Category Archives: Experimental Interaction – G4

Final Project: Split Chef

Introducing Split Chef

Split Chef is what the name suggests – a chef split into two. It is a game that is played by these two splits, where one will take on the role as the Artist, while the other takes on the role as the actual Chef. Their goal is to work with the other to prepare a dish, although not without some twists – both players will not be in the same room at any point of time, will only be connected via live-streaming phone screens and will not be allowed any form of verbal communication in discussing the recipe. How the game works is that the Artist will have to draw the received recipe/instructions within limited time, of which the Chef will then have to execute based on his/her interpretations of the drawings.


Apart from the players, we have four moderators – Brendan, Bryan, Joel and myself. We occasionally switched our roles, so at the end of it we all moderated or filmed in some way.

With the Chef
Brendan: Cameraman
Bryan: Moderator (Assist player if in need of help/ensure smooth flow of game)

With the Artist
Joel: Cameraman + Timer
Dion: Moderator (Provide recipe/instructions)


The game focuses on an artistic co-creation, where the making of the final dish is a result of both parties’ inputs. Laying it out, the Artist interprets the instruction, draws it for the Chef, the Chef interprets the drawing, and executes the instruction.

Additionally, an audience on the livestream increases the DIWO aspect where their added interpretations of the drawings help the Chef make decisions on his/her execution, therefore also being ‘co-artists’ of the final dish.

In a Third Space

Instagram has recently allowed for two accounts to share the same live stream, much like Facebook Live, which we used to have information be relayed from one person to another. We decided on Instagram as our third space as it was the platform that we are most active and have the most followers on, hence allowing for the highest possible audience engagement during our live show.


Glitch occurs in several ways throughout the game.

A dish is normally believed to be prepared by one chef, or at least if there are several, in the same kitchen. However, the planned procedure of preparing the dish in this game is already glitched, in the sense that the dish is being prepared by two people, in two separate rooms that are no where near each other.

On top of that, the miscommunication that occurs throughout the game where the Chef interprets the wrong instructions through the drawings makes more glitches to the dish, turning the planned dish into a whole other dish.


A Cooking Reality Show: Split Chef


The final recipe that we decided on was a Chicken Quesadilla, which was the same one from our test run, just with a few adjustments. We initially expected this to be quite an easy dish to complete as it only involves one cooking method, however, our three runs (incl. test run) have shown some very contrasting outcomes on the very ends of the spectrum. 

From our test run, we also decided to keep in the aspect of throwing in three random ingredients (bananas, macaroni and lime) into the shopping list so as to throw off our players in trying to predict what they will be preparing. This worked really well, because one of our Artists didn’t even realise what the dish was until it was near the end…


Round 1: The Noobs

Artist: Jacob | Chef: Tiffany

The initial idea was to compare a round between strangers and friends (this pair being strangers), to see if relationship matters in a situation like this. We scouted for players with the basic skills of drawing and cooking, but were very surprised when we found out how much Jacob can’t actually draw or Tiffany* cook. After seeing the drastic outcome of this first round, we decided to compare skill levels instead.

*Tiffany: She had told Bryan that she was able to cook rice, traditionally in a pot. Bryan thought that if she could do such a thing then she probably has some basic cooking skills. On the way to Giant to start the game, she told Bryan, “I only know how to cook rice”.

Highlights of Round 1


Drawings in order:
An onion, bananas, BBQ sauce, a chicken

Items bought by Tiffany:
Garlic, bananas, sausages, peanuts

Tiffany had identified the onion drawing as an onion, but had bought garlic instead. The bananas look like a stool. It didn’t occur to Jacob how important the symbolism of a bottle was, so his drawing of skewers made the audience and Tiffany think he meant sausages. No one could see that Jacob was drawing the side view of a full chicken (quite a good drawing, actually), and everyone thought it was a plate with a peanut and a carrot… and thus our main ingredient for the dish became peanuts.

A few of the comments that were trying to help Tiffany with Jacob’s drawing of tortillas, along with some very unhelpful but entertaining comments of Naomi scolding Jacob for his skills, and Nok Wan just being… Nok Wan.

Here is Tiffany looking at the drawing of butter and being utterly confused. Someone in the audience had actually mentioned butter, and I even prompted and asked if she’s read the comments. Apparently she did, but she got eggs instead.

It was her third time ever cracking an egg!

Slicing, salt and peppering peanuts instead of chicken. What we realised here was that, the chefs had to remember the ingredients that they bought according to their respective drawings, so that they would be able to re-interpret the cooking instructions. (i.e. She bought peanuts instead of a chicken. Remember that the chicken drawing = peanuts, so when the Artist tells her to slice the chicken, she can slice the peanuts accordingly).

The moment where Joel and I on ADM’s side found out that she had bought garlic instead of an onion, sending us to laugh our heads off… But then we realised she didn’t know how to chop up garlic at all, and we were so scared for her hands. There ended up being full cloves of garlic in the final dish.

Pan Burning #1: Here, you can see what led to the first crazy burn of Joel’s very expensive pan. She had not been instructed to put all the ingredients into the pan yet, but she did, including the cheese. On top of that, you can see how she decided to only add the oil after putting down all the ingredients. She fried for way too long, what I think happened was that she was waiting for the moderators to cue the next drawing when instead we were waiting for her to give us the OK cue to move on to the next step. Therefore the burn… And as though that burn wasn’t enough,

Pan Burning #2: She went ahead to fry more cheese, eggs and sausages on top of the burn!

And voila, this was the final outcome – A stir fry made of ingredients not even part of the recipe.
Eggs, sausages, garlic cloves, tomatoes, half-cooked shiitake mushrooms, and peanuts!


Round 2: The Pros

Artist: Alena | Chef: Hannah

Hannah can cook, and Alena can draw. Since we initially wanted to compare friends vs. strangers, we wanted Hannah to be the Artist while Alena be the Chef, so that their skill level would be equally as good as Jacob and Tiffany’s (back when we thought they had basic skills). However, seeing how skilled Jacob and Tiffany actually were, we decided to let Hannah and Alena take the role of their strengths.

Round 2 went amazingly well, with almost every ingredient bought being correct, and the dish turning out to be oh-so-delicious. The only reason why any of the ingredients were wrong/not bought was because they were sold out.

Highlights of Round 2

With Hannah’s natural instincts as a cook, she was able to identify ingredients much better than Tiffany was able to, even when the drawings were not fantastically resemblant.

While Alena ended up drawing exactly the same thing as Jacob for butter, Hannah was able to identify what it was unlike Tiffany who bought a carton of eggs.

Hannah was initially confused with the drawings of the lime and tortilla, looking at oranges (she got a lime in the end) for tortilla and tortillas for lime. The confusion between the two came as somewhat an advantage, because that was when she realised she mixed the two drawings up and was actually still getting the right ingredients anyway.

Unlike Jacob’s full chicken, Alena was smart to use symbolisms, drawing an easily identifiable drumstick and fillet. Hannah understood this as chicken fillet, but there was no stock left, so we instructed her to get the closest alternative. The only fillets left were salmon which was too expensive, so she decided to get chicken nuggets instead (which she then accidentally bought fish nuggets without checking, but they tasted good anyway!).

Here, we can observe Hannah’s superb cooking skills! Despite the lack of a proper chicken fillet, she was able to adapt the instructions to her fish nuggets very well – slicing them up very nicely, same for the mushrooms. Despite her lack of experience in making quesadillas, she was still able to instinctively prepare them without going against any of the instructions given. For instance, the instruction was to place the final tortilla wrap on top, but she went ahead to use her hands to press it down so that the whole thing would stick together properly.


And the real voila! A BBQ fish nugget quesadilla! It tasted as good as it looks.

They were very happy with the results, and so were we, because we hadn’t had anything to eat for the past few hours while running the game.

Also, this wasn’t part of the actual game, but check out Hannah’s nugget flipping skills:



There were overall many things that happened, and many things to learn.

In respect to DIWO, third space and glitch:
I personally feel that the concepts were brought out really well through the game, and was actually what made the game keep going. Without the audience who gave altogether some helpful, some not and some entertaining comments, the game would have been much more ‘dry’ where the Artist (and moderators) would not have anything to be entertained by other than the Chef’s doings. It was also nice to see that the interpretations by our audience could affect the outcome of the game, because one change in ingredient choice would change the entire dish at the end, and that’s where glitch comes into play.

The glitches that occurred in the transferring of instructions from the Artist to the Chef was what made the game unique to itself, and also entertaining. One mistake made by the artist, leads to a mistake in interpretation, leads to a mistake in the cooking process, leads to a mistake in the final dish. As observed in the first round, one mistake could snowball into 100 other ones, and that’s what kept up the entertainment in the game, because we were all watching the start of a disaster to its end. Comparing the two rounds, it seemed as though the second round was much more ‘boring’, because of how well Hannah and Alena were doing. It’s like they were having their own, perfect cooking show, which could of course serve as entertainment, but seeing things go wrong still manages to capture people’s attention better for some reason.

Through the process of this final EI project, my biggest takeaway is in its preparation.

We were highly unprepared for our test run (view post here), because rather than having everything set out before the test run (i.e. settle recipe, location’s connectivity, equipment etc.), we decided to do it all at the same time, resulting in the waste of a few hours. There were also many unforeseen circumstances as discussed in previous posts. From all these, I’ve learnt that it’s always better to be over-prepared than under, AKA it’s always better to be kiasu. If need be, come up with an entire rundown of the day’s worth of events, much like how film productions do. By planning out every single thing that we are going to do in that day, chances of missing something out that could hinder the whole process would be much lower.

I’ve also learnt that not all mistakes are bad, and that some could actually make things better (other than the glitches discussed). By not properly checking the skill levels of our players, we ended up changing the concept of our comparison on the spot, only after realising that our players were not how we planned them to be. While this could be bad planning, our mistake allowed us to end up with a much more hilarious process, as well as a clearer comparison between the two groups, because I don’t think the fact of being friends and strangers affected the outcome much.

All in all, while Interactive Media/ Events have never really been my thing since getting some experience of it back in poly (as I’d much prefer just sitting down behind a screen), I’ve really enjoyed the process of this final project because I actually managed to see the taught concepts come to live, and they happened so organically.

So, thank you Lei, for the pizza, and this great year! 🙂 🙁



Symposium Hyperessay

Art of the Networked Practice: Online Symposium

Having never attended an event through third space before, the online symposium hosted on Adobe Connect was a rather intriguing experience for me. It was surely interesting to see how artists around the world practiced the concepts that we have only just picked up through the semester, including DIWO, third space and glitch art. The performances provided were no doubt abstract, and while it was difficult to come to my own conclusions about how I felt about the performances, the live discussions that took place during the live performances definitely did open my mind up to different interpretations.

Overall, this essay will analyse how the use of third space to bring across messages to audiences from around the world can be seen as both facilitating and obstructing.


On the first day of the symposium was a live webcam performance put up by Annie Abrahams along with seven other performers from around the globe, titled “Entanglement”. The piece was essentially about investigating how humans can be together, while being separated, through  the online world. In order to practice DIWO, the performers had to accept the glitches that came together with the use of a third space such as time lags. Through Abraham’s blog, I have learnt that not all of these artists had even met before in real life, nor have they all performed together before.

The whole performance consisted of constant changing of random objects on screen by the performers, along with prepared phrases relating to the individuals’ own idea of politics as well as voices to create a sound environment.

Screencap from Entangled

As discussed by Marc Garrett and mentioned in my first research critique, DIWO “examines the grey areas of creative control, the nuances of power exchange and what this means for independent thinking artists and collectives working within collaborative contexts, socially, culturally and ethically”. DIWO is practiced strongly here, as we can see how each individual holds equal power in the creation of the performance where their choice of object shown, phrase said and sound made is what builds the environment.

Some phrases mentioned include:
“You are our only hope now. Resistance fully supports you as our leader.”
“Tactics, comrades. Tactics.”
“Take me to your leader.”
“The machine repeats what its told.”
“Many of my favourite are not artists”

I personally found this performance intriguing as the phrases mentioned and objects simultaneously shown had no correlation at all, or at least towards anyone who was not the performer. It seems as though this was also a practice of glitch art, where glitch is defined as “an interruption that shifts an object away from its ordinary form and discourse” in Glitch Studies Manifesto. Perhaps, towards the performer, the object could have held meaning that related to his/her choice of political phrase, yet towards everyone else, it seemed more like random choices of objects and phrases being put together. It was interesting to see how political contexts were being ‘discussed’ in such a manner, where revolutionary contradictions and affirmations of ideas could have been made simply through these independent thinking artists putting together an abstract collaborative performance through their webcams. The time lag definitely did play a part in the performance, as the overriding voices made it become unclear of which phrase belonged to which performer.

From this, the performance comes as a clear example of how third space can facilitate the idea of connecting people from around the world by breaking physical boundaries – and perhaps, also allowing for wanted anonymous discussion. Yet, at the same time, this third space can also prevent genuine human connection due to the glitches that come along, causing unintended effects that may lead to other forms of results in communication, such as an unintended anonymous discussion.


The third day of the symposium managed to capture my attention for a much longer time, with the different acts that took place – specifically, the ones featuring 愛真 Janet Lin and Paula Pinho Martins Nacif (XXXTRAPRINCESS) as well as Roberto Sifuentes.

XXXTRAPRINCESS as Snapchat Personas

The performance by XXXTRAPRINCESS consisted of a duo, dressed up and decorated through Snapchat filters so as to take on the personification of princesses. Live, their performance took place through both the Adobe Connect stream and Snapchat videos. They also generated hashtagged social media streams, where the local Chicago attendees, as well as live viewers could use to spread the discussed topics to other social media platforms such as Twitter where there was possibility of turning information around (i.e. glitching). Topics discussed mainly revolved around societal issues, especially those relating to gender, such as feminism.

The performers had made use of the online third space environment to create online personas, so much as to constitute to an ‘alternative social world’ where these personas could only exist, and not in physical space. Perhaps, discussing such trivial topics while adhering to their created personas that seem to ‘mean no harm’ could possibly be their method of gathering people’s attention to serious topics, without triggering sensitivity. For instance, if XXXTRAPRINCESS were to be their serious, real women selves discussing feminism, would the reactions of those sensitive to the topic (e.g. those who are against feminism) be the same? These people might have instead tuned out of the stream, rather than stick around to listen to what these ‘princesses’ have to offer.

On the other hand, it can also be argued that their wild online personas could instead be a distraction towards the seriousness of the topics that they were discussing. Would viewers be able to take such characters decorated in Snapchat filters, discussing trivial societal issues, seriously?

Another idea that was also discussed in the live chat was about the use of various media platforms to discuss the topics.

Taken from Chat Transcript Day 3

In summary of the comments by Daniel Pinheiro and Alan Sondheim, is the use of multiple platforms for discussion of such trivial topics a boon or a bane?

On one hand, the Internet/social media allows for a very fast, spread of information as well as discussion that can not possibly take place in real life across people around the world. As such, it can be argued that XXXTRAPRINCESS’s use of several platforms along with the hashtags helps to have their discussions reach out to wider audiences, therefore allowing them to raise more awareness about the topics.

However, could the ‘capability’ of the Internet/social media become radicalised? Information is spread and topics are discussed so quickly that miscommunication, where information becomes wrongly translated, becomes inevitable. Furthermore, the use of cameras on both Adobe Connect and Snapchat makes it so that what viewers see is controlled and curated – what we see is not actually genuine, which could affect our perceptions on the discussed topics.

XXXTRAPRINCESS’s performance was therefore an example of how third space can act as both supporting and opposing tools at the same time.


Finally, we have the performance by Roberto Sifuentes along with his assistant that resembles what seems to be very much like a spiritual ritual, with the involvement of blood, suspenseful music and red lights.

Assistant placing leeches on Roberto Sifuentes’ face

Throughout my two attended days of the symposium, I felt that the use of an online third space to broadcast this particular performance stood out to me the most. This could possibly because this performance did not have any use of words, which were highly involved in Annie Abrahams’ Entangled and the performance by XXXTRAPRINCESS, which thus led to there being a very wide variety of interpretations of the performance that could then be instantly discussed on the live chat by viewers.

For instance, many viewers including myself related the performance to something of a ritual.

Taken from Chat Transcript Day 3

On the other hand, some other viewers seemed to have very different thoughts, such as Alan Sondheim and Devyn Mañibo who thought about ‘typical’ gender roles being played around with in the performance, where the female assistant instead becomes the one in control (of the leeches) while the male loses his power.


Taken from Chat Transcript Day 3

Then, there were those who brought up the significance of leeches: Was it the man who was suffering, or the leeches? Who was the real leech?

Taking a look at all the different interpretations, the idea that resonated with me most is about the roles played by the man and the leeches. Could it be that, rather than the man suffering from being leeched on as symbolised by his bleeding, his willingness to be leeched on comes as symbolism of how we willingly let ourselves be consumed by the Internet despite its harmful effects?

Performance context aside, this was where the allowance of live discussion through third space became most apparent to me as I was thoroughly confused throughout the performance and actually needed the instant interpretations by other viewers. Instantly after the performance was also a proper discussion by the host(s), which would not have been possible if not for third space that breaks the boundaries of physical distance. Had this performance not been streamed live with hosts, would I have had to wait for a write-up on the performance?


I believe that there will always be pros and cons to any situation, with the use of third space as a form of streaming performances, as well as having performances being available to only physical audiences not being an exception.

Only having a live-physical-audience means that no one else in other spaces can participate in performances or discussions.

While the use of third space resolves that, information may then become glitched.

Final Project: Split Chef Weekly Update

This week, we decided to take things to a third space discussion.

The discussion consisted of rectifying all the issues faced in our trial run (as discussed in my previous post), as well as planning for the actual runs.

We decided on our two pairs of players, where one will be friends while the other will be strangers, so as to see if there will be any differences in the outcome. As such, the other variables will have to remain the same, where they have to have basic standards of drawing and cooking.

We also decided on using a kitchen with better connection so as to prevent any pauses in our livestream. Our first option was Hannah’s (a friend) hall, which is Hall 2, at a different kitchen from the previous one. The next option will be to use a kitchen from one of our own halls, and if all else fails we will resort to going to someone’s house to carry out the game.

Next, we thought of including audience in our livestream instead of using private accounts and keeping the stream to just the players. This is to play more with the idea of DIWO, where the audience can play a part in trying to guess the drawings as well. The chef may then refer to the comments if he/she faces any difficulty in making a decision.

To ensure that we manage to even have an audience, we plan to broadcast an announcement across our Whatsapp group chats as well as on Instagram story on the respective livestream accounts, one day and before the actual run.

Seeing how we were so unprepared with equipment the last round, we made a list of things to prepare this time and made allocations of who were to bring what.

We then decided on making sure that the chefs use as little of their instincts as possible(i.e. doing a step that’s not what they’re told to do) , so as to keep the comparisons between the groups as fair as possible.

Since we plan on using a tripod to hold the live streaming phone on the instructor’s side, we would need constant sound throughout so that the other side can be sure that we have not lost connection, hence the decision of having some background music. The background music may also provide some excitement for the instructor while he/she draws, instead of just being stuck in a silent room and having to draw within a time limit.

As of this meeting, we have not yet decided on a date of when to carry out the actual runs without being too rushed, hence we have not found our players.

Stay tuned to find out what happens next in Split Chef!

Micro-Project 7: Video Selfie


To create a one minute video of yourself that constructs your selfie as an “artistic alter ego:” the artist or designer you want/choose/aspire to be!

You would normally expect a person’s alter ego to be represented in a more positive setting and atmosphere, seeing as what someone aspires to be would usually be something good, and therefore positive. I, however, decided to play things a little differently.

“When the tough gets going, the going gets tough.” – Joseph P. Kennedy

There are three significant elements present in the video: myself, the rain, and the view, respectively symbolising myself, the tough, and the going.

Shot from the other side of a window, the raindrops that land in front of the camera recurrently distort the image of myself, standing in the heavy rain outside. Sometimes it seems as though I’m being pulled into two, sometimes into threes, sometimes I’m completely wiped out, and other times I’m left completely undisturbed. This comes as symbolism of the internal conflicts and struggles that occur during times of distress, where everything becomes a blur.



Despite the rain, I keep my vision focused on the view, thus symbolising who I want to be
someone who’s able to keep her vision ahead even when things get tough. 

*1) Pulled into two, 2) Pulled into threes, 3) Wiped out, 4) Undisturbed

On top of this, it seems as though what I’ve created is rather the opposite of what my alter ego should be. Most people refer to me as someone who’s very ‘happy-go-lucky’, where I tend to turn many situations into humour. Could it be that I’m already living the ‘positive alter ego’, and this is my hidden (and therefore, still alter), internal ego?

Here, I ask you to watch the video again but this time, without sound.

I feel that watching the video without sound brings a whole new experience, because now it seems as though you, the audience, are watching something that’s personal and hidden inside of me – and you cannot hear what’s going on, yet you can still sense the struggle and desire to look forward purely through the visuals.

How can the video selfie be used to alter identity?

A video selfie comes in the form of curated content. Whether or not the video is edited, curation allows for any form of ‘lie’ to be represented by the individual, which is the only thing that will be able to be seen by the audience, therefore creating an alter identity as the audience is kept in the dark of what went on, or goes on behind the camera.

How might video be used to conceal identity?

The content creator may choose to leave in or out whatever information he/she wants to about him or herself. This is very much like the ‘daily vloggers’ on YouTube who create videos about their ‘daily lives’. A full day lasts 24 hours, yet most videos only last about 10-20 minutes as usually, only the ‘good stuff’ are left in the video for the audience to see, thus allowing the perception that these vloggers have ‘perfect lives’.

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

The objects (or rather the rain and the wide view) help to serve as symbolisms within my identity, as explained above. It’s more so the symbolisms that are important, as without them, I could very well just be someone who’s standing in the rain and watching the view.

P.S. I was very cold after filming this.
The rain was also being blown in my face and hurting. my. eyes.

Final Project: Split Chef’s Trial Run

Split Chef by Brendan, Bryan, Dion and Joel

Introducing the experiment:

SPLIT CHEF is what the name suggests, a chef that has been split into two. It is a game consisting of two players, titled ‘Instructor’ and ‘Executor’ in this post, who will work together to prepare a dish. There is, however, a twist. Both players will not be allowed in the same room, and will only be connected via a third space screen where the Instructor will instruct the executor only through drawings within limited time, and the executor may only execute based on his/her interpretations of the drawings.

This is the basic rundown of how it works:

  1. Facilitator gives Instructor the recipe/instructions on a step-by-step basis
  2. Instructor has to draw the ingredient/instruction within limited time, where the drawing will be screened through a dual Instagram Live to the executor
  3. The executor will interpret the drawing, and purchase the instructed ingredient/execute the cooking instruction
  4. The meal, based on what had been interpreted by the executor, is served


On the 28th of March, Thursday, was the very first trial run of Split Chef. Through the run, we realised that we were very unprepared in many ways, and that there were many unforeseen circumstances occurring that will have to be discussed.

From here, I will discuss what went down in Part 1: Grocery Phase, Part 2: Cooking Phase as well as an overall analysis of the run.

These were the roles:
Bryan as the Instructor, myself as the Facilitator for the Instructor, Joel as the Executor, Brendan as the Facilitator for the Executor



Since the players were not allowed to know the recipe beforehand, Brendan and I had to decide on it ourselves, where we settled on a basic Chicken Quesadilla. We figured that it was a pretty easy recipe, given that all that was required was chopping of ingredients, marinating the chicken bits, one cooking method of frying everything together and placing them in tortilla wraps. The only thing that we thought was going to be challenging was how the Instructor was supposed to draw things like “BBQ sauce” without being able to write any words within the drawing.

However, the recipe turned out to be more challenging to execute than expected.

On top of the recipe’s ingredients, we also decided to throw in some random ingredients that were not part of the actual recipe, so as to throw off the executor, preventing him from instinctively guessing what the dish was going to be based on the ingredients he was getting.


  • 1 Tomato
  • 1 Onion
  • 2 Bananas (RANDOM)
  • Shiitake Mushroom
  • Chicken Fillet
  • Shell Macaroni (RANDOM)
  • BBQ Sauce
  • Tortilla wrap
  • Shredded mozzarella cheese
  • 1 Lime (RANDOM)

As expected, our Executor was indeed confused by the mix of random ingredients, and had also purchased 3 wrong ingredients (of which 2 were used). BBQ sauce became Tobasco sauce, shell macaroni became dumplings and chicken fillets became a WHOLE CHICKEN… Note Joel’s face of confusion/surprise.

Here are some pointers that I’ve noted based on our run, along with potential ideas and rectifications for the game:

Time Limit

  • The original set timing for drawing the ingredient was 10s, which we cut down to 7s as it felt like too much time
  • There needs to be a set time limit of how long the executor has to pick out his/her ingredient, as at certain points, the game felt draggy when Joel was taking a relatively long time to settle on an ingredient

Potential Players

  • Whether or not the Instructor is someone with an artistic/creative mind makes a difference, since an artist of sort may be able to come up with better ways to quickly draw the instruction
    • For example, for ‘Shiitake Mushrooms’, Bryan had drawn the shape of a literal ‘shit’ along with a mushroom which allowed for better interpretation by Joel
      (A picture of the drawing will be inserted next week)

  • Whether the Instructor and the executor know each other well also makes a difference, because the executor might be able to better interpret the drawings if he/she knows how the other person thinks

Potential Ideas

  • We could potentially have an audience on the livestream to help the executor figure out what the ingredient is, if he/she is genuinely lost
  • We could also potentially have lifelines/ hints



A break was taken on the stream while Brendan and Joel made their way to Hall 2’s Kitchenette.

On the other side, our friend Zhen Qi (ZQ) had taken over Bryan’s position as Instructor as Bryan had to leave. (Note that this will not happen in the actual run)

At this point, the connection and quality of the dual live stream became extremely poor due to the poor reception at the kitchenette. The game had to be paused several times due to the loss of connection. Perhaps it would be better if we conducted the second phase at someone’s home kitchen instead to ensure a good quality outcome, despite the longer travel time from the supermarket to the house.

*Note the poor quality on the Executor’s side


  • Slice 3 chicken fillets into bite-sized pieces
  • Add 3tbs of BBQ sauce to the chicken
  • Add a pinch of salt and pepper to the chicken
  • Marinate the chicken for 20 secs and leave it there
  • Dice the onio
  • Slice the shiitake mushroom
  • Slice the tomato
  • Heat 1 tablespoon of oil on a pan on the stove
  • Fry the onion until golden brown
  • Add in the shiitake mushrooms
  • Sauté the chicken over medium-high heat until done, about 4 mins per side
  • Transfer the chicken onto another bowl/plate
  • Turn the heat to low
  • VERY LIGHTLY oil the frying pan (Supposed to be butter, but we don’t have butter)
  • Place 1 tortilla wrap on the pan
  • Add a handful of shredded cheese onto the wrap
  • Add the chicken+onion mix
  • Add the sliced tomatoes
  • Add another handful of shredded cheese
  • Place another tortilla wrap on top
  • Let it sit for a minute then flip the whole quesadilla around
  • Fry until the bottom is golden then remove the quesadilla from the pan and put it on a plate



  • We were unprepared with the cooking equipment needed
    • Missing a usable frying pan, a chopping board and more bowls to separate the ingredients
    • The induction cooker could not detect the big frying pan, which was a problem as the tortilla could not be properly made in the small pot
  • We did not take into consideration the time needed to defrost certain ingredients
    • e.g. Joel had bought an entire small chicken instead of chicken fillet, which took a very long time to defrost despite there being a microwave

Time Limit

  • The drawing time limit was cut down from 30s to 20s
  • Should the Executor be given a time limit as to how long he can take to execute a certain step before moving on to the next step? (e.g. giving him a maximum of 30s to finish dicing the onions)
  • While the Executor is doing the instructions, what should the Instructor be doing?
    • Just sitting there and watching the executor? Does the Instructor have to be silent so as to not give away any additional instructions, or is casual conversation allowed
    • There needs to be some sort of continuous sound/movement on the Instructor’s side so as to keep our presence known (i.e. no loss of connection)

Potential Players

  • Whether or not the Executor is someone with cooking experience makes a difference.
    • Should he/she be allowed to use his/her natural instincts and conduct steps that are not instructed?
    • For example, Joel had added in salt at one point when he was not instructed to. When he misunderstood a drawing to fry the chicken for 20s, he also decided to fry the chicken
      for more than 20s.

      *Adding in salt whilst not instructed to


  • What happens if the Executor misinterprets an instruction?
    • If possibly, the Instructor may help to rectify the situation in the next drawing, where the rectification will have to be drawn ON TOP of the next step
  • The Executor should be allowed to request for the Instructor to skip to the next step in certain instances
    • For example, when the step is to heat up the oil on the pan, the Executor can’t possibly heat up the oil and then wait for the next drawing. The Executor can then request for all the next steps involving the pan, memorise them, and then do them all at once

      *Here is ZQ who kept trying to tell Joel that he was supposed to put the Tortilla in FIRST through many consecutive steps

      *Put the tortilla in pan / *The tortilla is not in the pan…

      *Tortilla still not in the pan

  • Perhaps the Instructor should be informed of the equipment available in the executor’s kitchen
    • For example, ZQ was unaware of whether the Executor was using a gas stove or an induction cooker and could not draw accordingly

      *Drawing of gas stove controller


  • In the actual run involving public players, there should be 2 facilitators per group
    • Instructor’s side: 1 to film the process, another to handover the recipe’s steps and time the Instructor
    • Executor’s side: 1 to hold the phone for the third space stream, another to film the process
  • Connection is a big problem, as discussed earlier
  • There needs to be a proper set of sheet or cards for the Instructor to draw on, to prevent messiness/ confusion

*Random boxes being drawn all over to separate drawings

  • For each step, should the Instructor be allowed to add on to the previous drawing, or must he/she start a whole new drawing?

*Here, ZQ had drawn a mushroom and pointed it to the previous step, which I then told her to do a whole new drawing

  • Prepare a tripod for the Instructor, as the moving camera may serve as a distraction for the Executor
  • Base ingredients should be provided such as oil, salt, pepper, butter, etc.


Although almost entirely different from what the dish is supposed to be like, the final outcomewas thankfully, still edible. However, a lot of it was based off Joel’s natural cooking instincts, if not the final dish would have probably been poison to the stomach…


Research Critique 3: Glitch & The Art of Destruction

Starting off with the bucket of clean water, we played more with the idea of destructing meaning rather than the physical work itself. In today’s social context, a bucket of clean water would likely be associated with being a cleaning device – for mopping, dipping cloths in and perhaps even bathing. Within a span of less than a minute, we metaphorically challenged the idea of cleanliness through these steps:

1. Get a bucket of clean water
2. Dirty the water: Wash your hands in it
3. Restore cleanliness of the water with other cleaning devices: Tissue, soap
4. “Destroy” the water: With something obviously un-clean (Starbucks drink)
5. Repeat step 3

Here’s the catch: If we’re putting objects associated with cleaning in clean water, are we cleaning the water or dirtying it? It’s much like the saying: if you drop soap on the floor, is the soap dirty or is the floor clean?

From this, an accident is made in the meaning of ‘clean’ through this metaphorical challenge and therefore creating a glitch that is better understood by the mind than the eyes. While a glitch is defined in Glitch Studies Manifesto as “an interruption that shifts an object away from its ordinary form and discourse“, it seems as though we’ve created a glitch within a glitch: Cleaning the dirty water with cleaning devices keeps the ordinary definition of clean within the devices, while at the same time, dirtying the water with cleaning devices destroys the ordinary meaning of clean within the devices.

This project is similar to Cadillac Ranch by Ant Farm, where the noses of American Cars were buried in the ground, therefore shifting the object away from its ordinary “iconic symbol of the American Dream” to becoming “a symbol of American power and ingenuity turned upside down”. It is the same in the sense that the general understood representation of the object is challenged in both works.

I believe that the accident is embraced by the fact that the glitch had remained off the radar the entire time, given that a large reaction was only made by the audience when something ‘obviously’ un-clean was poured in. Why is it that no one had realised the destruction before that? This is where I believe glitch and destruction becomes an act of artistic expression, as mentioned by Jon Cates, “the way to not be stuck is to focus on glitch as a form of surprise and as a way of glitching people’s expectations”. What we had performed on an object with symbolic, con-formative meaning was a “procedural art of non con-formative, ambiguous reformations” (described in Manifesto), therefore glitching our audience’s expectations

Micro Project: Super-Participation

24-Hr SSJD by Si Hui, Si Qi, Jia Ying & Dion

The four of us had settled on a random Monday for our super-participation.

Throughout the day, I noticed the different kinds of information that the four of us were sharing through our posts, allowing for an understanding of how different individuals react to having to take super-participate in an online activity.

Jia Ying and I shared more about what we were doing at the different times of the day, Si Qi shared more on her random thoughts, memes and once in awhile what she was doing, while Si Hui was the one who shared the most random things, including the things she was doing as well as about her continuous partake on Habbo Hotel.

Personally, all the posts that I shared were personal as they all came from the baseline of sharing what I was doing. Overall, the things I shared generally include: when I woke up, what I was eating for my meals, whether I was doing work, watching FRIENDS, playing Habbo, going out, dancing, when I received news that I got my insurance claim from the school for breaking my finger on campus, and when I was going to sleep. The information that I shared were representative of what I was really doing, including several selfies that were definitely not ‘glorified’, and therefore there was not any form of persona or image trying to be created. I would say that this is the same for Jia Ying, seeing as we shared the same types of posts.

*I even asked the others to help me name my pet pig on Habbo… very personal there.


Si Qi’s and Hui’s posts on the other hand, may allow us to infer other things.

Majority of Si Qi’s posts were very random, apart from the occasional updates of an interesting place she was visiting, having Subway for lunch and having a not-very-nice-breakfast. She posted random memes and images with short captions that did not allow for much ‘analysing’ by readers:



From this, I inferred that she could perhaps be portraying the persona of someone who is more private and less comfortable with sharing her everyday life on social media.

Lastly we have Si Hui, who posted non-stop throughout the day because fun-fact: we had TWO Si Huis! One in reality and one in third space. On one hand, Si Hui shared a few posts that included real-life photos, sharing what she was doing. There is definitely no form of trying to portray an online persona here, since it is a proper ‘life update’.



However, third space Si Hui shared more ‘intrusive’ or ‘fun’ updates…


(WARNING: This is going to be a rather confusing paragraph)
I realised that essentially, Si Hui’s ‘third space self’ is still Si Hui in the end, given that the posts are still made by the real her. By creating a persona that was intended to be separate from her actual self, the two personas have actually combined to create one digital identity of Si Hui.

Understanding that third space Si Hui is still Si Hui, the posting of all these random, fun events on Habbo while pretending to not be the real Si Hui creates the idea that Si Hui herself is a fun person, while also private in the sense that she would rather share all these things in a fun, non-personal way (Habbo) rather than as her ‘real self’.



Micro-Project 5: The Art of Destruction

In this project we are investigating destruction and functionality of art.

Here is a bucket of clean water.

In the context of a bucket of water, its societal functionality is to cleanse dirtied objects. However, we change the context by dirtying it with our hands, thereafter provide an  irony by throwing tissue paper into it. The irony exists by throwing cleaning devices like soap or tissue into the dirtied buckets.


Step 1: Clean your dirty hands with the water.

Step 2: Restore the water to its clean state with cleaning devices.

Step 3: Destroy the water with diluted Starbucks.

Step 4: Restore the water to its clean state with cleaning devices.




The process of destruction and restoration:



Micro-Project 4: Exquisite Glitch

The process of glitching Tom, my biologically glitched (broken) pinky:

Glitched by myself, Joseph, Kai Ting, and myself again.

The original.

Glitched with Adobe Audition CC by myself, creating ‘TV-like’ noise and glitches.

Glitched by Kai Ting with Adobe Photoshop.

Image is distorted/warped, tonal values have changed and the quality has also dropped.

Glitched by Joseph on Adobe Photoshop.

The original self-portrait of my finger is completely glitched out with a colourful, wavy abstract pattern. The tones of the image are completely different from what the image originally was – now more neon and eye-catching.

Coming back to Adobe Audition, I added back more ‘TV-like’ glitches – reversing, silencing, echoing, generating noise, speech and tone in certain sections.

The process of collective image creation and decomposition goes through several steps of how the image takes on a glitch transformation.

Each individual taking part in the process is given complete freedom of how they would like to manipulate the image that they receive, therefore there is no possible control/pre-made decisions in how the final edited image will turn out.

In contradiction, each person who receives the image previously glitched by another is unable to undo what they had done, and is therefore out of control of what has been ‘controlled’ by the previous person therefore makes the collective image creation become a glitched transformation.

Research Critique 2 – Third Space

A third space is a created ‘world’ where human connection can be made and felt without the need for any form of physical presence, where time can be bent and dilated, regardless of physical location. A third space, therefore allows for a collapse of boundaries between people who are not in the same physical space.

This is better described by Randall Packer, where a third space is “perhaps akin to the fourth dimension, a hyperspace where spatial trajectories have no boundaries, where temporal relations are amorphous, where wormholes reveal pathways that are instantaneous and geographically dispersed“. This is much like the movie Interstellar where the wormhole allowed for a bend in time, allowing for connection between Future Cooper and Present Cooper.



In my opinion, the way to intimacy is through a person’s five basic senses. With that, today, the most basic form of intimacy that can be created between people in different locations would be that of a phone call, since both parties are able to hear the voices of the the other. This is followed by a video call, since two senses are touched on – hear and sight. Of course, this was what Hole-in-Space by Kit Galloway & Sherrie Rabinowitz managed to achieve back in the 80s, where the project “suddenly severed the distance between both cities and created an outrageous pedestrian intersection”. Therefore, the ideal would be to increase the number of senses that are touched on between interaction of people in different locations, such as how Telematic Dreaming by Paul Sermon managed involve even the sense of touch – that, to me, is the closest form of intimacy.

Tying it back to micro-project 3 where Ying Hui and I created the first perspective of a “third” body in a third space by using half of ourselves, we were able to connect by literally trying to connect our two halves into one through a split screen, through non-verbal communication. Our main form of communication was then waiting for each other’s ‘cues’ of when the other should move next (e.g. she takes one step, I take the next). Therefore, by taking away our simplest form of communication (verbal) and forcing ourselves to still communicate in other forms to literally connect ourselves, we were then able to connect with each other in this third space.