Comments on: Graffiti Robot

By: Juno888

Juno888 — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:18:38 +0000

Wow.. this thing it could use in making pedestrian lane in road… i think if this could use it can list effort an expensses..

By: Denny

Denny — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:56:20 +0000

The Mcluhen argument that the development of technology is never a neutral is really important. But I don’t think it detracts from the case for the sheer practicality of the graffiti writer, although in this case it is from an activists point of view. In the post 9/11 climate when civil liberties are being increasingly stiffled it is important to have tools for civil disobediance which can a) compete with the society of the spectacle and b) deflect or prevent physical retaliation in what are essentially virtual power struggles.. The Critical Art Ensemble (http://www.critical-art.net/), who I beleive were involved in developing this robot write rather effectively about their intentions.

By: Guner

Guner — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:34:16 +0000

I remember last year someone came out with the idea of graffitti bike in NYC.There is a guy ridng his bike in New York and eveybody can send their message by cell phone SMS service.They were using chalk instead of can paint.

By: daniel horton

daniel horton — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:35:22 +0000

you’re right -it won’t. Certainly not as much as it will shake the world if we just keep the purpose of its use within some acceptable use clause. I actually mean this with all sincerity, that wasn’t sarcasm. Technology IS that thing which shakes the world. Much more so than I could ever hope to counter with some stupid graffiti. To me, that’s all the more reason to fight.

Have you ever read Understanding Media, or the Guttenberg Galaxy? (both by Marshall Mcluhen) He talks about media (and thus technology) as an extension of our physical bodies “The evolution of weapons begins with teeth and the fist and ends with the atom bomb.”

So with each new technology, we have intensified our reliance on one of these extensions. I don’t want to stress the word reliance, though, because that’s not what I’m fighting against. It’s that reliance on one extension is the amputation of another. We are thrown off balance.

This is probably a bit too abstract to just throw into a conversation in which one side has been vying for specific and practical uses of what the other side wanted to remain Mythical in ability and power, but its interesting to think about.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:04:03 +0000

Actually, I kinda enjoy the discussion. I would not say the world is falling apart. The world was here before I got here, and it is going to be here after I leave. I feel the purpose of technology is to make our lives easier, and to promote our well being. The purpose of the wheel was to enable a person to carry a heavier load. If you could build a robot that painted a needed emblem, that saves people the work of having to do it, but of what worth or value is there in illegaly painting a message on the side of the road? Someone is going to have to clean up the mess. I just don’t understand how a machine such as this painter is going to shake the world, and cause people to change.

By: daniel horton

daniel horton — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:15:07 +0000

alright – i agree that the video you linked to is nothing short of amazing, absolutely mind-blowing, but… there is such a massive movement within certain communities right now to use this “combinatory” innovation that has been born out of the technological revolution for something that doesn’t just resort to coming up with another great Product. We’ve been there and done that and the world is falling apart – things need to be shaken, stirred – how is that NOT practical? I can think of a million brilliant uses for the techniques employed by the video you link to, but i fear you might have the same response to all of them. Thanks for the discussion. I didn’t necessarily mean to politicize this post…

By: Administrator

Administrator — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:50:26 +0000

That is the part of the article that I did not understand. I guess that I just don’t understand vandalism, or demonstrations. I am thinking of a more practical use for the device. If it had more sensors, and the right program, it could be designed to paint the emblems in the center of a football field. Check out this video http://random-international.squarespace.com/pixel-roller-video

The same programming could be used to make this robot do a very similar thing. Of course instead of someone pushing it, you would have to make it all automatic

By: daniel horton

daniel horton — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:39:53 +0000

In response to not being sure what it would be used for, think of the freshly mopped floors of shopping malls, the streets of your local suburb or perhaps in front of large groups of people. Interestingly enough, one of the main themes of the article focuses on how willing the general public was to commit a crime (vandalism, for instance), when their actions were not direct, but were instead buffered by a technological medium.