W1-2 Process: Choosing Jobs and Names

Preceded by | Succeeded by

One of the things I enjoy about these projects is that we are given multiple compositions: this means there is room to create patterns and links between the compositions. Four is also always a good number to work with, simply because many ideas are associated with four elements (Mendel’s law, temperaments, classical elements, etc.) Additionally, this means it’s easy to associate certain elements with one composition, then create contrast with the other.

Below are certain ways I’ve tried to approach the project, especially where I tend to get very easily confused by myself. Even if I’ve come up with something I like to re-evaluate it repeatedly and try to think of better alternatives.

(EVENTUALLY SELF-REJECTED) IDEA 1: CHOOSING JOBS BEFORE NAMES

Image result for punnett square
Example of Punnett Square model. In this case, we change “Mother” and “Father” to 2 binary opposites, or 2 qualities, anythign to provide enough variety.

I initially considered using a Punnett Square model to define two pairs of binary opposites, forming 4 resulting jobs.This would allow me to work with a variety of styles, as well as provide clear visual differences between the compositions. For example, this list:

  • Optimism vs pessimism
  • Tangible jobs (revenue provision) versus intangible jobs (human duty)
  • High vs low income
  • Skilled vs unskilled work
  • Outdoor vs indoor
  • Real vs fantastical
  • Physically demanding vs mentally demanding
  • Nature-related vs technological-related
  • Male-oriented vs female-oriented
  • Bizarre versus ordinary
  • Stable versus unstable

As such, it might end up with something which looks like this:

NATURE TECHNOLOGY
HIGH INCOME Biologist Programmer
LOW INCOME Farmer Plumber

However, I had difficulty trying to come up with 2 pairs that could work with each other, especially where some of these pairs did not have very clear visual differences. Also, it doesn’t really provide any kind of overarching idea except for that of that diversity of jobs.

IDEA 2: CHOOSING NAMES BEFORE JOBS

Choosing jobs wasn’t going too well, so I opted to try to choose names first instead. Here’s a list of the initial thoughts:

  • Full name as per NRIC (official, business-y)
  • NRIC number (disparaging remark on society, rigidity and capitalism)
  • Nicknames (until I realised I don’t really have any)
  • Online names (game character names, forum handles)
  • Titles (“ma’am” by my cadets, “xiao mei” by stall vendors)

The notion of online names stood out simply because Shirley suggested to have more quirky jobs, and it seemed like there’d be more “associated images” which I could use to make it easier for others to understand. (Also, it’s easier to change the names if I want, because online names can be anything!)

IDEA 2.1: ONLINE HANDLES

Here’s some online handles I’ve used before in different situations, to relate to the ideas of 1. the rise of jobs pertaining to the internet, and 2.the ability of a single person to take on various different personas through the net.

  • Seichi: Name I used when I was doing webcomic translations
  • Threar: Name I used for a healer class game character
  • Ense: Name I used when I wrote stories, fanfictions, etc

Idea 2.2 involves the usage of ONLY game online handles, possibly to reinforce the idea of an alternate irreality? Which may reduce the difficulty in that many games, like MMORPGS, tend to have a job/class system which I could reference.

http://www.flyffworld.com/w/images/9/93/Class_Tree2.gif
From Flyff. A job tree showing typical job archetypes, with subset jobs. Some MMORPGS have classes more closely associated with reality, and some, more fantastical ones.

It would certainly reduce my ability to showcase ACTUAL jobs which are online, though, and visually it might be a little challenging.

IDEA 3: JUST DESIGN FIRST AND SEE HOW IT GOES

As the name suggests. I draft typefaces or compositions in my free time (or when I’m bored), and try to fit it to a concept which works.

CONCLUSION

To mix Idea 2.1 and Idea 3. While I WILL use names I’ve used before, I WON’T use the names in conjunction with the function they ACTUALLY served. I try to fit the typefaces I sketched to jobs which could work online.

The theme is that of the online world, namely that of the inconsequentiality of online identity, alongside the versatility of the digital.

Names are interchangeable, unworldly and simultaneous: I could change the names easily with no consequence simply because it is a fake name, I can name myself whatever I so wish because it’s not real anyway. I can even have multiple names, all associated with different things, all at once because I am allowed to have multiple existences.

And yet at the same time this is a rising platform on which one finds employment, one which provides many opportunities, as presented by the various implied jobs: they are all jobs which can exist both in analog and digital form, and which would easily be mistaken as analog if not for the bizarre names, the subtle hints pointing to its online nature.

Here’s a general finalised list. May be subject to changes.

  • Photographer
    • Implied: Photographer of cats
    • Associated images: Cats, cameras
  • Retailer
    • Implied: Retailer of those glass terrarium things which are a surprisingly popular homemade handicraft to sell
    • Associated images: Terrariums, shop displays
  • Translator
    • Implied: Translator between English and Japanese
    • Associated images: Alphabets, books/editing softwares
  • Blogger
    • Implied: Blogger about food
    • Associated images: Food, reports

gotta h̜̩̦̬̭̮̖̘ͨͩͩ̍ä̵̸̛͓̜͈͙̲ͩ̆ͪ̈̈̚ǹ̗̖̤̍͆͒͑̀d̴̖̭ͤ̌ͣͪ͆̋͂̚ it to you :(

 

Sometimes you think your hand is pretty normal, and everyone has to p̶͇̠̟̯͇̪̲̭̩̩̬͒̃͒̾ͯ̏͑͛̒̓̓ͯ́̓͒̀̌̚͝R̡̨̈̎̍̉̿̄̋͊̈̊̓̎ͩͨ͏̢̩̳̺͓͖̮̯̝̥̺̻̤͔̩͇ͅƠ̵̜̟̜̺̹̰̝͎͎̖̟̝̤̹̱̂̂̿͂̎ͪ͂͐͐͂̈́V̧̫̞̩̼̱̪̞͖̼̭̮̹͎̙͖̲͖̀ͩ̓̉͆͂ͩͪ́ͧ̈́͒̾̀ͅĘ̸̴̡̢̣͉̥͚͉͑ͬ̀̍̎ͬͮ̆ͤ̒͆ͣ̈̇̌̒̂̓ ̵̸͍̖̠̲̹͈̪̥͎͓͙̄̂̋͆͋̓̏͂͋̃̿ͫͅŸ͛̃́͗ͬ̅҉̨̨̨͕̬̟̼̤̞̩̩̼͡ͅO̵̗͎̱̜͚̗̥̩̹̻̖͎̝̻̗͇͉̗͓ͮ͆ͪ̅̒̄̏̑̀͊̍̓ͯ̄́̉͜͠U̴̵̝̺̠̺̩̭̣̬ͪ̓ͪ̒̍̀͊̋͌̑ͫ͑̃ͦ̄̇̚ ̨͍̞̭̬͇̺̬̞̟̫̟̖̦̥̟̝̹̒͑̽̎̽ͪͯ̎͐͑̌͂̀ͫ̀̑ͦ̚͝W̡̍͐ͨͧ̓͌́͑̇ͮ̎̈̑͢͝͏̙̬̙̥̙͉͎̟̺͎̩̮̞̥̗̬͈̣Ŗ̨͙̱͈͍̥͍̗̪̗̥̻̞͕̲̠̪͙̈̓̐̅̓̃͒̂̚͟͝͞O̢̤̯̮̫͚̥̊̎̈̈ͥͭ̑ͅͅN̳̫͔̪̦̓̏̈̋̊̚͘͝G̎̌ͨ̍̂͑ͫ͏̗͙̳̯͍̣̟̤̰̘̼͙̘͓͉

It’s so b̢̋̈́̽̏ͯ͒ͤ̂i̒̎͆ͣ͂ͧ̍͂̈́͏҉̷z̸̢͗̿̎͗a̛ͩ̅ͣ͟r͌͌ͦ̈́r̅͂ͦͯ̽͏̷̢ȅ̡ͫ̇ͤͮ͡ how a few simple effects can change the original image so extensively: a hand turned into an outline of a hand, then into waves, and then into just dots and dashes. It’s the stuff of animation, really.

PLEASE clap if you BELIEFS

The truth is malleable: this is a statement brazenly declared by Jenny Holzer’s work, Please Change Beliefs. In this artwork, Holzer provides a list of truisms on a website, where anyone may access and modify as many truisms as they’d like to. These edited truisms are then permanently added to an online database, creating an extensive list of various versions from various individuals.

From Please Change Beliefs. Clear instructions are given, along with a list of truisms.

That anyone can change these absolute truths is a testament to the power each individual holds, especially in an online world where their words can reach far and wide. Like in the artwork, we all have the freedom to type whatever we like on various mediums like social medias and blogs. Case in point: Trump’s claims that global warming is a scam by the Chinese (which some people apparently do believe).

At the time, it draws attention to the overwhelming nature of innumerable truths floating around the internet. How do we determine what is true and what isn’t, in a space which can be simultaneously trustworthy and untrustworthy? On one end can be proper advice from certified professionals, another, scams by internet trolls, and yet there is no way to distinguish nor ascertain the truth. While Wikipedia is mostly reliable, it’s easy to see why we’re told not to use it when internet vandals often mess it up.

A classic example of why you do not blindly trust information on the internet. (I happened to be doing research for an academic essay back then, and chanced upon this.)

Even in this artwork, we can see the influence of those who don’t take it seriously.

Despite the possibility of being played with, we cannot forget that there will be people who legitimately contribute properly, a reminder that the internet is not all about lies and untrue truths.

From the Please Change Beliefs online database. These variations vary from the obvious to the profound, showing that we can’t just disregard everything.

Featured image from the Please Change Beliefs online database.

Telematic Embrace, or: a Touchless Touch

The keyword Randall Packer emphasised upon was “negotiation”: our adjacent positions on Adobe Connect made it important to collude with each other in order to achieve the various tasks assigned to us. It takes a while to reach that conclusion, especially where negotiation often connotes the act of “discussing” to reach a consensus, which did not quite happen (as opposed to natural adjustment on everyone’s parts).

Photo courtesy of Randall Packer. We all cooperate to form a cross with our arms.

Nevertheless, it was a pertinent point to bring up. It’s easy enough to “negotiate” because these are trivial enough that we can autopilot to fit each other, but days will come when we’ll have to “move aside” and make changes even if we don’t want to. Or even force others to, if it’s not something we can budge on.

It’s almost disconcerting, regardless, that this is something which is unique to this specific way of framing the spaces we inhabit.

Photo courtesy of Randall Packer. We all hold up pink objects, which become the entirety of our spaces.

For example, holding up something pink in real life would not work because we can still see everything else around us. On the other hand, the nature of the small scale frame makes it possible to make the pink the only existence in our space. Imagine 16 people holding up pink objects in real life, versus here. Surely, the pink becomes more overwhelming in this third space we all share together, because it becomes all of reality.


On a somewhat unrelated note, the layout of screens triggered a distant memory of a video I had watched before, and so I’ve finally re-found it.

This 2016 video shows a debate chaired by Professor Michael Sanders on the topic of national borders. In an interesting twist, however, the panel discussion involves 60 participants from over 30 countries answering in real time, bringing a myriad of opinions, shaped by each individual’s experiences in their various cultures, to the table.

(BBC appears to have a running series of these kinds of debates, which can be found here.)

Featured image courtesy of Randall Packer.

Legal Lawbreaking

To understand Grand Theft Avatar, we must first understand its medium, the online 3D virtual world, Second Life. While it has a virtual currency, it is technically not a game in that there “is no manufactured conflict, no set objective” (Catherine Smith). It is, however, similar to what we know as sandbox games, and massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). As one of the oldest online multi-user virtual worlds, it became popular as a non-traditional medium for arts exploration.

An example of Second Life as a medium. Chouchou, a Japanese music group, builds custom maps where they perform their music live. This allows them to imagine and create their own stage, than having to pay a substantial amount to find a real place which may not suit them entirely. Additionally, it lets their music reach a wider audience.

Grand Theft Avatar, as presented by Second Front, hence shows a (now) common scene among any sort of multiplayer virtual world with enough freedom to mess around: that of freely doing what they wish, simply because there are no limitations in a virtual world. In this specific case, the performance group performs identity theft, “liberates” currency (through what is essentially a robbery), and escapes by flying on h-bombs.

The artwork in question. A classic case of people collaborating online to enact the random, for no reason other than that they can. This, in a sense, shows the innate desire within humans to live freely, where we are obligated to abide by society’s rules in reality, but not so in a virtual world.

This would be absolutely illogical and illegal in physical reality, but shows the simultaneous virtual reality of what is coined as the third space: a “fluid matrix of potentiality and realisable connections to the most far-reaching remoteness” (Randall Packer, 2014). Anything can happen, simply because the virtual world does not have the limitations of the real world, such as physics or law enforcement. Anything can happen, even the eponymous theft, or even creation, of a completely different avatar. Anything can happen, even across nations, as implied by Second Front’s team, which comprises of members from Scotland to Canada: it is not impossible to perform together even while apart.


Some other fun videos in the same vein:

https://t0.rbxcdn.com/873e3c3b856a4fa2eed0cb59efe5eb18

Roblox: The Dark Truth about a Pizza Place

Roblox is a game creation platform, where assets are freely provided to users who can opt to find user-made games to play, or try their hand at making their own game. This clip shows… A rather quirky roleplay between strangers.

Garry’s Mod is similar to Roblox: however, it has a “base area” which is purely a sandbox, where people can interact freely without any sort of objective. Like Grand Theft Avatar, they can even come up with their own “stories” if so desired… Or just screw everything up.

Grand Theft Auto, a classic game to mess around with, exacerbated by that you ARE supposed to be playing as a criminal. GTAuto and GTAvatar certainly have similar names for reasons: the lawless freedom of doing whatever you want, and absolute insanity of it all at the very end.

(Featured image from here.)

    • Packer, R. (2014). “The Third Space.” Reportage from the Aesthetic Edge. (link)
    • Watson, J. (2008). “Media Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Process.” pp281-5. (link)
    • “About Second Front.” Second Front. (link)
    • 6ruy7n. (2017). “Duntoria.” Second Front Performance Arts. (link)

 

W1 Research: Unique Styles, and a gatecrashing Constructivism

Preceded by | Succeeded by

EDIT: Please note that there’s too much process and research for me to properly consolidate in one post, and thus I’ve included a Precede and Succeed system: click on the link to go to the post which comes before or after this one, respectively. The final full list will be put in the Gallery post too.


Here are some of the styles I’ve looked at which seem rather unique to me! It involves both 2D (typography and otherwise) and 3D.

My process is constantly updating and becoming convoluted, so I’ll leave it in a separate post.


(Here’s also a little snippet of some research I did on Russian Constructivism, which didn’t quite fit anywhere, but it seemed like such a pity to just delete it.)

Russian Constructivism (1913-1940)

  • Using art for social purposes, e.g. communication (posters), architecture
  • Mostly, but not entirely, apathetic (unless said emotion is beneficial to the purpose of the work)
  • Initially only applied to 3-dimensional objects, but later expanded to 2-dimensional
  • A suspicious amount of Constructivist work is “scientific” in nature, likely due to the rise of modernism and science/technology (post-Industrial Revolution), as well as the Russians attempting to express/present their society as a progressive society
  • A suspicious amount of Constructivist work is propagandic in nature, likely due to the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution leading to a need to endorse the new government, where Constructivism was a convenient means of spreading propaganda

Keywords to describe visual qualities of Constructivism:

  1. Geometrical/Orderly
  2. Experimental/Abstract
  3. Apathetic/Objective
  4. Modern

 

W1 Summary & Artwork Spam Research

The term “open-source” is used to describe software, of which its source code is available for perusal and modification. This is in direct opposition of proprietary software, which restricts access to its source code. Predictably enough, however, the concept of proprietary software became pervasive once the profitability of software as a commodity was established.

A timeline of the history of copyright. It is not unusual for something profitable to be commodified, where closed source is a byproduct of that.

Essentially, the harshness of the closed source model resulted in

  1. The awareness that the “copyright” is not a singular, rigid right
  2. The rise of the hacker culture, and
  3. The rise of the open source model

As a software and creative model, it can be more beneficial to the creator to not completely control their work, especially if they have non-profit motivations, such as that of the desire for “a phenomenal effect on education and entertainment” (Paik, 1973). This encourages interaction between peers to improve upon each other’s contributions.

It also leads to a form of “living art”, where said art is dependent on real-time social interaction than prepared beforehand like traditional art. This places emphasis on the process than the result, where the meaning of the artwork is emphasised through how it is made than how it looks in the end. Artists can also further define “their autonomy against the dominance of mainstream culture” through this modern style (Garrett, 2014). By extension, it also has a profound effect on various forms of art, like performance art, social practice art and internet art.


For reference, attached are links to various artworks which rely on the unpredictable nature of social interaction, albeit with varying restrictions. A closely linked idea is that of social practice, incidentally, where social interaction is often an important way to express those messages.

The Second Woman (performance art) by Nat Randall, 2017 (1) (2)

Project Row Houses (social sculpture) by Rick Lowe (1) (2)

Permanent Redirect (internet art) by Donald Hanson, 2018 (1) (2)

 

(Featured image: Sunflower Seeds by Ai Weiwei, 2010.)

  • Garrett, M. (2014). “DIWO (Do-It-With-Others): Artistic Co-Creation as a Decentralized Method of Peer Empowerment in Today’s Multitude.” Marc Garrett. (link)
  • Packer, R. “Open Source Studio.” IEEE Potentials 34, no. 6 (2015): 31-38. doi:10.1109/mpot.2015.2443899. (link)
  • Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012). “Open Source as Culture/Culture as Open Source “ in Mandiberg, M. (Ed.). The Social Media Reader. NY: New York University Press. (link)
  • (2005). “Proprietary Software Definition.” The Linux Information Project. (link)
  • P., Natalie. (2006). “Who Are the Key Figures in Socially Engaged Art Today?.” Widewalls. (link)
  • Davis, B. (2013). “A critique of social practice art.” International Socialist Review 90. (link)
  • Meyer, H. (2009). “Audience as participant in Performance Art.” Inter Act Actuel. (link)
  • “Socially engaged practice.” Tate. (link)

[FDN4D Project 4] Part 2: Hello Darkness My Old Friend

See Part 1 here if you haven’t.

I was totally ready for the presentation on Thu 23/11/2017! I really was! All I needed to do was to check in with Mr Bharat, who hadn’t replied me since Thu 9/11/2017, during which I discovered that the location was not available…

… Hence, I instantly asked Lei to suggest another location, and she suggested the space outside the Foundation 2D Room, somewhere I obviously had better luck with. (Note that from here on out, it becomes more process-based, since a lot of the documentation is on the improvised setup.)

She also mentioned that I would probably need to change my object due to the smaller width of the corridor, and so again I had to go back to the basic requirements and re-evaluate my setup based on the things which I needed which were site-specific.

Now that I couldn’t use the site-specific benches, I needed to re-evaluate my subject, a material object which is

  1. identical in spatial form,
  2. unmovable,
  3. in close proximity to each other, and
  4. able to be interacted with
  5. and now, additionally, also fairly thin and small, since the throw distance was very short and I still needed space for people to interact with the objects.

There weren’t any site-specific objects I could use, so I decided that I would need to make the object on my own. The layout practically begged for something to pinned to the wall, and when you talk interactive, why not paper to be drawn on? It’s not exactly unmoving, but I could at least have the 10 minute video show how the paper got there, showing its temporal part of not always having been there, as opposed to the current present which shows that it IS there. Also, it’s thin enough to fit the narrow corridor. The downsides are that it doesn’t have the same effect as the basement foyer’s benches, in that it’s not something which is permanently there, and already has some form of established identity, but at least it was suited to the area.

The final setup turned out surprisingly well, likely because of the small scale of the space such that it was much easier to deal with.

If I had better resources, I would have liked the video to span from the putting up of the paper, all the way to the present, rather than cutting off abruptly once my camera couldn’t record anymore (i.e. a live transmission running about 2 hours behind real time, not that I would know how to set that up).

In the end, it was surprisingly not as hard as I thought it would be to change location, which I think was mostly because I had already stated the main criteria I needed rather than specific objects, such that I could figure out what I could replace it with easily. (Also, Lei’s advice was incredibly helpful where I was at a loss on where to even start looking.)

In the interest of time, I also ditched any plans to actually teach properly, and went with the fastest crash course I could, so  I mostly feel like everyone didn’t really understand the metaphysical concepts I was trying to portray. But I suppose it’s alright because I do feel like I did what I could with the available time and resources, and it looks like everyone had fun:

(Also, a lot of shadow puppeteering happened)

Also thanks Ryan and Lei for helping me carry all my equipment T_T Especially Ryan for helping me reach the projectors, push the metal cupboard back, and carry my 2 projectors and DSLR camera set back to Hall 2 Block 6 Level 2, i.e. a route with many, many, many stairs.