With the continual advancement of technology, many argue that technology has distilled the quality of relationships and interactions we have as humans. Many talk about how technology has potentially ruined us and have allowed us to become distant as we fixate our eyes constantly on our smartphones and social media applications. However, Golan Levin debunks this argument through his various new media art pieces, one significant of which is Footfalls. He incorporates technology well into his works and shows us that when used well, technology allows for interactivity and connection, bringing humanity closure rather than drawing a distance.
Golan Levin is a new media artist who obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Art and Design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1994) and a Masters degree in Media Arts and Sciences from the MIT Media Lab (2000). He was also a student in John Maeda’s Aesthetics and Computation Group (ACG). He later then worked as an interface designer where he was introduced to the field of interactive new media art and taught computational design in various schools in New York City.
Levin’s background influenced him to create unique artistic works through the use of computation. This is done through creation and manipulation of images and sound through the language of interactivity and nonverbal protocols in cybernetic systems. In his works, he highlights human interaction with digital technologies, creatively manipulating technology to encourage interactivity and abstract communication amongst people.
This is seen in his work, Footfalls (2006), an interactive audiovisual installation that Levin created in collaboration with Zachary Liberman. It was developed as an outgrowth of the “Bubbles” module from Levin’s other collaborative work, the Messa di Voce installation.
It was first commissioned in Tokyo on July 2006 by the NTT InterCommunicationsCenter (ICC), seeing itself being exhibited during the solo exhibition of Tmema projects.
It was also exhibited in 2008 (24th May to 13th June) at Beaulab, Centre Beauliue in Nantes, France.
Developed in openFrameworks, an open-source toolkit for interactive art, Footfalls utilises sound created through movement to generate interactivity between visitors and technology. When visitors start stomping their feet, the falling avalanche of bouncy visual forms (eg. balls) is created:
Microphones installed under the floor of Footfalls will detect the sounds produced by visitors’ feet upon stepping and stomping. The louder the sound, the larger the size of the virtual object that will fall from a six-meter high projection. Similarly, the harder the stomp, the more the number of virtual objects that will fall. The visitor can then use their silhouettes to move the objects around such as through catching them, throwing them or using their silhouettes to prevent more balls from falling.
Footfalls plays with the idea of interactivity very well. Interactivity in this installation is not just limited to technology though. Viewers will also find themselves interacting with people around them. For instance, visitors can “collaborate” with one another by combining their silhouettes to form new shapes that create a different outcome and effect to the experience of Footfalls. This experience can lead to different takeaways. The outcome of Footfalls is hence not fixed and is determined by interaction of the viewer with the artwork and their surroundings.
This mirrors the theory in Roy Ascott’s readings of “Behaviourist Art and the Cybernetic Vision” (1966), where Asccott proposes that artwork is now
“responsive to the viewer, rather than [being] fixed and static”.
In the past where artwork merely revolved around the artist, whereby it cannot be changed once the art piece is completed. However, the revolution of interactive art has changed the gameplay, whereby art now remains
“perpetually in a state of play”.
For example, in the case of Footfalls, an excited and more outgoing viewer would possibly stomp on the floor more, creating a larger avalanche of virtual objects as compared to someone who was bored or perhaps was more shy. The creation of a larger avalanche could create an experience of overwhelmingness for the viewer as compared to having just a few virtual objects falling. A more outgoing viewer would perhaps also be more open to “collaborating” with other viewers who he/she has never met before, paving the way for new relationships to be formed during the course of Footfalls. That, in itself, is another experience.
Another piece of interactive work that is similar to Footfalls would be Robert Rauschenberg ‘s work: Soundings, (1968).
Soundings uses sounds produced by the viewer to activate lights in a 36 foot long Plexiglass sculpture, lighting up various images of chairs in an initially dark room. It requires the viewer to take an active role in the art of the installation; if no one makes any sound, the installation would not come to life and the viewer’s experience would just be of simply standing in a dark room.
Similar to Soundings, Footfalls also incorporates sound to bring to life interaction and art. However, the outcome of the work is dependent on the viewers’ response. If they do not engage and are not interested in eg. catching the falling avalanche of virtual objects on the screen, the installation would lose its meaning.
In terms of hypermedia, Footfall’s engaging use of technology brings technology one step closer to home, allowing for the viewer to realise technology is less of a static computer and is perhaps become more human than thought of. This is done through the viewers’ engagement with technology through their everyday movements that they are so familiar with (like spreading their hands out whilst trying to catch the falling virtual objects). By intertwining technology of the installation with our everyday movements, it crafts a sense of familiarity for the viewer and allows them to be more comfortable with the idea of technology.
As quoted from media artist and technologist Michael Naimark ,
“It is my belief that computer and media technology will continue to have an increasingly profound effect on everyone on the planet… and if artists don’t jump in and proactively help shape these powerful new tools, it will be left by default to advertisers, the military, organized religion, and sex peddlers.”
By incorporating media technology into his installation, Levin has used Footfalls (and his many other media artworks) to shape culture on the use of technology, craving infinitely new possibilities of art with technology and even further beyond.
Footfalls also shows the viewers an interaction beyond the screen, similar to that of Deep Contact (1984-89) by Lynn Hershman. Deep Contact uses a touchscreen interface to encourage viewer participation through the reaching through the work’s glass surface (or computer screen) that is also known as the computer’s “fourth wall”. Viewers can hence choreograph their own experiences by simply putting their hand on a touch sensitive screen.
Deep Contact then invites participants to actually touch the woman on the screen, on any part of her body via a Micro Touch monitor. They will be given options:
and the experiences/responses between viewer and the woman on the screen develop depending upon which body part is touched.
In Deep Contact, the interactive piece directly involves the body of the viewer, intertwining intimate subjects like sex, age and personality with technology. It leads viewers to think about intimacy with regards to technology and how it can play a deeper part in our lives.
This is similar to Footfalls. Although Footfalls does not require direct interaction of touching the screen, it allows for intimate connections to be made between the work and the viewer (since the viewer engages in it through the use of everyday movement). Not stopping there, intimate connections can also be made viewer to viewer. For instance, if two viewers who were initially strangers managed to interact well while working together to create their own unique experiences in Footfalls, it may encourage them to continue to form a friendship even after the installation has ended. Footfalls would have been able to facilitate discussions and through the use of technology, create new memories between the pair. Technology would have hence facilitated the start of a new relationship between two human beings, which is something of definite infinite value.
In conclusion, Levin cleverly uses Footfalls to bring forth interactivity between viewers and technology. In terms of hypermedia, he also bridges the gap of common misunderstanding that technology is stuck to a computer; when used well and properly, it can help create new levels of intimacy and connect with humanity.
References:
https://beaulieu.klepierre.fr/
http://www.flong.com/bio/en/
http://www.flong.com/projects/footfalls/
http://www.flong.com/projects/messa_inst/
https://oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg/17s2-ap9044-sem-1/wp-content/uploads/sites/2276/2018/01/ascott-behavioral-art.pdf
http://www.naimark.net/
http://w2vr.com/archives/Kluver/09_Soundings.html
http://w2vr.com/archives/Hershman/05_Contact.html