Inter-mission Research

The Lapse Project

The Lapse Project consists of 5 parts: VR Lapse, Particle Lapse, 24H Lapse, Panorama Lapse, and Journal Lapse. The project uses the concept of the word ‘lapse’ as a gateway to the conversation between the growing digitising of our nation, the virtual technology we use, and our memory of the physical world.

VR Lapse focuses on the disappearance of The Art House, where the viewer is placed within the now empty space with a 360 degree view of its surrounding, allowing us to contemplate the idea of the disappearance of an important local landmark without it actually being demolished.

Image taken from

Particle Lapse worked in conjunction with VR Lapse, focusing on sound instead of visuals. Using the sonic vibrations recorded 24 hours prior, Particle Lapse aims to disorient the viewer in an attempt to create an illusion of a gap in space and time.

24H Lapse uses CRT monitors to show scenes of visitors in the space in the past 24 hours over live footages that make them appears to coexist with the current time.

Image taken from

Panorama Lapse is a video projection triptych that digitally erased 3 art gallery buildings, namely: The National Museum of Singapore, National Gallery Singapore, Singapore Art Museum. Visitors goes about their daily lives in these changed spaces, which asks the question: what would happen to us if this is our reality? The work also plays on our memory of the erased spaces, do we recognise these spaces if they are gone?

image taken from
image taken from
image taken from

Lastly, Journal Lapse is a piece of creative writing that plays on the idea of ‘lapse’ to its fullest extend.

Overall, I don’t really understand this project. Although conceptually, I understand where the artists are coming from, I feel that the works do not connect. For example, in VR Lapse, there is a very far link between the removal of a building in a VR space and the idea of the removal of an actual building as we are used to the (unreal / manipulative?) nature of virtual space and as such, a disappeared building could be inferred as a ‘bad render’, or that it ‘disappeared for us to see clearly’. (what I mean is, in games, some 3D objects disappear when it gets in the view of the camera in order for the players to see their characters clearly without an obstruction). I feel that it will have very little impact on the viewers, probably because it is done in VR.

Another example is the (forced?) link between surveillance and data mining in 24H Lapse. I do not associate the 24 hour lapse in CCTV footage with the “seemingly obsolete technology of CCTV surveillance that is being rapidly replaced by data mining.” Perhaps it is a sound argument conceptually, but visually, it seems far-fetched.

Despite my criticisms, I really like Panorama Lapse as it connects best visually and conceptually. It is straight forward, easy to understand, and proves its point. Although I also imagine that 24H Lapse would be a cool installation to see too.

It might have been better if I was there to see the artwork firsthand as it sounds too complex on paper. As such, my views may be distorted due to the lack of physical interaction with the artworks.

The Lapse Project brochure:


INTER-MISSION: Does Out of Sight, Out of Mind in Singapore leads to Nevermind?


Reading: Peter Zumthor – Atmospheres

Peter Zumthor – Atmospheres

“Atmosphere is an aesthetic category to Peter Zumthor. “

The author finds that the quality in Architecture is not about the academic studies, but rather on whether the building is able to touch people. What makes it touching is a complex blend of many properties that requires an amount of work and thought in it. The reading breaks down on what makes an architecture moving.

“We perceive atmosphere through our emotional sensibility”

I think it’s true that we sense a space with out emotional sensibility at the first instance we step into a space. We can sense the eeriness in a dark street unlike the romantic candlelit room; despite both being dimly lit spaces. There are special properties in each spaces that needs to be broken down for us to understand how certain properties can create different feelings.

  • the physical body of architecture — architecture collects different things in the world, different materials combined to create a space. kind of anatomy
  • Material compatibility — different possibilities of material usage. Objects / materials in reference to one another. complimentary, can cause a change in spatial
  • The Sound of a Space — sound transmission within a space needs to be considered. Personality.
  • The Temperature of a Space — how warm or cold the space feels, which can be altered by the materials used
  • Surrounding Objects — people, their objects, and things placed around.
  • Between Composure and Seduction — people move through space. Bring separate parts together, people form their own attachments. Some spaces make some feel that they can stay, some is just passing through.
  • Tension between interior and exterior — exterior is to be shown to everyone while interior is private. What do i want to see me or someone else using the building later.
  • Levels of Intimacy — proximity and distance. Size, latches and connecting bits, doors. Interior can be intimate even when exterior is intimidating
  • The Light on Things — lighting in a room and shadows. Think about the lighting in a room while designing it. Daylight vs artificial light.

A few takeaway I can find in relation to our course is that the atmosphere of the space should be considered deeply in order for us to setup a successful interactive space. Using the properties above, we are able to (at least) understand the properties and apply it in our considerations when designing an interactive space.

Reading 2 – Janet Cardiff & George Bures Miller (by Marjory Jacobson)

What I understood from the reading is that technology can create an immersive experience, used as a way to enhance our senses, imagine a scene that does not exist, even though we thought it exists. It also allow us to share experiences with one another, creating new ways for us to see the world. In a sense, technology can fuel our imaginations, which blends into the real world and thus is able to create a different experience in the same space.

My questions for this understanding are:

  • Is the inclusion of technology an enhancement or a lie? how should we make sense of our altered senses?
  • Is the experience still genuine or a fabrication? Does it matter?