Final Proj E&I

The day before the actual game, we sent out an online notification through Instagram story to let everyone know that we are going to play a game. We invite the live audiences to come in to watch the stream and allow them to influence the results too.

Meanwhile, we also have set up a set of briefs for the chef and artist

We have chosen our artist and drawers for the two groups of people we want to compare: The Noobs in Round 1 and The Pros in Round 2.

The Noobs

Artist: Jacob

Chef: Tiffany

We have deliberately moved them away from their strengths, as Jacob can cook well but cannot draw, and Tiffany can draw well but cannot cook. It is also funny because she initially said that she could cook rice without a rice cooker, which was quite a difficult thing to do. Turns out, she could ONLY cook rice. Oops.

The Pros

Artist: Alena

Chef: Hannah

This time, we deliberately let them play in the role that they are good at so that we can compare the results between people who knows what they are doing and people who don’t.

We have also ironed out the kinks in the logistics. We will stick to cooking in Hall 2 but find a location with better connectivity.

and have split up our roles: Brendan and I will be the facilitators for the Chef, while Dion and Joel are the facilitators for the Artist.

We have decided to split up the equipments we bring. I brought the plates, bowls, and utensils; Dion brought the chopping board, knife, and cards; Joel brought the condiments and his trusty pan; and Brendan brought his camera equipments.

The final recipe:

Recipe for Quesadilla, including the random ingredients we added in to throw the chef off.

So before anything else, let’s talk about the game.

The flow of the game

This is the flow of the game in both rounds. The game starts with the facilitator giving the ingredient name to the artist, which the artist will have to draw within 7 seconds. After that, they will be stopped and the drawing will be shown to the chef. The chef will then interpret the item and buy the item that fits best to the interpretation. If the chef gets confused, the audience can help or influence the chef by interpreting their own version of the item. After purchasing the items, the chef will move to the kitchen for part 2. During part 2, the facilitator will then show the artist the steps to cook the dish, and within 40 seconds, the artist will have to draw it and show the chef. The chef will then interpret the drawing without using their instincts to guide them. This means that they have to follow what is drawn, no matter how illogical it seems. Audiences can still influence and help the chef at this point. After the dish is done, the artist will be invited to the kitchen to eat the dish they have made together.


DIWO: Players Tiffany and Jacob participating together in the game
DIWO: Players Alena and Hannah participating together in the game

DIWO comes in with the players, as they work together with other players to create the dish together. This thus becomes an unscripted performance that is participated by the players. The DIWO aspect also comes in from the audiences where the audience can interact with the players as well to “do it together” (although I’d say, the audiences join merely for the entertainment). The outcome of the game will be a combined effort between all parties.

The Third Space

The Third Space is the online platform in Instagram Live.

Instagram Live icon created by me

On this platform, we are able to reach out to a massive audience of friends, family members, and friends of friends. Within the Third Space, the players are able to communicate with each other despite the distance, as well as communicate with the audience. This online space bridges the spacial gap and allows for maximum participation in all parties with minimal effort, making the entire game really fun and engaging. Although the players do not actually create a Third Body, the players have made full use of the abilities of the Third Space to create the final dish.

The Glitch

The glitch comes in the form of mis-drawings, mis-interpretations, and mis-cooking. There is a complexity in the flow of the game that allows for multiple opportunities for glitches to happen. This is very visible in the first round , The Noobs, and less apparent amongst The Pros. It is interesting that glitches that happen at the from affects the glitches at the end quite a lot, and this amplified glitching reminded me of the glitch micro-project that used a similar activity of glitching a glitched image.



The 2D room setup

We set up our booth in a quiet and isolated room so as to allow our artist to concentrate on the game without any interference. The tripod holds Joel’s phone that will livestream the artist’s perspective of the game. The drawing block is for the artist to draw on.

On the other side, we have Tiffany meeting Brendan and I at Giant supermarket near Canteen 2 to get ready for the game.

Round 1: The Noobs

Part 1: The Grocery

After getting ready, we kick off the game with the first ingredient drawn: Tomato. Tiffany got it right immediately. Moving on, we have Onions.

Abstract onions. Or maybe a striped ball?

Tiffany immediately shouted “ONIONS!”, but proceeds to buy garlics as onions ran out of stock. This is quite unfortunate as we knew that Giant sold onions.

Sock bananas

The next ingredient is the banana which is a decoy ingredient. Tiffany got it right again, but as she doesn’t have any cooking experience, she do not find it weird.


Next, Jacob drew a quite interesting take on Chicken Breast: a side profile roasted chicken, with the arrow pointed at the breast part. HOWEVER, the facilitators, audience, and the chef couldn’t understand it because it looks like vegetables on a plate. Thus, Tiffany bought peanuts.

Phone macaroni
Satay? Hotdogs?
Box or butter, or eggs?
Mushrooms or middle fingers?

These are the remaining drawings, with some that are comprehensible and some that are difficult to understand.

Tiffany figuring out what this drawing means
Cheese! Tiffany shouted
Tiffany goes for the hot dogs

Here are some screenshots of the actual live stream during some of these drawings.

The livestream – behind the scenes
behind the scene part 2
Tiffany looking for the halal symbol on the cheese

Here are some shots on-site with Tiffany.

The items we bought – Bananas, slice cheese, shiitake mushroom, eggs, orange, tomato, garlics, cucumber, peanuts, macaroni, chicken hotdogs

At this point, the live stream was filled with audiences, that gave a lot of comments. It was interesting as they are participating a lot, giving not just a lot of tips but also funny comments that entertained all of us.

After this part, I have noticed that the glitch is very real. The mis-drawing and mis-interpretation have thrown off the entire recipe. I can’t imagine what we can cook out of what we have. The lack of an actual way of communication between the players have really glitched the recipe. Even the audience can’t help now…

Part 2 – The Cooking

After getting ready, we started part 2.

I’d say Jacob’s drawing here are very comprehensive. He even stuck to using the same drawings as he did in the previous part to not confuse Tiffany. However, because the items are already wrong, he couldn’t unglitch it. Tiffany blatantly follows as she does not really know what is going on. This results in hilarious things that she do.

Chopping peanuts
Cutting the garlic as a whole instead of splitting first
Burning the pan!!! OH NO.
Looking at the drawing
Tiffany chopping the peanuts into tiny pieces according to the instructions which calls for chicken to be chopped up instead
Tiffany cooking
Tiffany chopping garlic
Tiffany marinating peanut

Here are some screenshots documenting what happened.


Reaction to taste test
Taste test
Round 1 final food

Tiffany made scrambled eggs with cheese, hotdogs, mushroom, and peanuts. I am very surprised that we still managed to make something that is edible. It was not that bad tasting it, just that the mushrooms are slightly undercooked, and the pan is burnt. The glitch have not just taken place, but also snowballed from the beginning down to the end. Still, despite this uncontrolled glitch, we manage to create a result that is somewhat satisfactory, and it have at least created an outcome that falls within the boundaries of what we have in mind (something edible).

I think that the cooking phase is the part that fixed everything together, as the cooking part will allow any of the ingredients to become edible. Thus, we can actually use this round as an example of how uncontrollable glitch can still somewhat be controlled, and that cooking isn’t all that hard. We can pretty much shuffle the ingredients we buy, use the same cooking steps, and end up with pretty okay edible food.

Reflections from Tiffany: She enjoyed the whole process even though she knew she screwed up a lot. It was a learning experience for her because she hardly cooks. She also find it fun to be entertaining others.

Reflections from Jacob: He enjoyed the game and finds it interesting and funny when the two players are chosen to get out of their comfort zone. The audience comments are funny to him too. However he felt that as the artist, the game is more fun at the front than at the back.

After we concluded the first part, we took a 15 minutes break and cleaned up. We managed to salvage the pan and everything was fine.

Round 2: The Pros

Hannah Ready!

Once we are ready, we started the

Part 1: The Grocery

Tortilla that looks like orange
Shell Macaroni which looks like ???
BBQ Sauce that looks like Ketchup
Jalapeno banana
Sugar cube butter
Shredded cheese
chicken fillet
lime that looks like orange

Overall, Alena drew alright. But there are quite a few items that are glitchable. For example, the tortilla wrap looks so much like oranges that Hannah almost got oranges. But as she knows how to cook, she find that it does not make sense to have oranges. So she went around and found tortilla wrap.

Another example is the butter, which Alena just drew a cube. I like how, due to our understanding of what butter is usually depicted, we understand that a slab of something is usually butter.

Despite the potential for glitch, Hannah still understood them right!

Hannah looking at the stream
Hannah moving around
Hannah putting down butter
Hannah looking for butter

Here are some screenshots from the livestream:

Lime? Lemon? Orange? Huh?
Oranges or tortilla wrap?
BBQ sauce got right
Thinking… what is this?
Turning chicken into fish nugget since there isn’t any chicken left
Alena drew butter and Hannah got it right

One thing that happened was that the staff of Giant was on a lookout for us as we were asked to stop filming during round one. To avoid getting caught, we kept our distance so there wasn’t much documentation or footages.

During this round, there wasn’t much audience also, which is probably because of the lateness (we started at 7pm). It could also be because we have done it once, so the second time wasn’t as entertaining. Thirdly, it could be because Hannah was doing everything very smoothly so it became somewhat boring.

It was also impressive to see that Hannah actually got most of the stuffs correct. I would hypothesise that this is due to her instincts, being someone who knows how to cook and assemble recipes together.

So after the shopping, we bought all the things and went back to the kitchen. As we have already went through it once (actually, twice, including the test run), we could do it properly this time. With that, we quickly started the second part.

Part 2: Cooking

For this part, Alena did pretty well, and like Tiffany, she used the previous visuals to make sure Hannah understands the different ingredients.

Meanwhile at the kitchen:

Dicing up the tomatoes
Watching Alena draw
The final product

Again, here are some live stream footages:

Alena draws as Hannah waits patiently (by patiently I mean play with the dog filter)
Hannah, being pro at this, effortlessly cooks

As Alena and Hannah are also friends, the entire stream was more friendly and conversational. It didn’t really mattered that there wasn’t much audience, as there is a lot of communication between the two of them. We even started playing with Instagram filters like the dog filter, which made the stream more fun and engaging.


It was also interesting that Hannah keeps requesting for the next step while the previous step is still ongoing. This is perhaps also part of her instinct as a person with cooking experience, as she do not want to be waiting for instructions while the food is cooking so as to not overcook or burn the food. Hannah also have done everything properly and really well, showing off her excellent cooking skills. She fully understands what Alena draws as the instructions are very straightforward to her.

Overall, this round was much smoother, quicker, and effortless. Despite this, we were bored easily and went with the motion sometimes without actually seeing what is going on because we had too much trust in Alena and Hannah handling on their own. This creates a situation where the game wasn’t as entertaining and engaging compared to round one. This also winds up in lesser viewers, and I think this actually created another effect where the two can be more intimate with each other as they don’t have to entertain anybody.

Compared with the first round, this round was really a lot different in terms of the smoothness, the viewers, the entertainment, the timing, the speed, and communication. Perhaps one really important aspect of a good game is the glitch itself. Without mistakes, what is there to watch? 

With these, we created a trailer and highlight video. REALLY APPRECIATE BRENDAN for doing these videos!!! He did a really good job compiling everything and presenting this awesome videos!!!

Final words

In conclusion, I conclude that the Noobs did a better job entertaining everyone, despite the food being badly done. While it was enjoyable to eat the perfect Quesadilla, I do not really enjoy the process. As I have mentioned in Research Critique 3, a successful performance is in its process and not the outcome. Therefore, I believe that, despite the Pros winning this game, the Noobs have won our hearts.

Also, I would like to reiterate the DIWO aspects of the game. With the players, we have allowed people to come together to participate and perform together in this game. Audience also came in to be part of the game, commenting, chatting, helping, and influencing the outcome of the game. This have created a large body of players, creating a whole DIWO experience. This could not be done without the Third Space, as we need everything to be communicated through the screen and the chatroom. The usage of the Third Space as  a means of communication have allowed for maximised participation, making the entire game more successful. Lastly, without the Glitch, the game would be unentertaining and lose viewers like in Round 2.

My personal take away would be to be able to create an experience of such complexity using these concepts that are sort of closely related. It got me to be more aware and observant in these concepts on other platforms that helps me to understand certain digital arts better.

If there would be an improvement to the game, I would separate the days such that Hannah will be playing on another day. I would also change some parts of the game at round 2 (eg. maybe change the recipe) so that audiences will join in to watch the difference instead of watching them cook the same thing.

Our group presentation can be found here:

It was a great experience hosting the game and learning to apply these concepts. It’s been a great sem learning with you Lei 🙂 I really learnt a lot. So yup. That concludes the project, as well as the semester. Byeeeeeeeeee!


Hyperessay: Online Symposium

Held in Adobe Connect, the Symposium shifted performance into a new medium, the third space, where we rethink about the idea of a traditional “one-to-many” style of performances and embrace a new “many-to-many” style.


The performance on the first day is by Annie Abrahams, which she have different performers interact with the object on their webcam as seemingly random recorded phrases get played out. The webcams appear and disappear and everything appears messy. Annie then proceeds to lay silent on her chair and close her eyes, which the rest follows suit. This reminds me of DIWO where a group of people come together to do something collaboratively which they have a responsibility to perform and keep the performance alive. The overall unscripted-ness of this performance, together with the number of performers involved, creates quite a mess that I would call “glitchy”, where the unintended randomness is embraced during the performance that have made it glitched.

The first part of Annie Abraham’s performance, where we can see the usage of objects that is messily arranged on the screen

On day three, there was the performance by igaies. The performance started with the XXXTRAPRINCESS’ where they take on personas by using snapchat filters to simulate the characters in another frame. As mentioned in my Research Critique II, what makes a Third Space work is in participation where the parties involved must act according to their third space persona. By acting according to the persona and script, they have acted in the Third Space, where their third bodies have detached from the physical reality through the snapchat filters and the persona they play.

XXXTRAPRINCESS’ and their third space persona

The performance was then followed by Roberto Sifuentes, where he have glitched his body by allowing audiences to place leeches onto his body, which he then performs a series of ritualistic actions, before laying down on the ground to get the leeches removed by a woman. This performance caught many attention, including my own, and it had me thinking about the relationship between the audience and the performers in the Symposium, and I will talk more about it below.



The Symposium brings audiences together within a shared online space, only providing fixed perspectives for audiences to make sense of the performance as we piece them together to form an idea of the whole thing.

The few frames that we look into to decipher the performance offers an interesting perspective to the performance itself

We are merely audiences, only able to make comments and discuss the work, but not directly intervene the performance. By eliminating the possibilities for the audiences to interact with the performance, what purpose do we serve as online viewers, that is no different from that of physical viewers? This is where I find that we are able to openly discuss the performance critically and emotionally without affecting the performance, which would have been unacceptable in a conventional performance in a physical space.

Credits to Brendan. Real time comments on the performance by XXXTRAPRINCESS’ as it gets conducted, and we can see multiple comments and people agreeing to one another.

This open discussion is further enhanced as we all take on our online persona, our Third Body, which we express our thoughts, comments, and ideas differently from our real persona. Also, because of the lack of interaction with the performance and the ability to instantly make comments, our reaction to different sections of the performances can be expressed without hesitation, and this allow our reaction to be less controlled and more raw.


On day 3 of the Symposium, the bizarre performance by Roberto Sifuentes churned many comments on the chatroom.

Interesting discussion about the performance by Roberto
Audiences placing leeches on Roberto.
Roberto’s strenuous ritualistic actions with a metal rod

Roberto lies down to be have the leeches removed from his body.

In Roberto’s bizarre performance, he have added noise to his body by bleeding and sweating. He have thus cleansed his inner body of said noise, but at the same time glitched his outer body as he gets drenched in bodily fluids we dislike having on our skin. I find this relationship of glitch and purification interesting. Glitching is usually associated with impurity and ruination, but in this unexpected case, glitching and purification goes hand in hand.

As the performance goes on, the chatroom goes crazy as the audiences input their raw interpretations and comments. Some have made references to issues like gender and power, while others have made nonsensical, yet funny one-liners. This have led me to an idea: The different kinds of inputs of the audiences due to different interpretation and opinions have created a mess in the chatroom, adding noise and glitching it.



A compilation of the different kinds of comments that adds up to the noise



The chatroom seems meaningless to look at at first due to its messiness, but when we see the comments individually, we find them as the audiences’ method of release. We see the audiences’ reactions coinciding with the meaning I drew from Roberto’s performance where glitch and cleansing goes together. In this sense, the messiness, or glitch in the chatroom is a result of us clearing our mind, and reading it is a way of getting our mind cleared.

By allowing us to comment freely in the chatroom without affecting the performance, and by drawing this relationship between the performance and the chatroom, I feel that we the audience have now unintentionally participated in the glitch performance. We are now not just audiences in a chatroom, but are part of the performance on another frame, and are thus have turned the glitch performance into a DIWO.

We can now see the Symposium as having 4 frames instead of 3, since the chatroom is also another frame of the glitch performance

I find that this parallel relationship between the audience and the performance something that only the Symposium can pull off, which cannot be present in any other performance spaces. The Symposium have thus turned communication into the performance itself. Despite the audience’s limitations that this Symposium have set, this many-to-many relationship have still brought performances to a deeper level. With this, I believe that there are still many great potential in performances that the Symposium can bring that we have yet to have a taste of, and I would like to take part in another, given the chance.

Final Project – Split Chef (Discussion)

that little icon at the top right ruined this picture

We have transcended through time and space to meet up in the third space — Skype. Joel happen to me unable to meet us, so we decided to conduct a skype meeting.

During our skype meeting, we discussed on the things that we have to iron out so we can move on to the final work.

  • We finalised the player roles and what kind of players we want

  • We decided on the kitchen location to be either Hannah’s (our friend) hall, or one of the hall that we are staying in. The backup plan is to actually use someone’s house.
  • Next, we asked if we should have audiences to watch our show, and allow them to comment to help the chef. I think it will be fun and engaging to both the audience, the players, and facilitators.
  • Next, we finalised on the recipe so we are sure of the ingredients to buy and the steps we have to take
  • We also planned out what kind of materials we exactly need to bring and tasked each of us to bring certain items
  • We also ironed out some of the other stuffs that may affect the game

So what’s what we have discussed over this week. We wanted to go straight to playing the game for real, but was unable to find a good time to conduct it since everyone is busy.

I’d say, we are ready for this!!! This weekend, we will bring and make the things we need and prepare for the game on the following Monday! Excited!!!

Micro-Project 7: Video Selfie

Video Selfie

I am a messy artist, but that’s okay. I make things work, out of what doesn’t.

This is my performance for the video selfie. What I did was to open my wardrobe to a mess and start rummaging through it. I picked out certain objects to look at it / wear it. Finally, I found the item I am looking for and turns around, to which I pick up my phone to show what it is — a cactus and a succulent. I watered them and rotated them to reveal that there are more parts of the plants than what it was initially shown to look like.

Some screenshots:

Looking at my nerf gun
Looking at my Portal (game) poster
Looking at an old vinyl record
Watering my plants
The final scene



Here are the significant objects I used

From top left:

  • Some random junk – Junk thoughts
  • Spoilt vinyl record – My love for music
  • Whiteboard – My love for organisation
  • Poster of the game “Portal” – My love for gaming
  • Vietnam hat – Just a prop honestly
  • My plants – The representation of a good idea that can be developed
  • Batik prints from Penang – My appreciation for art
  • Nerf Gun box – My love for fun stuffs
  • Acrylic painting from Hong Kong – My appreciation for art

This video represents me as an artist in the way that I search for ideas. My mind is a haphazard mess and my ideas are represented by the objects.

By opening the wardrobe to reveal the mess, I am showing the inner workings of my mind. The items I threw out are what occupies my mind. Random thoughts, music, plannings, games and playing, art.

After searching throughout and emptying my thoughts, I found my idea and brings it to the window. These are revealed to be my cactus and succulent. I water them, which represents me nurturing the idea. Afterwhich I turn the plants to reveal that the cactus has small buddings (unintentional that it looks phallic… It’s just the way my cactus grew #dontjudge) and that the succulent have an extended part to it. This represents the way I can grow ideas to change perspectives.

Music Choice

Image taken from

I chose White Light by Shura, specifically the part from 5:17~.

What I love about it is that at about 5:51, there is a sequence which reminds me of a journey (through space). I tried to time everything so this part will start when I pick my plants from the wardrobe. This represents the finding of something important and a shift in pace.

Also, this song stuck with me for about 3 years, which is a classic for me, so I thought it was appropriate to have it to represent me.


How can the video selfie be used to alter identity?

  • To me, the video selfie is just a representation of my inner identity and not something that alters it. It may be scripted, which can show people what you want them to see, so it can be faked easily. I feel that the video selfie says little about a person, unless the video selfie shows something impactful or shocking. Perhaps, like any other selfies, they are mostly insignificant.

How might video be used to conceal identity?

  • As mentioned above, it can be scripted. It can be made into a very elaborate performance, but that may not represent you.

How do the objects that surround you contribute to your sense of identity?

  • They are representation of my inner thoughts, and so they do offer some insights for others to know who I am. In some ways, the objects create intimacy.


Overall I want to portray myself as haphazard and messy, but also can provide the world with a piece of myself that is fresh and can change perspectives.

Final Project: Split Chef (Trial)

Intro on what we are doing

Our team (Brendan, Bryan, Dion, Joel) came up with a cook-off game that uses the third space as a form of communication. There will be 2 players, one will be drawing while the other will be buying the ingredients and cooking.

The two players are connected to each other through Instagram Live, which works similarly to Facebook live. The two can communicate through this third space. The facilitators will be the ones filming for the players so they can do their thing while still be communicating.

Firstly, the drawer will be given 7 seconds to draw the ingredient given. The second player will have a minute to find the item and add it into the basket. After buying all the ingredients, the buyer will go to the kitchen and the drawer will have 15 seconds to draw each step of the cooking process. The second player now will cook the food and the end results will be judged by the facilitators.

Trial Part 1 – The Groceries

So in this trial, Brendan and Dion are the facilitators while Joel and I are the players. I am the one drawing and Dion facilitates me while Joel is the buyer and Brendan facilitates him.

When BBQ sauce becomes Tabasco sauce (like c’mon guys that’s clearly a BBQ pit and spatula)


Lime! The droplets gave it away very easily
Taco wrap that looks like burger bun and Joel got it!!
Seashell pasta that became dumplings but it’s okay because this is a decoy ingredient
Tomato x 1





















Here are some screenshots of what happened. Here’re some pointers I got from this experience:

  • we initially gave the drawer 10 seconds but it was too long. We lowered it to 7 seconds so that it is still a lot of time but not too much.
  • There are some instances where the drawer need to be creative. Example (not captured in screenshots unfortunately) will be the Shiitake Mushroom. I literally drew a pile of shit and a mushroom and Joel instantly got it. It was a funny experience.
  • Joel understands a lot of the ingredients I drew which was very surprising for me! For instance, I drew the taco wrap (pic 2) and it looked like a burger bun to me. But he got that it was taco wrap for some reason. I’m guessing he guessed it based on the other ingredients that he had to buy, since he have experience in cooking. His cooking instinct made us wonder if there are other ways to team people up. (initially we wanted friend vs non-friends, but now we can consider cooks vs non cooks or something like that)
  • Joel sometimes took a long time to find the ingredient which dragged the game. We need to set a time limit for the buyer to figure out what they need to buy and find the item. This can make the outcome more interesting as, if the buyer is unable to obtain the item, the final dish will be off (and more glitched).
  • The connectivity is alright but sometimes it gets a bit pixellated

Overall, being the drawer is a very fun experience. The 7 seconds time limit and the rush to draw something meaningful to the buyer is exciting. Watching the buyer buy the food, is also fun. If the buyer gets something wrong, I laugh. If the buyer gets something right from a bad drawing, I am impressed. I think watching the buyer buy the things is also part of the fun experience as a drawer so it’s fine and not so boring.

Trial Part 2 – The Cooking

I wasn’t around during this part as I had to rush off to somewhere. Zhen Qi is very kind to help take over me so we can continue the game.


Unfortunately I can’t say much as I wasn’t around, but I can tell that connectivity is a big issue. The pantry isn’t well connected by wifi or data, so the live feed keeps getting cut off. I also feel that there is a lot of waiting time for the drawer while the cooker is cooking.

I feel that the drawings are okay, that the time frame given to draw is enough for the drawers to express the instructions properly.

The outcome is delicious (according to the rest of the group members). The Tabasco sauce created an interesting taste, so the glitch wasn’t that unpleasant. It actually enhanced the dish.

Videos of the cooking process:


Research Critique 3: Glitch & The Art of Destruction

“For me this approach to noise or noisiness, or dirt, or dirtiness, is a way to foreground as you say, an aberrance or perversion of normative message or what we might perceive to be logical reasoning. Because there is a poetics to that obviously and people who inspired me most directly in that matter would be Netochka Nezvanova, who did this comingling of functional code with highly politicized and poetic language.” – Glitch Expectations: A Conversation with Jon Cates

The idea of noise as aberrance is obvious but at the same time, poetic in a sense. Noise, defined as a disturbance of the norm, can be compared to glitch and destruction. We deconstruct a subject through destruction; and through this abstraction, our minds go through a different thought process to create a whole new meaning to the subject. Rather than seeing destruction as vandalism or something offensive, we see through the eyes of the artist and realise that destruction is a statement.

The iconic Mona Lisa, masterpiece by Da Vinci, was chosen as a symbol of traditional art form, representing not just all the paintings that exists in history, but also and the rules and properties tied to it. We printed an image of it on paper in black-and-white pieces before being assembled together into one image.  Stripped from its colours, texture, and proper medium, this artwork is glitched intentionally. Devoid of its original meaning, the artwork is recreated as a symbol rather than to replicate the original.

In our iconoclastic performance of burning the Mona Lisa, we do not only reject traditional art rules and forms, but also releases “art” from its static medium, freeing itself from its own rigidity into a formless, seamless entity that is ever present. The resulting corpse, its ashes, is now a soulless and empty shell that flakes away. This corpse bears no resemblance to the original at all and is now just a relic of what it used to be.

The entire process of destruction — from the careful handling of the image of the Mona Lisa, to it being engulfed in flames, to the ashes it left behind — is captured in a video. By watching the video, the audience can get the idea that we are trying to convey. The new meaning of art that we have created have left the image that we burnt and enter the medium that we have recorded it in!


We see a similarity in Ant Farm’s Media Burn (1975), a performance that made an impactful statement against the influence of television and the American lifestyle. By smashing the car and television together, Ant Farm demonstrated, through destruction, the clash of the two core subjects that Americans were obsessed with at that time. The spectacle of the performance, rather than the destroyed meaningless pieces left behind, have caused awe and mass media attention which amplified its intended meaning as it have made use of the very medium that is is trying to address.

“Here noise exists within the void opposite to what (already) has a meaning. Whichever way noise is defined, the negative definition also has a positive consequence: it helps by (re)defining its opposite (the world of meaning, the norm, regulation, goodness, beauty and so on).” – Glitch Studies Manifesto

The idea of what brings meaning and what does not is in the matter of perspective. One can see positive in something negative, and thus, by shifting our perspectives to align to that of the artist, we are able to find a new meaning defined by the artwork. Similarly, the lack of imagery in the new Mona Lisa, although meaningless and ephemeral, is the product of a process that represents the new icon for art. The “corpse’s” lack of meaning is the very definition of its meaning, which is that art is finally freed, and its meaning can be everywhere.

Micro-Project 5: The Art of Destruction

Destruction of Traditional Artwork


Our group printed out black-and-white parts of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and put it up together to form a 53 by 77 cm image of Mona Lisa, which is the actual size of the original painting. The iconic Mona Lisa is a representation of all traditional form of art, and may even be the icon of Art itself. The replication of Mona Lisa is a form of destruction of its originality, where the artwork is stripped of its colours, texture, and reality. By piecing up many pieces of the Mona Lisa, we also glitched it up slightly as it now is a combination of 8 pieces of paper rather than a whole canvas.

Our artwork is a performance where we would burn this piece of “artwork” as a symbol of rebellion. It represents the destruction of the rules tied to art that have been established for many years. To burn the icon is to say that art does not have to have an image tied to it too. Art should be formless, everywhere, and most importantly, it should be free. It should be like the air surrounding us.

The performance art itself is also a destruction of the meaning of art being just a static piece of painting, as art in modern day is broadened with introduction of things like performance art and concept art. Therefore it breaks the idea that a painting should represent art itself.

By destroying the artwork, one does not only reject traditional art rules and forms, but also liberates the art from its frames, releasing itself from its own rigidity. As it turns into smoke and ashes, it leaves in its new and better form — freed, formless, and eternal, rather than being trapped in the painting.

The final outcome has a unique texture — it appears solid, but it is soft. The burnt ink also created a sepia tone to the new Mona Lisa.

The Video


Micro-Project 6 – Super Participation

Super Participants

On Wednesday, 7 March, Kai Ting, Melodie, Niki, Samantha, and I took part in a 24 hours super participation project. We posted whatever we wanted to post from time to time within the 24 hours.

It was probably a sleepy and slow morning. We snoozed 582901 times and woke up unwillingly due to things we have to do. Meanwhile, Kai sleeps in peace, sending automated messages every hour. It’s a bliss to be Kai.

Lateness is a trait found in all of us, as we soon found out.



Food is a common theme amongst us. Throughout the day, we post what we ate, what others ate, and other experiences tied together with the food.

Food is such an important theme for us and we have influenced each other because of it. Suppers are the most tempting, where a person’s post on supper could influence others to want supper. Envy is a driving force to hunger.


In between activities, we like to also share our travelling experiences and thoughts while travelling.

It is during these period of time where really interesting things happens. Our senses are more alert as we are not distracted by activities. We notice things that are strange, curious, or funny.

In travel, we also made connections, unintentional or not.

The lack of things to take while travelling brought the attention back to ourselves, which have made other people notice things about ourselves that creates the connection.


Things happen, we share. People meet, we share. As long as something new happens and it feels interesting, we make a post about it. The keyword is new. If it is something that seems to be a continuation of something that have been posted before, it is ignored. Happening posts are usually the beginning, or the end of something.


Work, on the other hand, is the opposite. We post about work while we are in the middle of it, perhaps, as a form of distraction. Either that, or that’s because there is no end to work. :’)


Another day ends, as always. We update each other on our sleepiness and our sleep times. We all are very late sleepers, and all of us slept past midnight, tired and dead from the activities in the afternoon. The last human update is at 3.40AM, and that’s the last goodnight we hear from all of us.

Then, we have Kai.

In our comments, we are very supportive. We feel for each other when we get hurt or when we share negative feelings. We compliment each other when we see something nice posted by a person. When we see something we have in common, or we can relate to, we post a comment.

Now come to think of it I guess we relate a lot more to work than to anything else.

Our posts are very personal and trivial most of the time. It is a more direct reflection of our life as we express outwardly rather than our internal thoughts. We are trying to create an identity that is controllable and relatable, that others can see, quickly know what we are trying to say, and move on. We don’t want a great deal of attention put on us. We are uncommitted to our digital life, and share only things that we think others may enjoy looking at, thinking about, or empathising with.

In this super participation, our motivation is to keep the page alive, while at the same time doing it minimally so we don’t overwhelm each other. We created a persona for ourselves, to a certain extend, where we only show what is worth showing. The more perfect and calculated version of ourselves that is showable, yet candid.

Micro-Project 4 – Glitch Practices





Version 1 – Created by editing the text file using TextEdit. Tried around with different text formats but the outcome would only result in horizontal lines

Version 2 – Frederick edited it on Photoshop and created this weird colourful ripple

Version 3 – Teri distorted the image even further with Photoshop, adding patchiness and noise

Version 4 done by Joel. The blocky glitches are now flowy

  • Describe how this process of collective image creation and decomposition creates a glitch transformation.
    • As each of us have a different style, we all as an individual are the glitches in the group, due to our different definition of how glitch looks like or feels like. The order of the image editing gets jumbled around too, as we pass the image around. This created more randomness and thus more glitch.


  • How is each transformation creating a new form of its precursor?
    • Each transformation alters the appearance of the image that resembles more closely to what the editor want it to look like rather than what the previous editor wants it to look like. This creates a new form and identity of the glitched artwork.

Research Critique II: Third Space is Participation

I find an age old philosophical question relevant to our attempt at trying to understand the third space. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Similarly, if a device that can connect people across a distance is active but no one participates, is there a third space?

I would say that the answer to that question is: no. I believe a third space is a non-physical space that forms once people interact with each other between space and time, and its very essence is that its inhabitants are its participants, deliberate actors within the space that keeps it alive.

As what Randall Packer described,

“The laws of the known world have been all but abandoned in the third space: it is a space of invention and possibility, like lucid dreaming, where participants might assume their avatar identities, engage in post-human, cyborgian manifestations, or perhaps reinvent the world in the image of their own making.”

Posted by Bryan Leow on Wednesday, 31 January 2018

In our telematic performance, Samantha and I reached out to each other using our Cup Noodle Telephone. Our telephones are not connected physically, which will be necessary for it to work physically. In this third space, we are not just able to talk to each other in spite of our disconnection from the physical space, but also play our roles to ensure maximum realism in this alternate world, despite being stripped away from realism. In this case, we try to talk into the cup, and listen out from the cup even though we could just talk to each other directly. Our engrossment with this performance detached us from the physical space, and therefore created a sense of intimacy and connection between us. The very act of participating in the third space creates the third space.

Role playing to fit our own reality




We can see our performance as a reflection of Telematic Dreaming by Paul Sermon (1993), where the act of pretending to interact with one another as though the other person is physically there creates an alternate and intimate world that exists only between the two person.

Maria Chatzichristodoulou made a comment about Telematic Dreaming, “The ability to exist outside of the users own space and time is created by an alarmingly real sense of touch that is enhanced by the context of the bed and caused by an acute shift of senses in the telematic space.”

Interrupted space

The intimacy-enhancing bed is an example that physical reality will still affect us and the third space. Unlike what happened in Telematic Dreaming where the physical world enhanced the telematic experience, we were interrupted by a passerby towards the end of our performance which broke our third space. Despite the detachment from reality, our physical reality still shapes our third space. Perhaps the reason for such a phenomenon is due to the physical world altering the way we participate, and therefore altering the third space.