For this project, we had to create a crowd-sourced artwork using an online platform. I worked with Jia Eenn and we decided to write a crowd-sourced story. We chose Google Docs as our platform. At first, we considered using Instagram comments, but decided on Google Docs instead since there was more possibility in terms of changing the look of the words. And since both of our Instagram accounts were private, it made sense to use Google Docs as it could be accessed and edited by anyone on the Internet. 

These were the constraints we set: Two instructions, and the first sentence of the story. By choosing Google Docs, we also constrained our participants to the features of the platform.

We gave the participants the freedom in terms of creative liberty – they could type whatever they wanted (even if it didn’t continue the story – we couldn’t force them to type certain things), and change the text with the tools in Google Docs.

We sent the link to the doc into our WhatsApp chat groups. The first reply we got was that the person couldn’t edit the document. While we set the doc to ‘Public on the web’, we did not change the Access to ‘Can edit’ from ‘Can view’. It’s quite interesting that Google allows you to toggle not only who can log on to the document, but also what they can do with it.

 

I also used tinyurl to shorten the url to tinyurl.com/dn1010story, and put that link onto my stories. Quite a few people asked me to make the link clickable by put the link in my bio (on my profile) or to send it through text. It was interesting how in the modern context, we are conditioned to think that links are meant to be clicked, and that having to manually input a url into a browser is inconvenient. I think this shows how the audience’s expectations can influence how they react to such encounters, and even their willingness to participate.

 

Aside from sending it out digitally, we also went around asking people in ADM to type their responses on the spot. This gave them less anonymity as compared to those who were participating on their own computers, but maybe because we asked mostly ADM students, they didn’t hold back on the weirdness although we were watching them type their responses.

 

| What is the content of the work and who is creating it?

The content of the work is a story that doesn’t really make sense, but what I think is especially interesting is the reflection of prevalent online and offline subcultures – like Shrek (meme),  Snacc (internet slang), Illuminati – that make their way into the story. Similar to Wikipedia Art, this work is created collaboratively by Jia Eenn and I, who provided the framework and platform, and the participants who typed in the document or edited it.

| Where does this work take place?

The work takes place on Google Docs.

| How does this work involve social interaction?

Carrying out this work requires contributions from participants. The document can be assessed and edited by anyone with a digital device that can be connected to the Internet. I feel that social interaction in this work arises in two areas. One, the interaction between the participant and the creator, in which the participant reacts to the instructions we’ve given. Whatever the participants type in the document is a response to our question/problem.

Secondly, there is also the interaction between participant and participant. As Google Docs updates every few seconds, it allows the participants to see what others are typing almost in real-time, and then respond to it by typing the next sentence, working with what the previous person has contributed.

| How is your crowd-sourced project different from one that is created by a single artist/creator?

As compared to a work created by a single artist, this project is much more unpredictable. The participants take full reign over the story (if we do not edit or stop it), they could type whatever they wanted, or even edit and delete things others have written. The direction and content of the work depends quite largely on the participants. Although as creators we set a framework, but the participants may choose not to follow it. In fact, people stopped adding on to the story when someone wrote “Zee End”, showing how the participants could even dictate the end of the project.

The project definitely encompasses a wider variety of perspectives and content as it draws from multiple sources instead of one creator. Each participant, coming from different backgrounds, would be able to contribute a unique piece of content. The story becomes a one-of-a-kind infusion of all these various contexts.

Lastly, crowd-sourcing in this project has also allowed for the creation of a system in which multiple contributors are simultaneously viewing and reacting to previous contributions, creating organic, real-time participant-work and participant-participant encounters. For instance, there was a moment where two people typed their sentences (participant-work) at the same time (participant-participant), creating two responses to the previous statement.