Skip to content

The machine paradox

Santiago Fuentemilla Garriga, Guillem Camprodon, Oscar Gonzalez, Josep Marti Elias, Petra Garajová, Adai Surinach & Mikel Llobera

17-27 October 2023


What?

The different goals of the Machine Paradox seminar were to talk about how technology affects society, explore new and unusual technologies that are out there but not widely known, make things quickly and effectively using various tools and methods, embrace a mindset of creativity and collaboration, and share what we know with others.

The operation of the seminar basically consisted of unpacking and disassembling old and unused machines (TVs, printers, speakers, microwaves…) in order to understand how they work on the inside. Later on, once we have the components identified and prove that they work, figure out a new way to reassemble them, designing a new machine.


How?

Forensics of the obsolescence

The first part of the seminar (first 4 days) was about the forensics of obsolescence. This concept wants to talk about how technology isn’t a neutral element; it depends on many factors such as economic powers, influences, certain interests… At the end of the day, technology is a cultural artifact; it represents the society it grows into, and within the whole process of developing technology, many cultural decisions have to be made.

The deliverable of the first part of the seminar was a Forensic Report on a chosen machine. I was lucky enough to work with Marius, Anna, Jorge, Flora, and Anthuanet to deliver the document of the Forensic Report.

To create the document, we went through a process of disassembling an old LCD screen from beginning to end. We started by disassembling the main parts to understand it, then assembling them again to see which components were working and which weren’t. We found out the connection between the motherboard and the screen wasn’t working, so the machine was powered and turned on but couldn’t play any content.

We then continued disassembling the LCD screen itself and did some research on the different layers of filters it has. We were interested in powering on the backlight of the screen, but the connection cables were too old, and we accidentally broke them. We ended up with 2 functional strips of 80 LED lights each; we could power on and off the strips by little 10 LED strings.


Rethink and reconnect

The second part of the seminar “The Machine Paradox” started at the end of the first week, once we had analyzed every component in our broken machine and categorized which ones worked and how they worked, it became the time to brainstorm new machines from what we had around. We had to build new machines basing our design on 4 principles:

  • Honesty: the same design has to explain itself, do not hide anything.

  • Simplicity: reducing processes and materials to the essential number.

  • Uselessness: without a real and useful functionality for anyone.

  • Process: acknowledge the process behind the design and give it value.



With my group, once we got all the information, we did a brainstorm together to put on a piece of paper all of the ideas all of us had been gathering the previous days. We saw that there were a lot of ideas coming from all 6 of us, maybe too many. So, we decided to group the ideas into 3 main topics and split into pairs to explore these topics and come up with a proposition. The 3 final ideas we got out of this brainstorm were: an endless cycle machine to activate a ventilator, a FOMO machine to reflect on the pain screens induce on us, and a random Tik Tok scroll machine to represent the frustration of the lack of control. After evaluating the ideas and consulting with the teachers, we chose the FOMO machine.

The FOMO machine, or The Fuck Duck Machine, is a device that wants to reflect on "how much pain are we willing to take to feed our FOMO?".
We understand the concept FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) as the anxiety created by an event happening elsewhere and you didn't attend. The Fuck Duck Machine feeds this FOMO feeling by revealing part of the content on the screen every time you press a button that also induces pain.



Once we had the idea, we had to properly design it and plan the whole building process. We agreed on the design and saw that the machine had ultimately 3 parts: the main box, the motor and Arduino for it, and finally the pain button. Since we all knew what materials and methods we were going to use for the parts, we split them considering the personal interests and skills of everyone. In my case, I started building the pain button with Annna.



The proper building of the machine was the longest part and the most intense one. A lot of us were facing machines and materials we had never touched before, and it was a bit challenging. Personally, I really liked being able to research and investigate how to make a button that induces pain to the user. At the end of the day, we couldn’t find anything on the market similar because it goes against regulations, so we had to build it ourselves. The first plan was to 3D print a button to integrate the internal part of a lighter (which would induce a small electroshock every time you clicked it).

The process of 3D printing was difficult and long, and we soon realized that we had to also integrate the button that would give the signal to the Arduino board, so we had double complexity. We changed plans and built a transparent block of layers of laser-cut acrylic, so we could control the size of the holes on every layer and integrate both buttons (that were completely different).

Finally, the challenge was to create a “cover” that would activate both buttons at the same time and allow the electricity to pass to the finger pressing it. We considered plastic, but we were faced with the same problem as before; it was too complex and time-consuming (we were running out of time at this point). We finally built a 3-layer wooden cover to go on top of the buttons with a hole for the cable to electroshock. The last problem we had was that the electricity didn’t go through the cable if the wooden cover was on, and, in fact, it only worked if a finger or a metallic piece pressed it. We solved the problem by putting copper tape around it.



Once we all finished the building process, we had the final result of our Fuck Duck Machine. It was the moment to shoot a <1 minute video self-explanatory on how the machine worked and what it did. We received help to draw our storyboard, and once this was done, the filming process was pretty quick. We got to do some acting and have some fun after finishing the machine.


Reflections

19/10/2023 17:55

After completing the Forensics of the obsolescence part

The thing that has shocked me the most these 3 days has been the disassembling part. Tearing apart the TV monitor and realizing that behind every screen we see, there’s actually real materials and not just an “ether” that “transports data” into the “cloud”. Learning the physical elements behind a screen, that for me is something unreal, untouchable, doesn’t belong to the world of objects, made me open my view to other products i use in my everyday life and think how might they be made, what’s inside of them…

It has reminded me of a video made by a friend of mine, very worth seeing:

The impact of the internet from helena boet on Vimeo.

It was very interesting, also, starting this project (that for me is a bit out of my league) with people I don’t know, at all. It has been working out very well, I’m glad to see we all have a proactive attitude towards the class and I’m enjoying getting to know them through it.

28/10/2023 10:59

After presenting the final project the day before

Yesterday, we presented our unuseful machine, The Fuck Duck Machine. Today, after a restful night and some time to reflect, I’ve gathered a few insights from the past few weeks.

Firstly, collaborating with a group of unfamiliar faces flows more smoothly when we’re engaged in practical, hands-on activities. It was my first time working with my team (and meeting them at all), and we quickly understood how we all worked and what we were able to do at any given point. I think this fast learning from each other was caused by the intensity of the project but also because it was a practical project. I feel like I wouldn’t have learned that much if we had spent the 2 weeks all sitting at a table talking and hypothetically designing.

As for how my relationship with technology is evolving, I still empathize with what I wrote in the last reflection; the power of comprehending the inner workings of things. Last week, I was talking about how much it shocked me to see the components behind an LCD screen. This week I’ve seen this importance also in understanding the machines and techniques we use to build. For example, when Santi very kindly explained to me how the laser cut machine worked and all of the steps you have to take before sending the file to cut, I understood and learned what he was explaining. Later on, when I had to manage the machine by myself, I didn’t remember the steps by memory but because I understood them, and it made sense to me. This logic can apply to every machine and material I’ve used, such as the 3D printer, Arduino, vinyl cutter, woodworking, electroshock, and more.

Another important lesson I’ve learned is that in the face of failure, it’s wiser to attempt to repair what has gone wrong before scrapping the whole project. However, there’s a fine line when it comes to investing your energy in a fix. It’s crucial to know when it’s best to move on. I’m still learning when to let go or not of my initial ideas. I’m a planner and I like following straight paths, but in prototyping and design in general, there isn’t such a thing.

Lastly, I’m aware I wouldn’t have accomplished this project or the learning I take with me without the help of our teachers and the collaboration of my colleagues. At the end of the day, no one knows everything, and everyone knows a bit of everything. If I had to do this by myself, I would’ve designed a much less original machine in a much longer period of time.


Last update: June 21, 2024