this? Scenario videos? Actual use trials with documentation?

While thinking about the documentation and presentation of this table, I’d like to move on to a number of other experiments. More to come on that soon!