“Are you trying to understand?”

When we listen to stories, we only listen to one side of the story. But often we fail to recognize this, and taking everything face value, thinking that what we heard is the fact instead of just a side to the story. Even worse – often we realize that, yet we don’t try to find out the truth. We make ourselves content with what we know. We overlook that lack of understanding, although we know it is there.

Based on the theme of “interstice of understanding”, we created project Door.

The Door

Group members: Dan Ning and Vania

Materials / Components

Inside of the cabinet

  • Cabinet (pre-bought and self-arranged)
  • Laptop
  • Power bank
  • Bluetooth speaker
  • Earphone
  • Arduino UNO
  • Breadboard
  • LED strips
  • Photoresistors


About the Narrative

Bluetooth speaker and earphones


Recordings were played using bluetooth speaker and earphones at two different points.

Since the theme that we explored revolves around “understanding”, we thought it’s apt to convey that using a narrative. We wrote down dialogues and split them into several parts of recordings after settling down on a base plot and characters.

In a nutshell, our story is a reverse Cinderella story – we used a base story that is familiar with most people. We all know that in the Disney version of the story, Cinderella was abused by her stepmother and her two stepsisters. Eventually, with the help of a fairy godmother, she managed to get a life she finally deserved.

In our narrative, we simply ask a question: What if Cinderella was never abused, but it’s just what people thought happened?

Through the dialogue, we conveyed the idea that Cinderella actually helped out due to her own will, to the point that people suspected she was being forced to work. In actuality, Cinderella got along with her stepmother and stepsisters well. We gave the stepsisters more personality by giving them two different perspective; one of them was very fond of Cinderella, yet scared to step out and actually tell the people off; another one didn’t exactly hate Cinderella, but not fond of her because she felt that Cinderella’s presence made their family suffer. She also grew to be upset towards her own sister (the other stepsister) as her sister didn’t say anything against the people.

If you listened to the recordings, you will realize the similarities and differences of the perspectives among the characters – who strongly opposed the people’s accusation, who hated the people, who hated Cinderella, who blamed themselves.

A final recording revealed that actually the people’s accusation came from Cinderella’s grandmother. She bore hatred towards the stepmother as she felt that she took everything away – her son (Cinderella’s father) and Cinderella. She didn’t spread the words just to abuse the stepmother, but rather because she truly believed that the stepmother was in the wrong. She thought she was saving Cinderella by doing so – which, as the other recordings suggested, was not the case.

Basically, the whole narrative showed multiple perspectives. Through this, we wanted to compel people to think critically of everything they heard.

List of the recordings:


Behind the Scenes

At first, we planned to use 2 Arduinos: one for the main components (photoresistors and LED strips) and one for the background components (PIR and background LED strips).

How they work

The main components will allow the LED strips to be turned off when someone comes near it, and light up under normal condition. It is to attract people to come to the right spots (near the speaker and earphone) so people don’t need to search the source of sound blindly. We used photoresistors as the sensor, so when light is blocked by the presence of someone, the lights will go off.

Photoresistor (the small dot on the door) and the LED strip to attract attention to that spot


The background components will allow motion to be detected using the PIR. When someone comes close to the cabinet, the background light will go off to focus attention to the holes where the LED strips for the spots are located. When someone opens the cabinet door, a final recording will play, stopping all the subsequent recordings (which will be played at random between the two sources of sound).

LED strip taped to the upper side of the cabinet as the background light


Change of plans

The PIR worked at first; however when we were coding and trying things out, the PIR suddenly just wouldn’t detect motions, although it was fine before. Since it was nearing the deadline, we decided to just scrap the PIR out and used external power supply (power bank) to light up the background LED strip. Because of this, we can’t let people open the cabinet, so to indicate that the cabinet is not to be opened, we tied a string on the handle. But conceptually, it can be a good analogy: how much effort are you going to put to find out the truth? Is a simple string going to stop you?

String tying the handles together


How it goes

Since our project is contained within a cabinet, it was easy to move it around.

After we installed our components into the cabinet, however, suddenly one of the photoresistors refuse to work. So we had to present with one of them not working, but afterwards, we solved the problem; we put a wrong value for the brightness setting in the code because the conditions are slightly different. Since the photoresistors were not working when we presented, it was hard to determine where the sources of sound were.

We constantly played the recordings on loop, but not loud enough for people to hear. It compelled people to come closer and put their ears right by the cabinet in order to be able to hear, so in a sense, it can only be used by one person at a moment. However I wouldn’t say that this is an individual experience, since although you “interact” with it individually, you can ask around on what other people hear and combine your stories to find out the truth. That, again, refers to the idea of how much effort are you going to put?




Level of interactivity

I think the feedback is more interactive since as soon as you approach the cabinet, there is a clear and immediate action that happened, which is the LED strips lights going out due to the change detected by photoresistors. It is visible even to people who are not interacting with it at that time.

The automation in our project is also not very high; the automated feedback that is set is only the photoresistor-LED light. We’re supposed to have the PIR and background light as well, but it didn’t work and because of that, I think the automation falls more to the passive rather than interactive side. There is still a certain amount of audience control as we used LED lights to guide them to where the speakers are exactly, navigating them to approach those spots instead of wandering around.

I also think there is an indirect collaboration to this project, in the sense that you can “exchange” the recordings that you heard with other people to reveal the actual story. But then again, this collaboration depends heavily on the audience, and may not necessarily happen.

About the adaptivity, I think our project doesn’t really possess automated adaptivity. It doesn’t possess memory that can provide feedback through continuous interactions, which will allow different actions to happen to counter whatever weakness was encountered throughout previous interactions.

The communications in this project is also very one-sided, since people can only listen to the recordings without responding back. This project doesn’t really have an identity or personalization, but rather more just like a platform that is different from usual, which allows people to “overhear” a conversation.


Characteristics of the interface

Firstly, it is kind of separated from real world experience since in order to interact with the project fully (that is, to listen carefully to the recordings), you will have to concentrate fully to the cabinet at that time or you will miss the sounds from the recordings since they are very soft. However, even after that the experience still may continue by exchanging the recordings with other audience, and that one will involve more real-world experience. That was our intention; to mimic the story to a real-world story so people can discuss about it outside the actual physical interaction with the cabinet, bringing it even to the real world.

The interaction is also intuitive, as the recordings would be played in a continuous loop. People will subconsciously be compelled to find out what the sounds are about, and they would go to the spots where the LED lights are turned on, where they can hear the sounds clearer. They can also tell intuitively that they’re not supposed to open since the handle is tied with strings. There is also a certain degree of subtlety as all the components is being contained in the cabinet where people can’t see them.

(That one refers to our final project that was presented, which scrapped the idea of revealing of final recording after opening the cabinet. But in case we did it and the cabinet could be opened, we would cover the components with wood anyway.)

However, the experience wasn’t monitored and used to provide feedback in the future; the installation has no memory. The experience is going to be the same no matter how many times people come to it; in a sense, the audience acts more like an observer. There is no selection at all and the experience is mostly linear; the only randomness comes from how we randomize the order of the recordings played, but in the end, they’re all the same recordings.



Individual parts

Dan Ning: main coding, research for material, doing the recordings, troubleshooter, physical installation

Vania: helping with the coding, main writer for the narrative/dialogue, editing the recordings, physical installation



I think one biggest weakness that we didn’t solve is how to attract people enough to stay and listen to all the recordings. Moreover, we looped them at random, which means after the final recording, the other recordings will just start playing again immediately – there is nothing that distinguish the most important final recording from the others.

At first, the connections between the wires weren’t very secure since we used crocodile clips and taped them using masking tape, but then we switched to jumper wires.

I think we’re trying too hard to achieve something that is conceptually interesting instead of getting our basics down first, which resulted in a lot of problem in the coding process since both of us are not that well-versed in programming to begin with.

One of the biggest problem Dan Ning encountered was the setting of the sources of sound. We initially wanted to use more sources, but there were problems with the coding. Moreover, the USB speakers were not working, so we had to use bluetooth speaker and earphones – the experience when listening using both of them are vastly different, and she had to program the volume every time we set it up.

We were also kind of worried about the recordings since we asked our friends to do those, and they might not be able to convey the proper emotions (they’re not actresses, after all), but I think it turned out fine.

I think another problem that we have is that we don’t have backup plans; a lot of our things failed at the last minute, and we didn’t have spare components or backups, so we have to settle for something else (i.e. the bluetooth speaker and earphones instead of USB speakers, not using PIR since it didn’t work)

All in all, we encountered a lot of troubles. For me, this personally reminds me not to do things last minute (I do that a lot). We also learned to always have spares and back up plans, no matter how minute the problem may seem. Overall, besides learning more about coding and installation, we also learn more about group work and the importance of setting up specific deadlines for each person, so there won’t be any last minute things.

For my final brochure, I decided to use gate fold design – but it’s not completely gate fold since the first page are pretty much overlapping. It’s kind of styled like normal trifold, but the first and second page are not covering each other completely. (Honestly, I don’t know what this is called.)

Here is my final design:

Physical copy

Front view when opened

Inside view when opened

Fully closed

I folded it wrongly at first. Since it’s glossy, it’s very obvious. (I’m sorry.)



outside view when opened

inside view when opened


For the front page, I’m sure I want to use a design similar to my poster from project 2 (see here) and put the details on the back page. I wasn’t sure about what to put on the second page at first since there won’t be much space. I thought of putting the details (the dates, etc) there, but there wasn’t enough space to make it look like those details are important, so I put them at the back. After trying out, I decided to put the names of the artists there, sort of like an “opening”.

I chose red and dark blue as the main eye-catchers, since they stand out the most when put with the yellow background.

As for the inside page, I put elements there at first. However, they don’t help to lead the eyes, and make the overall look more messy since it looks as if the elements were just thrown in without purpose. It also somewhat makes the texts harder to read. I was worried that just yellow with the polka-dotted background would be too plain, but since the page is packed with texts, it doesn’t look empty.

how it looks with elements


I added some geometrical shapes behind the photos of the artists to instill the elements that I incorporate in my front page. At first I wanted to make the photos circle, but I realize that my “title” design is quite angular despite having circles because the main elements in the design are the angular line and the trapezium lookalike. After trying out both design, I decided that squares are better, also because there are already circles (the polka-dots) in the background.

I also slanted the photos and the texts to add the “fun” element and make the whole look not as rigid, but I do think it does look slightly messy.

One big problem that I had was the texts; since I had to reach up to ~150 words, the texts are very chunky and space-consuming. I wanted to stick with overall A4 size, so I hope the texts didn’t turn out too small.



I have made a brochure before (for my part-time job), but since it was a professional brochure, the layout was much more rigid and easier to arrange. Moreover, I just had to stick with the NTU-approved colors and font, so there was not much “trying out” to do. When I was making this, I really felt the need to be creative, to be fun, to be quirky. I was trying to find a really complicated, unique fold design at first. I felt pressured by the title “anthem” that I created myself.

But then, in the end, I decided to forget all about it and just focus on creating a brochure first. I feel that above anything, a brochure has to cater to the needs of the audience – in this sense, to inform them about the featured artists of SDW, while still incorporating the whole theme / slogan of the event. That doesn’t necessarily mean I have to be “oh-so-different” – I just have to stick with what I have to do, and not try to do too much at once.

For the brochure, I looked up for different design folds.

Since my theme is anthem, I wanted to do something about “opening up” to reveal the contents.

I had three design ideas:

1.Stack square fold

how it works

inside view

outside view


I like this one at first since the idea of revealing was fun; one word will be revealed at a time. However, I realize it makes the very front interface (when not opened at all) confusing and even boring since there will only be the word “an” in it. I also had troubles incorporating the elements to the shape of the brochure.

2.Vertical gate fold

how it works

outside view

inside view


I feel that this one is very clear-cut and clean. However, I am not making use of the back interface at all, which makes it look incredibly plain.


I asked for Michael’s feedback, and he said that both my design and visuals could afford to be stronger, and should be able to lead the eyes. For those brochures, I relied more on the layout rather than the visuals to lead the eyes. However, I’m so stuck with the arrangements for those brochures since I already had a vision for them from the beginning. I tried taking the elements out and putting them back in again separately, but I didn’t make any significant difference (especially the stack square fold). So in the end, I decided to try and start fresh with a completely new design fold.

3.Horizontal gate fold

I already had the idea of using the normal gate fold from the beginning, but I was worried it would be too plain. But then I realized that if a brochure’s design is too complicated, it might confuse the readers instead, and that layout and visuals matter as much as the design fold.

In the end, I went with the horizontal gate fold design since I feel that the possibilities for this design are more “open” compared to the other two.

More about the design will be talked about in my final project post.

I decided to go with the slogan “An Anthem of Design”. Following my research and development post, I mentioned that the draft I made was not reflecting the spirit of anthem that I wanted, so I created a second draft.

I found inspiration for this from Pinterest, especially the color scheme. (I’m bad with colors.) Here is the image that I used for inspiration:

However, turns out that the pale grey background was muting the energy of the poster. I really liked the pale color since it makes the bright shapes stand out, but I do agree that everything does not seem as exciting as it potentially can be. I changed it to white afterwards.

Based on the feedback, I then tried just changing the background with any color that I think are “exciting”: I used green, orange, blue, etc. But eventually I settled with the color yellow, since it looks the most playful in my opinion. Here is my final design:

At first I wanted to use red as a “guide” for people to read the parts, but apparently the dark blue catches more attention, so in the end I changed the color font to dark blue and refrain from using that color for the other shapes, except for the one shape that I want to use as a line guide. Since the slogan is kind of special, I used red for it. I also didn’t use red for any other shapes.

I also change the orientation of the shapes to create some kind of contrast. I took out all the shapes from the canvas and realized, I used so many shapes, it’s confusing even for me. So I cut down the number of shapes to make it less messy and to create more focus. I also cut down the colors that I used. After that, I just play around, putting the shapes one by one.

I took away the squares at the side too. At first I wanted to show that although it’s something fun and very free-spirited, there is still some kind of pattern or order to it. But then it does look like it’s framing the whole shape, restricting the canvas somewhat, so I took it out and enlarged the shapes instead.



It wasn’t perfect. In fact, there are still things I can improve on. I was so focused on playing with the shapes and colors that I didn’t experiment much with the font types. But I think my design definitely improved from the beginning, and I actually had fun arranging the layout. I think this project pushes me out of my comfort zone. When I went to consult and showed my first drafts, I realized that I usually play safe with my designs, choosing something with less colors and less “experimental”, especially since I think my sense of colors is not as good. It might not be the best, but I’m satisfied with what I have made.

For this project, we’re supposed to make a poster for Singapore Design Week. I took out some keywords from the event description like design, innovation, engaging, etc and brainstormed them, finding phrases or words that are short and simple to be made into a slogan.

As for the art style, I am more inclined towards the flat illustration styles instead of something realistic.

So with the basic ideas and style somehow “settled”, I started out with a few concepts:


1. Design as innovation

So my first idea is something along the line that conveys the idea that design is something innovative, and that design is something everybody can think of or produce.

When I think of innovation, I think of new ideas, so I thought of a light bulb to represent the innovative part. As for the slogan, I thought of something simple like “Think Design” since it captures attention immediately and encourages people to consciously think of design.

However, I think it turned out very ordinary; there’s nothing special or exciting about it. It doesn’t really convey the idea of being innovative, and it doesn’t have personality.

2. Design as a bridge through time

I was thinking of something that could get through the gap of generations, so I wanted to use something that represented the past, combined with something that represented the future. I chose Peranakan patterns to represent the past and something technology-like for the future. (I wanted to make it look like there are branches of lights coming out of the screen.)

I had a lot of troubles coming up with the slogan; I was thinking something like “The Past and The Future”, or “Design Through Time”, but nothing really catches my attention. Besides, I wasn’t sure about the layout and color as well. I think this draft looks awful.


3. Design as connection

For this last one, I was looking for inspiration from the past SDW poster slogan. Their slogan is “A March of Design” (which, I think, is really smart since SDW is held in March). I wanted “connection” to be the concept; so I want it to be something that everybody knows and can relate to, something that everybody shares. Then I thought of the word “anthem” (by accident) and I liked it, hence the slogan: “An Anthem of Design”.

Since it’s about anthem, I wanted to create something shaped like a tone at first, but using geometric shapes (like Bauhaus). But it turned out very stiff and didn’t convey the excitement and energy of an anthem.


In the end, I decided to work on the third idea: An Anthem of Design.

Sometimes we think that feelings alone are not enough. While that is true to a large extent (after all, without getting the basics like the golden rule or rule of thirds, how can we create something that is eye-catching without even counting in the subjects yet?), does that mean that we can’t…

You know, like…

(…this is difficult…)

…Create something which value is determined by our feelings? By the memories and familiarity, like Droog or Super Normal? Something more free, more subjective. Of course, without throwing away things that we think are important—be it function, or concept. Anything!

Can’t we just create something that can convey our perceptions of the world to other people? Something to convey the sense of familiarity, the sense of home that we experience, letting others feel the warmth that we feel, all through our creations?

Why do we create? I create to convey. I create to tell my stories. I create to introduce myself.

(Because words alone are not nearly as expressive…)

And I wish to get to know you, from what you create.

Can you create an image of me and the life I’ve lived, based on my creation?


page 1

page 2

Hyperessay: Unnumbered Sparks (2014) by Aaron Koblin and Janet Echelman


About the artist

The artist that I will be talking about here is Aaron Koblin. He is best known for his innovative use of data visualization and work in crowdsourcing, virtual reality, and interactive film.


“So I think data can actually make us more human. We’re collecting and creating all kinds of data about how we’re living our lives, and it’s enabling us to tell some amazing stories. Recently, a wise media theorist tweeted: ‘The 19th century culture was defined by the novel, the 20th century culture was defined by cinema, and the culture of the 21st century will be defined by the interface.’ And I believe this is gonna prove true.”

-Aaron Koblin (TEDTalk, 2011)


A lot of his works is collaborative in nature, where people come together to create something, since more people will mean more data and more data will result in a greater story produced. In those projects, usually the engagement of the audience is highly crucial, making the audience the artists themselves. Without the audience, the project will not be. Literally, will not be. Some examples are the Johnny Cash Project and This Exquisite Forest, where he literally asked the audience to create the art itself.

In a sense, as the creator, he often only creates the platform and concept, leaving the creation of the actual “art” to the audience themselves.


About Unnumbered Sparks


[Taken from http://www.unnumberedsparks.com/]

Aaron Koblin and Janet Echelman (an American sculptor and fiber artist) worked together to create Unnumbered Sparks for TED’s 30th anniversary in March 2014. Unnumbered Sparks, as quoted from Koblin himself, is a “monumental interactive sculpture in the sky”.

How it works


Interface and projected result. [Taken from http://chrisdelbuck.com/projects/unnumbered-sparks/]

Basically, they created a massive net sculpture (745 feet long, or around 227 meters) and spread them from buildings to buildings across the sky in Vancouver, Canada. Five bright HD projectors will emit light beams onto the nets, which will result in shapes being projected on them, creating a stunning visual. The light beams were choreographed by participation from the audience, who could sign into a WiFi network created specially to connect to the program that controls the projectors. Signing into the WiFi would prompt the audience immediately to a website, which will display the nets. Audience could then touch the nets on their screen. It will correspond in real time, as the spots they touched will be translated into colorful light rings using the projectors. Those light rings will also “interact” with the other light beams projected on the nets.



Old and New Media

Unnumbered Sparks relied heavily on the programming, with a lot of elements relying on each other in kind of a relay to create the final outcome.



“The lighting on the sculpture is actually a giant website. It’s one huge Google Chrome window spread across five HD projectors. The content is being rendered in WebGL. It uses Javascript and shaders to render particles and sprites based on user motion, which is transmitted from mobile browser to our rendering browser via websockets. There are a lot of moving pieces here, from the local area network to the server (written in Go), to the sound system (also running in Chrome with Web Audio API) all the way through the LED light control system, which pulls pixel data directly from the browser.”

Aaron Koblin on how Unnumbered Sparks works


Honestly, reading that, I am not sure of what is going on since most of the terms is unfamiliar to me. What I could gather is that the program, or the “language”, is constantly being translated to something else until it reached something that could produce the expected outcome.

Due to that heavy dependence on computational parts, I think it’s safe to say that Unnumbered Sparks falls within the New Media. However, while programming is crucial, there is another part to this installation: the nets. The creation of fiber nets itself, I believe, is more within the Old Media and I think it is “artistic” enough to be considered an art by itself, even without the light beams projection. The nets didn’t just function as a screen for the light beams, but rather, adding variability to the visuals. The choice of material and crafting method affected how the nets will behave under different circumstances, i.e. weather conditions. Imagine if they used a simple screen or just project the light beams onto a wall; it won’t be as beautiful.


Unnumbered Sparks has a high entropy—the possibilities of the visuals created are endless, since humans’ behaviors are unpredictable. They can create spots wherever they like. In addition, the net itself is constantly changing, allowing the visuals to be projected to different dimensions. Different number of audience would produce different results as well—there are so many aspects that contribute to the variability.

I thought that Unnumbered Sparks doesn’t possess high automation at first; however, I then realized that there is still certain artistic visuals portrayed even without the participation of the audience; it’s just not as varied, but it will still be pleasing to the eye.

The machines (in this sense, the projectors) give immediate feedback with regards to the inputs, which are the spots pointed by the audience on the screen of their mobile devices. However, the feedback itself is a programmed response. There is no memory—the machine will not change its feedback, regardless of time or condition.

There is also a lot of communication between humans and machines, since the actions of the machines are always controlled by humans. There is also machine-to-machine interactions, as the program is constantly translated from the mobile device interface all the way until it reaches the projectors, which will create the light beams. I didn’t think there is any human-to-human interactions at first, however Koblin did say that he saw a lot of strangers started interacting with each other under the sculpture. I’m not sure if he referred to the interaction as something that caused the creations of the projections or something that is caused by the projections instead, but I guess in some level, there may be some human-to-human interactions.

What I think is interesting is the immersion. I think having massive nets hovering above the audience is interesting and effective, since it will immediately make anyone standing under the nets to feel “engaged” to the artwork, even before they are actually interacting with it. The effect will be vastly different if the lights are projected on a screen or a wall; it will not be as immersive, as it would seem more like a screening.

Unnumbered Sparks also can cater to the needs of a lot of people at once; the experience is not singular. In a sense, I can see where the human-to-human interactions may come from this; when you share a common experience, you usually can feel some kind of connection with others, even strangers. You can also see how the light rings you create interacted with others’, which is the whole point Koblin wanted to convey—engaging people, and letting them collaborate. However, I do think the interactivity is more prearranged than intuitive, as the audience has to be given clear instructions to sign into the prepared WiFi network.



Firstly, it is clear that Unnumbered Sparks depends on the audience to create the visuals. If that is so, can we consider the audience the “artist”? While it may not be a big idea, if we refer back to some of Koblin’s other works, he just provided a platform and concept in some of them. If that is so, can we still consider him the artist?

I believe that Koblin is not an artist per say—but rather, a creator. He created the platform for people to collaborate, which corresponds to his goal (or his manifesto) of bringing people’s stories together, to create an amazing story. So maybe no, he’s not the artist to some of his works, but he is the creator, and his beliefs are always clearly conveyed in his creations. I think artists do not equal to creators, and that is fine.

Secondly, Unnumbered Sparks plays on light beams a lot and is placed outdoors, which will make it a highly different experience when viewed at different times, at different conditions. Is it a weakness, or an advantage?

I’ll have to say that it is both. At night, the visuals created by the light beams will be more visible, and hence more stunning, rather than when viewed during the day. Moreover, if it’s raining, it will be hard for people to look up to view it. However, it may be the attracting point as people will be interested to view it at different times (or probably just at the best time, at least). Moreover, some conditions such as the wind may also allow the lights to be projected to different dimensions and creating a whole new visual.









The work by Aaron Koblin that I chose for my essay is Unnumbered Sparks.


As quoted from Aaron Koblin’s website, Unnumbered Sparks is a “monumental interactive sculpture in the sky”. For this installation, he worked together with Janet Echelman, an American sculptor and fiber artist. It was displayed between buildings in downtown Vancouver, Canada in March 2014 for TED’s 30th anniversary.

The interactivity of this installation comes from the fact that it could be “choreographed” in real-life time by anyone through their mobile devices.

How does this installation work? Basically, the artists created a massive net sculpture and spread them from buildings to buildings across the sky. Visuals shaped from beams of light would then be projected onto the nets using five bright projectors. The beams of light were controlled by the audience. They could sign into the WiFi in their mobile phones or tablets, which would prompt them to a website that would allow them to choreograph the beams of light in real time (and additionally, vary the colors). Your mobile devices became sort of a “remote control” for the visuals. Also, there is spatial audio. Ambience sound that set up the atmosphere would be played through the audience’s mobile devices.

Not only is that really engaging and interesting, I think it’s very much reflective of the new media. It has a high entropy – the possibilities of the visuals created are endless, since humans’ behaviors are unpredictable. In addition, the net itself is constantly changing due to the string tension and the weather condition such as the wind, allowing the visuals to be projected to different dimensions. Different number of audience would produce different results as well – there are so many aspects that contribute to the variability.

The machines (in this sense, the light beam projectors) give immediate feedback to the inputs, which are the movements or the spots pointed by the audience through the mobile site. Numerous code were created for this, and also numerous calculations. Numbers were important to calculate the dimensions of the net and the tensions required when hanging the net, as the creators needed to make it such that people are able to see the visuals at any angle, at any time. The codes have to be created in a more modular way, such as that the activity of one projector does not affect another, and that one command does not interfere with another. The organization of orders and data are crucial.

There is a sense of “retaining memory” too in this installation as the light projected will need to remain for some time before disappearing. However, the memory itself does not affect future projections – in a sense, there is no actual feedback coming from the machine, but maybe more from the participants. There is a high human-machine interaction in this installation.

I think the purpose of this installation is to show people more about “collaboration”. More beautiful visuals can only be produced when there are multiple light beams with multiple colors; so to speak, the concept is that when people work together, the world can be richer and more beautiful. Also, in this installation, the audience becomes the artist as well. They are not merely watching something changing, but also contributing to that change.

However, I do think this installation is not “automated” as without people’s participation, there will be no visuals or audio. The net will just be a net. While it may be the message they’re trying to get across, I do think that without proper publication, people will not know what to do. The interaction part is not something that is intuitive, but rather prearranged. Another weakness is that people without mobile devices will not be able to contribute, which may adverse their idea of collaboration entirely.