My journey into the sensations of sight
By
Morgan Rauscher
BA, Multimedia and Fine Art, McMaster University, 2004

A THESIS ESSAY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF APPLIED ARTS
in
Media Arts

EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY OF ART + DESIGN
2010

© Morgan Rauscher, 2010

Abstract:
Electronic media technology provides artists with tools for exploring interactivity. New
immersive media sensations can result from the interactions between viewers and electronic
artwork. This thesis is a record of my personal creative journey, including the ideas and the
resulting interactive artworks that have unfolded on a voyage towards expressing sensations of
sight. There are two interactive and immersive new media artworks that were developed as a
part of this creative exploration. “Zeugen” uses thirty-two human-cast robotic faces and a face
tracking system to track the movements of viewers in a gallery space. “Mind Mirror” is an
electronic artwork that uses stereoscopic and stroboscopic audiovisual phenomenon
(intermittent photic-stimulation) to cause the viewer’s mind to create involuntarily visual
hallucinations. The result is an experiential event propelling the viewer into a state of visual
euphoria. My creative process (methodology) is presented in the form of a personal narrative
outlining the practical motivations that have guided my work and I situate the work within a
historical and theoretical discourse.

ii

Table of Contents:
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

iii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

iv

List of Illustrations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

v

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………………………………. viii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1

1.1. A brief description of the artwork.………………………………………………………………….

2

1.1.1. Zeugen………………………………………………………………………………………………...

3

1.1.2. Mind Mirror…………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
2. Ideological Context………………………………………………………………………………………………..

5

2.1. Physicality of seeing……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
2.2. The meaning making machinery of the mind………………………………………………….

7

2.3. The brain/mind paradigm……………………………………………………………………………….

9

2.4. Exploring the mind using art…………………………………………………………………………..

11

2.5. The sense of being stared at…………………………………………………………………………..

12

2.6. Self-reflexivity…………………………………………………………………………………………………

14

2.6.1. Mirrors………………………………………………………………………………………………..

14

2.6.2. Reflection…………………………………………………………………………………………….

18

2.6.3. Awareness…………………………………………………………………………………………..

20

3. Creative Journey………………………………………………………………..………………………………...

22

3.1. Zeugen: Historical Context and Contributions………………………………………………... 22
3.2. Zeugen: Creative process (methodology)……………………………………………………….. 26
3.3. Mind Mirror: Historical Context and Contributions…………………………………………

37

3.4. Mind Mirror: Creative process (methodology)……………………………………………….. 40
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

43

Bibliography / References Cited………………………………………………………………………………….

44

Appendix 1: MondoMatrix………………………………………………………………………………………….

46

iii

List of Tables:
Table 1: Brain Wave Frequencies and Associated Mental States (Altman, 2007, p.88)… 17

List of Illustrations:
iv

Figure 1: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (collage of images).…………………….………….

2

Figure 2: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Machine”, 2009 (collage of images).………………..…..

4

Figure 3: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: single eye test)….…..……..

27

Figure 4: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: two robotic eyes test).….

27

Figure 5: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: materials tests)…………….

27

Figure 6: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: face casting mask)………..

28

Figure 7: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: alginate body casting).….

28

Figure 8: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: plaster mold rough)………

28

Figure 9: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: plaster mold refining).....

28

Figure 10: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: sealing plaster mold)….. 29
Figure 11: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: vacuum forming)………..

29

Figure 12: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: polyethylene detail)……

29

Figure 13: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: polyethylene detail)……

29

Figure 14: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: RGB LED test)……….…….

30

Figure 15: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: face lighting test)...…….

30

Figure 16: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: grid of faces)…………….... 30
Figure 17: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: CNC machining detail)... 30
Figure 18: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: CNC machining detail)... 30
Figure 19: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: frame construction)……. 31
Figure 20: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: frame detailing)………….

31

Figure 21: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: motion-tracking desk
top webcam)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

31

Figure 22: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: original custom
electronics).....................................................................................................................

32

Figure 23: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: programming custom
electronics)……………………………………………….……………………………………………………………….

32

Figure 24: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (at ECU ‘Not that grad show’).……………..

33

Figure 25: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (at ECU ‘Not that grad show’).………….….

33

Figure 26: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO® adaptations)………….………….…….

33

Figure 27: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO® adaptations)………….………….…….

33
v

Figure 28: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO® adaptations)………….………….…….

33

Figure 29: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO® adaptations)………….………….…….

34

Figure 30: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics)………………..……………………

34

Figure 31: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics detail)……………………………

34

Figure 32: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics detail)……………………………

34

Figure 33: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics from tech side of work –
detail)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

35

Figure 34: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (face tracking program)….……………………. 35
Figure 35: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (face tracking program in operation on
“Zeugen”)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

35

Figure 36: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (descriptive collage of the functions of
“Zeugen”)……………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….

36

Figure 37: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new faces detail)…………..…………………….

36

Figure 38: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new faces detail)…………..…………………….

36

Figure 39: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (‘E-Mixer’, Surrey Art Gallery
*Interactive Futures ’09], Surrey BC)……………………………………………………………………………

36

Figure 40: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (‘E-Mixer’, Surrey Art Gallery
*Interactive Futures ’09], Surrey BC)……………………………………………………………………………

36

Figure 41: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (‘E-Mixer’, Surrey Art Gallery
*Interactive Futures ’09], Surrey BC)……………………………………………………………………………

37

Figure 42: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (in operation)..……………………………..

39

Figure 43: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (process image: Mini-POV circuit
assembly)………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….

40

Figure 44: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (process image: Mini-POV
hardware programming)……………………………………………………………………………………………..

40

Figure 45: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (process image: Mini-POV glasses
project testing)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

40

Figure 46: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (process image: “Mind Mirror”
assembly)…………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………..

40

Figure 47: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (process image: circuit building).….

40
vi

Figure 48: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (process image: testing)………………

40

Figure 49: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Glasses”, 2010 (at the Café for Contemporary Art
in North Vancouver BC during ‘Live Common Ground’)…………….………………………………..

41

Figure 50: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010…………………………………………………….

42

Figure 51: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010…………………………………………………….

42

Figure 52: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (front side of custom electronics PCB)...

46

Figure 53: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (back side of custom electronics PCB)…

46

Figure 54: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “Displayduino”, 2009.………………………..

48

Figure 55: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “Displayduinon”, 2009 (3D
rendering)…….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

48

Figure 56: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “ServoMatrix”, 2009 (3D
rendering)…….………………….………………………………………………………………………………………..

48

Figure 57: Morgan Rauscher, “Displayduinon”, 2009 (USB to RS485 3D test rendering)
Figure 58: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “ServoMatrix”, 2009…….……………………

49

Figure 59: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “LEDMatrix”, 2009…..………………………..

50

Figure 60: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “PowerMatrix”, 2009…………………………

51

vii

List of Abbreviations
ECU: Emily Carr University
LED: Light Emitting Diode
RGB LED: Red Greed and Blue Light Emitting Diode
SLM: Sound and Light Machine
CNC: Computer Numerically Controlled
PVA: Polyvinyl Acetate
POV: Persistence of Vision
I/O: Input and or Output
I/Os: Inputs and or Outputs
RS485: Regulated Standard 485 (network)
V: Volt

viii

Acknowledgements
Julie Andreyev
Dr. Ron Burnett
Dr. Brian Fisher
Randy Glenn
Steven Hall
Dr. Joy James
Dr. Maria Lantin
Sarah Rauscher
Karolle Wall
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

ix

Introduction
I have always been fascinated with my mind. I can use my mind to imagine fantastical worlds,
but what fascinates me the most is how I make meaning of the world I see around me. I have
made art from the time I was a child and I have enjoyed the self-expressive potential that art
has always afforded me. The artworks I make have a personal meaning for me; yet when I
release them into the world, a personal meaning is ascribed to my work by anyone who sees it.
I have always wondered about the exact nature of the meaning mechanism of vision. I have
frequently asked the question: how do we make meaning of what we see? My creative journey
is essentially an intellectual exploration of the experience of seeing.

When I first arrived at Emily Carr University of Art + Design (ECU), I thought of seeing as a linear
process. I have since become aware that vision consists of a series of interwoven relationships
between seeing, being seen and, in some ways, the unseen. I have learned that these
relationships all contribute to my visual sensations. I have therefore expanded my inquiry to
include a more holistic notion of vision. In this thesis, I invite you on my journey of expressive
inquiry into ‘seeing’ and ‘being seen’.
This thesis is a record of my personal journey, including the ideas and the resulting artworks
that have unfolded on my voyage towards expressing the sensations of sight. I begin by briefly
describing my creative experiments: two interactive and immersive new media artworks that
address seeing and being seen. The ideas that I briefly address are the physicality of seeing, the
meaning-making machinery of the mind, the brain/mind paradigm, exploring the mind using
art, the sense of being stared at, and self-reflexivity. I situate my thesis research and artwork
within a historical and theoretical discourse. Key artists that have influenced my practice
include Daniel Rozin, David Rokeby, Marie Sester, Golan Levin, Bridget Riley, Tony Conrad,
Robert Baldwin, Brion Gysin, and Mitch Altman. I contextualize my artwork and list my
contributions to a new media art practice lineage. Finally, I share my creative process
(methodology) in the form of a personal narrative outlining the practical motivations that have
guided my work.
1

A brief description of the artwork
In order to contextualize my thesis artwork, I must first present a brief description of their
physical form and function. In later sections, I elaborate on the technical details of both
artworks. The ideas about ‘seeing’ and ‘being seen’ that I explore in later sections have a direct
relationship to my creative journey. During this journey, there were some ideas and concepts
that influenced the decisions I made when building my artwork. In turn, the artworks informed
the ideas and concepts as they began to take form. Nowhere in this discussion do I make
presumptions about the viewers’ experience of the works. Instead, I provide a personal
perspective about the forms, meanings, and experiences that the artworks offer.

Figure 1: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (collage of images)

2

Zeugen
“Zeugen” consists of thirty-two human-cast robotic faces and a face tracking system, which
together follow the movements of viewers in a gallery space. When a viewer approaches the
work, the artificial eye lids suddenly open to reveal a grid of thirty-two watching pairs of eyes.
The viewer has access to the front (face side) of the work where the faces are installed, and the
back (tech side) of the work where the technology driving the robotic faces is exposed. I
consider both the tech side and the face side to be important visual elements. The polished
presentation of the face side’s ‘plastic’ surfaces is contrasted with the high-tech, kinetic, and
complex presentation of the tech side.
At first glance, the faces look uniform because I used a casting process that removes most
recognizable features which contribute to race, age, and even gender. Upon closer inspection,
the viewer may realize that the faces have unique features. Their individual characteristics give
them different ‘personalities’; these features include eye colour, face shape, motion gestures
made by the robotic eyes etc.
Interactivity on the face side is driven by the tech side of the work, which consists of
mechatronic elements. Thirty-two individual robotic contraptions, microcontrollers, and a
computer are exposed. On the computer screen, the viewer can see a video stream taken from
the front of the work, and a ‘face tracking box’ that frames the faces of viewers interacting on
the face side of the work.
“Zeugen” has one primary technical function: the work uses face tracking software to locate
and follow faces so that the robotic eyes make ‘eye contact’ with the viewer. If the viewer’s
face is recognizable to the face tracking software, then all of the robotic eyes will follow their
movements. “Zeugen” can track multiple faces, meaning that several participants can interact
with the work at the same time. If a viewer moves from side to side quickly, then the eyes
instantly find the viewer’s new position and move to re-establish eye contact in a sudden
sweeping movement.
The role of the participant in “Zeugen” is twofold: the viewer is meant to look at the work,
while also being ‘seen’ by the work. When the viewer is looking at the tech side of the work,
3

their interactivity role is absent. The work is only responsive to people standing on the face
side. On the tech side, the viewer becomes the ‘examiner’ without any expectations of
interactivity.

Figure 2: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Machine”, 2009 (collage of images)

4

Mind Mirror
“Mind Mirror” is a creative electronics new media artwork that uses stereoscopic and
stroboscopic audiovisual effects to cause the viewer’s mind to create involuntary
hallucinations. The result is an experiential event, propelling the viewer into a state of visual
euphoria. “Mind Mirror” takes the form of a pair of headphones. Both the left and right
speakers have malleable wire extensions with two bright lights on the tips. These ‘light wires’
can be adjusted to vary the distance between the lights and the viewer’s eyes. The closer the
lights are to the eyes, the more intense the visual effect. If the lights are further away from the
eyes, near the side of the head, the viewer has an augmented hallucinatory experience.
The visual illusions caused by “Mind Mirror” are a result of the flashing lights that generate
“photic-stimulations of alpha brain waves using flashing lights” (Robert Baldwin, 1972, p.147149) and “binaural beat frequencies at the speakers” (Altman, 2007, p.88-100). The sound and
light on the left side pulse at a different frequency than the sound and light on the right side.
The difference in sound and light frequencies causes the brain to express particular brain wave
frequencies. The specific frequency range I am working with is the alpha range, which is
expressed by the brain while a person is in a “dreamy, receptive and passive” (Altman, 2007,
p.88-100) mental state.

Ideological Context
Physicality of seeing
In the beginning of my creative investigation into the physicality of seeing, I encountered both
historical and contemporary theories about the nature of sight. For any inquiry into vision, the
most obvious starting point is the eye. Investigations into human vision have been conducted as
far back as Greco-Roman times: “many classical writers (including Euclid and Claudius Ptolemy)
conceived of vision in terms of rays emanating from the eye, so that vision could be understood
as ... touch.” (Yellott, 2004) This classical perspective resonates with my own perspective on
vision: I also believe that vision is completely interwoven with my ability to project meaning on
what I see. Many centuries after the work of Euclid and Ptolemy, “Kepler realized that light
5

entering the eye through the pupil behaved like light entering camera obscura and he pushed
the theory of the retinal image in 1604” (Sheldrake, 2003, p.245). We now know that the eye is
an advanced biomechanical sensory organ that is able to detect light and send coded signals to
the brain. I suggest, however, that scientific knowledge has not fully accounted for the precise
meaning-making elements in the mind.
Throughout my research, it became apparent to me that the connection between the biology of
sight and the psychology of seeing is ill-defined. In particular, it remains to be characterized
how the bioelectrical signals in the brain are converted into conscious meaning in the mind. The
point where light is interpreted after being translated by the eye (Boahen, 2008) into
bioelectrical thought signals in the brain (Hine, 2008) is where I begin my creative investigations
into seeing. I suggest that the biophysical apparatus of vision does not fully account for the
perceptual sensations of sight. “Vision involves a two way process, an inward movement of
light and an outward projection of images [...] The inward movement of light is familiar enough.
Light moves from the book through ... your eyes ... From the point of view of the standard
theory, there is no reason that you should be conscious at all.” (Sheldrake, 2003, p.245) I
believe that my conscious visual reality does not rely on physically seeing alone. In fact, I am
able to imagine something, dream and even hallucinate within the deep recesses of my mind
without the use of my eyes at all.

I use art and technology to help me understand my perceptive experiences. My work is an
inquiry into the intersection of the visual and mental meaning-making mechanisms. I would
suggest that the interpretation of subjective perception eludes traditional scientific
understanding. From a purely biological point of view, my ‘visual reality’ is thought to be a
physical connection of light, eyes and the brain, yet I know that I interpret the world when I
perceive it. As a consequence, I examine the complex, iterative process of seeing and
interpreting by exploring new ways of ‘visualizing’ and thereby ‘understanding’ my dynamic
visual perception.

6

The meaning making machinery of the mind
“Why am I here? [...] I have to figure out some way of explaining that to myself.” (Burnett,
2008-2009) It is my very connection to reality that is at stake. I use my eyes to see the world
and make sense of what I see. If I can understand what I see, I can begin to form my personal
reality. It follows that if I cannot make sense of what I see, my visual reality begins to break
down. “The neurotic turns away from reality because he finds either the whole or parts of it
unreadable.” (Freud, 2005) On the other hand, when I see a visual anomaly (illusion or
sensation that only exists in my mind), it can manifest in many forms, including confusion,
disorientation, and even delight. I hypothesize that I can use the fluid visual space of undefined
meaning to help me explore the fluid space of the mind.

I naturally want to ‘define’ the things that I see. In order for me to digest what I see, I
must make meaning of the complex experiences that my visual apparatus is undergoing.
When I recognize something that I see, I am using a mental mechanism to generate
meaning. However, the exact nature of the meaning-making mechanism is not fully
understood in scientific terms. For example, in the case of abstract paintings, I can
sometimes define what I see as raw emotions or some kind of unexplained experience.
Nevertheless, I still get a ‘sense’ of what I am looking at. I need to make ‘sense’ of what I
see in order to ‘see’ anything at all.

Each person undergoes a unique conscious experience whereby they interpret the world
around them in a personal way. It may be impossible for anyone to develop a unified theory
about how human beings make meaning because each person has a unique way of projecting
meaning. This can be illustrated by the following example; if I were to ask two observers of “La
trahison des images” (The Treachery of Images) (Magritte, 1928–1929) to identify the ‘mood’ of
the pipe in the painting, one observer might say that it is a ‘sad’ pipe and another might say
that it is a ‘relaxed’ pipe. In both cases, the observers have a real experience of assigning
meaning to the pipe, but the event is not that simple. The meanings that unfold in the minds of
both observers are not exclusively based on a series of words or visual cues that already exist in
their memories. They both look at the pipe and probably agree that what they are seeing is a
7

‘pipe’, but they certainly do not see the same thing. Furthermore, the ‘signifier’ (pipe) is a
combination of several pre-existing images, descriptions and memories in their mind. However,
these discrete ‘signifiers’ are not the only elements required to achieve a moment of
signification. It is more likely that a new event unfolds in the mind with each viewing experience
and that there are no discrete moments of meaning making, but rather a whole cycle, all at
once, of understanding.

I do not build my artwork under the assumption that meaning has discrete definitions or even
discrete moments of definition. “Mind Mirror” does not present a visual in the traditional
sense. Instead, it is entirely up to the viewer to rationalize, define, and formulate meanings for
the phantom visual sensations they experience. The visuals cannot be described in terms of
discrete, signified things. However, there are similarities in the verbal accounts that viewers
give after using the ‘machine’. Some viewers describe seeing lines, shapes or patterns, recalling
basic elements of visual content. Other viewers describe seeing objects, and even account
narratives as the visual sensation unfolds. Thus, there is no unified description of the things the
viewers see. I focus purely on the captivating sensation of vision, and this is fundamental to my
visual experimentation.

On my creative journey, I am continually confronted by a very serious question that I think all
artists ask themselves: does my art mean anything to anyone else? Rather than being
concerned with answering this question by communicating a specific message in my art, I am
more concerned with delivering a ‘perceptual prosthetic’ experience. By this I mean that my
artwork does not necessarily communicate specific political, historical or cultural messages, but
rather assist the viewer in experiencing a visual event. In these visual events, I am attempting to
imbue on the viewer a new layer of conscious sensation that they can take with them and use
in every subsequent visual experience. If the viewer can learn something about the way they
make meaning of what they see in an intuitive sensory event, then they can carry that
understanding forward to all future visual experiences.

Unlike the phantom visual sensations of “Mind Mirror”, “Zeugen” offers the viewer a more
clearly ‘defined’ visual in the form of thirty-two faces. I centralize the visual experience: the
8

viewer is familiar with the sculptural manifestation of a human face. The motion-tracking
movements of the robotic eyes generate fluidity in visual interpretation, leading to an
experiential interaction that is completely personalized to each viewer. The artwork responds
physically to the movements of the viewer, thereby transforming its ‘image’ and continuously
redefining its ‘meaning’. As with “Mind Mirror”, “Zeugen” highlights the visual experience over
the physically visible object.

In “How Images Think” (Burnett, 2004, p.253), Burnett offers insight into the human capacity to
attribute meaning while iteratively engaging with transforming visual environments. In the
chapter “Foundations of Virtual Images” (Burnett, 2004, p.253), Burnett describes “images in
terms of the spaces they occupy and the time of interaction with viewers” (Burnett, 2004,
p.253). In particular, he elaborates on the Federation Square project in Melbourne, Australia.
“One of the walls on the site acts as a screen for a continuously changing succession of light
forms” (Burnett, 2004, p.253) and “the light form is driven by a series of robotic mirrors”
(Burnett, 2004, p.253). The dynamically changing display Burnett describes is analogous to my
own artwork, which involves unique and transformative visual experiences. My works certainly
hold “meanings that are not solely located either in images or viewers but in a set of relations
created by the context of interaction” (Burnett, 2004, p.253). In fact, it is this very ‘interaction’
that my artwork exemplifies.

The brain/mind paradigm
The complexity of the mind as a meaning making apparatus cannot be reduced to the functions
of the brain alone. The brain is a mass of biological matter that computes information using
bioelectrical signals that come from the sensory organs. In contrast, the mind is an
interpretative, dynamic and expressive ‘space,’ which currently lacks a unified physical or
conceptual description. In order to explore the brain-mind paradigm in a work of art, I develop
artwork for the purpose of questioning rather than answering. I do not attempt to make
rational connections, nor do I attempt to build any kind of theory resolving the current debate
about the brain and mind. Rather, I feel it is my responsibility as an artist to consistently
question the intellectual status quo.
9

“Is our scientific understanding of fundamental principles already more or less complete? Have
all the big questions been answered?” (Sheldrake, 2003, p.245) “Philosophical, psychological
and neural theories” (Rose, 2006, p.452) attempting to explain how my conscious mind works
have left me with more questions than answers. Nevertheless, I believe that the intersection
between the brain and the mind is critical to understanding my interpretation of the visual
world. It is for this reason that I examine the fundamental elements involved in the experience
of seeing. I also believe that the signifier ‘mind’ is problematic because it is merely another
name for what might have previously been called the ‘heart’ or the ‘soul’. That being said, I use
the term ‘mind’ in the context of this paper.

“To many people, science is seen as a source of certainty, a box full of answers that can be
trotted out when dealing with life’s many questions. Most working scientists, however, see
their subject in a very different light: as a method for navigating effectively in an uncertain
world.” (Cohen, 1997, p.309) Currently, the interpretation of my subjective perception eludes
traditional scientific understanding. It is important to recognize that there exists a significant
knowledge deficit in the area of the perceptive apparatus and human consciousness.
Phenomena like “telepathy and the sense of being stared at are currently unexplained in
scientific terms” (Sheldrake, 2003, p.245).

Although I do not approach my research with a scientific viewpoint, I have tried to become
familiar with current neuropsychological theories in my interdisciplinary research. I consider
there to be some contradiction in contemporary neuroscience and psychology regarding the
precise function of the mind. There are essentially two competing ideas. The first idea is that
meaning is bioelectrically manufactured by complex interwoven neurological operations in
particular cortexes in the brain. From this viewpoint, our visual perception is almost entirely
assigned to the visual cortex. The second idea is that we can no longer operate under the
assumption that there is a unified cartographic mapping of the brain into discrete components.
In support of this idea, there have been many cases of physically damaged brains where the
‘area’ of the brain responsible for processing and making meaning or memory has been
traumatized beyond the point of recovery. Despite this damage, the brain is able to re10

establish normal function by somehow redistributing cognitive processes to undamaged parts
of the brain. It is important at this point that I reiterate that I am not making scientific claims
regarding the problems or solutions to the brain/mind paradigm. I simply acknowledge that a
tremendous amount of work has been done and needs to be done in order to reach a tangible
understanding of how the complex relationships between the brain and the mind work.

My artwork addresses the brain-mind paradigm by stimulating the senses into immersive media
sensation ‘events’ that potentially affect the conscious experience. My artwork exploits
mental/visual sensations that are meant to affect the viewer’s conscious mind. I am convinced
that I may be able to enhance my perceptive capacity at the level of the mind and inversely
affect the potential of the brain. I see these artworks as analogous to visual aids, such as
telescopes and microscopes, which are intended to enhance biological vision.

Exploring the mind using art
“Art is somewhat like the mind. It is a vehicle out of which from nothing comes so much.”
(Burnett, 2008-2009) The functional similarities between the creative arts and the mind make
art an ideal candidate for the study of the mind. Art exists at the point where artifact and
meaning coexist. However, one must ask if the scope of art or science is capable of this
exploration independently, or if some partnership between art and science is a more likely
solution. My research and subsequent artwork exists somewhere at the intersection of art and
science, as I believe they both relate to my practice.

Rescher explains that; “if nature were not rulish in exhibiting manifold regularities – if it were
pervasively ‘unruly’ (say, because its laws changed rapidly and randomly) – then anything
approaching a scientific study of the world would clearly be impossible.” (Rescher, 2005, p.46)
Following this line of reasoning, I see how it has been difficult for biological science to explain
the visual mind. My subjective perception changes rapidly and seemingly without a quantifiable
order. A similar ‘disorder’ is induced with “Mind Mirror” because the visual hallucinations of
patterns, lights, shapes and even feelings are dynamic, uncertain and ‘unruly’. Thus, it is
sensible to consider the use of the creative arts to excogitate theories about the dynamic
11

conscious visual mind. “Art then, is an increase of life, a sort of competition of surprises that
stimulate my consciousness and keep me from becoming somnolent” (Whiten, 1941, p.40).

There are several reasons why I think that art is an important tool to investigate the visual
mind. First, art takes a flexible approach to any kind of investigation and this allows me to
follow a holistic creative journey. Second, my artistic training has endowed me with an inherent
understanding of human perception. When making works of art I am always conscious of the
‘perceptive potential’ of my intended audience. Third, “an artist is multidisciplinary by nature”
(Burnett, 2008-2009) and this allows for ‘cross-inter-multi-disciplinary’ collaborative research
styles that are certainly required when attempting any sort of inquiry into a subject as complex
as the mind. Fourth, I am always making creative ‘experiments’. However, I do not equate my
art practice to scientific research – but rather, I recognize they are both scholarly endeavors.
Finally, many artists throughout history have studied human perception and shown that art can
recognize important elements required for investigating sight.

The sense of being stared at
I have focused thus far on notions of seeing and interpreting the seen: being seen is the other
experience of sight. What is the sensation of being seen? Lacan describes the event as “the
sensation of another’s gaze upon oneself” (Ragland-Sullivan, 1986, p.343), which occurs when I
am being watched. “Zeugen” attempts to evoke the sensation of being seen as one of the
visual affects of the piece.

“Jean-Paul Sartre described the phenomenology of apprehension of others, pitching his
argument around the fundamental phenomenon he called the gaze ... of Sartre's insight, Lacan
stresses that the analyst should not confuse the gaze with the fact that people see with their
eyes ... in human relations the sensation of another's gaze upon one is sufficient to cause
individuals to make themselves an object for that gaze.” (Ragland-Sullivan, 1986, p.343) Thus,
being seen by others is a sensation that transcends the biological mechanism of seeing and the
psychological result is the ‘sense’ of being seen. Sheldrake appropriately renames Lacan’s

12

“sensation of another’s gaze upon oneself” (Ragland-Sullivan, 1986, p.343) as “the sense of
being stared at” (Sheldrake, 2003, p.384).

Sheldrake maintains that the sense of being stared at is a naturally occurring phenomenon. “It
may be deeply rooted in our animal nature, and widespread in the animal kingdom.”
(Sheldrake, 2005, p.10-31) Studies of the sense of being stared at cannot be limited to an
objective, quantifiable analysis because it involves the fluid sensation of sight. The sense of
being stared at is therefore currently being researched using predominantly subjective
approaches. Despite these limitations, the analysis that has been conducted by researchers
such as Sheldrake is sufficiently compelling to support the existence of this ‘sense’.

Sheldrake's wide range of experiments provides sufficient evidence to account for the existence
of an experience that is felt by people who are being watched. He points out that “the sense of
being stared at is well known to many police officers, surveillance personnel and soldiers ...
Most were convinced of the reality of this sense, and told stories about times when people they
were watching seemed to know they were being observed, however well the observers were
hidden.” (Sheldrake, 2003, p.384) “Zeugen” is an artificially rendered ‘experience’ that has the
potential of manufacturing the sense of being stared at. Many observers of “Zeugen” have
described a feeling of being watched by the work. However, the work does not exclusively
evoke the experience of being stared at and can facilitate many other sensations. It may seem
counterintuitive that an artwork can generate the sense of being stared at, as the faces and
eyes in “Zeugen” are entirely artificial. One might expect that the sense of being stared at relies
on a person-to-person interaction. However, the accounts of viewers of “Zeugen” suggest that
the sense of being stared at may be a self-reflexive ‘event’ and perhaps even self-induced.

A self-reflexive experience can be generated by a visual event using a mirror. Self-reflexivity, as
exhibited by the mirror event, requires a combination of both seeing and being seen by oneself.

13

Self-reflexivity
Thus far, I have explored the ideas of seeing, making meaning, and being seen. Together, these
ideas form fundamental notions influencing my art practice. The point of intersection uniting
these concepts is self-reflexivity. Understanding the essence of ‘reflection’ and the many forms
it takes allows me to understand the conscious experience of self-reflexivity. “Zeugen” uses a
two-way mirror and “Mind Mirror” metaphorically reflects the viewer’s mental events. In both
cases, I am interested in working with the viewer to reach another layer of awareness through
what I call ‘hyper-conscious reflexivity’. My metaphorical and physical vehicle of choice for this
‘reflection’ is therefore, of course, a mirror. Ultimately, I wish to achieve a reflection of the
mind back onto itself and to do so I rely on certain principles of ‘reflection’ discussed in this
section.

Mirrors
Mirrors have the power to uncover the very nature of my being because they confirm my
existence by reflecting an image of me enacting my ‘self’. The concept of self-reflection is built
on the notion that “the world and logic reflect each other systematically; and the reflection is
what we mean by ontology” and “an ontology is an abstract structure inverted to account for
the world” (Feibleman, 1958, p.228). In other words, my physical reflection is an abstracted
logical reasoning of my reflected image. However, my physical reflection is not necessarily an
indication of my existence as my reflection can take on both the role of reflector and reflected
or perceiver and perceived. This dichotomy of duality is exhibited by “Zeugen” when the
perceiver and the perceived are represented by the inverse relationships of seeing and being
seen. When the faces of “Zeugen” are visible, there is little to no reflection from the two-way
mirror. Therefore, the viewer does not see a reflection of themselves, but rather the faces
looking at them. When the lights illuminating the faces are turned off, the viewer is presented
with a direct reflection of themselves. The artwork and the viewer are both potential witnesses
of the same event that is the ‘vision’ that exists between them.
It is critical here to understand certain aspects of the mirror. First, the mirror is a
developmental experience in which I become aware of the physical image of myself and this
14

affects the way I perceive myself from that moment on. Using my newly-discovered mirror
image, I achieve a new ‘total capacity’ of self-awareness that enhances my state of
consciousness. I gain the ability to think about myself in ways that are only possible after seeing
my physical reflection in a mirror. Second, I continue to have a relationship with my visually
reflected self-image on a continuing basis. In the very same way, “Zeugen” facilitates an
experiential event that becomes a part of the conscious structure of the viewer. A visual event
reflecting an image of the viewer and the sensation of being watched evolves into a
phenomenological conscious development. “Mind Mirror” works in the same cyclical fashion,
although the reflexive event is only seen in the mind of the viewer and there are no ‘physical’
mirrors involved.
The self-contained reflective mental experience of looking into a glass mirror locks my eyes and
my perception in a cycle of ‘hyper-reality’. The reason why a mirror’s reflection is different from
simply ‘reflecting’ on oneself in the mind is that a mirror is a visual anchor for the mind to rest
on. My artwork is a physical artifact that produces visual sensations acting as gateways that
anchor the viewer in the experience of self-contemplation.
A reflection can help facilitate understanding of the thinking experience. The event is entirely
interpersonal and that is why it results in a state of self-awareness taking the form of the ‘other
self’ capable of looking back and even ‘talking’ back. In this way, a reflection is dynamic and
cyclically interactive but the artwork is an anchor holding the reflective experience in place.
“Zeugen” takes this point one step further in that the physical reflection of the viewer is only
available to the viewer while the lights that illuminate the faces are off. Once the faces behind
the two-way mirror are illuminated, the mirror ‘dissolves’ to expose the faces to the viewer,
while simultaneously hiding the viewer’s physical reflection. During these events, the reflection
experience oscillates between an event and a memory of the event. The reflexive event is
therefore simultaneously physical, mental, visual and virtual.
The commonplace ‘bathroom mirror’ made of reflective metal-coated glass is easy for me to
comprehend because I have integrated the technology into my daily life. However, I rarely stop
to think about how a glass mirror’s reflection is not perfect. Without natural sunlight on a
perfectly flat and reflective surface, I get a distorted image of myself. A mirror’s reflected image
15

is also inverted with respect to my ‘real’ image. In fact, a point of reflection is not possible
without presenting the opposing image, which is a distortion inherent in the ‘reflection’. The
dimension of my self-reasoning seems amplified in the space between the two opposing images
of the real and the virtually-reflected ‘real’ that is inverted and reversed.
“The mirror’s property of reversing that which it reflects suggests a parallel universe on its
other side ... as with Carroll’s Alice who passed through the looking glass into another world”
(Werness, 1999, p.4 and 114). The mirror here is not seen as a reflection of the ‘true’ self or in
this case a reflection of one story as a ‘true’ mirror image, but rather the mirror is exposed for
its distortion and inverted duality. The themes, storyline, and events are inverted and therefore
distorted to represent the ‘other’ as opposite.
With this example, I can see the potential for the “Mind Mirror” to reflect back a distorted
image of the conceptual mental ‘self’. Conversely, the commonplace mirror is a vehicle for
achieving an ‘accurate’ physical image of the self. It must be recognized that while I seek
clarification from a ‘mirror image’, the inverted and opposite image is not a perfect clone of my
self-image. I hypothesize that the mental coequal affect of reflection that is induced by the
“Mind Mirror” also has a significant level of inversion distortion. Nonetheless, it is a vehicle for
connecting the visual and virtual world of seeing that is reciprocated by the mind’s eye.
In order to accurately reflect the mind back onto itself in “Mind Mirror”, I had to assess the
point where there is enough detail in the ‘reflection’ that the mind would be capable of
inducing a state of self-recognizable reflection. This was done by learning about and adopting
the appropriate stroboscopic and stereoscopic frequencies of oscillating LED light and sound.
Devices that cause these effects are generally called sound and light machines (SLM). The
differential required to coax the mind into the alpha wave range was most appropriate for my
purposes. The beta range, above the alpha range, causes an alert state of hyper-active response
that is not conducive to contemplative mental states. The theta and delta ranges, well below
the alpha range, cause the viewer to become drowsy, which is also problematic. The alpha
range is the optimal range because the viewer is able to undergo the state of visual
hallucination with a balanced degree of relaxation and alertness, optimal for moments of selfcontemplation.
16

Table 1: Brain Wave Frequencies and Associated Mental States (Altman, 2007, p.88)

Mirrors are symbolic references to many important concepts. My ability to rationalize the
complex concept of a mirror lies in the symbolism signified by sight. Seeing “takes precedence
over the other senses in most world cultures” (Werness, 1999, p.4 and 114). This allows for the
visual arts to make special use of the mirror as a symbol referencing the multidimensionality of
the human perceptive experience. Diego Velazquez’s oil on canvas painting entitled “Las
Meninas” (Velazquez, 1656) uses the mirror in the background to expose the concept of
reflection as a window of access into the symbolism that is inherent in the reflection. First, he is
painting his ‘self’ portrait. He is also painting a reflected subject being painted in his painting
(the king and queen and the observer or arguably the painting in the painting) (Werness, 1999,
p.4 and 114). Finally, he is painting the vehicle of the reflection itself in the form of the mirror in
the background. These three representations of the observer, the reflected and the source of
reflection (the mirror) encompass the critical elements required for understanding the
perceived cycle of reflection. Foucault reads Velazquez at the beginning of his text, “The Order
of Things” (Foucault, 1970, p.3-16) as portraying a paradoxical relationship between reality and
representation (Ashley, 2008). Foucault identifies different reflection relationships in the
painting than what I have described here, but essentially demonstrates an identical notion
“because they are all representations of a point of reality outside of the painting” (Ashley,
2008). The signifiers referenced as external to the painting signify reflection and are constantly
shifting and transforming the sensation of reflection. This internalized manifestation of the
meaning making paradox is manifested visually by the “Mind Mirror” as the viewer experiences
visual sensations, which are constantly in motion and never still for the defining.
17

In addition to Velazquez, contemporary artists, such as Dan Graham and Jeff Koons, have
incorporated mirrors and reflective surfaces directly into their work as a way of engaging the
viewer in the reflexive experience.

Reflection
RE-flections: “the Latin particle re-, which corresponds to the English ‘again’ and ‘against’,
properly denotes a turning back (upon oneself or itself) or an opposition” (Gasche, 1986,
p.348). A reflection is therefore manifested in ‘simulacrum,’ defined by Plato as a copy of a
copy or a double of a double; which itself signifies an original (Gasche, 1986, p.348). However,
this cycle of a reflective continuum is whole and moving at the same time, and that is what
facilitates the reflection sensation. Stipulating an ‘originator’ of the reflection is problematic.
The mirror image and the viewer’s body are being reflected simultaneously against one another
to produce a moment of recognition. In the same way, when a viewer interacts with “Zeugen”,
they recognize their physical image and they are able to simultaneously contemplate their
image as seen by others. Reflection as a form of ‘doubling’ can also be described in terms of
difference (Gasche, 1986, p.348) but in either case “duplicity . . . logically proceeds the
philosophical opposition of the simple and the derivative double” (Gasche, 1986, p.348). This
“infinite duplicity” (Gasche, 1986, p.348) continuously cycling may account for the sensation of
momentary reflexivity that occurs and recedes as I fade in and out of the self-reflective
experience. The sensations generated by “Zeugen” are analogous to “changing relationships
moving from recognition to uncanny effects of abstraction and to the disappearance of
recognition” (Turim, 1980, p.143). Most importantly, these descriptions of the reflective
sensations transition me from the stagnant perspective of oppositions to a continuum of
interwoven relationships required to generate a self-reflexive experience for viewers of both
“Zeugen” and the “Mind Mirror”. Understanding my reflection in terms of a dynamic event can
allow me to recognize the uncanny feeling I experience during the reflection sensation.
I am continuously becoming the image of myself when I look in the mirror. The changes that
occur are reflected back to me in real time. The mirror not only shows the minute changes in
my appearance as I comb my hair, but the dynamic perception of my ‘self-image’ that is
18

changing in my mind throughout my entire life. What distinguishes a representation from a
reflection? A reflection is distinct because it happens in real time and changes as I do. The
dynamic principle of ‘reflection’ in a mirror is contrasted with a static ‘representation’ as found
in a photograph. A portrait (photograph) is a representation of the self, but it is trapped in a
single moment of time. The photograph does not update to unfold the experience of
simultaneously perceiving and being perceived. A photographic representation is locked in a
reflected moment in the past from the moment it is captured. However, I may still contemplate
my ‘self’ by viewing a photograph. The difference is that I cannot achieve the heightened state
of dynamic self-awareness that a mirror offers as both the physical and mental image of my
‘self’ unfolds. My work uses interactivity to dynamically engage the viewer and build immersive
experiences that change to adapt to the viewer’s actions in order to maintain a reflexive
experience. “Zeugen” literally moves with the viewer, watching and tracking the viewer’s
movements. In both “Zeugen” and “Mind Mirror”, each viewing experience is completely
customized to the viewer. “Mind Mirror” virtually shifts towards the viewer’s visual
interpretation as a natural result of the hallucinatory event. In this regard, the “Mind Mirror” is
an interactive, autodidactic synesthesia ‘event’.
Commonplace mirrors seem to force me into the reality of my physical reflection. I can
contemplate my very existence by referencing the ‘other’ person in the mirror. In a mirror, my
perception is contained by the image of my physical body. Because it is hard to completely
identify with the sensation of simultaneity in the reflection, I tend to ignore or deny this ‘other’
sensation. This ultimately results in my inability to realize my full ‘hyper-conscious’ perceptive
potential. Therefore, the act of being reflected must involve new ways of thinking about my
state of self-reflexive awareness. It is quite obvious that the purpose of a mirror is indeed to
provide a reflection, but reducing my understanding of the ‘reflection sensation’ to the visual
image denies me the simultaneity of “that thinking feeling” (McMahon, 2001, p.3-8). “Mind
Mirror” forces a meeting with the self in a hypnotic-like visual field that lies somewhere
between what I see and what I think I see. The liminal space that results is a new space for such
a self-reflexive event.
The commonplace mirror offers a physical reflection of the ‘virtual self,’ as represented by the
‘person in the mirror’. This interactive event of perceiving one’s ‘virtual self’ is analogous to
19

Murphie’s descriptions of virtual reality, in which there is “more complexity than a simple
relation between an object and subject” and “by virtue of its self-reflexivity, acts out its own
becoming” (Murphie, 2001, p.197). In this way, a mirror drives a state of self-awareness as a
mental mechanism where my mind can identify with the self as it continuously changes. My
artworks therefore have the power to reflect not only my physical appearance but my dynamic
conscious perception of that appearance simultaneously in a single, yet constantly changing,
conscious moment.

Awareness
Inherent in the ‘self’ is the desire to ‘Scito te ipsum’ (Latin, translated as “know thyself”). My
propensity for self-centered reflection can easily translate to an infatuation with the self.
Steven Z. Levine’s story of Monet’s journey “From Self-Infatuation to Self-Reflection” (Levine,
1994, p.15-24) uncovers the motivation inherent in Monet’s art, but the art is of course a
reflection of the artist’s need and the need in all of us to know ourselves. The transformation
from the need to know to the knowing of the ‘self’ is facilitated by reflection. Thus, the need
for one to know oneself and the reflection of said self requires a transformation from a selfcentered view to a self-actualized perspective of the ‘self’. This moment of self-realization
requires that I step away from myself to look inward, and this moment can be thought of as a
transcendence of space and time.
The moment of self-reflection I am describing cannot be traditionally perceived as
representational but rather virtual and yet meaningful. It is not in the initial physical or
subsequent mental reflection, but in “the secondary reflective relation” that “introduces a
certain separation or transcendence within the self, and finally permits the range of selfconsciousness” (Brockelman, 1985, p.83). When I look in a mirror, my reflection is in fact
occurring, but I am not in the mirror, nor am I the object being reflected in the mirror. Rather, I
am somewhere in between or even outside of these two spaces in a ‘virtual space’ of selfreflection. This self-awareness experience can therefore be described as circling around the
sensation of feeling my ‘self’ in the moment. This sensation is analogous to, but not exactly the
same as, a virtual reality representation of myself. Murphie describes the Deleuzian
20

‘integrality’ as allowing “for a notion of perception based upon difference and change rather
than upon identity and stasis” (Murphie, 2001, p.197). Perception of the ‘self’ without
stagnation (caused by traditionally-held relationships of equal opposites) is achieved by the
dynamic relationship between the reflected and the reflection in a mirror (Foucault, 1967). By
reflecting one thought (utopia) with another (heterotopia), he is able to provide a looped
window of access into understanding the ‘other’ (heterotopias). In the same way, if I reflect on
the accessible physical reflection of myself, I may gain access through the metaphor of a mirror
to my less understood mental ‘self’ in such a way as to open a window into the current moment
of my consciousness that happens somewhere in between ‘here’ and ‘there’. This is further
explored with the “Mind Mirror”, which instead of reflecting light is actually capable of
reflecting consciousness.
Analogous to the sensation of self-reflection and the metaphor of reflection in a glass mirror
are the requirements for ‘reflections’ of consciousness that I have built into my “Mind Mirror.” I
suspect that, just as with glass mirrors, a heightened state of awareness enhancing the thinking
experience is manifested. Part of the problem of expanding my self-awareness apparatus is that
I am used to grounding my perceptive experience in traditional linear reasoning. However,
“when the ground rises to the surface, the human face decomposes in this mirror in which both
determinations and the indeterminate combine in a single determination which ‘makes’ the
difference” (Deleuze, 1994, p.28). Achieving awareness of the thinking sensation described by
Melissa McMahon as “waiting for the movement to stop and reflect itself back to itself”
(McMahon, 2001, p.3-8) requires that the present conscious experience is overturned, thereby
impressing upon the mind a state of transmutation.
To understand how my thoughts work and to perceive my thinking experience I find myself
outside of myself looking in. Building and engaging with “Zeugen” and the “Mind Mirror” has
allowed me to come closer to understanding my conscious experience and achieving another
layer of awareness through ‘hyper-conscious’ reflexivity.

21

Creative Journey
The following section will situate my thesis artwork within a historical discourse and
contextualize my work within the new media art lineage. First, I will describe the historical
context of the works and then share my creative process of art practice, beginning with
“Zeugen”.

Zeugen: Historical Context and Contributions
Marcel Duchamp’s “Rotary Demisphere (Precision Optics)” (1925) was “an early example of
‘interactive art’ […] the viewer becomes an active participant in the art ... required to turn on
the optical machine and stand one meter away” (Rush, 1999, p.224). I do not fully agree with
this definition of interactive art, which simply requires participation. Instead, I feel that
interaction and interactivity are a result of a reciprocity of actions. My view is best illustrated by
a simple example: a ping-pong game. If I simply respond to the ping-pong ball by returning it to
the other side of the net, then I am not acting so much as I am reacting to the physical
principles of the game. If, however, I place a spin on the ball so as to thwart my opponent’s
attempt at volleying the ball back to me, then I am engaging in interactive game play.
Therefore, interactivity requires a cycle of action whereby both (or all) participants actively
contribute as opposed to merely respond to the experience. Artists now use microcontrollers
and sensors when building interactive electronic projects. These technological advances allow
new media artists to receive inputs, calculate processes, and control outputs (all of the basic
components required for interactivity). The resulting interactive artworks use the principles of
electricity that Duchamp experimented with, with an added layer of interaction.

Daniel Rozin's “Wooden Mirror” (Rozin, 1999) is a creative electronic artwork that explores the
mind and reflexivity. The “Wooden Mirror” (Rozin, 1999) is made up of small wood chip ‘pixels’
and reflects light in such a way as to display a ‘wooden mirror’ image of the observer. Just like a
glass mirror, the ‘wooden mirror’ changes with the viewers’ movements, but reflects a pixilated
image. In order to successfully reflect a recognizable form that also induces ‘super-conscious’
22

‘hyper-real’ self-recognition, it is critical to include the critical elements required to generate
this reflection at a high enough ‘resolution’. There are many similarities between “Zeugen” and
the “Wooden Mirror” (Rozin, 1999). Both works capture video surveillance images and process
video image data, then transmit the data to display an interactive servo-controlled visual
experience. However, “Zeugen” reflects both the literal image of the viewer and presents
artificial ‘observers’ that, when taken together, create the necessary layers of simultaneity
required for the reflexive experience.

Like “Zeugen”, David Rokeby’s “Watch” (Rokeby, 1995) also uses surveillance technology.
However, he establishes a dialogue surrounding the power and domination-driven viewing
practice of surveillance. The work consists of a surveillance camera filming the exterior public
space of the Holly Solomon Gallery in New York City. It shows the video feed on a display inside
of the privileged space of the art gallery. The work is more of a reflection (contemplation or
consideration) of surveillance rather than a reflexive moment replicating ‘the sense of being
stared at’ or representing seeing and being seen. The audience is not aware that they or others
are being surveiled until after the fact, and do not directly interact with the work in real time.
“Watch” was intended by Rokeby to become an “artificial perception system” using surveillance
technology. However, and quite obviously, the ‘loaded’ implications of the work make the
discourse of power politics and surveillance unavoidable. Surveillance technology is the vehicle
for a strictly power-driven observation as it is unidirectional and in many cases completely
clandestine and subversive. In surveillance technology, “an arms race between agents
supporting and opposing unobservable surveillance techniques has been unfolding for at least
two decades.” (Parsons, 2009) It is within this race that Rokeby makes critical works of art
assessing the vehicle and implications of unidirectional surveillance. In contrast, the viewers of
“Zeugen” can see and be seen by the work, but the work is always in plain view. There is no
element of clandestine observation; viewers on both the tech side and the face side of the work
can always see each other and the technology that drives the work is open to examination.

“Watched and Measured” (Rokeby, 2000) is a commission for The Science Museum in London,
England. “Watched and Measured” (Rokeby, 2000) is a direct example of invasive video
23

surveillance systems as the system identifies human presence and draws an outline around the
heads of people walking into the Wellcome wing of the museum. Whereas Rokeby’s “Watch”
(Rokeby, 1995) began a critical discourse of surveillance, “Watched and Measured” (Rokeby,
2000) expanded the discourse and drew closer to the ‘sense of being stared at’ by directly
demonstrating the capacity for machine vision to identify humans in video footage. “Watched
and Measured” (Rokeby, 2000) does not generate a completely embodied and self-reflexive
moment of awareness to elicit the ‘sense of being stared at’. The viewer is only made aware of
the fact that they were under surveillance after the fact and not in a single, personalized
reflexive moment. That is to say, Rokeby’s work deals more directly with surveillance than
reflexivity.

Marie Sester’s “Access” (Sester, 2006) is an interactive new media artwork that was installed at
the ZKM Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, Germany late in 2006. The artwork allows
online users to “track anonymous individuals in public places, by pursuing them with a robotic
spotlight” (Sester, 2006). Sester’s project uses a spotlight to evoke thoughts of prison camps
and detention facilities. The audience of the gallery is put under the careful watch of people
using the artwork online in remote locations. Questions of remote control and the distant
observer are contained in a raw and visceral event (that is, in real-time). The artwork is
controlled by people, but mediated by technology. The ‘observer’ is not directly looking at the
subject in the gallery space and so the sensation of ‘being seen’ is muted by technological
mediation and the unpredictability of the online human observer. During studies of the
sensation of being stared at “most people … being stared at say they have turned around and
looked straight at the person staring at them.” (Sheldrake, 2005, p.10-31) In the case of Sester’s
“Access,” viewers cannot face the ‘observer’ because they would be looking into a blindingly
bright light on the ceiling. Once again, a power dynamic is in place, disrupting the pure and
embodied experience of ‘being stared at.’ Instead, the works of both Sester and Rokeby focus
my attention predominantly on surveillance. However, “Access” does provide me with another
key element that is essential to replicating ‘the sense of being stared at’: real-time tactile
interaction.

24

Golan Levin’s “Eyecode” (Levin, 2007) is another new media investigation of seeing and being
seen. “Eyecode” (Levin, 2007) “is an interactive installation whose display is wholly constructed
from its own history of being viewed. By means of a hidden camera, the system records and
replays brief video clips of its viewers' eyes. … The unnerving result is a typographic tapestry of
recursive observation.” (Levin, 2007) Levin uses a matrix of eyes and adds the essential element
of interactivity. One difference between “Zeugen” and “Eyecode” (Levin, 2007) is that “Zeugen”
uses physical objects and “Eyecode” (Levin, 2007) mediates the visual experience by presenting
the eyes on a computer monitor. Another difference is that the eyes in “Zeugen” track the
movements of the viewer, whereas the eyes in “Eyecode” (Levin, 2007) replay the movements
of the viewers’ eyes. Both works are interactive new media explorations into the gestures of
the gaze and both works explore sensations of sight.

Levin expands his exploration to include ‘being seen’ with the work “Opto-isolator” (Levin &
Baltus, 2007). The “Opto-isolator” (Levin & Baltus, 2007) “presents a solitary mechatronic
blinking eye, at human scale, which responds to the gaze of visitors with a variety of
psychosocial eye-contact behaviors” (Levin & Baltus, 2007). This work exhibits most of the
parameters that I have discussed for replicating ‘the sense of being stared at’. The “Optoisolator” has an eye and interactively tracks the motions of a viewer. However, this work lacks
two key elements that I feel are necessary for a completely immersive and self-reflexive
sensation of ‘being seen’. First, the work does not have a sufficient anthropomorphic signifier
(other than the eye) to indicate the signified ‘other’ (person). The eye is installed in a black box
and not a recognizable face. Second, there is only one eye, meaning that the dominant
‘observer’ in this ‘visual exchange’ is the viewer in the gallery space as they are equipped with
two eyes. The eye could belong to an animal but if that were the case, the animal would be one
that is mythical because “there are no animal species with just one eye.” (McDonnell, 2009, p.4)
“Zeugen” overcomes these challenges by installing the eyes in a very large grid of human cast
faces.

“Zeugen” is a contribution to new media movements in expressing experiences of seeing and
being seen. “Zeugen” contributs to both the visual arts arena and new media technology
developments. I have shown “Zeugen” at the Emily Carr University of Art + Design Concourse
25

Gallery. I have also shown the work at the Surrey Art Gallery opening for “Interactive Futures
09: Stereo” Conference (a conference directed by Maria Lantin and Julie Andreyev). Recently, I
have also been invited to submit “Zeugen” and participate in the internationally recognized Prix
Ars Electronica competition (2010) under the interactive art category.

Zeugen: Creative process (methodology)
Nikola Tesla is a source of tremendous inspiration for me. He writes: “When I get an idea I start
at once building it up in my imagination. I change the construction, make improvements and
operate the device in my mind.” (Tesla, 2007, p.19) Tesla’s creative process is analogous to my
own methodology of making, though, unlike Tesla, I cannot “rapidly develop and perfect a
conception without touching anything”. (Tesla, 2007, p.19) I don’t take extensive notes, build
scale maquettes or make sketches when planning my work. I simply ponder over the ideas one
at a time, formulating the total picture conception of my work. I then build the individual
components one at a time. Of course, I encounter many problems once I begin building, such as
availability or physical limitations of materials, damaged or poorly manufactured parts, lack of
time, and financial constraints. Nevertheless, I establish a sort of confidence to proceed by fully
forming certain ideas in my mind, leaving other parts of the plan open to variation once I begin
the process of building. This section deals with the trials and challenges encountered in the
development of “Zeugen”: it is a record of my creative journey. I will not be sharing all of the
details of my experimentation, which are well beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, I will
focus on the anthropomorphic, interactive and technical elements that I was most concerned
with when making “Zeugen”.

I began with running a singular eye experiment in order to test my theory of using a spring as a
universal joint. The experiment worked, and I simulated an event where the eye tracked my
movements. However, a singular eye does not offer the anthropomorphic qualities I was
seeking (for reasons previously discussed). I then began mounting the eyes in pairs to simulate
the movement of a pair of eyes. At this point, I was already convinced that the eyes would have
to be placed in a face. Before I cast all thirty-two faces, I experimented with a wide range of
casting materials including silicon rubber, fiberglass, latex, and mold-making styrofoam. I was
26

most concerned with casting the faces in such a way as to maintain human elements, but
somehow minimize stereotypically-ascribed identifiers of race, gender, and age.

Figure 3: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2009 (process image:
single eye test)

Figure 4: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2009 (process image:
two robotic eyes test)

Figure 5: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2009 (process image:
materials tests)

The face casting process was quite challenging. My first consideration was examining the
individual facial features. In particular, what facial features (other than the eyes) are important
to anthropomorphosis of the face, yet do not require interactions? There are expectations of
the mouth to speak or make facial gestures such as smiling. There are less, yet existing,
expectations of the ears to listen. Because of these expectations, I omitted the ears and the
mouth from the face casts. The nose, however, seems to evoke the least amount of expectation
for interaction in the viewer. The nose is also the visual feature linking the eyes together, as it
rests perfectly between them. Taken together, the eyes and nose are a powerful
anthropomorphic visual.

The face-casting process involved several steps. The first step was finding and casting many
volunteer models. I built a special face-casting contraption that acted like a mask and could
easily be used repeatedly. I used an alginate and water mold-making solution that is suited for
body casting; this material maintains a high degree of detail and is hypo-allergenic. It should be
noted that the working time of alginate is relatively short because the mold becomes dry.
There is a narrow window of about an hour to obtain the plaster master-mold once the alginate
casts is poured. A considerable amount of fine crafting of the molds was also necessary.

27

Figure 6: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process
image: face casting mask)

Figure 7: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process
image: alginate body casting)

Figure 8: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process
image: plaster mold rough)

Figure 9: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process
image: plaster mold refining)

Next, I sealed the plaster master-mold with a thin coat of finish to protect the surface detail and
prevent chipping of the plaster surface. The master-molds were then ready for vacuum casting.
I used polyethylene sheets as the vacuum casting material in order to produce a ‘backup’
negative of the mold. An interesting limitation of the material that I found was that I could not
vacuum cast more than a few faces in a row before the actual plaster positive would heat up.
Because I had to cast nearly a hundred vacuum forms in order to get the best possible result,
this problem became a serious time consideration. As “Zeugen” evolved, I began using
polystyrene materials in order to get a stronger surface and visual feel to the work.
Conveniently, polystyrene melts under considerably lower temperatures and this reduced the
heat problems enough that the expansion, melting and miscasting effects became negligible.

28

Figure 10: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009
(process image: sealing plaster mold)

Figure 11: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009
(process image: vacuum forming)

The thin vacuum formed faceplates were remarkable. Very minute skin details were visible by
shining a light behind the polyethylene faceplate. With light shining at the front of the face
plate, the result was a milky, shiny surface.

Figure 12: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009
(process image: polyethylene detail)

Figure 13: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009
(process image: polyethylene detail)

I knew there had to be more than one face or the identity of the singular face would become a
central theme of the work. The question was: how many faces? I suspected that two faces
would focus the critical discourse around the work to the specific relationship between the two
faces. In my mind’s eye, I could see the work as occupying my whole mind when I thought
about it. I therefore decided to cast as many faces as required to occupy most of my visual
plane. Now, when I stand at the appropriate distance from the work looking straight at it, my
whole visual field is filled with glowing faces looking back at me. I also began using tri-colour
(red, green, and blue) frequency-modulated light emitting diodes (RGB LED) to experiment with
lighting effects.
29

Figure 14: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2009 (process image:
RGB LED test)

Figure 15: Rauscher, “Zeugen”,
2009 (process image: face lighting
test)

Figure 16: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2009 (process image:
grid of faces)

The faces were installed into a four by eight grid. I used a computer numerically controlled
(CNC) milling router to cut the frame, with the assistance of the CNC technician Steven Hall. The
highly polished and perfectly cut acrylic surfaces and plywood sub-frame resulted from the use
of the CNC machine. I was also able to save time during the construction phase relative to
constructing the frame ‘by hand’.

Figure 17: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009
(process image: CNC machining detail)

Figure 18: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process
image: CNC machining detail)

The frame was designed so that the planks could be assembled into a grid using interlocking
joints. In early versions, the wooden frame and acrylic face plate were white. Later, I decided to
maintain the natural color of the plywood and a black acrylic face plate for aesthetic reasons.

30

Figure 19: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009
(process image: frame construction)

Figure 20: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009
(process image: frame detailing)

After assembling and finishing the sub-frame and acrylic surfaces, as well as casting and forming
all of the face plates, I began to research methods of face-recognition and tracking. I found a
desktop webcam that could track human faces. My idea was to use the webcam and hardware
to physically control my own custom hardware, and therefore move the servos that control the
movements of the eyes. This approach had several limitations. First, with a standard desktop
face tracking webcam, it is only possible to track one face. Second, the hardware found in
almost all devices is ‘closed-box,’ meaning that it cannot be custom-programmed. Thus, it is not
possible to program ‘personality’-based robotic eye gestures or movements with these
systems.

Figure 21: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process image: motion-tracking desk top webcam)

31

Despite hardware limitations, I pushed forward to complete the first version of “Zeugen.” I
wanted to identify any other limitations that would require reworking. In order to control the
thirty-two faces in the first version of “Zeugen,” I had to find a way to control six servos per
face. There were two servos controlling the upwards and downwards movements of the eyes,
two servos controlling the left to right movements of the eyes, and two servos controlling the
eye lids. I also needed to control four RGB LED’s per face. I was familiar with microcontrollers
such as Arduino, but I was also aware that my project requirements extended well beyond the
power of an Arduino microcontroller. At the time, the most powerful Arduino microcontroller
could only control fifty-four output devices, while I needed to control a total of three hundred
and twenty devices. In order to develop the project, I collaborated with electrical engineer
Randy Glenn to design a new microcontroller called Displayduino (see Appendix 1 for details).
An extensive amount of computer software and hardware programming was encountered as I
made my first attempt to build thirty-two motion tracking human cast faces.

Figure 22: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process
image: original custom electronics)

Figure 23: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (process
image: programming custom electronics)

I showed the first version of “Zeugen” at “Not That Grad Show” in the Concourse Gallery at
Emily Carr University of Art + Design in 2009. I was disappointed with the results for two
reasons. First, many of the servos controlling the work failed the night before the show. They
simply could not take the stress loads that were required to move the eyes. Second, the motion
tracking system was not fully operational and relied on a single webcam.

32

Figure 24: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (at ECU
‘Not that grad show’)

Figure 25: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (at ECU
‘Not that grad show’)

To address these limitations, I went back to the drawing board. I began by redesigning the
mechanical contraption that controlled the movements of the eyes. In the first version I used a
universal spring joint. I decided to design a new system utilizing the mechanical tools of LEGO®.
I was able to dramatically reduce the amount of servos required for each face from six to three
and I was able to reduce the torque required to move the servos by around ninety percent.

Figure 26: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO®
adaptations)

Figure 27: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO®
adaptations)

Figure 28: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO®
adaptations)

33

Figure 29: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (LEGO® adaptations)

At “Not that grad show”, I noticed that viewers were trying to see the mechatronic elements on
the reverse side of the work. This observation led me to redesign the work such that it could be
viewed from both sides. The idea of technological transparency became central to my work: it is
important for me to share with my viewers both a visual experience and the technology that
makes the experience possible.

Figure 30: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics)

Figure 31: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics
detail)

Figure 32: Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics
detail)

34

Figure 33: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new robotics from tech side of work – detail)

I programmed my own face recognition and face tracking software to eliminate the limitations
inherent in a single face tracking webcam. In order to accomplish this, I had to learn how to
program in C++ to take advantage of the Open Frameworks open source libraries.

Figure 34: : Morgan Rauscher,
“Zeugen”, 2010 (face tracking
program)

Figure 35: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (face tracking program in
operation on “Zeugen”)

35

Figure 36: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (descriptive collage of the functions of “Zeugen”)

Figure 37: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new
faces detail)

Figure 38: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2010 (new
faces detail)

As a testament to the success of my vision of the work and the form it took, I showed the
second version of “Zeugen” at “E-Mixer” in the Surrey Art Gallery (Interactive Futures ’09). The
work was well-received by the international attendees of the conference.

Figure 39: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (‘EMixer’, Surrey Art Gallery *Interactive Futures ’09+,
Surrey BC)

Figure 40: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (‘EMixer’, Surrey Art Gallery *Interactive Futures ’09+,
Surrey BC)

36

Figure 41: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (‘E-Mixer’, Surrey Art Gallery *Interactive Futures ’09+, Surrey BC)

Mind Mirror: Historical Context and Contributions
There have been several artists and artistic movements that have played with visual illusions
and effects. I will briefly mention a few artists that have made works with similarities to “Mind
Mirror”. Each example I provide will include a work of art that explores visual phenomena
related to my own interest.

Bridget Riley is well known for her work in Op Art. Her work “Cataract 3” (PVA on canvas) (Riley,
1967) causes a quasi-hallucinatory experience. The viewer is propelled into a state of illusion in
which the wave forms in the work not only take on a three-dimensional appearance, but also
appear to be oscillating. “Cataract 3” (Riley, 1967) utilizes optical phenomena that engage the
viewer in a hyper-conscious moment. “Mind Mirror” is analogous to many of the Op Art works
in that it generates a visual effect that can only be explained in terms of an ‘event’ of the mind.
37

It forces a separation between the brain and mind and it locks my vision in a ‘hyper-real’
conscious moment.

Tony Conrad, an early figure of the structural and experimental film movements, made the film
“The Flicker” (Conrad, 1965). This film consists of a flickering white screen. A stroboscopic visual
effect occurs at irregular intervals. Each viewer sees the film as generated by their mind’s eye in
a unique visual experience. However, the flickers of light in the film are not controlled. That is
to say, they are not designed to achieve a specific oscillation rate and subsequent brain wave
spectrum. Just as with “The Flicker” (Conrad, 1965), “Mind Mirror” induces stroboscopic effects.
However, “Mind Mirror” is unique in that it is a controlled device, producing photic stimulation
of alpha brain waves, thereby producing visual illusions in the mind of the viewer.

Brion Gysin was the first artist to use stroboscopic stimulation in a work of art. Together with
technician Ian Sommerville, he created the “Dreammachine” (Gysin, 1961). The machine works
best when the viewer has their eyes closed and faces the “Dreammachine” (Gysin, 1961). A
fantastical array of hallucinatory events, including narratives, were reported by the many
viewers of the work. Gysin advertised the “Dreammachine” (Gysin, 1961) as a ‘drugless high’
and suggested that it could one day replace the television. The “Mind Mirror” also produces
visual delights, but my attempt at achieving a state of ‘hyper-real’ conscious reflexivity differs
from Gysin’s attempt at achieving a drugless high, which he claimed allowed the mind to
traverse space-time.

Another contemporary artist, Kurt Hentschlager, developed the work “FEED” (Hentschlager,
2005-06). “FEED” utilizes fog and pulse lighting to immerse a group of viewers in an experience
of visual disruption. The pulsating lights cause a similar visual effect as that of Gysin’s
“Dreammachine”. Rather than being generated by an artifact, Hentschlager’s “FEED” is a more
encompassing, embodied experience. The viewer is disoriented because they are unable to
distinguish the physical space of the gallery. However, Hentschlager does not use a stereoscopic
technique, as the entire room and the fog within are illuminated at once with each flash of
light. The “Dreammachine” and my “Mind Mirror” both use stroboscopic visual effects to
stimulate the left and right eyes independent of each other. This technique allows for the
38

activation of particular brain wave frequencies, as demonstrated in the scientific research of
Robert Baldwin.

Robert Baldwin took an academically-grounded approach exploring the stroboscopic photicstimulation of the brain. (R. Baldwin, 1972, p.147-149) He outlined the schematics for a device
entitled “Kinetic Light #1”, including circuit diagrams and correlating electroencephalographic
data. He was able to document many effects of the stroboscopic lights on the mind of his
participants. Due in part to Baldwin’s research is our current understanding of the specific
mental states that correlate with the brain wave patterns.

I personally became very interested in sound and light machines when I discovered a “do-ityourself” brain machine kit on the Make magazine website. Mitch Altman gives a tutorial about
how to make your own sound and light machine using a mini-POV circuit. (Altman, 2007, p.88100) My contribution to sound and light machine development is an augmented experience
sound and light machine. The viewer is able to see both the visual dreamscape generated by
photic-stimulations and at the same time is able to see the space around them. The lights do
not obstruct the viewer’s vision as with traditionally designed sound and light machines.
Therefore, the visual hallucination becomes an augmented hallucinatory visual experience.

Figure 42: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010 (in operation)

39

Mind Mirror: Creative process (methodology)
My first experience with sound and light machines was when I built the “do-it-yourself” kit that
I purchased online. The kit consists of a handful of LEDs and a mini-POV (persistence of vision)
microcontroller. I built the kit, which involves positioning one LED in front of each eye. The
oscillation differential between the flickering LEDs generates the necessary stroboscopic visual
effect. The mini-POV microcontroller also hooks up to a pair of headphones to generate
stereoscopic sound. The pulsations of sound oscillate at the same frequency differential as the
LED lights.

Figure 43: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind
Mirror”, 2010 (process image: MiniPOV circuit assembly)

Figure 44: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind
Mirror”, 2010 (process image: MiniPOV hardware programming)

Figure 45: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind
Mirror”, 2010 (process image: MiniPOV glasses project testing)

My first adaptation to the “do-it-yourself” sound and light machine was to install the LEDs in
translucent frames. As a result, I could experience the photic-stimulations with my eyes open. I
had developed a vehicle for augmented visual stroboscopic hallucinations.

Figure 46: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind
Mirror”, 2010 (process image:
“Mind Mirror” assembly)

Figure 47: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind
Mirror”, 2010 (process image:
circuit building)

Figure 48: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind
Mirror”, 2010 (process image:
testing)

40

Figure 49: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Glasses”, 2010 (at the Café for Contemporary Art in North Vancouver, BC,
during ‘Live Common Ground’)

I then showed “Mind Mirror” at both the Café for Contemporary Art in North Vancouver and
the Concourse Gallery at ECU. I learned from the viewers of “Mind Mirror” that the device was
cumbersome. There was also a problem in the size of the glasses. In order to accommodate the
broadest possible spectrum of users, and allow for variation in the experience, I re-designed the
“Mind Mirror” to have flexible wire extensions outfitted with LED lights.

41

Figure 50: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”,
2010

Figure 51: Morgan Rauscher, “Mind Mirror”, 2010

42

Conclusions
I have learned a great deal on this creative journey towards understanding vision. I have
learned that there are many more questions than answers and that the sensations of sight have
enormous potential in new media visual art practice. Seeing is not a linear, mechanical event
with a well-defined beginning at the eyes and the complete meaning of what I see somewhere
in my brain. Seeing and being seen are part of the same continuous and flowing experience.

I have learned that seeing and being seen reach a junction at reflexivity. I have also learned that
the eyes are merely a gateway to sensations of the mind. Using perceptual prosthetics such as
“Zeugen” and “Mind Mirror”, I have learned about myself in a way that cannot be easily
described.

I now understand that by using stereoscopic and stroboscopic audiovisual media, an undefined
event unfolds in the mind. However, I envision a time when we are able to understand these
relationships from a more detailed perspective allowing me to have more control over the
visual sensation. I foresee a time when we can transmit information from mind to mind, not in
the form of text or images, or even ideas, but in pure, unadulterated sensation.

43

Bibliography / References Cited
Altman, M. (2007). Sound & Light Machine Firmware Documentation. MAKE Magazine, 10, 88-100.
Arduino. (2009). from http://www.arduino.cc/
Ashley, D. (2008). Las Meninas. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from
http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Ashleywy/las_meninas.htm
Baldwin, R. (1972). Kinetic Art: On Producing Illusions by Photic-Stimulation of Alpha Brain Waves with
Flashing Lights. Leonardo (Pergamon Press), 5(2), 147-149.
Baldwin, R. (1972). On Producing Illusions by Photic-Stimulation of Alpha Brain Waves with Flashing
Lights. Leonardo, 5(2), 147-149.
Boahen, K. (Writer) (2008). Making a computer that works like the brain. In TEDTalks (Producer), TED.
USA: TED.
Brockelman, P. (1985). Time and Self: Phenomenological Explorations. New York: The Crossroad
Publishing Company.
Burnett, R. (2004). How Images Think. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Burnett, R. (2008-2009). Dr. Ron Burnett in Thesis Meetings with Morgan Rauscher. Vancouver Morgan
Rauscher.
Cohen, I. S. a. J. (1997). Fragments or Reality: The evolution of the curious mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Conrad, T. (Writer) (1965). The Flicker. United States.
Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and Repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Feibleman, J. K. (1958). Inside the Great Mirror. The Hague (Netherlands): Martinus Nijhoff.
Foucault, M. (1967). Des Espace Autres. France.
Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage
Books.
Freud, S. (2005). The Unconscious (G. Frankland, Trans. 106 ed.). London: Penguin Books.
Gasche, R. (1986). The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection. Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
Gysin, B. (Artist). (1961). Dreammachine
Hentschlager, K. (Artist). (2005-06). FEED
Hine, E. M. a. R. (Ed.) (2008) A Dictionary of Biology (6 ed., Vols. Oxford Reference Online). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Levin, G., & Baltus, G. (Artist). (2007). Opto-Isolator
Levine, S. Z. (1994). From Self-Infatuation to Self-Reflection. In Monet, Narcissus, and Self-Reflection (pp.
15-24). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Magritte, R. (Artist). (1928–1929). La trahison des images (The Treachery of Images)
Murphie, A. (2001). Putting the Virtual Back into VR In B. Massumi (Ed.), A Shock to Thought: Expressions
After Deleuze and Guattari (pp. 197). London: Routledge.
Parsons, C. (2009). Code-Bodies and Algorithmic Voyeurism. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from
http://www.christopherparsons.com/Academic/Code_Bodies_and_Algorithmic_Voyeurism(for_web).pdf
Ragland-Sullivan, E. (1986). Jacques Lacan and the philosophy of psychoanalysis. Kent: Croom Helm Ltd.
Rescher, N. (2005). Cognitive Harmony: The role of systemic harmony in the constitution of knowledge.
Pittsburgh The University of Pittsburgh Press.
Riley, B. (Artist). (1967). Cataract 3 [PVA on canvas].
Rokeby, D. (Artist). (1995). Watch
Rokeby, D. (Artist). (2000). Watched and Measured
44

Rose, D. (2006). Consciousness: Philosophical, Psychological and Neural Theories. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rozin, D. (Artist). (1999). The Wooden Mirror
Rush, M. (1999). New Media in Late 20th Century Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
Sester, M. (Artist). (2006). Access
Sheldrake, R. (2003). The Sense of Being Stared At: and Other Aspects of the Extended Mind. New York,
NY: Crown Publishers.
Sheldrake, R. (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At - Part 1: Is it Real or Illusory? . Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 12(6), 10-31.
Tesla, N. (2007). My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla: Cosimo, Inc.
Turim, M. (1980). The Place of Visual Illutions. In T. d. L. a. S. Heath (Ed.), The Cinematic Apparatus (pp.
143). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Velazquez, D. (Artist). (1656). Las Meninas
Werness, H. B. (1999). The Symbolism of Mirrors In Art From Ancient Times To The Present. Lewiston Queenston - Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Whiten, T. (1941). Tim Whiten: messages from the light. Toronto: The Koffler Gallery.
Yellott, J. (2004). Jack Yellott's Dates: Visual Science Before 1600. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from
http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/vision/yellott_1600.html

45

Appendix 1: MondoMatrix

Figure 52: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (front
side of custom electronics PCB)

Figure 53: Morgan Rauscher, “Zeugen”, 2009 (back
side of custom electronics PCB)

Creative electronics are an essential tool for interactivity in the contemporary arts. They allow
artists to use inputs (sensors, switches, etc.) and outputs (lights, motors, etc.) to make art that
moves, illuminates, and interacts. The combination of creative electronics and computers
makes advanced interactive art projects possible. A wide range of artists and designers use
interactive electronics to develop wearable computing, creative displays, and immersive media
installations. However, there are limitations in available creative electronics hardware that
restrict the potential of the available software. The bottleneck in the creative electronics
industry is currently due to hardware limitations. New interactive electronic artists and artwork
are constantly emerging and new tools must be developed to support the sustained growth of
the creative electronics community.

One of the most popular microcontroller and programming environments for artists is Arduino.
“Arduino is an open-source electronics prototyping platform based on flexible, easy-to-use
hardware and software. It's intended for artists, designers, hobbyists, and anyone interested in
creating interactive objects or environments” (Arduino, 2009). Arduino is widely adopted by
creative electronics artists. It can also be interfaced with a computer for even more powerful

46

programming options. However, limitations in the Arduino hardware prevent Arduino projects
from reaching larger scales.

The main limitation of Arduino is that it can only control a small number of elements. The basic
Arduino board, the Duemilanove, can control fourteen digital input and output (I/O) pins and
six analog I/O pins. Arduino had already recognized these limitations and has been expanding
the Arduino hardware. For example, Arduino released the Arduino Mega with fifty-four digital
I/O pins and sixteen analog pins to provide more options for Arduino users. These Arduino
expansions were made possible by the increased capacity of the microcontroller (chip) that
Arduino uses. Even if the Atmel ATmega chips were to improve dramatically there would still be
an essential limitation in the number of possible I/O pins from the Arduino hardware device.
Thus, the Arduino cannot provide the scalability and control required to realize my designs.

With this problem in mind, in partnership with Randy Glenn (founder of Surreality Labs in
Toronto), I co-creatively developed a new microcontroller that radically expands the Arduino
platform. The project began in the summer of 2009, and the goal was to utilize the power and
flexibility of the Arduino Programming Language but expand the Arduino hardware platform.
The project was given the name ‘Displayduino’ to commemorate the project’s focus on
interactive ‘visual’ and installation art (also acknowledging Arduino with ‘duino’). The challenge
was to produce a microcontroller that can utilize the already popular Arduino but increase the
control that the Arduino hardware provides.

The Displayduino is available to the international community of electronic artists online under
the GPL Open Source license. A technical contributions blog, extensive information, and
community support website can be found at http://www.mondomatrix.com. In addition to
Displayduino, we have developed ‘daughter’ or ‘sub’ boards for controlling servo motors, LED
lights, and any other electronic device operating from 0 to 12 volts. These boards can be ‘daisy
chained’ or networked (via RS485). In pursuit of my own creative electronics projects and as an
extension to my thesis research, Displayduino is a tool that artists can use to develop similar
creative experiments.
47

Figure 54: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “Displayduino”, 2009

The Displayduino microcontroller connected to an array of expansion boards can control
thousands of LEDs, servos, and other electronics devices. The Displayduino project expands the
Arduino output capacity from under 100 connections to thousands. Additionally, because the
Displayduino technology is modular, individual projects can expand or only use the thirty-one
digital and seven analog I/Os pins that come standard on the Displayduino controller. If the
artist wants a larger project, they simply need to add more Displayduino expansion boards. The
most notable achievement of the Displayduino project is the power of modular expansion to
the current Arduino platform. This gives creative electronics artists the power to scale their
projects up or down using only one Displayduino microcontroller and the already popular
Arduino Programming Language.

Figure 55: Morgan Rauscher and Randy
Glenn, “Displayduinon”, 2009 (3D
rendering)

Figure 56: Morgan Rauscher
and Randy Glenn,
“ServoMatrix”, 2009 (3D
rendering)

Figure 57: Morgan Rauscher,
“Displayduinon”, 2009 (USB to RS485
3D test rendering)

48

A lengthy design process was encountered at various stages in the development of
Displayduino. Several virtual prototypes were generated to determine the feasibility and
functionality of the new controller. In addition to designing the Displayduino microcontroller,
three expansion boards were designed and built. Displayduino expansion boards use
information that is send over the RS485 network to facilitate modular project expansions. The
Displayduino expansion boards designed were ServoMatrix, LEDMatrix, and PowerMatrix.

Displayduino controllers and expansion boards also come with screw terminals allowing for the
re-use of the boards in several projects, thereby limiting soldering and facilitating rapid
prototyping applications.

Figure 58: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “ServoMatrix”, 2009

ServoMatrix is a Displayduino expansion board that can independently control sixty-four servos.
The servos and ServoMatrix are powered by two different sources, which allows for separate
power supplies to the board and to the servos. The benefits of this design approach are power
49

safety, component protection, and versatility. Each row of eight servos can be independently
powered. The result is that each ServoMatrix expansion board can have eight different types of
servos running at the same time. If a given project requires multiple ServoMatrix boards, the
Displayduino controller can manage up to 64 boards in a row. Therefore, one Displayduino
microcontroller can manage thousands of servos. Using multiple Displayduino controllers and
software array techniques, this number is only limited by the amount of electrical power that is
available. In contrast to the Displayduino hardware, using current Arduino hardware, only a
small number of servos can be safely operated.

Figure 59: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “LEDMatrix”, 2009

LEDMatrix is another Displayduino expansion board that was developed in the summer of 2009.
LEDMatrix can control sixty-four tri-color frequency modulated light emitting diodes (LEDs).
LEDMatrix controls red, green and blue (RGB) LEDs and can create full color effects and
displays. Just as with the ServoMatrix, LEDMatrix has separate power ports for the LEDs and
the LEDMatrix controller. This design element protects both the LEDMatrix board and the LEDs
50

from power surges and short circuits. Large full color pixels can be outputted from the
LEDMatrix to create scalable color displays and objects. The LEDMatrix was specifically designed
to assist artists and designers creating projects using full color LED effects.

Figure 60: Morgan Rauscher and Randy Glenn, “PowerMatrix”, 2009

The PowerMatrix was the third expansion board designed (2009). The board is capable of
controlling 32 ‘power ports’ that can deliver a range of voltage. The controller is able to control
any 32 electrical devices that use a range of 0 to 12 V of power. The PowerMatrix truly
embodies the goal of the Displayduino project because it expands the Arduino hardware
technology to electronic devices of all kinds (of a potentially unlimited number).

There is no question that Arduino is one the most successful creative electronics platforms
currently in use. In order to specifically cater to the art and design community and expand on
the success of Arduino, Displayduino was born. It is the long term goal of the Displayduino
51

project to continue to provide expandability to the Arduino platform and offer new avenues of
creative electronics exploration.

52