Call and Response - Fidelity

The fidelity between the drawing and coded input is one of the ways this instrument influences our collaboration. The drawing machine finds sneaky ways to influence the drawing process, and make it’s own decisions about the instructions coded to it. The result: a specified expectation, mixed in with unexpected transformations.

Lines are material, and the way I manipulate this material in code and how it is drawn by the Tiny-Z are just different ways of working with this same medium. Just like how sentence structure, grammar, and words change when translated between spoken languages, lines in code are translated to lines in graphite.

I was curious to find the limits and limitations of this translation. The instrument’s perception of space is dictated by many things, such as the thickness of the threads on each drive screw and the distance in millimeters that equals one rotation. The depth is determined by the layers that make up the drawing surface - a metal plate, a layer of felt to absorb the weight of the lead holder pressing down, and paper thick enough that the pressure of the lead won’t puncture through. Ultimately, it is the grip between the screws and the stepper motors that turn each axis that truly determine the system’s distance and relationships between coded coordinates.

A series of hatch tests, where the distance between lines is increased from 0.25mm to 1mm with a 0.3mm lead holder as the drawing tool.

The lines are most precise when drawn at an angle (moving along two axes at once), and tend to pair up together when the instrument moves in only the either x or y direction. This isn’t a mistake - it reveals the gap in fidelity between the coded input and the instrument’s interpretation, it means that the instrument made a decision and a judgement outside of my instructions.

Using the various hatch distances, I shaded the blinds on my bedroom window.