“Dangerous Art”: the latest issue of the (free) Experimental Emerging Art Magazine

A quick reading recommendation for your weekend: EE: Experimental Emerging Art Magazine, a free and fearless publication which latest issue reflects upon dangerous art. Go this way to download EE #3.

The magazine opens on a fascinating essay that questions our understanding of dangerous art, asking whether dangerous art is art that breaks taboo, art that lands you in prison, performances that puts the artist’s or the audience’s body at risk, outrageous art works that reduce art to its most attention-seeking shock tactics or art that’s so banal, trashy or boring it almost kills art itself. Some of these forms of dangerous art are discussed in the magazines. And then some.

If art is about challenging and shaking our established notions of the world, are not all artists then dangerous? Are you a dangerous artist? In the end it might be your perceived sense of threat that decides what is dangerous or not. But one danger constantly hovers over us: in this age of the Selfie, the missing image is the most dangerous.
Welcome to our bla***end issue.

In a bold and brave statement, the editors decided to blacken the images in the magazine. I’m clearly not that daring so i’m going to present and illustrate below the work of some of the artists and curators i discovered (or rediscovered) in the interviews E.E. had with contemporary artists, thinkers and actors in art who are producing dangerous works and ideas.


Marko Marković, Selfeater (Thirst), 2009. Image

Marko Marković talks about his auto-cannibalistic performances. In Selfeater, the artist ate a larger piece of his own skin including flesh. In another version of the performance, a medical needle was stabbed in his arm allowing him to drink his own blood.


Zoran Todorović, Assimilation, 1997 – 2016


Zoran Todorović, Assimilation, 1997 – 2016

The gore is taken up a notch with Zoran Todorović who made food out of human tissue. More specifically tissue thrown away during an aesthetic surgery procedure. For the public performance, he collaborated with chefs to create meals and offered them to the audience for consumption, while a video documented the origin and the cooking process.

Asked about the audience reaction to the piece, Todorović tells E.E. magazine:

In different places, I hear different reactions. For example, here in Serbia, Croatia and especially Slovenia, many people wanted to taste it and to open some discussion around it. But in central Europe, for instance, and especially in Germany, the primary question is whether this performance is legal; the answer may surprise you – cannibalism is not forbidden, at least not in Europe. In Great Britain, the underlying problem about this work is a sanitary one. The British are concerned whether the offered food is healthy, and it is only in Britain that it is prohibited for the audience to taste this food since it was not possible to get the sanitary certificate for this food, which otherwise, in other places, was eaten for the most part during the performance. The performances usually function in such a way that during the performances themselves there’s the discussion going on between those who tasted the food and those who refused it. On one occasion the discussion which started at the exhibition in Novi Sad ended up in the parliament of Vojvodina province.

E.E. also interviewed Jurij Krpan, the director at Kapelica Gallery, aka the most exciting art space in Europe. Krpan talks about quantum biology, Maja Smrekar‘s most radical pieces and the mechanisms of funding critical and edgy art.


Erik Hobijn, Delusions of Self-Immolation, part of the exhibition The Body in Ruin at V2_, 1993 (photo)

Alex Adriaansens is one of the founders of V2_ and its director until the end of this month. He told E.E. that, to him, dangerous art can also take the form of speculations that explore the darkest socio-political apects of technology. He did also mention the most physically threatening work from the V2_ archive: Delusions of Self-Immolation by Erik Hobijn, a machine that sets audience members on fire for less then half a second then immediately after extinguishes the flames.

Dalila Honorato, an Assistant Professor in Media Aesthetics and Semiotics at the Ionian University in Greece and the organizer of the Taboo-Transgression-Transcendence in Art & Science conference which took place in Corfu last year explained how dangerous art can be an act of necessity to do something provocative in a moment when everything seems prohibited, forbidden. In Greece, we are not supposed to have money to do anything that is not saving the population, solving some sort of (economic) difficulty.

I’ll end this super superficial run through the magazine with an old video of what will always be one of my favourite dangerous artworks:

Marnix de Nijs and Edwin van der Heide, a href=”http://www.marnixdenijs.nl/spatial-sounds.htm”>SPATIAL SOUNDS (100dB at 100km/h)

And with the best quote from the magazine. It’s from Cathrine Kramer and Zack Denfeld from the Center for Genomic Gastronomy talking about how some members of the public reacted to their participatory performances that prototype alternative culinary futures:

CK: Only two people have thrown up.

ZD: Yes, which is a great reaction! For one hung-over audience member, the smell was too strong, and he got sick, but another person at the Art Meat Flesh event could not overcome the anxiety when the lab-grown meat was served. I think they got quite physically ill and that is not an experience you hope for, but I think it is good to know that one possible outcome can be a sense of pure disgust.

EE: Experimental Emerging Art Magazine is an independent art magazine edited by Stahl Stenslie (author of some very dangerous works) and Zane Cerpina. The third issue “Dangerous Art” is co-edited by Espen Gangvik, co-produced and funded by TEKS, Trondheim Electronic Art Centre.

Related stories: Magazine recommendation: EE #2. Beyond Nature.

“Dangerous Art”: the latest issue of the (free) Experimental Emerging Art Magazine

A quick reading recommendation for your weekend: EE: Experimental Emerging Art Magazine, a free and fearless publication which latest issue reflects upon dangerous art. Go this way to download EE #3.

The magazine opens on a fascinating essay that questions our understanding of dangerous art, asking whether dangerous art is art that breaks taboo, art that lands you in prison, performances that puts the artist’s or the audience’s body at risk, outrageous art works that reduce art to its most attention-seeking shock tactics or art that’s so banal, trashy or boring it almost kills art itself. Some of these forms of dangerous art are discussed in the magazines. And then some.

If art is about challenging and shaking our established notions of the world, are not all artists then dangerous? Are you a dangerous artist? In the end it might be your perceived sense of threat that decides what is dangerous or not. But one danger constantly hovers over us: in this age of the Selfie, the missing image is the most dangerous.
Welcome to our bla***end issue.

In a bold and brave statement, the editors decided to blacken the images in the magazine. I’m clearly not that daring so i’m going to present and illustrate below the work of some of the artists and curators i discovered (or rediscovered) in the interviews E.E. had with contemporary artists, thinkers and actors in art who are producing dangerous works and ideas.


Marko Marković, Selfeater (Thirst), 2009. Image

Marko Marković talks about his auto-cannibalistic performances. In Selfeater, the artist ate a larger piece of his own skin including flesh. In another version of the performance, a medical needle was stabbed in his arm allowing him to drink his own blood.


Zoran Todorović, Assimilation, 1997 – 2016


Zoran Todorović, Assimilation, 1997 – 2016

The gore is taken up a notch with Zoran Todorović who made food out of human tissue. More specifically tissue thrown away during an aesthetic surgery procedure. For the public performance, he collaborated with chefs to create meals and offered them to the audience for consumption, while a video documented the origin and the cooking process.

Asked about the audience reaction to the piece, Todorović tells E.E. magazine:

In different places, I hear different reactions. For example, here in Serbia, Croatia and especially Slovenia, many people wanted to taste it and to open some discussion around it. But in central Europe, for instance, and especially in Germany, the primary question is whether this performance is legal; the answer may surprise you – cannibalism is not forbidden, at least not in Europe. In Great Britain, the underlying problem about this work is a sanitary one. The British are concerned whether the offered food is healthy, and it is only in Britain that it is prohibited for the audience to taste this food since it was not possible to get the sanitary certificate for this food, which otherwise, in other places, was eaten for the most part during the performance. The performances usually function in such a way that during the performances themselves there’s the discussion going on between those who tasted the food and those who refused it. On one occasion the discussion which started at the exhibition in Novi Sad ended up in the parliament of Vojvodina province.

E.E. also interviewed Jurij Krpan, the director at Kapelica Gallery, aka the most exciting art space in Europe. Krpan talks about quantum biology, Maja Smrekar‘s most radical pieces and the mechanisms of funding critical and edgy art.


Erik Hobijn, Delusions of Self-Immolation, part of the exhibition The Body in Ruin at V2_, 1993 (photo)

Alex Adriaansens is one of the founders of V2_ and its director until the end of this month. He told E.E. that, to him, dangerous art can also take the form of speculations that explore the darkest socio-political apects of technology. He did also mention the most physically threatening work from the V2_ archive: Delusions of Self-Immolation by Erik Hobijn, a machine that sets audience members on fire for less then half a second then immediately after extinguishes the flames.

Dalila Honorato, an Assistant Professor in Media Aesthetics and Semiotics at the Ionian University in Greece and the organizer of the Taboo-Transgression-Transcendence in Art & Science conference which took place in Corfu last year explained how dangerous art can be an act of necessity to do something provocative in a moment when everything seems prohibited, forbidden. In Greece, we are not supposed to have money to do anything that is not saving the population, solving some sort of (economic) difficulty.

I’ll end this super superficial run through the magazine with an old video of what will always be one of my favourite dangerous artworks:

Marnix de Nijs and Edwin van der Heide, a href=”http://www.marnixdenijs.nl/spatial-sounds.htm”>SPATIAL SOUNDS (100dB at 100km/h)

And with the best quote from the magazine. It’s from Cathrine Kramer and Zack Denfeld from the Center for Genomic Gastronomy talking about how some members of the public reacted to their participatory performances that prototype alternative culinary futures:

CK: Only two people have thrown up.

ZD: Yes, which is a great reaction! For one hung-over audience member, the smell was too strong, and he got sick, but another person at the Art Meat Flesh event could not overcome the anxiety when the lab-grown meat was served. I think they got quite physically ill and that is not an experience you hope for, but I think it is good to know that one possible outcome can be a sense of pure disgust.

EE: Experimental Emerging Art Magazine is an independent art magazine edited by Stahl Stenslie (author of some very dangerous works) and Zane Cerpina. The third issue “Dangerous Art” is co-edited by Espen Gangvik, co-produced and funded by TEKS, Trondheim Electronic Art Centre.

Related stories: Magazine recommendation: EE #2. Beyond Nature.

Help merging game with the menu

Hi, i've recently started learning processing, and i'm trying to create a simple game where a ball hits the sides of the window and everytime you hit it, it goes faster. I made the base game without a problem, but created a menu on another file and i can't seem to merge them together. Everytime i try to do it, i always get the "unexpected token: void" error. Any hints on what i should do?

Here's the game code:

int xPos; //Position of the ball

int speed=1; //How fast is it moving?

int xDir=1; //what direction is the ball going?

int score=0; //Inital score

int lives=5; //Number of lives you start with

boolean lost=false; //Have you lost yet?

void setup() //Runs once when program launches

{

size (1028,768);

smooth();

xPos=width/2; //Centers our ball

fill(0,255,0); //Makes the ball and text green

textSize(13); //Sets the size of our text

}

void draw() //Loops over and over again

{

background (0); //Black background

ellipse(xPos, height/2,40,40); //Draw the ball

xPos=xPos+(speed*xDir); //update the ball's position

if (xPos > width-20 || xPos<20) //Did the ball hit the side?

{

xDir=-xDir; //If it did reverse the direction

}

text("score = "+score,10,10); //Print the score on the screen

text("lives = "+lives,width-80,10); //Print remaining lives

if (lives<=0) //Check to see if you lost

{

textSize(20);

text("Click to Restart", 125,100);

noLoop(); //Stop looping at the end of the draw function

lost=true;

textSize(13);

}

}

void mousePressed() //Runs whenever the mouse is pressed

{

if (dist(mouseX, mouseY, xPos, 384)<=20) //Did we hit the target?

{

score=score+speed; //Increase the speed

speed=speed+1; //Increase the Score

}

else //We missed

{

if (speed<1) //If speed is greater than 1 decrease the speed

{

speed=speed-1;

}

lives=lives-1; //Take away one life

}

if (lost==true) //If we lost the game, reset now and start over

{

speed=1; //Reset all variables to initial conditions

lives=5;

score=0;

xPos=width/2;

xDir=1;

lost=false;

loop(); //Begin looping draw function again

}

}

And here's the menu code:

int interf;

void setup () {

size(1024, 768);

background (0);

interf=1;

}

void draw () {

if (interf==1) {

background(0);

textSize (40);

fill (255);

text ("Football Frenzy", 390, 100);

stroke (0);

fill (255);

rect (400, 200, 200, 50);

fill (255);

rect (400, 300, 200, 50);

fill(255);

rect(400, 400, 200, 50);

fill (0);

textSize (20);

text ("PLAY", 470, 233);

fill (0);

textSize (20);

text ("CREDITS", 455, 433);

fill (0);

text ("HIGHSCORES", 440, 330);

textSize (20);

}

else if (interf==2) {

background (50);

} else if (interf==3) {

background(135,206,250);

stroke (0);

fill (255);

rect (400, 200, 200, 50);

fill (255);

rect (400, 300, 200, 50);

fill(255);

rect(400, 400, 200, 50);

fill (0);

textSize (20);

text ("1º- xxx", 455, 233);

fill (0);

textSize (20);

text ("2º- xxx", 455, 433);

fill (0);

text ("3º- xxx", 455, 330);

} else if (interf==4) {

background (135,206,250);

textSize (20);

text ("Insert Game Credits Here", 25, 100);

}

}

void mousePressed () {

println ("x: "+mouseX+" y: "+mouseY); //encontrar áreas

if (interf==1) {

if (mouseX>400 && mouseX<400+200 && mouseY>200 && mouseY<200+50) {

interf=2;

}

if (mouseX>400 && mouseX<400+200 && mouseY>300 && mouseY<300+50) {

interf=3;

}

if (mouseX>400 && mouseX<400+200 && mouseY>400 && mouseY<400+50) {

interf=4;

}

} else if (interf==2) {

} else if (interf==3) {

interf=1;

} else if (interf==4) {

interf=1;

}

}

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Btw, sorry if this seems long and messy, i don't usually use reddit.

submitted by /u/abelxo99
[link] [comments]

5 things i learnt at Forum Paradigm_Shift in Geneva last month

Back in May, i was in Geneva to attend the Forum Paradigm_Shift #2. The event, which was part of the audiovisual and digital art festival Mapping, investigated the theme “Humans + Machines by Design, not by Default”.

Forum Paradigm_Shift, Mapping Festival 2018 at HEAD Genève – Nouveau Campus. Photo (c) Stéphane Pecorini

The artists, designers, curators, scientists and philosophers invited delved into technodiversity, contemporary utopias and dystopias, the future of money, Glitch Feminism and cultural resistance, and the human-technology relationship from an artistic, philosophical and scientific point of view. This program, which had been curated by Carmen Salas, might sound a bit haphazard but it made for an exhilarating and thought-provoking day. Each of the speakers challenged, in their own way, dominant discourses around progress, technology, future and hybridity.

The videos of the keynotes and panels are online. Unfortunately, they seem to be available on facebook only so far. I’d still recommend you check them out because they build up a much-needed picture of some of the ethical and cultural reflections that surround digital technology today.

1. Cash is not dead


Rachel O’Dwyer at Paradigm Shift, Mapping Festival in Geneva

Rachel O’Dwyer‘s presentation Cash or Cache: What is your money saying about you? dissected the emerging politics around transactional data. She explained how the push for a cashless society on the part of states and platforms is creating new forms of business models based on data, not fees. Which of course entails new forms of discrimination and of surveillance but also new practices of resistance. Her talk was fascinating. I was particularly interested in her comments about how cash, though it doesn’t record traces of transactions anymore, can teach us a lot about the way paper money mediates social relationships as it moves from hand to hand. I liked the research made by Dirk Brockmann, a physicist from Humboldt University of Berlin.


Dirk Brockmann/Northwestern University. Image via NPR

A few years ago, Brockmann used the dollar bill tracking website Where’s George to visualize migratory patterns of banknotes. His map of those patterns of money exchanges shows how money moves and thus where American citizens go/don’t go and where they make or don’t make business. This builds a new geography of the U.S. with internal borders that disintegrate while others are almost never crossed.

2. Everything is NOT gonna be alright


Julian Oliver and Crystelle Vu, Extinction Gong, installed in the Tieranatomisches Theatre, Berlin, as part of The World as Forest (travelling exhibition, 2018). Photo by Anexact Office


Workers on tractors harvest soybeans in the deforested land of Campo Novo do Parecis, in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. Photograph: Maurilio Cheli/AP, via The Guardian


Julian Oliver at Paradigm Shift, Mapping Festival in Geneva

The panel Beyond The Utopia-Dystopia Mindset, moderated by curator Daphne Dragona, took us in a very different direction. The panelists were artist and critical engineer Julian Oliver and designer Tobias Revell.

Oliver defied everyone’s expectations by not talking about his artistic work nor any of the issues his presentations usually explore (data forensics, creative hacking, counter-surveillance, etc.) Instead, he gave us a crash course in the Anthropocene: from the 6th extinction (the extent of which the work Extinction Gong reveals in a simple and poignant way) to how our meat-based diet is responsible for 60% of global biodiversity loss; from deforestation to the text World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.

His intervention might look at odds with what is usually discussed at digital art festivals but, as his talk also made clear, we can’t disconnect technology from the fate of our planet. To put it in words so blunt even cold-hearted utilitarians would understand, our resources in metals are not infinite (the digital world still relies on a very physical and very energy-hungry infrastructure) and we need insects, animals and plants to perform all sorts of services for us.

Oliver believes that we are in front of a narration challenge when it comes to the ongoing planetary crisis. On the one hand, he quoted, “We’re always preparing for the apocalypse we want” (author unknown). Black Mirror turned this desired apocalypse into dinner table conversations. In the episodes of the scifi series, humans are shown as resilient, cunning and ever resourceful beings.

Techno-centric discourses are not helping either. ‘Reverse climate change” is a delusion, things will not roll back to where things were on earth even if we manage to drop a few degrees back down. Things have already changed. Mass extinction is already well upon us for example.

What we need right now are realistic conversations about the future. They will not have the same feel good effects as techno-fix proposals such as the one that postulates that we only need to suck CO2 from the air in order to stop climate change. These conversations might even be a bit pessimistic but, as Derrick Jensen writes: Hope is what keeps us chained to the system, the conglomerate of people and ideas and ideals that is causing the destruction of the Earth.

Julian Oliver concluded that now is the time for artists and designers to react and embrace planetary crisis as a challenge. We need them to tell stories that would play a key role in propagating a new planetary subjectivity and shape a more realistic, more comprehensive ‘understanding as to how our chains of production and supply interact with both biosphere and climate.’

3. Understanding technology also means being ill-mannered towards it


Tobias Revell at Paradigm Shift, Mapping Festival in Geneva

In his contribution to the panel, Tobias Revell made a few fascinating points about using computer-generated imagery (CGI) for purposes that were not intended by the developers. Do check out his talk, it’s packed with interesting insights about strategy of breaking through the technology. I’ll just mention the ones that stuck with me long after the conference:

Nikita Diakur, Ugly Dynamics (Fest), 2018

Ugly Dynamics is a series of works in which Nikita Diakur explores CGI potential to create what he calls the “digital grotesque”. His renderings deconstruct the software and the physics that go into it, breaking apart the engine and revealing how it is made.

As Creative Applications writes: Nikita goes through a number of examples, showing how different dynamics affect models as well as produce very unexpected results. In some cases it is simply because the system doesn’t know how to deal with the set task and in another producing a beautiful result in this alter-reality worlds dictated by these rule based systems.


Screenshot from Dark Souls – SPEED RUN (0:26:58) with resets [Xbox 360]

Revell also introduced me to Speedrunning, a huge gaming subculture with videos that can get millions of views. The aim of speedrunning is to complete a video game as fast as possible. You don’t have to complete all the steps in the game, you don’t need to follow the narratives and rules set by the developers, you just have to get to the end as quickly as possible.

Speed runners play with the rules of the architecture that constructs the game, exploiting its glitches, loopholes, frame rate drops, bending the software and hardware to their will. To be a good speedrunner, you don’t need to be a good player. You need to have a nuanced understanding on how the world you live in is built and how it operates.

4. #GLITCHFEMINISM can help us decolonize the architecture of the body


Legacy Russell at Paradigm Shift, Mapping Festival in Geneva

Legacy Russell’s talk ‘URL IRL’ examined Glitch Feminism! Russel is a writer, an artist, a cultural producer and a glitch feminist. She is particularly interested in how the Internet (and the artists activating it) can be harnessed for creative resistance. Glitch Feminism is a cultural manifesto and movement that aims to use the digital as a means of resisting the hegemony of the corporeal. She defines #GLITCHFEMINISM as “a creative and political exploration of how the material the internet can expand -or glitch- the construct of the binary body. it deploys the language of ‘glitch’ in positing that an error within the flawed machine we operate within one that disproportionately enacts violence on historical ‘OTHERED’ bodies – is not an error at all, but rather an integral systems correction to the mechanics of culture and society as we know it.”

Internet is thus a space that asserts the violence against female and queer people and people of colour but it is also a place that allows them to defy and resist that violence.

Her first book ‘Glitch Feminism’ will be published by Verso at the end of the year.

5. Bodies are restless, open and, as such, should dispute the normal


Panel discussion ‘Minds, Bodies and the Machine’ at Mapping Festival 2018 — with Marco Donnarumma at HEAD Genève – Nouveau Campus. Photo (c) Stéphane Pecorini


Marco Donnarumma at Paradigm Shift, Mapping Festival in Geneva

The panel on Minds, Bodies and the Machine, moderated by the brilliant Rosario Hurtado, looked at how artists, designers and scientists respond to advances in the field of human-machine-interaction.

Marco Donnarumma, an artist and scholar investigating the relationships between body, sound and technology, kicked his presentation with images of purification rituals called skin cutting and ended up surprising me by adopting a feminist position.

Skin cutting rituals are performed in several parts of the world but the one the artist showed us is performed in Papua New Guinea. Deep cuts are made in the backs, arms, chest and buttocks of young men. The patterns adopted and the method of treating the wounds aim to sculpt the scars so that they remain raised when healed and make the skin look like the one of a crocodile, an animal the Kaningara worship.

The reason why Donnarumma’s practice explores these rituals so closely is that, according to him, they act as a gateway to think about how different societies establish criteria for what constitutes a normal body. In the case of the Kaningara tribesmen from PNG, a ‘standardized’ body allows men to hunt, get married and perform expected roles in society.

The problem with the ‘normal’ is that its definition is generally established by those in power.

Today, we’ve developed different and often more technology-mediated ways to define what’s normal. What hasn’t changed is that, again, the norms of the normal are being prescribed by those in power.

A clear example of that is Hiroshi Ishiguro‘s female android Erica. She is very pretty, very young, she is slim, has big lips, smooth skin and a fine nose. She is the epitome of a woman built by a man. What is regarded as normal for woman is thus reinforced by technology, disseminated in media and ends up being what our kids identify as being normal.

That’s why Donnarumma’s work explores alternative forms of embodiment. By creating tangible speculations about what different bodies can be, he hopes that something will be triggered in the mind of the viewers and that it will open gates onto ideas and counter cultures able to untie what we regard as normal.

Over the past 4 years, he has been working on what he calls “configurations” which are various types of assemblages of humans and machines.

Marco Donnarumma, Amygdala MK3

His Amygdala work for example is and artificially intelligent robotic limb that has been programmed to perceive its own body, respond to unforeseen reactions from others and cut its own skin, in a way inspired by the purification ritual of “skin-cutting”.


Marco Donnarumma, Eingeweide, a work in progress

The next step for Amygdala is to be part of Eingeweide, a ritual of coalescence in which the machine is attached to the artist’s body for a performance during which the two of them are searching for their own joint, bodily identity, a process which makes the distinction between them, between flesh and circuits, muscles and wires blurred and undefined.

For Donnarumma, it is important to abuse technology and use it to destroy traditional ideas of what constitutes the normal.

During the short debate at the end of the panel, he also had a few meaningful words about the necessity to think about who owns the tech that will change our bodies.

More images from Forum Paradigm_Shift #2:


‘Minds, Bodies and the Machine’ at Mapping Festival 2018 — with Jürg Lehni, at HEAD Genève – Nouveau Campus. Photo (c) Stéphane Pecorini


Minds, Bodies & The Machine panel discussion with Prof. David Rudrauf. Photo (c) Stéphane Pecorini


‘Minds, Bodies and the Machine’ at Mapping Festival 2018 — with Prof. David Rudrauf, at HEAD Genève – Nouveau Campus. Photo (c) Stéphane Pecorini


‘Minds, Bodies and the Machine’ at Mapping Festival 2018 — with Susanna Hertrich at HEAD Genève – Nouveau Campus. Photo (c) Stéphane Pecorini

Can anyone help with optimization?

Hi I'm trying to make a music visualizer where the pupils pulse in time to the music. With one eye it runs smoothly but with two it drops to 10fps. I've tried allocating more memory to processing but that didn't help. I'm sure my code could be obtimized in some way, as it is quite sloppy, but I don't know how. Any help would be much appreciated.

import ddf.minim.*; Eyeball leftEye, rightEye; Minim minim; AudioInput in; void setup() { size(1000, 500); background(255); noStroke(); minim = new Minim(this); in = minim.getLineIn(); leftEye = new Eyeball(in, 250, height/2, "LEFT"); rightEye = new Eyeball(in, 750, height/2, "RIGHT"); } void draw() { background(255); leftEye.display(); rightEye.display(); } class Eyeball { AudioInput listener; float r; float xTrans, yTrans; int maxR, minR; PImage eyePic; PVector eyeCentre; int eyeRadius; String handedness; Eyeball(AudioInput in, int x, int y, String hand) { listener = in; eyeRadius = 250; eyeCentre = new PVector(x, y); maxR = int(eyeRadius * 0.75); minR = 0; handedness = hand; eyePic = loadImage("eye.png"); } void display() { tint(#FF62B9); image(eyePic, eyeCentre.x-eyeRadius, eyeCentre.y-eyeRadius, eyeRadius*2, eyeRadius*2); for (int i = 0; i < in.bufferSize() - 1; i++) { if (handedness == "LEFT") { r = in.left.get(i); } else if (handedness == "RIGHT") { r = in.right.get(i); } else { r = in.mix.get(i); } r = map(r, -1, 1, minR, maxR); float x = r*cos(i); float y = r*sin(i); x+=eyeCentre.x; y+=eyeCentre.y; stroke(0, 200); line(eyeCentre.x, eyeCentre.y, x, y); } } } 
submitted by /u/Zoe512
[link] [comments]

Find the color of the pixel at the NEW 0,0 after translation and rotation?

After translating and rotating to a specific point, I tried using the get() function to find the color of the pixel at the new origin. However, this get() function seems to reference an absolute grid of those pixels rendered on the screen (maybe the pixel[] array?). So, when I use get(0,0), it gives me the color of the pixel in the very top left of the screen regardless of transformation. Is there any way to get the color values relative to the new coordinate grid after transformation and rotation?

Pastebin here if you want to see what I mean:

https://pastebin.com/0f4WsQCX

submitted by /u/On-All-Twos
[link] [comments]