MC: I noticed that The Smile Project and Farklempt! deal with very similar issues. Are the two projects indeed in any way related? Are the underlying concepts of the design of Farklempt! based on, or influenced by, the production of The Smile Project?

JVA: The Smile Project has taken over six years (so far) to create - and its development has been ongoing. Everything involved in creating Neil and Iona was from the ground up, down to the custom made circuit boards controlling their stepper motors. When Rhizome.org solicited commissions for game art - I saw this as an opportunity to create a piece with more immediate instant gratification. Farklempt! leverages the code and ideas that drive Neil and Iona's improvisational behavior.

MC: You mention that the software based systems that simulate human interaction that you have created are inspired by behavior you observed taking place while in ongoing group therapy. Can you describe how these group dynamics inspired your work? Can you please elaborate on what specific aspects are relevant to the project Farklempt!?

JVA: I observed every member of my group repeating the same actions and choices, myself included. This was evidenced both in the complaints they would report to the group of their real life, and the way in which members interacted in the sessions with one another. Typically this had to do with maintaining a feeling of hopefulness by staying in the same place. My understanding of this is that once something you hope for is attained, it can be very terrifying to give up that hope if it has become part of the way in which you perceive yourself. This situation creates a loop where someone hopes, while at the same time avoids attaining the thing they hope for. Loops of course are the mechanism that makes computer programs work.

MC: In both your works, Farklempt! and The Smile Project, inflating bubbles are used to represent emotional states. Can you explain why you have chosen this specific form of visual metaphor? How has your own personal experience with managing emotional health and maintaining relationships help shape the nature of the metaphors you have chosen?

JVA: Farklempt! was a byproduct of the application I wrote to drive The Smile Project (SP). Bubbles were used in SP because they were like fat points - allowing different bubbles to overlap in order to construct personality files.

MC: You discussed the phenomenon of maintaining a feeling of hopefulness by staying in the same place, of avoiding attaining what is hoped for in order to avoid change in the perception of oneself. Achieving a balance and staying in the same place may evoke a sense of comfort and safety, but if one was to avoid attaining anything and everything that is hoped for, is that not problematic? Is it intentional that the project Farklempt! conveys this feeling of not achieving, or even aiming to achieve, any specific goal at all, as the viewer interacts with the piece? Was this experience considered as part of your intended meaning? If not, are you aware that the audience's perceived meaning will differ from your intended meaning?

JVA: The feeling of not achieving was unintentional, and not deliberate or conscious. I see the framework of games as setting up rules and boundaries with enough information for the player/viewer to arrive/come to their own conclusion. The Farklempt! 2.0 installation provided me with lots of audience feedback, both in the form of comments and how people played the game in a live setting. Not everyone felt hopeless - some even set goals, like I will stop when I get to a million. In guess that my interpretation of my own creation is just as relevant as anyone else's, once it's made.

MC: Farklempt!, was initially designed to exist as an online computer-based system. I understand that you have created an installation version of Farklempt! which opened just recently. Can you please describe to me the differences between these two versions, such as the composition, organization and function of the piece, and the characteristics of interaction between the viewer and the piece? Do you consider one to be more successful or effective than the other? Why?

JVA: You can find mockups of the installation here: http://www.smileproject.com/proposals/2005/bc
I enlarged and altered the Meshugina (playspace) and projected it on a wall, and separated the Mishegas (feeling bubbles) into Formica consoles with touch screens which people click on with their hands. There, it is a completely different piece. For one thing, it's more social, which adds a new dimension. The people become another element of the piece - which I found pretty interesting. I can only imagine what took place when people played it at home (really).
In some sense, online is to installation as painting is to sculpture.

MC: The selection of universal expressions of emotions used in your projects seems to have been influenced by Paul Ekman's studies on the seven universal facial expressions. Were your projects influenced by Ekman's work? If so, why have you chosen to reference his work?

JVA: I think Ekman is terrific. I bought one of his books during the development of The Smile Project - but I did not use his work (deliberately) as a reference. The hand drawn facial expressions were the beginning of this piece which came from considering how we visually communicate with one another on a very primitive and abstract level. Ekman is a scientist that has defined things that artists (and now animators) have observed and expressed throughout art history. My work has also been compared to that of Cynthia Breazeal's robot KISMET at MIT. Although it is great to be associated in people's minds with such super brainiacs, where we differ is that these are scientists and I am an artist. Our products and goals are very different even though our interests lie along the same path.