by ·1 Comment

I’ve only ever experienced VR games through watching YouTube gamers play them, listening to them marvel at the immersiveness and how cool the controls are (especially the Oculus Quest). That was until our amazing Profs brought a few VR sets to class to let us play around with them. I was indeed #blessed.

The moment I put on the VR headset, I was already tricked visually and mentally in believing that the VR world exists physically. Case in point, I tried to rest my hands on a virtual table, and thank the lord I didn’t put my full weight on it, or I’d have broken my head along with the headset.

 

TLDR: I love the immersiveness that comes with VR, and The Chalkroom, by was just an excellent example of how it can be used as an interactive installation.

Image from https://www.optionstheedge.com/sites/default/files/assets/2020/laurie_anderson_and_hsin-chien_huang_.jpg

“Chalkroom is a virtual reality work by Laurie Anderson and Hsin-Chien Huang in which the reader flies through an enormous structure made of words, drawings and stories. Once you enter you are free to roam and fly. Words sail through the air as emails. They fall into dust. They form and reform.”
–  Laurie Anderson

Describe what you like and dislike about it.

I loved the design of the VR environment. It was nothing familiar in terms of what we see everyday; it was just many gigantic, black cuboids, placed at different altitudes. And when you look down between each platform, it’s just a bottomless pit (but like, with grey clouds drifting ominously below). This unfamiliar and somewhat creepy visual environment is super effective in evoking that feeling of being lost, totally clueless of where you are or what you’re supposed to do.

Another thing I love is that you can F L Y  in the VR world. The controls to do so, if I recall correctly, was to put the controllers together, point them in the direction you want to go, and stretch out your arms. The further you stretch, the faster you go. I really liked how with visuals alone, I was tricked into believing in the VR world I was in. For example, whenever I moved forward and then stopped, my body would actually jerk forward a little, as though inertia was actually acting on me. It was super fun. Until the motion sickness kicked in, which was the only thing I disliked. Because of that, I didn’t get to enter all the other rooms (and I think I only visited 3 main ones)

Overall, the interactivity was pretty cool, using the controllers to move, draw, and even using our own voice to create sculptures. The only issue I faced was moving backwards after entering the interactive zones. It was tricky, but I made it out eventually.

Image from https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oY_jE1V7_hU/maxresdefault.jpg

 

Describe how this installation fits into the overall environment. How effective was it?

In terms of physical and VR environments, both of them seemed to fit seamlessly together at the beginning. The walls of the physical room were black, with chalk markings all over. In the center were four stools, the VR equipment, and the metal frame with motion sensors on them. The mapping was done so well. Putting on the VR headset was like putting on goggles; even though it was obstructing my view of the physical setting, the display allowed me to seemingly see though the headset. The cool part was when I turned around in my stool to see what’a behind me and saw the other four VR stools were exactly where the physical ones would have been.

So, effective? Hella.

 

How is the audience invited to engage with the installation, and how to they interact with it?

I guess the invitation to interact was mainly though the narrator sharing information and guiding us on how to interact in each particular room. Without the narrator’s prompt, I think we might have missed out on interaction opportunities in certain areas. To interact within the VR world was to simply point and aim the controller at whatever you wanted to interact with and pull a trigger. Even the controls for flying, which I’ve explained previously, was easy. And that’s very important, in terms of ensuring that the participants remain immersed in exploration and interaction.

 

Pick one feature/idea/concept from the installation, and discuss how you can incorporate it into your own interactive environment project.

I really liked the concept of using people’s senses against them; making them believe one thing when it’s actually something else. I also like the idea of physical exploration, where the participants can move about an area that is unfamiliar to them, having to interact with things to make sense of the world around them.

I would like to incorporate these two main concepts into my IE project, combining it with the topic of guilt-tripping. Through incorporating these two concepts, I intend to make the participants have this constant feeling of unease; to make them curious, yet cautions. It would be like thinking you might be in danger, but you keep exploring anyways.

by ·0 Comments

In one of the previous readings titled Space and Place, it describes how we perceive space in relation to our body. By placing it at the centre, we are able to divide space into different segments and directions.

In Illuminating Embodiment, it also talks about the body in relation to space, but more so on how it is interconnected with architecture. The reading shows this through interactive works done by the artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer. Basically, the works mentioned show that despite being separate entities, bodies and architectures are receptive to alteration; they change in response to one another.

 

Displaced Emperors, Relational Architecture 2

 

I used to think of architecture and buildings as being fixed; they were made for a particular purpose and to only serve as such, like a monument, for example. However, In the artist’s relational architectures, he shows how these seemingly fixed narratives can be altered through the use of technology, “superimposing audiovisual elements to affect it, effect it and recontextualise it.” I find it interesting, how technology is able to breach this gap between separate beings or objects, allowing them to interact with one another, while not necessarily having them physically touch one another. For example, in Displaced Emperors, Relational Architecture 2, the participants can virtually wipe away the exterior surface of a building, changing it and exposing its internal layout. Or how portraits projected on a building in Body Movies: Relational Architecture 6 can be interacted with through the shadows cast by participants. On any other occasion, these architectures and people coexist without any noticeable interaction; its just a space that a body passes through. But through the artist’s unique use of technology, the experience within the exact same space is changed drastically, with participants taking in a foreign narrative of a previously familiar place. I supposed this is what Lozano-Hemmer meant by creating “anti-monuments for dissimulation”.

 

Body Movies: Relational Architecture 6

 

“The performativity of the participant as well as of the technology ensures that both play a part in their own remaking.”

This quote, to me, is pretty much what the reading is mainly about. It’s how both the audience and the artwork play a part in creating and achieving unique results and experiences together. Overall, I’ve learnt that, although separate, there is a connection between space and body, how they interact, and how they constantly affect each other.

by ·0 Comments

Human-machine interactivity has expanded considerably over the years, and enriching these experiences is one of Golan Levin’s goals when creating an interactive artwork. Quite a handful of his interactive pieces use projections and tracking as a form of control; a way to “get away from the mouse and use out full bodies as a way of exploring aesthetic experiences” as he puts it. And out of all these projection based interactive artworks, I feel that Messa di Voce best incorporated the various interactive elements.

“The mouse is probably the smallest straw you can try to suck all of human expression through” – Joy Mountford

 

In addition to focusing on the aesthetic experiences, Golan wishes to empower people through interactivity and “discover themselves as creative actors”, which, without a doubt, reflects in the performance shown below.

 

As they “speak” [enter performer’s flawless impression of raging Donald Duck here], little spheres are projected onto the scene, seemingly emerging from the performer’s mouth and floating upwards like bubbles. In a way, I guess they could be called speech bubbles. More than that, the bubbles also change in size depending on the vocalisation of each sound.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE. The bubbles eventually fall to the ground and the performers are able to push and kick them around, an interaction that made it seem as though both the virtual and physical spaces were the same place.

The performance goes on to show the various ways sound can be used in the interactive artwork; from creating ripples,

 

to drawing with lines,

 

to what it would probably look like if your soul was being sucked out by a dementor,

 

and even creating this weird spiky aura thing.