Research

There are 2 posts filed in Research (this is page 1 of 1).

Research Critique 2 / Micro-project 3

Link to Facebook live video:

https://www.facebook.com/amanda.oh.5283/videos/1996232647296283/

In this project, I worked together with Celine where we used Facebook live to interact with one another despite being in two different places.

To me, the third space is about creating a new place which make use of both the virtual and physical spaces. For example in our project, Celine and I sat at two different tables, but only through using Facebook live, it brought our locations together and allowed us to interact within this new space that we created.

The boundaries were collapsed in this third space because we acted as though we were sitting side by side. The main object in this project was a can of Milo which we were able to pass to one another throughout the video despite us being in different locations physically. We also constantly reach out to one another; giving high fives and pats on the head which helped to further enhance this “illusion” that we were in the same space.

I felt that intimacy was achieved in this project due to the visual perception that we’ve created.

“And from this ubiquitous state of shared presence we have come to inhabit an entirely new way of seeing via a fracturing of perception.”

-Randall Packer, The Third Space

 

Physically we were in different locations but on the screen, it seemed as if we were together and were able to touch one another visually. That helped to perceive our interactions as being close.

We were able to virtually touch objects by understanding how the split-screen works and  coordinating our movements. For example, when I wanted to reach Celine, I would stretch my hand out towards Celine’s side of the screen till it goes off screen, and from her side, she would use her own hand to connect with my out-stretched arm so that it looked like one whole arm.

 

 

” The objective of the project
was to demonstrate for the first time how artists based in distant physical locations could meet and perform together, in the same “living image.”  -Maria Chatzichristodoulo, Cyberperformance

 

In this project, Celine and I collaborated by planning our actions beforehand and choreographing our movements to make it seem like we were sharing the same table. For instance, we knew we wanted to make it seem as if we were drinking from the same Milo can, so we bought two identical Milo drinks prior to the project and during the Facebook Live, we tried to choreograph our actions such that when one Milo can appears on one side of the screen, the screen on the other person’s side shouldn’t show a Milo can, this helped to give off the illusion that we are sharing the same Milo can.

 

 

Micro project 2 / Research Critique 1

This micro-project was done along with my group members, Karen and Jiajun. Held in the classroom, we invited the class to interact with Karen, who has low self esteem about her body. Karen sits in the center of the room, holding a sign that told the audience to write what they thought of her body on the corresponding body parts.

In this case, Karen acted as the canvas as the audience wrote on her. The underlying message we were trying to convey was about body image which was inspired by Karen’s lack of self-confidence.

This is an art piece which fulfils several characteristics of D.I.W.O.

As quoted from Marc Garret’s article,

“It challenges and renegotiates the power roles between artists and curators. It brings all actors to the fore, artists become co-curators alongside the curators, and the curators themselves can also be co-creators. The ‘source’ materials are open to all; to remix, re-edit and redistribute, either within a particular DIWO event or project, or elsewhere. The process is as important as the outcome, forming relationally aware peer enactments. “

 

In our art piece, there was a sense of openness as the artwork and material was open to all in the room. Both the artist and audience became co-creators as the audience’s contribution was greatly needed to form the final piece and the process was important to see the how Karen’s body filled with comments over time.

If we were to compare this to traditional art, the audience paid a huge part in this piece as the artwork wouldn’t have been completed without the audience’s participation. On the other hand, traditional art can be done single-handedly by the artist himself at his own time.

There are similarities in our art piece to those discussed in the crowd-sourced examples. In Yoko Ono’s ‘Cut’ piece, the viewers each came forward to cut a piece of Yoko Ono’s garment and everyone who was in the room could see the art happening live. Similarly, our art piece allowed the audience to come up individually and write on our friend, Karen while everyone in class could see the comments live as they were being written.

The difference, however lies in the type of medium used, and the message that was given out. Our artwork spoke about body image, which was influenced by Karen’s self-esteem. Therefore, the medium and message differs as it is very much dependant on the artist’s own experience and narrative.

The process of our crowd-sourced work can be viewed here: