I was lucky enough to encounter a super well written illustrated acedemic journal entitled Electric Body Manipulation as Performance Art: A Historical Perspective.

Here is my response. I recommend skimming the full text.

Quotes:

“…the human body as a display device for algorithms that run on digital computers”

ca. 1800 “Aldini, after having cut off the head of a dog, makes the current of a strong battery go through it: the mere contact triggers really terrible convulsions. The jaws open, the teeth chatter, the eyes roll in their sockets; and if reason did not stop the fired imagination, one would almost believe that the animal is suffering and alive again [42].”

Electronic Muscle Stimulation has a longer history in the arts than I had expected. The first nice example of Transcutaneous Electronic Muscle Stimulation(TEMS) was in the 1860’s. Lookit:

This man’s smile is induce by electric current. It is fake.
Duchenne de Boulogne ~1860’s
What appears at first to be crude early scientific experimentation, takes on an artistic note.

One series of photographs about facial expression was deliberately made with “an old toothless man, with a thin face, whose features, without being absolutely ugly, approached ordinary triviality and whose facial expression was in perfect agreement with his inoffensive character and his limited intelligence” (Fig. 9). Duchenne explained: “I preferred this coarse face to one of noble, beautiful features . . . because I wanted to prove that, despite defects of shape and lack of plas tic beauty, every human face can become spiritually beautiful through the accurate rendering of emotions”

De Boulogne’s motivations were more complex than those of a straight bio-engineering researcher. His findings were published in Mécanisme de la physionomie humaine, which Charles Darwin drew on heavily for his research on emotional expressivity.

Arthur Elsenaar
Mid-90’s facial control art

vimeo.com/41600016
Four separate drawing machines constructed out of mostly wood. They are a ball in ink rolling around a pivoting platform, a series of markers rotating above a spinning piece of paper, magnets rotating on gears underneath paper moving graphite and finally a swing type construction with dripping paint on it.

What I enjoy about these is the purely physical nature of the mechanics which generate the output. Each one has a core, distinct physical property it uses as its theme and main mechanic. I think they are great starts and a lot can be done to expand and develop the mechanics. Currently each one seems to produce nearly identical output each time it is used. Adding some variance or having the users input directly influence the work would make the piece and product more interesting.

senseless drawing bot

“The Senseless Drawing Robot is a self-propelling device on a skateboard that sprays abstract linework on a stretch of wall using a double pendulum. extrapolating the dynamism of modern graffiti forms, the robot takes advantage of the chaotic gestures of the swinging pendulum to create erratic yet organic paint strokes. Featuring a motorized skateboard base, the construction consists of a single arm equipped with a rotary encoder attached to the fulcrum of the pendulum. as the robot moves from side to side, the swinging motion of the arm is amplified through the physics of inertia which is delineated by a quick release of paint from the spray can. the resulting collage of lines is a complex illustration derived from a simple operation.”

The title Senseless Drawing Robot seems to be a critique of the value of graffiti or perhaps of its own contributions to graffiti. The piece feel to me less of a critique and more of taking the movement that is very human and making a mechanical assembly that owns the same movement. Its robotic arm is very successful in capturing the movement and form of graffiti drawing. The curves of graffiti seemed to be connected to the structure of a human arm, but this mechanic makes it feel owned by the robot as well. From a distance it is nearly indistinguishable from what might be on the side of bridge or back ally. While it captures the fundamental stroke of graffiti it lacks any of the personalization or distinctiveness that gives some graffiti value. I also feel that graffiti losses its value when constructed artificially in an art gallery such as this. The robot should be out side doing real graffiti next to other human artists to see how it really holds up.

Project Paradise is an very early exploration of issues surrounding telepresence and telexperience. Two participants enter booths in a gallery setting. The booths are equipped with a ringing telephone and a small monitor. When the participant answers the call, they are greeted with a kind voice which explains the interaction. Using the keypad on the phone, they are able to control a naked person in distant jungle setting. Both nude avatars are able to stroke and jab oneanother via the various telephone-controlled motors attached to their limbs. Watch the video, this description does no justice.

Wow. What fun. I am struck with the complexity they are able to glean from such simple analog electronics. Relays, motors, and CCTV combine to shake the particiapnts perception and role as a gallery goer. Is it socially acceptable for one to caress the naked flesh of a stranger? Who is held responsible for the action, the decision-maker or the limb-owner? Is the gesture of affection effectively carried through the medium of touch-tone and CCTV? If so, how far does it travel? All the way from participant to participant it seems unlikely that there would be lossless transmission of affection after all of the state changes. Instantly stripped from the gesture is the bodies of each participant. Eye contact, body language, warmth, physical beauty, even gender are removed at once. Intent and recognition of intent may be all that remain from the point of view of opposing participants. from the point of view of our avatars, the situation is the opposite. Present are their bodie and all that they entail. Eyes, genitals, apparent beauty, and history inorm their experience. These are individuals who have spent many hours caressing one another nude. Their lengthy exchange of contact is lacking a very important facet of intimacy. Intent. Neither party is responsible for their actions, being frequently reminded by the cold and loud apparatus that is driving the contact. The avatars supplement the motors by making small movements that carry on the intent of the limited mechanics. They smile, rub, and appear to be what is clearly a spritely fantastic time.

The Centre for Metahuman Exploration- Field Robotics Center – 1998

Carnegie Mellon University

More