Looking back now on the project as whole I think that through the uses of the processing code that I learnt from scratch, during the course of this project, I was able to conduct a study into the uses of digital media within a specific spacial area. Throughout this project I found it to be an interesting look at digital media from a slightly harsh and more negative light and I was able to work and research areas of the market that I had not been able to look into until this point. Through the project I began to also look more closely and act out myself the design thinking and creating process in which I following theoretic methods such as the spiral and waterfall methods, in how I began with basic designs and through testing and feedback these designed continued to develop and change to point where myself and audience were happy with the outcome.
The product itself was an interesting take on digital manipulation, and finally resulted into more of a study into how interactive elements can affect the general atmosphere of a space as well as the reactions of those around it. During my final testing stage which I left fairly late into the stage of the project I encountered several issues as to it working as a whole in both its analysis and outcomes. Therefore I had to show the work in a less together sense as having had a chance I would go back and spend more time on the more specific parts of the code that then caused the issue. The responses that I did receive on the outcomes and how it affected the space in terms of calming or exciting the audience within it was mostly what I had aimed for with each although with it being so abstract that it was only through explanation that I receive more credible responses and this argued with the subconscious nature of the study.
Having had the opportunity to continue with the project and build upon it I would continue to work with the code to make it work successfully on multiple machines and then my next progression would be to look at and interpret the sound on a more complex level. For example including a second analysis such as frequency and how adding this equation to the code could potentially change the outcome and results of the outcomes with the space.
Throughout the project I have begun to research into and experience different elements of the digital media industry in terms of the more technological elements such as the processing code language. As well as research into the more traditional elements such as the direct research into manipulation with the media and how it affects the public without them being fully aware of its changes and more specifically the design thinking process and how learning these theories then adapted the way I thought about my own thought processes surrounding the project.
Once I had then completed the code and tested that it worked together successfully with minimal glitches or issues, I then needed to test it within the space and that it worked successfully for its intended purpose. Within the space I attached the program to the monitors via the laptop which then projected the resulting outcome onto the screen once it had begun to analyse the sound. I encountered several issues with the program such as it being the wrong size for the screens which I quickly altered. Following this there was issues with the lagging of the projections themselves and if I was able to further work on this project I would need to have a much more powerful microphone as to receive more credible results.
After having such issues I made the decision to individually project the two outcomes and first watch those within the space. Watching people’s reaction to the two pieces of work I found highly beneficial, as I was able to monitor peoples subconscious reactions to each piece and notice whether a change occurred in their behaviour as the projection changed. It was minuscule and would need a longer period of observation as to receive more reliable results but on the whole people’s attitudes could be seen to change with the work although it could be argued of many other contributing factors.
Once I had observed the reactions of those within the space I then questioned several members of the public to see if their now knowledge of the purpose of the abstract pieces changed their opinions and attitudes towards it. People’s reactions initially was confusion as to not understanding the purpose of the productions as well as similar results from previous tests in how it evoked possible memories and feelings, once I had then explained the idea to them they began to notice several attitudes within themselves when looking at the work and their perception of this. Although it could not necessarily be reliable information as to them now being aware of the idea behind the works and therefore the idea would need several more stages of testing to receive credible information to fully and confidently present on the theory of digital media manipulation.
Within my final processing session both personal and in lecture I was able to draw all of the elements together in a basic skeleton which I can then test in the main space and receive my outcomes onto the screen should the test fail.
Within this element of the code I first imputed all of the sound analysis elements including the input of the microphone, which at this stage I have had to use the laptop microphone.
After I had made sure this section of the code was effective then imputed the if statement which declared that should the amplitude of the space be above 100 amps then the secondary calming outcome would become into effect and if it was lower then the first would. I have decided to insert these two outcomes as movies as to make the outcomes and therefore the overall code cleaner.
This is not the completed code and if I had had more time then I would look at the analysis in a more complete and complex elements as to have the analysis at the best possible result. Also I would use a more powerful microphone that could monitor the sound at a higher and more detailed level therefore analyzing more of the sound to a wide range.
Within my second testing and development stage I now plan to look at and test the sound analysis as to record the changes recognized by the sound and at what stages does the amplitude reach a suitable peak as to change the outcome and produce the secondary piece. With this element I again plan to test it away from the space and question several members within the group as to their thoughts on monitoring of the sound and whether they would be bothered by the idea of the sound that they are creating being analysed had they not been aware of it.
With this being more of the hidden elements of the code and the idea itself I found this the more challenging point as to question my peers on. Naturally the test as to see if the sound was being recorded and then analysed within processing was clear depending on the results in the println area which I had some difficulties as establishing the input signal with the microphone. Once this was resolved I had it monitor and then analyse the sound within the lab without mentioning to any others within the space for some time. After this point I began to question those within the space as to their thoughts on having had the sound that they were creating monitored to some replied with indifference while others found this somewhat uncomfortable, specifically when I added that once the program was completed that it would then attempt to control the sound and by proxy themselves within the space. Most found this to be an interesting take on the manipulation within both traditional and digital media and once the purpose of the abstract piece was discussed began to understand the message behind it, although I think that the abstractness and simplicity of the design is something that makes it unique from other pieces.
Within the final seminar session of the unit it gave the group a chance to again speak and show individually to the lecturers our ideas and receive some of their personal feedback and thoughts. As well as a chance to test work that we have created within the space and receive any feedback from both others on our course witnessing the programme on a continuous loop, or speak to members of the public at random as to hear a first impression on the product without them knowing of the idea. On discussing my idea with the lecturers for the second time they agreed with the idea as to downgrade my outcomes from 4 to 2 as to give myself a longer amount of time on each and achieve the best possible outcomes for each instance. On seeing the progress of the two outcomes I questioned the lecturers as to the feelings that it evoked within them on each outcome, which received the expected reactions of excitement and calming for each as well as some constructive work on how each could be perceive by others and what I could add to improve them.
At this stage the main code is still separated as to having the two outcomes and the sound analysis separate therefore I was on the screens I merely uploaded the two outcomes and questioned those in the space about their thoughts on the project and how it could be improved, which I received the expected feedback of them being calming and exciting or as some described ’Seizure inducing’. As well as direct questioning on their own thoughts I questioned their thoughts on how others are reacting to the space and whether they thought these outcomes made the space more calming as a whole on the audience. From this I was able to observe the way that people reacted to the space which I feel did relax or pick up in the space depending on each outcome although the change monitored was subtle and I found the information received from others far more beneficial to the changes overall.