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 https://inter-mission.art/The-Lapse-Project-1

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 https://inter-mission.art/The-Lapse-Project-1

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 http://popspoken.com/arts/2018/04/inter-mission
image taken from https://inter-mission.art/The-Lapse-Project-1
image taken from https://inter-mission.art/The-Lapse-Project-1

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:

https://files.cargocollective.com/c324665/The-Lapse-Journal.pdf

Articles:

https://inter-mission.art/The-Lapse-Project-1

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

 

Body Storming

Group: Bryan, Fizah

A recap on our concept:

  • Wings that expresses itself through LED lights, motor movements, and sound
  • Heart rate detector on gloves that changes the LED light
  • Movement and interaction with other people will make heart rate change, altering the LED outcomes
  • Ultimately, interlocking fingers will cause the a different set of reactions on the wings

Last week, we spent 25mins building a quick prototype using tapes, wires, paper, and some random materials lying around. With the limited time we have, we only could make 1 set of wings for 1 person, where we initially wanted to have 2 interacting people.

We had Syahrul as our tester. Here is our instructions:

Here is the video of what happened:

So Syahrul was hesitant to wear the prototype due to how fragile it looks. When he do so, he started interacting based on the feedback he is receiving from the beeping and the shaking of the wings, despite there being lights too. This proves that wings are not the greatest idea as the tester could not see its effects.

We also found that Syahrul was interacting with other non-participants and objects around him. This problem could have been solved if we made another set of wings and gloves for him to interact with. Interestingly, he only interacted with people with the hand that had the gloves on.

Other concerns are related to the safety of the artwork and people around, where wearable artworks can easily be taken home by accident or damaged by wearing.

Here are the feedbacks from the notes taker:

What did we learn:

We missed out the effect of external factors that could impact the actions of the participant. During the Body Storming exercise, Syahrul started interacting with other objects in the surrounding.

What we need to ensure for our final project is that the audience should be able to identify what they should be interacting with.

What surprised us:

  • It became natural for Syahrul to only interact with his his surroundings using his gloved hands.
  • Syahrul also expected instant feedback from his actions through constantly tapping his gloved hands. He also tried every possible interactions he could do on his surroundings

How we can apply to designing our installation:

We learnt that wings are not very effective as the participants cannot see the effects. We can use a cloak or blanket instead. We need to make 2 wearable pieces for 2 people to interact with each other, if not they will interact with others. We have to make the 2 of them interact with each other and only with each other.

Research Critique I

Artwork 1

Image taken from https://www.smoothware.com/danny/woodenmirrormuseum.jpg

Daniel Rozin – ‘Wooden Mirror’, 1999
830 square pieces of wood, 830 servo motors, control electronics, video camera, computer, wood frame.
170cm , 203cm, 25cm

The Wooden Mirror is an interactive installation made of 830 wood pieces and motors that moves according to an image captured by the camera which tilts the wood pieces in a certain angle, creating the illusion of depth and therefore the illusion of a ‘reflection’.

“Mechanical mirrors are a platform in which Rozin investigates the borderline and contrasts between digital and analog worlds, virtual and physical experience, or order versus chaos. The first of this series, Rozin’s Wooden Mirror explores the inner workings of image creation and human visual perception.”

Q: Why do you find this artwork or project intriguing?
A: I stumbled upon this artwork on Facebook around last year and was fascinated by how the artist managed to show depth using just wood plates and the shadows they cast, which seems pretty impossible. I find it really interesting as I tried to figure out how technology allows us to make what appears to be impossible, which is to make a mirror out of a non reflective material. I was even more fascinated after thinking through the process of making this installation work the way it does.

Q: What is the situation or interaction created for the viewer?
A: The Wooden Mirror appears counter-intuitive to viewers at first, when a reflection casts on a non-reflective ‘mirror’ is made. Through instilling curiosity within viewers, the viewers would be made to look into the Wooden Mirror and interact with it by moving about and observing how the wooden plates move in relation to their own body movement.

Q: What is the intention of this interaction?
A: Other than the testing and application of a crazy but successful idea, the artwork has allowed people
 to question the potentials of materials, such as using a non reflective surface to create properties of a reflective surface. It also suggests to us the wonders of technology, in how each plate can be intricately programmed to display a certain shade to create a big image as a whole.

Q: What is the role of the viewer?
A: The role of the viewer is perhaps just an observer of the artwork’s effects, despite being actively engaged in the artwork when a viewer happen to walk in front of it. The viewer interacts through the act of just moving around and looking at the artwork. This generates a feedback to the artwork, allowing the artwork to keep changing.

Q: Who has control over the outcome of the artwork or project? Is it the creator / artist or the viewer/audience?
A: The creator has the primary control, ultimately, in terms of how he set the stage to make the wooden plates move in response to viewers (eg. he could have made it hard for viewers to discern their own image). However, the creator decided to make the artwork as it is now, and as such, the audience has more control over the outcome in term of how they directly affect the images portrayed on the Wooden Mirror.

Sources:
https://www.smoothware.com/danny/woodenmirror.html


Artwork 2

Image taken from https://www.marinabaysands.com/museum/exhibition-archive/human-plus/life-edges.html

Institute for Media Innovation (IMI) Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore – ‘Nadine’, 2013

Nadine is a social robot modelled after Professor Nadia Magnenat Thalman. She is considered the ‘most realistic female humanoid social robots in the world’ at that time. She was created to assist people with special needs, and she can read stories, show images, and communicate with her user. She is also able to answer questions in different languages, simulate emotions in her gestures and her expressions, make eye contact with users, and can remember all the conversations she had with people.

Q: Why do you find this artwork or project intriguing?
A: My first encounter with Nadine was during the Human+ exhibition some years ago and was deeply intrigued by it. It was fascinating to me how technology is so advanced for a robot to exhibit (or simulate) social behaviours. 

Q: What is the situation or interaction created for the viewer?
A: The viewers can ask Nadine questions and respond to it, creating a flow of conversation. This back to back conversations creates feedback loop between Nadine and viewers. The viewers can talk about many different things like the weather, ask about Nadine, etc.

Q: What is the intention of this interaction?
A: The main purpose of the interactivity with Nadine is to assist people in different ways. She can be a receptionist, or an assistance to people with special needs. But within the Human+ exhibition, the interaction is perhaps to awe viewers in how smart a robot can be and imagine the future where quality and advancedness of robotics can be useful to humanity. 

Q: What is the role of the viewer?
A: The role is to just ask Nadine questions and talk to Nadine and reply. The viewer is also perhaps made to  think about what to say, and think about pushing the limits of the robot.

Q: Who has control over the outcome of the artwork or project? Is it the creator / artist or the viewer/audience?
A: In this case, I’m quite uncertain as Nadine is programmed to learn. As such I think perhaps both the project (Nadine) and the viewers have control over the outcome of the artwork, which is their conversations, while the creator only have the parameters for the interaction set beforehand (like gestures, things Nadine will talk about, etc).

Sources:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/meet-nadine-the-worlds-most-human-like-robot/
https://www.marinabaysands.com/museum/exhibition-archive/human-plus/life-edges.html
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/this-born-in-singapore-robot-could-soon-be-your-receptionist-7968842

 

Q: Come up with 2 thoughtful questions in your essay that will benefit the class with regards to this week’s topic on interactivity.

  1. Interactive art can be something that can respond to our actions. In this case, would you think that an interactive artwork could one day kill someone? Do we need regulations in interactive art in future?

    .

  2. Imagine a future where robots co-exist with us. Would an interaction between a viewer and an advanced robot similar to Nadine be considered as a performance? A normal conversation? Or something else?

Hyperessay Key Work Selection: The Infinite Crystal Universe

I will be looking at the artwork ‘The Infinite Crystal Universe’ by teamLab.

Here’s the artwork description:

Pointillism uses an accumulation of distinct dots of color to create a picture, here light points are used to create three-dimensional objects. This interactive artwork expresses the universe through accumulated light points that spread infinitely in all directions.

People can use their smartphones to select elements that make up the universe by dragging them and releasing them into the The Infinite Crystal Universe. Each element released influences that of other elements and is influenced by the presence of people in the space. The work is created by people in the space and is thus continuously changing forever.


I really love love love this artwork because I also have a personal story tied with this artwork. I visited Art Science Museum alone before entering ADM after experiencing a down period of my life. It was a great experience going there alone as I have all the time to myself interacting with all the artworks.

The one that strike me most was, of course, this artwork. I walked through the curtains of LED thinking it would just be an “Instagram” artwork (seen it online too many times). When I reached the end, I saw an Ipad and the text description of the artwork, and decided to meddle with it. I apparently sent out a ‘star’ which appear in the artwork itself, and it exploded, creating a visual and auditory spectacle. Meanwhile, the crowd of photo-takers are just amazed by the change in environment, unaware that I, 1 person, with 1 swipe, just did all these. It was an overwhelming experience.

What I felt was that, with a small action, I can feel so powerful and yet also feel so lonely. I literally teared. Like really, words can’t describe what I felt.

SO. I feel so connected with this artwork and I also like astronomy so the whole idea of space, planets, and stars are very interesting to me.

The Infinite Crystal Universe, teamLab, 2015-2018, Interactive Installation of Light Sculpture, LED. Image taken from https://www.teamlab.art/ew/infinite_crystaluniverse/

I chose this artwork as its intend is not just straightforward, but also very impactful. My interpretation is that, on a personal level, we can see how small we all are, yet, how easily we can impact the world around us. On a whole, the interactivity is very apparent and forms some kind of relationship between the “universe maker” and the rest of the audience. There is some sense of immersion too, as audiences gets up close with the LEDs.


Through this artwork, teamLab expresses their method of creating immersive works that dissolve borders between viewer and works which allowed for quote: ‘continuous dynamic behavior, visual phenomena, and the ability to transform the canvas’. 

‘by doing so, the boundaries between the body and the work become ambiguous, which may become the starting point for people to think about their relationship with the world.

interactivity, immersion, constantly changing, feedback loop, audience > work > other audience > work > etc

teamlab planets tokyo: a ‘body immersive’ exhibition of all-encompassing digital art

http://exhibition.team-lab.net/siliconvalley/art/art01.html

https://planets.teamlab.art/tokyo/jp/ew/infinite_crystaluniverse/

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/bmyebv/inside-teamlab-stunning-crystal-universe-installation

https://www.ledinside.com/lighting/2016/7/teamlab_lighting_installation_invites_visitors_to_wander_through_the_crystal_universe

http://www.jetset-away.com/right-here-right-now/crystaluniverse

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/teamlab-art-installation-tokyo/index.html

Hyperessay Artist Selection: teamLab

The artist I am choosing is teamLab.

teamLab is a Japanese collective, interdisciplinary group that uses digital media as their playground for art-making through the use of augmented reality, interactive spaces, and various technologies.  Calling themselves ‘ultra-technologists,’ teamLab aims to achieve a balance between art, science, technology and creativity.

teamLab was founded in 2001, a company that did not made it in art, but instead made applications, back-end systems, web design, interfaces, and data bases. They became major after the Singapore Bienalle 2013 which they were given a special showcase in Singapore Art Museum. The Bienalle drew a total of 560,000 visitors, and the success of the event made teamLab go international. teamLab founder Toshiyuki Inoko, Takashi Kudo, teamLab’s Communications Director and one of the first members of the collective. teamLab is now an internationally known brand which has about 500 staffs in Tokyo, as well as small offices in Singapore, New York, and Los Angeles. teamLab also have 4 permanent exhibitions in Singapore, Future World: Where Art Meets Science at the ArtScience Museum, Story of The Forest at The National Museum, Digital Light Canvas at Marina Bay Sands’ former skating rink and Flowers and People – Dark at the National Gallery.

 

The Infinite Crystal Universe, teamLab, 2015-2018, Interactive Installation of Light Sculpture, LED. Image taken from https://www.teamlab.art/ew/infinite_crystaluniverse/

With works like ‘The Infinite Crystal Universe,’ ‘Walk, Walk, Walk: Search, Deviate, Reunite,‘  ‘Sketch Aquarium,’ teamLab created immersive and interactive worlds full of colours and imagination. teamLab not only engages audiences with beautiful worlds, but also allow them to interact with it by adding their own part to the artwork (as seen in Sketch Aquarium).

When asked about the considerations put into the production of a teamLab work, the response was:

Interactive artworks encourage viewer participation. Common interactive media, such as video games, PCs, smartphones, Internet applications, and the like, involve people who purposely wish to interact directly with the world, actually intervening and executing some functions in order to do so. However, teamLab focuses much more on connecting interactivity and art, regardless of whether the viewer purposely wishes to intervene and execute some actions, so that art is changed simply by the mere existence of another person. In addition, if the change caused by the existence of that third person looks beautiful, then the existence of that person also becomes beautiful.

At the very least, with the conventional type of art that people have experienced up until now, the presence of other viewers constituted more of a hindrance than anything else. If you found yourself alone at an exhibition, you would consider yourself to be very lucky. However, teamLab’s exhibitions are different: the existence of other viewers is definitely seen as a positive element.

Sketch Aquarium, teamLab, 2013-present. Image taken from https://www.teamlab.art/w/aquarium
Walk, Walk, Walk: Search, Deviate, Reunite. 2018. Image taken from https://www.teamlab.art/w/walk

According to one online article, chief creative officer Takumi Nomoto said this:

“It’s about creating something that’s against what people see as the norm,” Nomoto says, smiling. “If I go to a museum and I see art hanging on the wall I don’t feel any connection to it, it’s just a painting on the wall. However, if you’re part of the art, if you play an integral part, then you can connect with it.”

teamLab’s philosophy is essentially creating non-static interactive artwork that one can relate to, and that generates the feedback loop which is crucial for the artworks to stay alive. The futuristic visions of teamLab allows for such a playful yet awe-inspiring works. I find this philosophy really interesting and something that I would love to do. Being able to meddle with technology to extend one’s perception of the world is one thing that is great. To be able to inspire people with the creation of universes is another experience that cannot be put into words.

For a software programming company to transition into an art-making one, their approach to design is really candid, enthusiastic, and really different from trained artists which I feel made them really lovable and genuine in the way they make art. When art and science comes together, it becomes something without boundaries. When we start seeing science as art, and throw away preconceived ideas of what art should be, we can really appreciate this new ways we perceive art. Just like Nam June Paik’s ‘Magnet TV,’ teamLab can be revolutionary in our time to create a more hopeful future for not just the art world, but also for reality.

Sources:

https://www.designboom.com/tag/teamlab/

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/teamlab-tokyo-head-office-design-art-experiment-invention

https://theartling.com/en/artzine/2016/5/18/interview-teamlab/

https://www.teamlab.art/jp

5 Minutes With… teamLab!