agonzalezsosto

Semantics of Sensing

I personally feel undecided on the usage of sensors in art. However, the idea of “sensors” has a great semantic load, with many implications going in different routes, so I think that an exploration of what they are and what their usage entails is important.

A “sensor” could simply be a form of device that captures activity from the “physical” world and encodes it in an electrical form. It's worth noting that this description also encompasses many different taxonomies.

A microphone, for example, encodes compressional sound waves by moving a metallic diaphragm between magnets, hence replicating the same pattern of change from one medium to another. Compressions of air in one direction represent changes in electric potential in that same agreed upon direction. Standardization is also an important component in forming digital or electric systems ( which sensors form part of) so ultimately these sensors need to conform to a protocol and standard to remain functional.

However, not all sensors have the nuance of a high-grade microphone, and I think this is kind of implied. Motion sensors are simpler than cameras, despite the fact cameras are also interfacing one medium with another, which is fundamentally what a sensor is tasked to do.

So what is a sensor, then? If there's a difference between an alarm sensor and a camera, then where does the distinction lay and why? Well, I believe that the distinction lays on various things, but partly on the scope and usability of an interfacing tool. It feels like what conceptually is seen as a sensor tends to either be very small (in a modular sense – a small component instead of a larger whole), very focalized ( single-purposed humidity detectors, for instance), or tends to not be as reliable as a larger tool such as a camera or a microphone.

So if we go out of the “functional” (yet highly opinionated, since they highly influence the data they convert) domain of sensors that include microphones and cameras, we find ourselves in finding more modular, single-purpose, or unreliable devices.

This ends up leaving me in the very highly opinionated corner of my blog. I feel like a lot of what people find engaging about sensors is the narrative they provide, and not the data they're alleging to communicate. If you strip the narrative of data capture away, the aesthetic value ends up (not always, obviously, but in my experience, more often than not) not being able to stand on its own feet as an artistic statement. The narrative component becomes the aesthetic focus.

Is this inherently negative? No, it depends on the case. Narrative-driven art can be powerful, especially when related to environmental concerns, or issues that can't be sensed by the sensitivity threshold of humans. There's really a place where it's understandable that the narrative is the focus of a project.

It all depends on the case. I will explore one that I dislike, which mostly pertains to how I perceive some explorations in the field of music to be directed towards.

For example, I think that people using brain-wave sensors to control music instruments aren't doing it because it sounds good or even interesting, they're doing it because it brings a narrative angle to their performance. In my opinion and experience, there's no reasonable or apparent way in which brain waves create interesting sonic or modulatory-useful patterns, yet people are drawn to them, because it fuels the narrative of the performance. In this case, the narrative is that of the power of the subconscious, mind control as it were. This has very cool implications, if you think about it. But if you hear the music it makes, you might as well be using a random signal generator, the façade of depth, mind control, or innovation falls apart. I dislike being negative, but I simply do not buy it. However, this narrative has its adherents, and those who find it engaging, so good for them.

I understand that the narrative that surrounds a piece is important, it's a great part of the experience that an audience member engages in. But I just can't bring myself to agree that the narrative of a project is more important than how a piece can stand on its own in the subtleties of what constitutes it beyond a gimmicky trick of what makes it. However it depends on the case.