#i think it has been utilized in interesting ways both for suitcase as a character and for the narrative as a whole

[smile-files]

just out of curiosity: for friends and followers with schizophrenia, psychosis, or any other mental disorder causing delusions/hallucinations, how do you feel about suitcase ii being a representation of that?

ii doesn't have the best track record for mental disorder representation as it is (cough cough paper cough cough bomb cough cough cabby), so i have reason to be skeptical about suitcase... from my perspective, as someone without any such disorder, the handling of her mental disorder is unnuanced but well-intentioned at best, and a tacky, cliched attempt to create drama at worst. but i'd like to hear what other people think! thank you!

[justin-chapmanswers]

Reading the stuff on this blog makes me so. Happy??? You're so wonderful oh my goodness,,,, anyways here's a couple questions: who are your favorite characters to write and/or what were some of your favorite interactions/scenes to write for the show?

Thanks for being wonderful, yourself!

-My favorite characters to work for are always flowing in and out depending on how my flow of inspiration is moving. When a character has a lot of relevance now or for a future idea, I’m always working to tap into that. The reverse occurs, as well, when I’m just going about my life, hit a bump, and jot down notes about how I could transfer those feelings into a character… which might be a little mean? Towards the character? Dumping a bunch of emotions onto somehow can occasionally be overwhelming. At the moment, the big ones in my mind (some from relatively recent writing sessions, others from planning for the future) are Paintbrush, MePad, Knife, Fan, and Lightbulb to name that the ones that most immediately come to mind. But heck man, I love so many of these characters and I know I’m not doing certain ones that I also quite often think about justice by not naming them. That’s just how the flow goes. 

As a side-note, if I were to utilize some of my side ideas to construct a show, myself, I would probably avoid working with a much larger cast- that said, I am quite happy with what’s come of the Inanimate Insanity characters. A lot of shows fall under a trap of not knowing where to put focus when working with an ensemble cast with very distant stories, which is always something to get me annoyed with a show. Not to say we’ve done things perfectly, but I think we have a better advantage now of knowing who goes when so we can plan out when it is appropriate to give specific characters more screen-time- whether it be to let them shine before their end or to set up something for down the line. That aspect makes a (mock) reality show more easy to handle than your typical ensemble piece. Loving every single remaining character dearly helps a ton, as well.

There are a few other characters of more major note, as well, but I’ll keep to the Inanimate Insanity ones for the time-being.

-As for particular scene and dynamics, episode eleven is certainly the greatest catalogue to present what I most love about the show. Probably my two favorite scene that I had a hand in writing in episode eleven involve duos that I love the heck out of: Knife & Suitcase at the doc (which is my current favorite aired scene of the show), and MePad & Toilet during the song mid-point. Knife and Suitcase are great in that there is a very visible effect that they have on one another just by introducing to their clashing ideologies. The doc scene is my favorite scene to work through: quiet, introspective, and evolving. The back-and-forth quips that they both love to sound dramatic are also quite fun. The both of them have come a long way, but prior to the doc scene Knife has found a much firmer grasp on the world around him than Suitcase, who at the docs is still deliberating on two entirely different paths. Knife now listens and carefully decides the next move, whereas Suitcase listens and follows every word to a T unless put in an extreme situation. It’s a spin on the expectations of empathy that I love with all my heart, and leads to grand finale that had been built for quiiiite some time.

MePad and Toilet are another relationship that is very focused on growth, but as we’ve seen it’s a little more one-sided. Despite Toilet seeming to be the one of the duo who needs to have a firmer grasp on reality, it is MePad who is actively interested in others and in expanding his knowledge. That’s where the song-bridge comes in, which is a scene that on the surface reiterates Marshmallow’s ideologies, but has two more major functions. Firstly, jumping back to what I noted about MePad, it brings his major push forward into focus. After finding Marshmallow to be illogical in her decision-making, we find MePad briefly trying to piece together why this is. He looks to the contestants and also to Toilet to figure out what it means to live with purpose, the scene alone bridging the start of the episode to the very end when he allows Marshmallow to go by without a word. MePad is willing to learn. Secondly, there’s Toilet, who more subtly displays a very distinct viewpoint not yet tapped into on-screen. When questioned about fair and just treatment, he makes it quite clear that he has become willing to push aside that urge to impress seen most heavily in episodes two and eight, and instead accepts his position. Maybe he doesn’t want to grow. Maybe he has become trapped in this system that Marshmallow was willing to flee from entirely. Unlike MePad, the one who knows all, he gets it.

Lightbulb-Paintbrush, Suitcase-Balloon, and a not-yet-explored dynamic round out the rest of my favorites (for the moment) that have been planned for quite some time. Super excited to explore more. Maybe some cross-team ones sooner or later? Who’s to say?

[lazybarbarians]

Star Wars: Catalyst: A Rogue One Story by James Luceno

Ragnell: So, after a brief break last week (it was a holiday), we read Star Wars: Catalyst: A Rogue One Novel which you know is extra fun because it has an extra colon!

This novel is a prequel to the prequel everybody likes, set sequentially after the other 3 prequels that nobody likes. It takes place before the events of Rogue One. Spoilers, they build a Death Star. (Extra spoilers, a magic teenager from the middle of fucking nowhere blows it up.) But for those of you who watched that movie and ask “How did these people get into this situation?” then this is the book for you.

Kalinara: also, if you watched and thought “is it just me, or is Krennic really kind of obsessed with Jyn’s dad?” This book seems to clarify: yes, yes he is.

R: I must warn you, that this book contains graphic depictions of social climbing, child care, bureaucracy, workplace competition, shameless use of high school contacts for your own professional advancement, and several instances of unadulterated exposition about the nature of kyber crystals. Which power lightsabers.

Also, Lightsabers do not appear in this book. Not even once. Not even in a flashback.

We open with Galen and Lyra Erso, a pacifist scientist and his religious environmentalist wife, trying to synthesize kyber crystals on Vallt, a neutral planet in the Clone Wars while Lyra takes notes and prepares for impending motherhood. Just their luck there’s an insurrection and they get captured in an attempt to make Galen work for the Separatist. So poor Jyn is born while her father’s in prison. But not to fear, Krennic is here! Lt Commander Krennic, who knows Galen from Smart Dude School, arranges for their rescue because he thinks Galen’s specialty will really help him get to the Front Row of researchers on the Super-Secret Battle Station Project they have been assigned to.

Krennic uses a smuggler to get them out, and then destroys the new Vallt government for Orbit. Galen, of course, does not accept a military job immediately and instead offers Krennic a way out of military service. Which is sweet but a major character misjudgment So Krennic greases the works of the Republic so that Galen can’t leave Coruscant, and is bored out of his skull and eventually accepts a mind-numbing QA position on another planet. Towards the end of the war, that planet gets the shit bombed out of it and the Ersos again have to flee back to Coruscant. But the war is over! And the Jedi are dead! So, no need for a military job, right?

Still, Galen does need a job so it’s Krennic to the rescue again. With a “clean energy research project” using kyber crystals. He even has a suitcase full of them. Which Lyra points out probably came form the lightsabers of murdered Jedi but really, he’s offering the chance to build UNLIMITED ENERGY for the New Galactic Empire. That can’t be sinister, right?

Little does Galen know, Krennic’s been working behind the scenes at the Empire, convincing Palpatine’s Vice, Mas Amedda (Remember the creepy blue dude with the horns and headtails? He gets lines!) to back him while he maneuvers against Governor Tarkin to gain influence and monitors the Ersos to make sure Lyra’s not radicalizing her husband.

The time goes on and Galen gets more into his work, and Lyra gets offworld with a friend and gets to see the environmental devastation being wrought by the Empire on protected lands. And things aren’t adding up from their POV. They finally have a talk about it, then confront Krennic. Krennic handles the confrontation so poorly it confirms he’s evil and that Galen’s research has been weaponized. Fortunately, this coincides with Krennic using his favorite smuggler against Tarkin, and Tarkin sending the guy back to Coruscant to make him a spy in Krennic’s organization. Because no one in the fucking Empire gives a fucking fucking about their actual job except guys like Galen Erso who lose faith in the system when they realize their labor has been twisted to evil. Of course, because Krennic used the same smuggler to escort Lyra off-world before, and because the smuggler knows Saw Gerrera this blows up in both Krennic and Tarkin’s faces because he arranges to distract Krennic and smuggle them off Coruscant.

The book ends on some really sweet interaction between Jyn and Saw, and promises that the beginning of the movie is just a few years away.

I do enjoy tie-in books, because I can always picture the actors in their roles. (And through the miracle of the internet can find images of them at the age they’d be during a prequel!) I have long had a problem with Star Wars books, though, because I always have to look up the species online to picture them. But that’s just a small nitpick. If a Star Wars books is funny, quick-paced and adventurous with an engaging hero I can get over that. Oddly, this book is… none of those things. I don’t hate it, I kinda liked it, but if not for the movie I think it’d have bugged me.

K: It’s definitely a “prequel of a prequel” situation. As a stand alone novel, it’s definitely lacking. There really isn’t an overall plot, as I’d define one. And while we have an effective villain, we’re stuck in a position where we can’t get a lot of closure, because that closure will happen in Rogue One itself. As a prequel though, it’s pretty effective.

R: See, this book starts off very very slow. Krennic is the most interesting viewpoint character early on, though it picks up when they bring in Tarkin. (Man I love Tarkin.) Can’t say I grew fond of Has or would’ve been sad if he’d died.

K: This book definitely utilized Krennic well. I think Krennic, like Tarkin, and probably Hux in TFA, represent an interesting, almost banal type of evil. They may get a grandiose gesture or two, but the true nature of their triumphs and schemes are not going to be showcased in a movie like Star Wars. The quiet machinations, social climbing, sneaky backroom financial dealings and so on could perhaps make a good sci-fi version of House of Cards, but they’re not going to waste a filming budget on that when we could have lightsabers instead.

But that’s where books like this one can come in handy. In Catalyst, we get to see Krennic at his most effective. He really is more than just the hapless ineffectual douche that Tarkin and Vader metaphorically shove into a locker.

R: I knew the final fates of the Ersos, so it was hard to get too engaged with them. After a while, I got into the second part, though, I got invested. Galen and Lyra start to come alive after then. Lyra’s faith becomes evident in her reactions to the anti-Jedi propaganda and the kyber crystals, and her husband slowly starting to parrot that stuff. We get to see her keep her head and her wits about her as the Emperor, aided by legions of guys like Krennic and Tarkin, rewrites reality. We can see how a man like Galen Erso ended up in the situation he was in, how naive he could be, how he meant well but couldn’t resist when everything he wanted was placed on a silver platter in front of him with the label “Cruelty-Free!”, and how his curiosity and desire to understand the kyber crystals had him rationalizing all sorts of things away.

K: I really liked Galen and Lyra too. We got to appreciate Galen a bit during Rogue One, of course, as someone forced into Imperial service but taking what steps he can to get the word out and sabotage what he’s created. But here we get to see exactly how he fell into that situation. And it’s very sympathetic.

One thing that I think tends to get lost when we discuss older Imperial characters, whether they be the real assholes like Tarkin and Krennic, or more hapless ones like Galen, is that they didn’t start off as Imperials. They started out as soldiers or scientists of the Republic. Palpatine was the Chancellor before he was the Empire, and he had a very long time to lay the groundwork of his most evil deeds long before he named himself Emperor, or Darth Vader came blasting into the picture. The true change from Republic to Empire, from flawed-but-fundamentally-well-meaning-democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship was slow and gradual, and a lot of people were blind to what was happening until it was too late.

R: With this book we see different levels of that too. We see how Has, Galen, Krennic, and Tarkin all ended up sliding into the Imperial machine due to the Clone Wars, for different motivations and different rewards and different levels of satisfaction.

K: Lyra’s faith was an interesting note, and something that I’ve really liked about the new Disney canon. In the old Expanded Universe, the Jedi were very much like Han describes them in A New Hope: hokey religious practitioners with little to no connection to every day life. Even after Luke brings back the Jedi Order, they are very separated from the day to day life of the citizens of the Republic.

The Disney canon so far, from Catalyst, Rogue One, Heir to the Jedi and so on, have painted a different picture of the way that the Jedi and the Force interact with common people. A woman like Lyra, who has never met a Jedi in her life, can still venerate the kyber crystals and their connection to the Force. The rebels still give Jedi blessings. Different cultures still tell stories of those of their number who went off to become Jedi, and treasure their heirlooms. It becomes clear in the new canon that Han’s dismissal of the Jedi, or that Admiral who scorned Vader and got choked for his trouble, are yet other demonstrations of Palpatine’s powers and machinations. He’s cut the Jedi off from common, ordinary people. That’s not the natural state of events.

I think maybe when we do see Luke’s idea of a Jedi Order, we’ll see something very different from the isolated little boarding school/temple on Yavin IV. But maybe something more organically linked to the people. (And hopefully something that would allow more to survive/escape Kylo’s treachery.)

R: I like that aspect too. It must be leading up to whatever we’ll see Luke set up, and I really don’t want the later purge to have been as effective as the first. I think there should be a handful running around who’ll show up in the next two movies.

I also like the Jedi being a specialized practitioner of a faith that is actually pretty widespread. They’re like priests in the Disney canon, which suits Luke a lot. In Shattered Empire Rucka has Luke planning an espionage mission with a volunteer pilot, and killing a bunch of Imperials during it, but afterwards Luke and the volunteer sit down and discuss whether or not she should leave the army. Not from the point of view of whether or not it’s good for the Alliance, but whether or not it’s the right choice for her. Like a Chaplain would. And it’s a role that really fits Luke Skywalker’s character arc

Of course, even with that in mind the Sith-Jedi thing is still a sectarian dispute. So after Palpatine has cut off the Jedi from the common people, and driven belief in the Force underground… has he replaced it with anything? Are there non-Sith Force-believers out there who are like a dark side version of the Guardian of the Whills or Church of the Force?

Aside form that, I wish we’d had more Saw. I thought the end bit with him was lovely, and very sad in light of his role in the movie. In the early years of the Empire, saw Gerrera greeted defectors with kind words and admiration. By the time of the Death Star, he’s so paranoid he tortures the messenger and holds the message in terrified uncertainty about its truth. It’s tragic.

And, much as I grouse, I appreciate a little exposition on kyber crystals. They’re confusing little things. I guess, with this book establishing they can’t be easily synthesized they’re even more confusing (are the Sith using natural crystals or do they just have a method?), but it’s good to have a little material on them and know how difficult it was to power the Death Star.

But really, if anything’s worth reading in this book, it’s the inner workings of the Empire. Rogue One let us know both the Empire and the Rebellion were logistical nightmares. Rebels tells us why the Rebellion is so screwed up. Catalyst tells us why the Empire is so screwed up. How all of the secrecy and backbiting and political jockeying that has run rampant in Palpatine’s organization is doing in the Empire piece by piece. But going by the Vader-Emperor relationship in ESB and ROTJ, we can surmise that in-fighting is a top-down trend.

[johnaculbreath]

What makes something AI technology? Experts don’t always agree

Home

Law Scribbler

What makes something AI technology? Experts…

Law Scribbler

What makes something AI technology? Experts don't always agree

By Jason Tashea

Posted April 23, 2018, 8:30 am CDT

Jason Tashea

Last year, I had my eyes opened.

As a participant at two forums on artificial intelligence and public policy—one held by the Government Accountability Office and the other by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—I was surrounded by AI and policy experts representing topics as varied as autonomous vehicles, criminal justice, cybersecurity, education, finance and social services.

Up until that point, my post-law school career had been cloistered away in the criminal justice system, including my tech work. So, it was fascinating to see the diversity and complexity that AI represented across industries and subject-matter areas that I didn’t often think about.

While there are numerous common interests and priorities across industries and policy areas, one takeaway from these events was a lack of uniformity about what speakers meant by “AI.” To hear this honest lack of agreement on what constituted AI from experts was eye-opening and, ironically, clarifying for me.

From these experiences and writing more about AI’s role in the legal system for ABA Journal, it is evident that both law and journalism can struggle to express concepts around artificial intelligence. In such a broad field, language can be imperfect and actual technical capabilities can be obscured by hucksterism and intellectual property protections.

Acknowledging these limitations, I sought to better understand how experts talk about AI with the hope that I can provide better coverage on artificial intelligence software.

Originally, I thought this would entail building a taxonomy of commonly used words discussing AI for a legal audience. This proved to be the wrong approach and not as illuminating as I hoped. However, through the conversations I had with experts in the field, I realized that there were tenets I could instill in my reporting to improve how I write about AI.

In the most generic and basic sense, AI is a field of study that broadly asks the question: “Can machines process information in a way similar to a human?”

The field is a dynamic and technical subject-matter area that encapsulates a seemingly endless list of technologies, techniques and competing points of view. Popular press is often—and correctly—derided for coverage that relies on hyperbolic and platitudinal language that obfuscates what the technology is actually capable of.

The way I see it, writing about AI is confounded by four different factors.

First, like many reporters covering AI, I am not a scientist. I have a law degree and a B.A. in History. This means no matter how much I read up, a level of translation has to take place between the AI expert and myself, and then again between my knowledge and what I ultimately write.

This filtration process hopefully distills the issue and adds clarity, but undeniably a level of precision will be lost when trying to make the article approachable to the widest set of readers.

Second, the definitions that do exist for AI are intentionally broad and squishy, making their utility limited.

The GAO report defined AI “as computers or machines that seek to act rationally, think rationally, act like a human, or think like a human.”

Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington, wrote that “AI is best understood as a set of techniques aimed at approximating some aspect of human or animal cognition using machines.”

Brian Kuhn, co-founder and global co-leader of IBM Watson Legal, uses the euphemism “cognitive technology” to describe AI. For him this means that software takes on a reasoning or qualitative judgement role. But like human cognition, this software equivalent is on a spectrum, he says.

In all three cases, these definitions are broad and fairly vague, which makes them a good starting place. But AI is a “suitcase” term, as many have called it, which allows it to apply to a multitude of instances.

These definitions also reinforce the idea that AI has some human nature to it. This is a hotly debated topic, however. I don’t think that using humanizing terms when reporting about AI helps people understand that the article is ultimately about software.

Third, even if we could agree to a definition, what constitutes “AI” is under constant revision.

As certain applications of AI become rote or commonplace, like optical character recognition—the process of a machine reading text—or Clippy, the popularly derided Microsoft Word assistant—we yawn at their existence and recoil when someone calls a now banal mechanical task “intelligent.”

Called the AI effect, Kevin Kelly, founding executive editor of Wired, summarized this phenomenon in 2014, writing: “Every success in AI redefines it.”

So, while natural language processing and deep learning are firmly considered AI today, as problems are solved and new issues are tackled, these, too, will be thrown to the ash heap of “obviously, a machine can do that.” We’ll then find ourselves talking about a new cutting edge when referring to AI.

Last, even if an agreed-upon definition of AI didn’t shift around, it still doesn’t tell us much about a specific tool.

AI-enabled technologies have a variety of applications and approaches, and the field can’t be treated as a monolith. However, many companies trafficking an AI product don’t want to describe their tool in particular detail.

Often, companies merely want journalists to focus on the narrative of their tool or business: “AI can rewrite news free of bias,” “AI can outthink lawyers” or “AI can find and neutralize hate speech online.” But they may decline to talk about the dataset their tool is trained on or what factors the algorithm considers—ostensibly to protect the company’s intellectual property.

This forces the press to write reductively and lean on literary devices that are more narrative than nuance.

Claims that companies make about a tool’s accuracy, bias and transparency need to be questioned, says Amanda Levendowski, fellow at the NYU Technology Law and Policy Clinic. The same light needs to be shone on the data used by the tool. A company’s unwillingness to share this information is a part of the story and should not be shrugged off, she argues.

Acknowledging there are not perfect words to describe AI, I’ve concluded that a writing more about a tool’s functionality and features can improve transparency and understanding. To that end, I created eight basic tenets to improve my reporting on AI.

When writing about artificial intelligence:

I will confirm that a tool is in fact using a form of AI.

I will qualify AI when speaking about a specific tool or technology.

I will never talk about AI, its applications or research goals as a monolith.

I will stop using anthropomorphizing verbs to describe a computer function.

I will stop using pictures of robot arms, except when talking about robots.

I will ask questions about training data, including how it is sourced, cleaned and if it is audited.

I will note if a company will not answer questions about their tool and data and the reason for their secrecy.

I will continue to expand my knowledge regarding AI.

I will not settle on a fixed approach to writing about AI but will continue to adapt based on feedback from experts, my editors and our readership.

As noted in the last tenet, this list is a beginning. I welcome feedback and input in the comments section below or over email to refine and improve this approach.

That is, of course, until I’m replaced by a robot.

Thank you to Dr. Alex Hudek at Kira Systems, Brian Kuhn at IBM Watson, Amanda Levendowski at NYU and Johnathan Unikowski at LexLoci for speaking with me and offering their expertise.

What makes something AI technology? Experts don’t always agree republished via ABA Journal Daily News - Business of Law

[cromeromeromero]

ロメロ レポート 01: But, there are no faults in the sunlight.

ロメロ レポート 01: But, there are no faults in the sunlight. Addie Wagenknecht x So Kanno and Yang02 This article originally appears here: http://themassage.jp/en/romero-report-1/

This essay compares the work of US born artist Addie Wagenknecht with Japanese artist pair So Kanno and Yang02 [KS+y2]. The focus of this essay is to examine how Wagenknecht and KS+y2 utilize found or repurposed materials (primarily technological devices) in unique ways, going against the materials original intention. Both Wagenknecht and KS+y2 push the boundaries of various objects - drones, robotics, spray paint, 3D printing, household objects - eloquently rewriting their potential. They reveal the true value of appropriation in contemporary art, which goes beyond simply copying and into creating a new perspective out of what already exists.

We don’t often play around with the capacities of our technological devices. Rather than elastic or malleable technology, we are left with the mundane and habitual. Of course, when we do bend the social rules and norms of our computers or social media, others might tilt their heads in confusion. There was a period of time where I was very active on Facebook, but all I did was create absurd posts. This was a form of gentle trolling maybe, but there was no real audience for the content. I was trolling in a vacuum, trolling time away. This action, however, makes me think of Wagenknecht and KS+y2, whom find the flexibility in materials and use it to create potent commentary on social and political concerns surrounding the digital age.

In the arena of art, their works offer a sense of possibility and freedom toward redefining what an artist creates and how they create it. They play with errors and randomness, imbuing a sense of spirit into circuit boards, metal, and house plants. In this way, the artists here are observers, looking at what is, and what could be.

ADDIE WAGENKNECHT: BLACK HAWK PAINT Black Hawk Paint, which began in 2007, is a series of ongoing paintings in which Wagenknecht pilots drones to create compositions. The drones, using simple maneuvers and instructions, spread acrylic and pigment across a canvas. In earlier versions of the series, using black acrylic paint, the drones had some difficulty. Their wing blades and bodies would get stuck in the substance, leaving the canvas to have splotches, smears, and circular markings. In video documentation of the artwork we see the drone struggling and crying as it tries to navigate the foreign substance.

Since the initial series, Wagenknecht has implemented colored pigment, gunpowder, and other materials on vellum paper. The drone seems happier, being able to paint while gliding across the surface. The combination of these materials at times will change the appearance of the painting depending on the temperature and sunlight. The coloration of this series is also inspired by the Holi festival, which celebrates color and love - ironically counterposing the drone’s original purpose. In this series, many of the works are vertically displayed, expressing a feeling of flight or lightness. This reflects one of the many dichotomies Wagenknecht presents in her work. Here, the delicacy of the compositions counteracts the rough metallic drone.

In the newest series of paintings the drones seem to fly more effortlessly, unbound from the sticky nature of the acrylic. Circular markings, and other imprints remain remain, but a more delicate touch is present. The variations in the series demonstrates the capacity for drones as a tool for art. Different drone models and different materials allow for an array of possibilities, all of which push the drone further away from it’s initial intention as a device for surveillance and war.

KS+y2: SENSELESS DRAWING BOT Senseless Drawing Bot [SDB], an ongoing series created in 2011, reflects on the relationship between machines and humans. Variations of SDB have focused on portraiture, drawing, and collaboration with kids and other artists. The series touches upon the notion of authorship in contemporary art, the autonomy of machines, and the definition of graffiti art. In the series, KS+y2 create custom designed robots that paint and draw on horizontal surfaces. The machines have been featured in train stations, museums, and other public settings.

In the original iteration of the works a machine sits atop a skateboard and moves left and right to spray paint a wall. Watching the machine move and perform is often as important as viewing the final tag. As the machine flails its single arm, in pendulum like motions, it feels like an authentic imitation of a human graffiti artist. Still, many elements of the machine are entirely different from a human hand. As apparent in the title of the works, the machine is senseless. It does not have a specific motivation in completing the work, it is not writing its name or making a political statement; it is simply tagging the walls. This randomness is something humans cannot hope to imitate as our actions always have some sort of motivation or decision making process attached to them.

Because SDB was custom made, it is not the same as other appropriated objects and materials discussed in this essay. In its senselessness, KS+y2 allows the machine a sense of freedom or autonomy to create a painting. By not interrupting the machine, they are allow it to exist untethered from human intervention. In a broad sense, the purpose of a machine is redefined, but more specifically SDB reconsiders the nature of graffiti art and the concept of authorship in contemporary art.

Graffiti is the co-opting or claiming of a space through painting. In tagging a building, a graffiti artist marks and appropriates a surface. In SDB, KS+y2, allow the machine to take on the identity of a graffiti artist, giving  away some authorship of the work. These aspects are interesting to consider as contemporary graffiti artists begin to enter public institutions to create their work, which arguably goes against the original identity of graffiti art. For example, some might argue that seeing a Banksy artwork in a museum or an art collection removes his credibility as a true graffiti artist. Compared to this SDB has no concern for where it is, it only cares about tagging a surface with its imprint. In this way it could be argued that the machine has found a way to exist in the spirit of actual graffiti artists while still producing works within the walls of art institutions.

ADDIE WAGENKNECHT: OPTIMIZATION OF PARENTING, PART 2

Recently a surge of articles have popped up discussing the challenges of raising children while pursuing personal or career goals. It is a nice follow up to the surge of previous articles about the new dating culture inspired by Tinder and other dating apps. While the news is late to the reality of the issue, it remains relevant to millennials of certain countries such as the US and Japan. The situation is particularly difficult on women as they are pressured by society to have kids and fulfill many roles and responsibilities. Wagenknecht addresses these aspects through Optimization of Parenting, Part  2. Utilizing custom software and a robotic arm, the device rocks a bassinet back and forth in reaction to a baby crying or waking up.

Wagenknecht creates a solution to some sort of societal issue or anxiety. The work confronts expectations of mothers to be full time parents on top of their other responsibilities and the sacrifices they must make to do so. Regarding the appropriation of the mechanical arm, these machines are usually used for mass production or for some sort of manufacturing role. Viewing this work also makes me think of Yang02’s solo exhibition Examples, in which household objects, a suitcase, pedestal, a toy car, and other objects, are given mobility and serve a different more function. Both Optimization and Examples seem to express an interest for understanding how robotics and software can and change our perspectives of daily life. In Optimization of Parenting, the use of the arm for taking care of a baby is sardonic but incredibly relevant. People are replaced by machines and yet we still put an enormous expectation on our work or raising children (both as full time jobs). Considering this, Wagenknecht appropriates the arm to confront societal standards and gender norms.

KS+y2: Asemic Languages

In Asemic Languages a machine uses artificial intelligence to emulate the motion and shape of handwriting from a group of ten international artists. The machine learns the symbols and patterns of each letter creating new symbols. While it might look as though it is attempting to write, it is actually drawing. This feels deceptive in some sense, as we often expect machines to fulfill some sort of purpose.

The machine, in removing the meaning of characters it writes, allows us to reflect on our experiences with language and communication. When we learn new words we apply visual techniques to remember them.  For example, many students learning Japanese always think of the ツ symbol as a smiley face. It is human nature to form images in our mind when viewing letters and characters.  Over time, however, we move on from this and focus on forming sentences. As we age it becomes increasingly difficult to remember what our first experiences with languages were like. Asemic Languages acknowledges this and creates new glyphs that we can view with a new sense of curiosity.

ADDIE WAGENKNECHT: LIBERATOR VASES

The liberator gun is a recurring motif in Addie Wagenknecht’s work, utilizing it for shooting blank canvases, constructing chandeliers and most recently creating a series of vases. Released in 2013, the liberator is an open-source 3D-printable handgun. After thousands of downloads and in 48 hours the US Government attempted to remove its presence from the internet, though traces remain.

When Wagenknecht repurposes something it is as if it is cracked open, allowing it’s locked up emotion or feelings to be revealed. Anxiety, humor, awkwardness, hope, futility, confidence, and self-doubt all spill out of the works. In the Liberator Vases, while it is humorous, there is a darker side to the piece. We often forget that technology can be used for dangerous intentions. Liberator Vases speaks to this through subversion. In the series, the liberator gun is transformed into a mundane everyday object. It is made inert and repurposed for use in suburban homes to hold flowers. Normally more guns means more power and violence. Here several liberators are stacked on top of each other to form the foundation of the vase. Their appearance reminds me in a way of the Photoshop clone stamping tool. The original imposing nature of the gun is erased, and the vase becomes an artifact. As an artifact, the vases depict a moment in time where 3D printed weapons are readily available to be used for violence or household decoration.

KS+y2: AVATARS

KS+y2’s most recent work, the exhibition Avatars, redefines both physical and virtual space. Taking place at YCAM from February 18 - May 14, 2017, KS+y2 have installed 16 objects in the art space that can be remotely controlled over the internet by anyone around the world. The design and actions of the robotics have a humorous spirit. A potted plant, a roomba (an object Wagenknecht has also appropriated), and other objects, are repurposed to incorporate webcams, microphones, wheels for movement, and other parts. They become moveable and communicative objects - allowing interaction and dialogue from denizens on the internet to those in Yamaguchi.

There are many dualities presented in the installation including object and human, interior and exterior, virtual and real, inanimate and animate, home and public. Artificial intelligence and human intelligence also comes to mind. The piece operates almost like a two-way mirror. Controlling a machine online means a viewer can see the YCAM and visitors, but their vision is limited, they cannot see the object as they control it. On the other side, a visitor in YCAM has no idea who is operating the moving device, they simply see a machine moving about in strange ways. It is possible as well to communicate over the phone device in the installation, but you’ll never know who it is and might not even speak the same language. The exhibition itself, and YCAM producing it, is a large step in the idea of art institutions crossing cultural and territorial borders to allow people to communicate and interact through art. The artwork is impressive and reminds me that institutions in New York, the U.S., or Europe, are not the only locations to find innovations in art and digital culture. It leaves me to wonder what topics artists from different countries are concerned with in regards to contemporary art and digital culture. The project has even spurred dialogue over reddit between internet users and YCAM staff. This occurrence seems rare and very promising in the sense of what contemporary art can do beyond being sold for millions of dollars. As a side note as well, Wagenknecht’s artwork Anonymous also comes to mind in regards to how museums can subvert space.

I would not be surprised in many regards if Avatars spurs inspiration by other artists or institutions to comment on similar discourse about telepresence in art. While we see much art about virtuality and entering virtual spaces we shouldn’t so quickly ignore that we are physical beings; there are other ways to connect with art and technology rather than simply entering 3D worlds. In that regard, KS+y2 in appropriating common household objects, and YCAM in presenting the project, redefine public and virtual space, demonstrating that art institutions will and must adapt to better represent the digital world.

What is, what could be. Recently I tried writing a sentence in Japanese into Google Translate: [でも、あめりかにみししぴはたいやきがありません] Google wasn’t able to translate what I was saying into English and instead produced: [But, there are no faults in the sunlight.] I have taken photos of other translation failures before, but this sentence was particularly wonderful. I do not get upset when Google fails, rather I enjoy this moment in time time where imperfections and misunderstandings can exist. This reminds me of when Google suggested I say, [木はやおいにおいがする] instead of [木は良いにおいがする]. Despite these humorous or embarrassing moments, I never want it to be “perfect”. Unexpected results set up interesting situations. Wagenknecht and KS+y2 leads me to believe that technology, devices, and applications, should not be viewed simply as right or wrong, working or broken.  

Examining their work makes me think of two points. One is that the machines and materials that surround us are variable. Our expectations of them, what we think they should do, or that they have errors, are just our own projections. This way of thinking is limiting, and we apply this way about other things in the world too. The second thought is that we should play around with and break things rather than simply accepting them as is. This might sound like some type of hacker manifesto, but it is more about appreciating things for what they are capable of rather than sticking to what they originally were meant to be. Wagenknecht and KS+y2 are able to see the beauty in adaptability and imperfection instead of focusing on what is practical or logical.