Draft - Critical Analysis 300 Words

The chosen project is ‘MuscleBody’ by Kas Oosterhuis. The MuscleBody project implements real time computing through applications, which operate to an input-output latency of seconds, enabling response to stimuli within milli- or microseconds. The project also utilises programmable interactive architecture engaging in future-oriented research to interact between players and object. It responds to specific requests, reconfiguring itself in real-time based on the premise that interaction can take place only between two active parts, where one active part is the user and the other one is the building. With this technology, MuscleBody is able to alter its shape, degrees of transparency and the sound that it emits in real time via a computer programs calculations which sends corresponding instructions to the structure. Ultimately, MuscleBody is a dynamic hypersurface.

For the project to be dynamic, it must rely on technologies and programming. This can not only prove to be expensive but difficult in regards to implementation and aesthetics. Each component needs to be placed precisely for the movement in the project, for example, MuscleBody uses 26 festo muscles to contract and expand which are then concealed in the spiralling structure. The skin is composed of Lycra, allowing for a stretchable surface, meaning material choices are limited. Methods of concealing these technologies so that they don’t become eye sores may be challenging as they not only have to be accessible if something were to be replaced but must be aesthetically pleasing. For the project to exhibit real time behaviour, various motion and sound sensors must be implemented, code programmed and human interactivity to create the dynamics of this hypersurface. Lights and speakers add to the real time behaviour of MuscleBody, playing corresponding samples and displaying different colours in response to the behaviour of the ‘players’ within the project.