How do you think cases such as these function in this current situation, do the artworks still function without the interactive element, if they didn’t speculate what strategies could evolve that wouldn’t require physical contact in the first place. Why did the artists choose to use physical contact as a mode of interaction?
With the Covid-19 issue, people may feel less inclined to participate for artworks that require them to interact with the pieces, robbing them from the full immersive experience of the work. On the other hand, the artworks would not function as intended by the artist.
In the case of the Blooming (2018), physical touch is necessary as it is required to convey the message of the artwork: human connection. In this artwork, when two people stand on a metal plate each and have physical contact with another, the tree slowly blooms, highlighting the beauty of human connection.
img src: https://singaporemotherhood.com/articles/2019/11/2219-futures-imagined-artscience-museum-singapore-review-free/
What did you all think of the exhibition design, was it effective? Does it allow for open-ended interpretation or is the narrative set for you, the viewer, to interpret the entire experience in a certain way. Seeing that its a Bicentennial commissioned exhibition, how do you think it relates to the overall Bicentennial celebrations as a whole? How did the exhibition designers organise your experience of time spent at each artwork, did you feel rushed, or did you feel that the pieces were allowed to capture your attention?
I think it was an effective design, because it allowed viewers to worm through the story acts seamlessly and know what is the focus of each space without getting confused.
I feel that the exhibition has set for us a certain way to interpret the experience, which portrays singapore in a bleak future. However, with that being portrayed, us as viewers would question this and allow us to imagine other possibilities.
In relation to bicentennial, the bicentennial celebrated our history, acheivements and what the country has gone through. With this exhibition, they may have wanted singaporeans to question how our future may be, and how we may work towards a future we want- to have a vision for the future.
Some of the pieces did not capture my attention, namely those that are just being displayed. However, those that are more interactive, eg. the blooming tree and the room where we got to walk through how an apartment might look like in the future.
Finally and most importantly, which of the artworks did you enjoy, and which did you dislike, and for what reasons? Did any of the installations give you a new perspective of what interaction could be?
Adaptation was the one that I enjoyed the most would be Adaptation, the exhibit with the jellyfish. I felt that artwork was very throught-provoking, and leaves a lasting impression that makes us think about it again on another occasion.
I did not enjoy the exhibits that were displayed in the glass boxes, not because they are not meaningful, but because they aren’t as interesting visually or interactively.
img src: https://singaporemotherhood.com/articles/2019/11/2219-futures-imagined-artscience-museum-singapore-review-free/
Adaptation really gave me a new perspective on interactive installations. My impression of interactive installations are ones that require viewers to participate, give their input to complete the piece.
Adaptation did that, but played with our sense of anticipation for the artwork. While waiting to enter the room, our anticipation is built up, having waiting for some time to enter the room we would expect something extraordinary. It drawls a little while we are staring at the jellyfishes. Then when the other side switches to another group of people, it reveals the cycle we are in. Its payoff was satisfying for that artwork, which I thought the artist managed to convey their message very effectively.
Preview the works / read reviews of them here!