Okude PhD Seminar, Oct29th2010
NORI:
This is the 3rd presentation for research
This is the introduction. This time I try to locate my research on the edge of interactive architecture. Openlights… this is the name of the project which is responsive urban environment which gives inhabitants and visitors a direct and emotional access to lighting environment of an urban space.
Objective of the project is to define roles of interactive architecture from user’s point of view.
Here’s three tentative ideas of roles. ‘temporary personal occupation of public space’ ,’Mediator of social capital’ and ‘Key tool of
13:00~Q and A Session
＊
SATO:satementのスライドをみせてください。
OKD:Questioning is also an important skill to learn. When you have to ask some question the first challenge it try to make a discourse then you’ll find something which is missing, then you can ask what it is. Then try to read and construct a statement or discourse,
SATO: actually I wanna ask a question.. Who do you with…
OKD: Don’t ask this kind of question, for academic discussuon, basic thing is communication on discource. Speaker’s responsibility to give concrete and clear discource to reader/audience. Then Reader have to get the discource from the speaker then you’ll find something missing.
This is a training, important to read articles, journals, try to recnstruct what author try to say. Do not pinpoint small details.
If you do not get anyhing at all, you may ask question of what it is.
critical readingとcritical writing は同じこと。
こうこうこうで、なにですか？ときかないと。聞くのも練習。
＊
YASU：目的の理解が難しいのですけど、基本的な枠組みは携帯端末で町中にある大型ディスプレイとインタラクションすると。それをすることでどう いう経験をユーザがえられるのかがわからなかった。楽しいのか、ほかにも経験が得られるのか、どういう経験を最終的に得られるのか。
NORI：まだアイデア次第
OKD: You propose your concept that is a rationale in academic term. This is also conceptual framework. Since all of us basically create something, the concept framework is some kind of device or system you can touch. Sugiura-kun pointed your rational. Then the next question is ‘What For?’. You make it clear.
Then there are many questions. Sugiura-kun’s question is what kind of experience they will get from this conceptual framework. This is(?) complication.
NORI:…………..
OKD:OK. Keep this in your mind. Sugiura-san’s question is the who is the user of rationale. This is the question of 1)Complication and 2)Who
YASU: I’m also interested in Light. Light has a lot of meaning, in this presentation you mentioned light as a material to design atmosphere.
そこまではわかるんですけど、ユーザーがいて、そこに光があって何かを表現してくれるというところまでは判るんですけど、そのユーザと光の向うにな にかがあって、たぶんんここではそれを都市といっていて、都市を光で拡張してユーザにそれが届く。その都市というのが、都市の人なのか、都市の情報なの か、があいまいなので、都市を光で拡張してユーザに届くといわれてもいまいちみえない。
OKD:This is also an important question. Now we have Raionale, so then the question about “What” and “Who”. Yasu-kun’s question is very difficult to answer. However without answering the question you can not write any paper. This is called “Message”
*22:30
OKD:Maikei, do you have a question? Sure yo have some…
MK: Your project title is “Openlights”. However when you introduced concept of interactive architecture which includes many concept includes light. What you’re going to focus? Only for Lighting?
NORI: I would concentrate on the whole phase, basic objection of the project is to define roles of interactive architecture. Using lighting system is one of the choice.
MK:Lighting system, you only mean to be controlled by human?
NORI:Yes
MK: Idea of changing lights of street/ building is wonderful. How you get a balance if many people there and would control it simultanously?
NORI: It could be one of hardest point in my research. I also think one of topics is how the system can be a mediator of social capital. Like as you said, if 100 of people want to use the system of one building, how it can be possible? I think this is a big design challenge of this project
OKD:It becomes clear that what we’re missing…
MK:You mentioned architecture can solve phychological problm..
NORI: Should solve. However, I also missed what exactlly the problem which I should have pointed out. Otherwise reader could not know what is the problem.
*23:30
URIU:たくさんのトピックがでてましたが、おそらく作品をベースに考えると、WHOにあたる人がたくさん出てくると思いますが、それとリサーチサブジェクトとしてのWHOはそんなにたくさんにならないのではないかと思います。
都市をベースにするのであれば、東京都のなんとか課のなになにさんに研究として貢献する、建築家に貢献する、ということも考えられると思いますが、そういう方向ではないと思う。リサーチとして貢献したい対象はだれなか？がきまらないと、トピックも選べない。
NORI:どういう研究分野への貢献なのかが決まらないとトピックが絞りにくいとうこと？
URIU:いきなり分野のことを考えると狭まってしまうので、藤村さん自身が自分の研究が誰に対してのものなのかを決めるしかない。作品というのはどうしてもたくさんの人が関わるものなので、博士論文として誰に対してものものとしてまとめるのかを絶対迷うところだと思う。
*25:30
NORI:今日のプレゼンは、Interactive Architectureをやっている人のために(Architectに対して）書くつもりで書いた。
OKD:So,then what is your message for interactive architects?
NORI:My message is” If we design interactive architecture effective to current problem in urban space, we have to look at user experience…”
OKD: This is too long for your message. Should be 7 to 10 words. Message is everything you need to start your dessertation. Can be very subjective, you can say anything.
NORI: How about this? “If we focus on UX of Interactive Architecture, it can be a breakthrough point…”
OKD: You’re going to make something, right? Message should include the things you’re going to make.
NORI:This is difficult for me. Today focus upon what is the aim of whole of this project..
OKD: Even so, you should have a message. Interactive architectue looks like your subject. What you’d like to say for Interactive architecture?
OKD:アカデミックに考えるためには、自分のsubjectを使って誰にどんなメッセージを送るかを定義しないとはじまらない。主観的で passionなんだけど、どんな論文の書き方の本には書いてないけど、アメリカで僕が最初におそわったのは、message であり、subjective opinion であり、passionであり、つまり君がなにをしたいのかを明確にすること. Interactive architectureで何をしたいかがあるはずだ。
OKD:For the students who would write proposal, you should have message. At least in your mind…
OKD:どうしても本読んだり、研究が進んでくるとわからなくなっちゃんだけども、だけど、どうしてこれをやりたいのかは心の中をのぞいたらきっとある。
OKD:When you start reading books, create subject you’re going to write, the longer you read, weaken the message. Always you have to make your message clear otherwise you’re losing the edge of your subject
OKD:最初にもどって、なんで都市の、公共空間での照明をやりたいのか?
NORI:自分がデザイナーとしてこの分野を開拓してゆくときに武器となるロジックを持ちたい。
OKD:それはGoalだよね。それをより展開するとメッセージになる。”私のinteractive architectureを使うとこういうことができます”。今日の（プレゼンの中に）あったようなきがするよ。
*30:30
OKD:（白板に移動して）たいていは、Rationale がないとどうにもならないんだけども、
OKD:All of us try to make something tangible, there we have something this is the rational, we do not have to worry about …. robot, paper… anything you can touch is the rational. Among the students who study literature, history they forget about to make conceptual framework. However we are OK we have something to show. But then, using this rationale, what we’d like to say?
We have interactive lighting system embedded in architecture… it is OK. Then what you’d like to say? What is your message?
Like, This system may change social environment by lighting providing networking …then social capital increases and have a very stable society… this is a kind of message.
NORI: SO … this might be the message…. ‘Key tool to take hold…’
OKD: Then you may need a VERB. Your interactive architecture system creates and takes hold the attachment between people and place. That is .. you can start from this sentence,
*32:30
NORI: Maybe I should narrow down a little bit.
OKD: Fujimura-san always talks about ‘narrowing down’….This is not about narrowing down. This is about FOCULIZATION. Difference between narrowing and focusing. We have this context . Keep the whole context and just focus one part: this is the foculization. Narrowing is selecting one point and throw everything else(context) away…. If you focus instead of narrowing, you can use every part to explain what you focus upon. Narrowing down: you can not use other parts to explain….
わかる？トピックが広いから絞りなさいといわれてこれ（narrow）にしちゃったら、それしか語れないけど、この広いコンテクストをもってそれを 選べば、実は議論できるし、たとえば人間とコンピュータのインターフェイスについて、人間という視点からインターフェイスのことを語り続けることはいくら でもできる。でもインターフェイスだけを語ると、エンジニアリングの論文になってしまう。だから、主語とか受け身とかをかえてゆけば、すべて使える。
Do not throw this context away. Just focus upon one thing and try to create your discussion based on it. This is Focalization. This is very important technique. for academic writing. If have rationale, you have to focus and pick one thing but keep your context.
For example, interactive architecture seems your context and you focus upon like you say: one spotlight in certain street then talk about how your system will create and take hold attachment between people.. great! Then you can answer WHERE and WHEN ..as an example. Biggest point is WHO. We do not know who are going to use and who will get benefit out of it. And we do not see any person from Designer’s side as well as User’s side yet (This is actually what Sato-san wanted to ask). Also what COMPLICATION is .. how control light… is still unclear. And how they use.. how they use smart devices to connect… you have to describe it. And HOW. HOW is easiest part, ’cause (you are architect and )as an architect, you’re going to design a responsive environment with sensors and actuators.. sort of thing. WHY is still in progress: social capital etc……Then please sort your discussion based on this rough skeleton and you’ll see what you’d like to say. Off course this is very flexible skeleton and you shall change as your research and reading progress and you’ll develop your own message.
Back to the discussion. OpenLights.. everything is still vague and no focus. When you focus the things, you’ll see how sharp and clear your thinking in your brain is. Then you start writing . I will guide you how to write proposal when you have it.
For master’s students, I advise them to write 5 paragraph short essay to make massage clear and try to support message by answering these questions in 2 pages….. this is not Master’s course so I would not ask you to do this, though.
*37:30
OKD:Any technical question?
YASU:LEDの光って、普通の光とちょっと違うんですよ。普通の白熱や蛍光灯よりまぶしくみえるわりには輝度がそんなにないとか、もちろん火とも違うし、エネルギー効率もよい。こういうLEDを使ってなにかする、というときにはそれなりの理由が必要かと思うんですが？
OKD:This question concerns about WHAT. He proposed programmable LED lighting for urban space this Complication you have to describe and we can ask many question about this WHAT statement. Yasu-kun;s question is: why you use LED? then how you control LED? this seems very simple but in proposal you have to make it clear.
OKD:やってみる？どうしてLED?
NORI:たぶん白熱灯よりコントロールしやすい。そしてプログラマブル？
YASU:それに応答速度も早い。
YASU:さっきのフレームワークの話で、何と何の間の光なのかというところが。。。
OKD:When you read the academic journals, use this system to reverse it. Try to get message, rationals.. You’ll be surprised how easy to read academic journals using this technique.
SATO:さきほどinteractive architectureをやっている人のために、と言っていましたが、その人達は。。。。
OKD:Good question. Who are the audience of this PAPER?
SATO:なんかちょっと、顔がみえないいんですよ。誰か、特定な人がもしいれば。
NORI:作るもののユーザ、ならもっと絞れそうなんですけど、でもプロジェクト／論文を読む相手というと、まだ。。
OKD:それはもちろん読む相手はユーザでもいいんだよ。だけど、自分が作り手なわけでしょインタラクティブアーキテクチャーの？メッセージを伝え たい相手は誰？普通のインタラクションデザインのジャーナルなんかだと、仮想的読み手は、ユーザだよね？でも、理論ペーパーだとaudienceは作り手 だよね？
NORI:作り手だと思います。
OKD:すると、論文の構成は大分違ってくるよね？
NORI:今回のプレゼンを書いていて迷ったのですけど、インタラクティブアーキテクチャーについて書くなら、インタラクティブアーキテクチャーの作り手に対して書くべきなのかなと。
OKD:そんなことないよ。
Because you develop a new theory, so then you will make a new interactive architecture so people will enjoy your architecture.. that is a kind of discource. And another way is…
*42:00
YASU: Here I show an example. We had a guest for another meeting today. Minoru Fujimoto of Kobe Univ. He made a embedded lighting attach to human body. His message is clear. To expand and augument Human ability/capability of creation/expression.
(All watch YouTube Video of Fujimoto’s Demo)
YASU:彼がいうには、ダンスの表現は歴史的にそんなに変化ながなくて、その理由は人間の身体に変化がなくてその制限を越えられないから。たとえ ば関節を無理な方向に曲げたりとかできない。そこで彼はもし人間が光るという能力を手に入れたら表現の方向がかわってゆくんじゃないか、人間の表現能力を 拡張しようというメッセージ。光というところで関連があるので見てほしいと思いました。
OKD:Talking about augmented reality for lighting attached to dancer. We have a limitation on our body. However if we have an ability of lighting our body, we also could have further possibility on dancing beyond the limitation of body.
*45:00
NORI:この場合は、たとえていうと、観客のために論文を書くのか、ダンサーのために書くのか。
OKD:この場合は明らかに、ダンサーの能力のために作っている。エンジニアが自分のために作っているのではなくて、エンジニアがダンサーの能力拡張のために作ってあげて、それで踊っているダンサーを観客が見て、おどろく。
YASU:この方自身１０年以上ダンスをやっている人なのでとても説得力がある。これはほんとにフレームワークがはっきりしていて、ダンサー（表現 者）がいて、観客がその表現をみて、その間にこの光る服があるというのがはっきりしている。それが今の話に関連すると思ってみせています。
OKD:やす君、分析できるようになったね。
OKD:これ（分析）って、みんなできるんだよ。自分のなかにあるもやもやっとしたものに、この枠をあてて整理してやると、非常に明確にメッセージが見えてきて、そこに研究の焦点があたってくるので、クオリティがぽんと高くなる。そんな難しいことじゃない。
*46:30
KONDO:What do you want for future of this project/system? このシステムが社会の中でどういう役割をするのか、その構想を知りたい。
OKD:今の質問て、この枠組みのなかで（白板にある5W1H)どこにあたるの？いい、この枠組みを覚えてね。
OKD:This is the framwork of crritical writing/reading. Almost every journal papers are based on this style. Otherwise it would not be accepted.
OKD:つまり、自分はどこにあたる質問しているのかなあ、っていう。。
KONDO:HOWかな。。
OKD:HOWなの？なんでもいいんだって。訓練だと思って質問を考えて。HOWとして聞けばいい。
OKD:たとえば、どうしてこのシステムを使うとどうして社会問題が解決するんですか？どうやってsocial capitalを増やすんですか？
OKD:Try! this is an excersise. You need an ability of critical writing/reading
OKD:NORI, you have to answer every category of question in your the research dissertation. Usually the real battle is in between WHAT and HOW. You have to show what kind of method to connect WHAT and HOW. But you have to answer everything. For example to answer Kondo-san’s question about Social capital and Lighting, whether you’re going to use psycology framework, sociology framework or economy framework , you have to to show what kind of framework you’re going to use. And when you have a question of what it is, you can pick up the one of approaches and answer it. Also in dissertation you can talk about three approaches and show the total view.
*50:00
OKD:どうする？
NORI:どうやって社会問題を解決するかということ？たとえば、、
OKD:そう。練習だと思って。
NORI:Social captitalについては、複数のユーザーがの関係を作ることができるシステムを作ることで。。
OKD:で、このときに、dissertationなんだから、referenceが必要なんだよ。”パットナムの言っているSocial Capitalの考え方に従うと、人々の間のゆるいインタラクションというものが社会の安定性を生み出すといっています。私のシステムを使うとこうこうこ ういことが起こると考えられます”
OKD:Since this is for research proposal, you do not need to provide real evidence yet. But at least you have to show the idea of how you prove it.
OKD:どうやって証明するのか？そこで人の数を数えるのか、犯罪数を数えるのか、それとも人が嬉しそうに歩いているストリートをビデオで示すのか？
NORI: That is more like a method.
OKD:This is about method! not “more like”. To connect WHAT and HOW, you have to make your method clear, explicit! ここにmethodがでてくるんですよ。
OKD: OK……Please think about it for the next presentation!
*51:20
OKD:Meikei, you’re the last..Any question?
MEIKEI:What is “Methodology?”
OKD: Methodology…..KMD is generous for candidates. We have 4 genres, Design Dessertation, Research Action Dessertation, Engineering(Natural Science) Dissertation and Social science(Humanity?) dissertation. So each requires method. Social science or humanity has 2 or 3 methods, engineering/natural science clearly has a method and we also provide 2 new methods. While you do research action method, you have to document what you have done and explain your contribution to the society. This type of dissertation is increasing in America. Design dissertation which Prof.Inakage wants to have badly so I research a little bit…… On design dissertation you talk about what they’ve designed and explain critically and logically then people understand the meaning of the design work. For example, if you make a game , explain/describe what the game play is, and to achieve the game play, you may explain the game mechanics and show the video of how people play it. This is what design dissertation is. YOu have to say.. evaluate the effect of smell while playing…using biological and/or psychological data. Or if you like to create a system to create smells for game, you can explain mechanics behind it.
OKD:今いったことは既にKMDの正式文書にも書いてあるけども、僕のブログでも書いています。
OKD:Design dissertation でもやはり、critical reading/writingは必須なんだよ。デザインだからといってわーっと絵を書いただけでは駄目。Next time you’ll give more organized presentation, then I will give you a direction for proposal. And also you have to talk to Inakage-san for which dissertation genre you’re going to take.
*END
First
30:40
Rationale がないとどうしようもないんだけど、
All of us have to make something tangible,
we don’t need to worry about that
among the students who do study on literature