Frank Blum
Digital Interactive Installations
Programming interactive installations using the software package Max/MSP/Jitter
ISBN: 978-3-8366-0284-6
Druck Diplomica® Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, 2007
Zugl. Fachhochschule Köln, Köln, Deutschland, Diplomarbeit, 2006
Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,
insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von
Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der
Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,
bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung
dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen
der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich
vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des
Urheberrechtes.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in
diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,
dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei
zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.
Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können
Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden, und die Diplomarbeiten Agentur, die
Autoren oder Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine
Haftung für evtl. verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.
© Diplomica Verlag GmbH
http://www.diplom.de, Hamburg 2007
Printed in Germany
I want to give special thanks to:
Mr. Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Stefan M. Gr¨
unvogel
for his stimulating impulses and creative considerations,
as well as his constant affable motivation during this work;
The Dartington College of Arts
Thanks to the Dean of Information and Learning Christopher Pressler &
the Director of International Development Roger Sell
for making my research at the College possible.
Also many thanks to all other very helpful staff especially in the library,
and to the students for their creative advice,
as well as for practically supporting the work process;
David Cuartielles
for his kind invitation to take part in the Electrolobby
of this year's Ars Electronica Festival;
Carsten Kluth & Mirjam Bregenzer
for their cordial encouragement in my work,
as well as numerous valuable pieces of advice while going
through all ups and downs during the past four years;
Old and new friends, for being there,
as well as for their creative impulses and enthusiastic help
during the time researching and writing this thesis;
Andreas Witzel, Peter Altendorf, Carolina Ciuccio, Uta Baldauf, Doris Valtiner, Heather
Keir-Cross, Travis Kirton and many unnamed others;
My biggest thanks go to
my parents and my sister
without their kind support and affection
this work would not have been possible in this way.
Abstract
Title:
Digital Interactive Installations; Programming interactive installations using the
software package Max/MSP/Jitter
Author:
Frank Blum
Advisors:
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Stefan M. Gr¨
unvogel/Prof. Dr. Ing. Klaus Ruelberg
Abstract:
The present thesis describes the recent development of digital interactive in-
stallation art and the usage of the graphical programming environment
Max/MSP/Jitter. In the beginning, a brief overview of the present scientific dis-
course on the key issues interactivity and interface design are given. Furthermore,
it portrays exceptional examples of digital art within the past five years, focusing
on the main themes of digital installations and software art. This is followed by
a description of Max's main features and programming methods, its extensibil-
ity with control devices and micro controllers, as well as differences to important
alternative graphical programming environments.
The second part of this thesis documents the whole process of creating an inter-
active installation using Max/MSP and its graphics extension Jitter. This includes
a description of the creative concept, the different parts of the soft- and hardware
as well as some of their important key techniques. Finally, a summary of user
feedback and a personal reflection on the project is given.
Keywords:
Thesis, Programming, Max/MSP/Jitter, Interactivity, Interface, Digital Art.
Date:
2006-11-27 (Year-Month-Day)
Contents
Contents
List of Abbreviations
vii
1. Introduction
1
I.
Cyber Arts
4
2. Recent Development of Digital Interactive Art
5
2.1. Interactivity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
2.2. Interfaces
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.3. Categories of Interaction in Digital Art
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
2.4. Digital Interactive Art
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.4.1. Main Themes in Digital Interactive Art
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
3. Max/MSP/Jitter
18
3.1. Max History
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
3.2. Main Technical Aspects
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
3.2.1. Programming Concept
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
3.2.2. Max Objects
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
3.2.3. Messages
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
3.2.4. Programming Rules
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.2.5. Data Types
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.2.6. Programming JavaScript Externals
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.2.7. Programming Java Externals
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.2.8. Networking with OpenSound Control
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
3.2.9. Documentation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
3.3. Hardware Interfaces for Interactive Installations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
3.3.1. Special Use of conventional Devices
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
3.3.2. Hardware Interfaces for Transducers
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
3.4. Alternative Programming Concepts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
3.4.1. PD (Pure Data)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
v
Digital Interactive Installations
3.4.2. vvvv
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
3.4.3. Isadora
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
II.
Project Documentation
34
4. Project: Make a change
35
4.1. Project Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
4.2. Main Concept
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
4.2.1. Concept of the Software Development
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
4.2.2. Video Recorder
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
4.2.3. Main Patch
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
4.2.4. Sensing the Microphone
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
4.2.5. The Synalizer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
4.2.6. The Cellular Automaton
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
4.2.7. Automatical Recurring Movie Playback
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
4.2.8. Programming Style
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
4.2.9. Hardware Requirements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
4.3. Experiences
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
4.3.1. User Feedback
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
4.3.2. Personal Reflection
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
5. Conclusion and Future Work
55
A. Figures
c
A.1. Patches
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c
A.2. Sketches
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g
vi
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
List of Abbreviations
List of Abbreviations
3D
Three dimensional
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
API
Application programming interface
AR
Augmented Reality
BSD
Berkeley Software Distribution
CAN
Controller Area Network
CAVE
Cave Automatic Virtual Environment
CNMAT
Center for New Music and Audio Technologies
DIY
Do it yourself
DMX
Digital MultipleX (DMX512)
DV
Digital Video
e.g.
for example (exempli gratia)
FFT
Fast Fourier Transformation
GEM
Graphics Environment for Multimedia
GUI
Graphical User Interface
i.e.
it is (id est)
ibid.
in the same place (ibidem)
id.
the same (idem)
IDE
Integrated Development Environment
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IR
Infrared
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
vii
Digital Interactive Installations
JTAG
Joint Test Action Group
Motion JPEG
Motion Joint Photographic Experts Group
MSP
Max Signal Processing
OpenGL
Open Graphics Library
PD
Pure Data
PDA
Personal Digital Assistant
QuickTime
QuickTime is a multimedia framework devel-
oped by Apple Computer
RAM
Random Access Memory
RFID
Radio Frequency Identification
RS232
RETMA Standard 232
SDK
Software Development Kit
SVGA
Super Video Graphics Array
TCP
Transmission Control Protocol
UDP
User Datagram Protocol
USB
Universal Serial Bus
VDIG
Video Digitizer
VJ
Video Jockey
XGA
eXtended Graphics Array
ZKM
Zentrum f¨
ur Kunst und Medientechnologie Karl-
sruhe
viii
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
Chapter 1. Introduction
1
Introduction
The arts have always been influenced by new evolving technologies. A certain aes-
thetic turning point was brought about by the silent `algorithmic revolution' we have
not hardly noticed, as the curators of the Centre of Art and Media (ZKM) in Karlsruhe,
Germany, propose with their current exhibition. At present, barely any part of social
life is not influenced by these decision-making processes (algorithms) habitually exe-
cuted by our computer devices. The radical changes this revolution causes for all of us
are incalculable. However, we should not forget that algorithms, a well-defined set of
technical instructions with a finite number of rules designed to solve a specific problem,
have been incorporated as a creative instrument in the work of Albrecht D¨
urer and other
artists since the late middle ages. The strict application of algorithms in art ultimately
led to works explicitly integrating the recipient into the creative process, eventually
culminating in the new media arts. Today's art practices transform observers into users.
Emerging with the changing paradigm is a new type of creator of cultural artefacts.
This has been accompanied now for more than two decades by a fruitful collaborative
atmosphere between the formerly strictly separated traditions of art and science. More
often than not artists like such as the pioneers Christa Sommerer, Laurent Mignonneau,
and Jeffrey Shaw are at the same time scientific researchers found in institutional labo-
ratories as heads of larger teams which include programmers, engineers and scientists of
various different disciplines. They develop new hard- and software technologies them-
selves. All in all this development places not only an inestimable number of creative
tools in the hands of the artist, but a highly dynamic and hybrid field that forms new
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
1
Digital Interactive Installations
areas like telepresence art, biocybernetic art, robotics, Net art, space art, experiments
in nanotechnology, artificial or A-life art, creating virtual agents and avatars, datamin-
ing, mixed realities and database- supported art, which all explore the technologies of
tomorrow.
Not long ago, artists sought to explore software coding as the foundation of their ex-
pression and as a `material' with specific properties. Like Max/MSP and others, new
alternative programming environments based on a graphical interface concept facilitate
bridging the gap between art and technology, and bring the artists back more control
over the creative process. In particular, Max's main strengths lie in a more intuitive
programming approach, its real-time multimedia capabilities and the insertion of in-
teractivity. However, not only artists want to make use of interactivity. Designers and
engineers increasingly will also be confronted in their daily practice with immersive
interactive media environments due to the wishes of the entertainment market and de-
velopment of information technologies.
In regard to these ongoing trends in our media culture, the reason for this thesis is the
need for research into the specific capabilities of the graphical programming language
Max/MSP, and its extension for image processing called Jitter, as a programming en-
vironment for multimedia-based digital interactive installations. The paper consists of
two parts: The first part deals with the question what the so-called Cyber Arts are, pri-
marily focusing on interactive installations. Therefore, at first in Section
2.1
on page
5
,
it tries to provide a theoretical framework and defintion of its key concepts interac-
tivity and interface design in full awareness of the exceedingly complex material and
constantly shifting positions. A further survey into the scientific debate of these terms
would go beyond the scope of the paper. Secondly it looks at outstanding examples
of interactive installation art's most recent representative forms and `narratives' in Sec-
tion
2.4
on page
10
, here also keeping in mind that it can only sketch a very small
picture of present arts practice. The following chapter
3
on page
18
is concerned with
the basic concepts lying behind Max's programming environment, its options for exten-
sibility with hard- and software interfaces in Section
3.3
on page
27
, and a comparison
to similar languages currently used in Section
3.4
on page
31
.
The second part documents the practical realisation of a multimedia-based interactive
installation using the software package Max/MSP/Jitter in Chapter
4
on page
35
. It is
the outcome of a four month research exchange in conjunction with the Digital Media
Centre at Dartington College of Arts in Devon, England. The project makes extensive
use of Max's and Jitter's main features like interactivity, its real-time 3D-graphics, and
video processing capabilities. Section
4.1
on page
36
gives a background about the
ideas and intentions that were the foundation for the final form of the installation, and
Section
4.2
on page
40
explains the concept that was leading the realisation phase.
2
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
Chapter 1. Introduction
Next, Section
4.2
on page
41
describes all the software parts that were programmed
with Max. In the end, a summary of user feedback, and a personal reflection is given.
Finally, Section
5
on page
55
concludes the paper.
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
3
Digital Interactive Installations
Part I.
Cyber Arts
4
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
Chapter 2. Recent Development of Digital Interactive Art
The highest demand made on an artist is this:
that he be true to nature, that he study her, imitate her,
and produce something that resembles her phenomena.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Without electricity, there can be no art.
Num June Paik
2
Recent Development of Digital Interactive Art
This thesis begins with a brief overview about the latest scientific and practical research
approaches to define the key terms of digital art: interactivity and interface. Afterwards,
different possible viewpoints defining distinctive models of interaction in installations
give us a formal background for an orientation when looking at concrete examples.
This thesis is not meant to incorporate the whole broad and hybrid range of new media
art practices. However, it tries to articulate recent main shapes and forms of digital
interactive installation and software art in the beginning of the 21st century.
2.1. Interactivity
The essence of interactivity is a field hardly anyone oversees not to mention is able to
clearly describe. When we try to define `Digital Interactivity' we are confronted with a
very broad term and an outrageously complex subject matter. Espen Aarseth
1
therefore
suggests:
[A]ttempts to clarify what interactivity means should start by acknowledging
that the term's meaning is constantly shifting and probably without descrip-
tive power and then try to argue why we need it, in spite of this.
Obviously, it is important to shed light on its conceptions, because understanding inter-
activity can help designers create more meaningful interactions and it is therefore the
1
A
ARSETH
(2003), p.426
.
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
5
Digital Interactive Installations
basis for research into digital interactive art.
As a multi-disciplinary key term, interactivity has an intense research tradition of
decades. However, scholarly definitions regarding interactivity are `scattered and inco-
herent'. Most attempts to define the term put focus either on criteria in which context
interactive media are used, on its range, technology or on the perception of the user.
But it seems a comprehensive clarification has to integrate all these dimensions. An at-
tempt from Spiro Kiousis
2
to form a more cohesive theoretical framework leads to this
tentative definition:
Interactivity can be defined as the degree to which a communication tech-
nology can create a mediated environment in which participants can com-
municate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many), both synchronously
and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-
order dependency). With regard to human users, it additionally refers to their
ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communi-
cation and increase their awareness of telepresence.
Here, it is noteworthy Kiousis' definition incorporates interactivity as both: `a media and
psychological variable'.
3
Figure 2.1.: Conceptualization of Interactivity with its major dimensions (According to Kiousis
4
)
However, Russell Richards poses his legitimate critique that the definition above has
also a weak point, because the focus lying `on the users perception of the interactivity
itself ignores the motivation for being with the package in the first place'.
5
He stresses
that practitioners need to think about the Positioning of the user:
[...] their motivations within specific types of media environments and al-
ways with regards to the dynamic of generation through the engagement
with concepts that can be politically challenging, intellectually or emotion-
ally stimulating or simply raising consciousness about a product.
6
2
K
IOUSIS
(2002), p.372
.
3
Ibid.
5
R
ICHARDS
(2006), 535
.
6
Ibid.
6
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
Chapter 2. Recent Development of Digital Interactive Art
In this case, Richard's term Positioning means `that a user is being positioned into dif-
fering relationships with content'.
7
Future analyses will surely need to absorb this and
further exciting insights into interactivity as a property and an activity.
2.2. Interfaces
The visible/tangible/audible part of interactive art is its interface. As ubiquitous sur-
faces they allow the capture, communication, generation and exchange of data. Chris-
tine Paul defines them as `the place at which independent systems meet and the naviga-
tional tool that allows one system to communicate with the other.'
8
Thus, interfaces of
digital art communicate the meaning that is inherent in the whole system. However, as a
vehicle for interactivity they should be carefully designed, because they decide whether
the user becomes an active participant or remains a sceptical observer; they define the
`"experience of being" for that system'
9
as well as their viewpoint. Here, we shouldn't
omit to give a hint to the more than actual insights of Marshall McLuhan in his book
Understanding Media from 1964 in which he coined the prophetic phrase `the medium
is the message'.
10
Moreover, interaction designer and artist Masaki Fujihata points out the importance
of distinguishing `between the role of the interfaces and the function of interactivity.'
11
On one hand, interfaces should `be transparent'
12
and on the other they should be self-
explanatory. We can say they provide the key to interactivity, as words are the com-
ponents for building sentences, while with Fujihata, we could say `that interactivity is
the field for constructing sentences'
13
underlying a specific grammar. The user better
understands interactivity's grammar (how to interact with the artwork) when we design
intuitive and transparent interfaces.
However, we must note there is also another option available for interaction designers
to create a meaningful interface: `the strategy of getting the user to look at the interface
or object of design rather than through it.'
14
. This is a lesson we can learn from various
digital arts practices. It is especially important to understand when we want the user
not to look through the interface like through a window. In contrast, we can design an
interface as a mirror in front of them reflecting the user back to her/himself. This thesis'
7
R
ICHARDS
(2006), 537
.
8
P
AUL
(2003), p.72
.
9
R
OKEBY
(1998), p.31
.
10
M
C
L
UHAN
(1964), p.9
.
11
F
UJIHATA
(2001), p.318
.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid., p.319
.
14
B
OLTER
and G
ROMALA
(2003), 56
.
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
7
Digital Interactive Installations
project part
15
can be seen as an example for a reflective interface design strategy.
2.3. Categories of Interaction in Digital Art
Peter Weibel, former head of the Ars Electronica Festival and now director of ZKM Karl-
sruhe since 1999, proposes three digital characteristics that together compose interac-
tivity in art: `virtuality (the way the information is saved), variability (of the image's
object), and viability (as displayed by the behavioral pattern of the image).'
16
At the
same time, it is clearly recognizable that newer art theories
17
stress the crucial impor-
tance of the context or environment of an installation system `as a conditioning factor
in the communication process'.
18
This correlates with tendencies in scientific research
fields of interactivity to take the user's experience into consideration.
From the user point of view Claudia Gianetti categorizes media-assisted forms of in-
teractivity in three models:
19
Discrete or active systems:
although the user can control the content called up, and
the sequence in which this occurs, he/she has no influence on the transmitted
information, since the management of this information, which demonstrates pre-
dictable behavior, is integrated.
Reactive systems:
the work's behavior, which is media-assisted and based on feed-
back structures, results from the direct reaction to external stimuli, for instance
user control or altered environmental conditions. Selection methods and recursive
events create cognitive situations for the participative user.
Interactive systems:
open program structuring, over which the receiver can also act
as transmitter. Since the user can influence the procedure and appearance of the
work, or even add new information in the case of more complex systems, it is a
matter of content-related interactivity. Temporal, spatial, or content-based rela-
tions are established between interactor and work.
It is interesting to see how often devices incorporate different levels of each of the
previous categories. A cellphone, for instance, may be considered discrete because it is
a singular unit, and most users aren't able to change its basic functions and features;
it may also be considered intervenient, because it is a device for mediating between
15
See Section
4
on page
35
.
16
W
EIBEL
(1997), 175
.
17
Art theories influenced by the radical constructivism (Maturana/Varela/von Foerster), and the system theory (Luh-
mann).
18
G
IANNETTI
(2004)
.
19
Ibid.
8
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
Chapter 2. Recent Development of Digital Interactive Art
synergetic network devices. Ultimately, the cellphone is an interactive system because
it facilitates adding new information, acts as a transmitter / receiver (i.e. talking to
someone else) and is part of a very complex system. In addition, it is a functional
device for conveying and retrieving information (that can be as simple as the codecs
that transform voices from sound to electricity to sound) and that can be given artistic
qualities through industrial / interaction design practices.
Concerning behaviour and conciousness, Gianetti
20
summarizes Peter Weibel's dis-
tinctions between three models of interactivity as:
synaesthetic:
consists of interactivity between various materials and elements, such as
image and sound, color and music.
synergetic:
takes place between states of energy, as in works that react to changes in
their environment.
communicative or kinetic:
between different people and between persons and objects.
With all these attempts to give interactive art a clearer profile in mind it should help us
to survey the examples described in the next sections.
20
G
IANNETTI
(2004)
.
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
9
Digital Interactive Installations
2.4. Digital Interactive Art
The term `Digital Art', similar to interactivity, has a rather watery outline. It stands
for a broad range of artistic practices from interactive installations to installations with
network components to software or purely Internet-based art. Therefore, an attempt to
categorize interaction in this hybrid field must again integrate certain viewpoints.
In this thesis we want to focus on new developments of interactive installations, as
one important part of contemporary digital art. We follow Christine Paul, Curator of
New Media Arts Whitney Museum (New York), who highlights today's main themes or
narratives as: `telepresence, artificial life and intelligence, [...] mapping and data visu-
alisation, [...] as well as multi-user- environments incorporating visuals and sounds.'
21
This year's Prix Ars Electronica jury statement
22
confirms Paul's view about interactive
installations:
Although we agree that the interactive arts are still evolving into a huge
range of applications, we would like to point out three important streams.
· Firstly, they are heading deeper into basic research related to natural and
artificial living systems.
· Secondly, they are focused on participatory local and global communica-
tion systems and their social and political applications.
· Thirdly, the interactive arts are increasingly engaged with the critical
approach concerning the ideological pattern of programming and the
relationship between code, language, and behavior. In this context, the
interactive arts have also reconnected to their origins in performing arts
and environments.
2.4.1. Main Themes in Digital Interactive Art
The following selection consists of recent examples of outstanding art pieces, giving at
least an impression of the multiple manifestations of this highly dynamic emerging art
culture.
Telepresence
ACCESS
23
is a permanent installation at the ZKM Museum in Karlsruhe, Germany, by
French artist Marie Sester,
24
currently based in New York. She first studied architecture
21
P
AUL
(2002), p.473
.
22
F
UJIHATA
et al. (2006), p.103
.
23
S
ESTER
(2006b)
.
24
S
ESTER
(2006a)
.
10
Dipl. Ing. (Fh) Frank Blum
Ende der Leseprobe aus 80 Seiten
- nach oben
Details
- Arbeit zitieren
- , 2006, Digital Interactive Installations, Hamburg, Bedey Media GmbH, https://www.diplom.de/document/225254
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Deutschlands größter Sharing Community
Jetzt Zusammenfassungen, Skripte und Klausuren kostenlos downloaden!
Uniturm.de
Ihre Vorteile als Autor
Geld verdienen Für jedes verkaufte Exemplar erhalten Sie Autorenhonorar - bis zu 40%.Kostenlose Buchveröffentlichung
Als eBook-Studie im Original und / oder auf Wunsch zusätzlich als hochwertiges Fachbuch in unserem renommierten Buchverlag.
Renommee als Fachbuchautor
Präsentieren Sie sich als Fachfrau oder Fachmann in Ihrem Fachgebiet und machen Sie sich bekannt.
Persönliche Betreuung
Unser Lektorat wird Sie persönlich betreuen und ist auch telefonisch unter 040-655992-14 erreichbar.
Weltweit im Buchhandel
Ihr Buch ist weltweit im Buchhandel und Online-Buchhandel wie z.B. amazon erhältlich.
Jetzt Autor werden!
Kommentare